War in S. America? - What is our Obligation if any

Forums: Politics, South America, International Politics, Global Politics, World Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Getting back to reality, what should the US position be in matters concerning our neighbors to the South? Should we side with Columbia to quite Chavez or stay out since neither pose a clear and present danger to our security?

I believe a War in S. America would pose a danger to the Security of the US.

"Venezuelan television has shown footage of tanks and troops being deployed on the border with Colombia, as tension escalates in the dispute leader Hugo Chavez says could lead to war. But, while the diplomatic crisis is threatening stability in the entire Andean region, so far, only insults have been exchanged.

The crisis erupted when Colombian troops crossed the border into Ecuador killing senior FARC rebel Raul Reyes. US President George W. Bush has weighed into the crisis for the first time behind his ally Colombia, accusing Hugo Chavez of provocation and vowing to oppose any act of aggression.

Ecuador's President Rafael Correa has begun a five nation tour, which includes his ally Venezuela, to lobby for support in the wake of the raid which he's described as a pre-meditated violation of sovereignty.

First stop was Peru where, after a meeting with Correa, President Alan Garcia urged Chavez to stay out of the mix. Columbia's leader Alvaro Uribe has accused both Venezuela and Ecuador of supporting the FARC and wants Chavez tried for aiding genocide.

Both countries have denied the accusation and severed almost all political contact with Bogota. Latest reports suggest, however, that Caracas has relented and re-opened its border crossing points with Columbia, allowing vital commercial trade to resume."

http://www.euronews.net/index.php?page=info&article=473427&lng=1

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 7,692 • Replies: 88

No top replies

What is our obligation if any?

To mind our own damned business. I'm willing to pay more for Columbian coffee.

0 Replies

What is our obligation if any?

Some opinions are already here, a thread I started Sunday.

0 Replies

The US has an obligation to honor any treaties we might have with Columbia.
Also lets not forget that there are 3 US military installations in Columbia...

Columbia
San José del Guaviare radar station
Marand�a radar station
Leticia radar statiom

http://www.kelebekler.com/occ/bas_gb.htm

While I do think Columbia made a mistake when they went into Ecuador after the FARC terrorists, I think that Chavez is simply looking for an excuse to start a war.

The problem is that while Columbia did technically violate article 9 of the INTER-AMERICAN TREATY OF RECIPROCAL ASSISTANCE, if Venezuela does attack Columbia, they would also seem to be in violation, and according to the treaty it would draw EVERY country in the America's, from Canada south, into the conflict.

Here is the actual treaty I am referring to...

http://www.oas.org/juridico/english/treaties/b-29.html

So the question is, do we honor the treaty or not?

0 Replies

Call me stupid, but if we have been willing to go to the other side of the planet, practically, to help a country become democratic, we will allow countries to be targets of less than democratic regimes in our hemisphere? Duh! Has everyone forgot the "domino theory" of the Vietnam Era? Well, now the dominoes are fairly close.

Also, didn't we force Columbia to give up Panama? (Something relating to the canal.) Perhaps, it would be only ethical to back up this country.

Also, shouldn't the U.S. connect the dots, in that "Viva La Revolucion" may really not be as gone as some people would like to believe.

0 Replies

So MM, what is your basis for considering Columbia a friend and ally, but not either Venezuela or Ecuador? Is it because you love the coffee . . . or the reefer . . . or the coke? Is it because Chavez is a vile, scum-sucking Commie Satanist? Where does that leave Ecuador? Sorry about your luck, Beaners?

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

So MM, what is your basis for considering Columbia a friend and ally, but not either Venezuela or Ecuador? Is it because you love the coffee . . . or the reefer . . . or the coke? Is it because Chavez is a vile, scum-sucking Commie Satanist? Where does that leave Ecuador? Sorry about your luck, Beaners?

Where did I say that Ecuador or Venezuela are not friends or allies?
I was simply referring to what the treaty says, nothing more.

You apparently didnt read the treaty I linked to, or you would not have asked your question.

As for your reference to coffee, coke, or whatever else you might like to indulge in, I dont use any of that so I dont know if its good or not.

And where did I ever say anything about Chavez?
I was simply repeating what the treaty said.

I suggest you read it before you comment again.
That way you wont make such a fool of yourself.

0 Replies

Isolationism (mind our own damned business) is not an irrational position. It is, in today's world more than ever, not in the best interests of our country, but people who hold this position can mount a fairly credible defense of it.

Sometimes, though, they choose to practice selective isolationism.

Don't get involved in Columbia's dispute with it's neighbors, but do get involved in a civil war in the Sudan.

Don't get involved with a tyranny in Iraq, but do get involved with ethnic cleansing in Bosnia and Kosovo.

Of course these selective isolationists will tell us that getting involved in Darfur and Bosnia is "different." These are examples of noble interference while the others are examples of capitalistic imperialism.

Chances are that many of these selective isolationists are also A-OK with notion of Turkey invading Iraq to pursue Kurdish terrorists, but decry Colombia's encroachment into Ecuadorian territory to pursue it's own terrorist foes.

How to explain these contradictions?

Well, the Kurds are favored by the Bush Administration and so their terrorists must be bad guys. On the other hand, Columbia is favored by the Bush Administration and so its terrorists must be good guys.

Consistency of position:

We should have intervened in Iraq
We should have intervened in Bosnia and Kosovo
We should intervene in Darfur
We should back our pals in Colombia is their effort to root out terrorists.
We should have, as we did, decided to not stand in the way of Turkey in its effort to root out terrorists
We should have, as we did, stuck by our pals the Kurds and made sure the Turks withdrew once their specific military goal was accomplished.

The notion that we can weather the swells and spray of global conflicts by remaining isolated within Fortress America is wrongheaded. If we have to be involved, and we do, best that we get to call as many shots as we can.

Alliances are not a quaint remnant of 20th Century international politics.

We need to make it clear, as I know we will, that if Chavez threatens Columbia, he threatens the US.

this is not imperialistic machismo, it is intelligent foreign policy. Why would any nation on earth agree to align itself with our interests if it didn't believe that when needed Big Brother America would be there for them?

0 Replies

I think the US government would only feel any obligation if they had a vested interest in cocaine production.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

Setanta wrote:
So MM, what is your basis for considering Columbia a friend and ally, but not either Venezuela or Ecuador? Is it because you love the coffee . . . or the reefer . . . or the coke? Is it because Chavez is a vile, scum-sucking Commie Satanist? Where does that leave Ecuador? Sorry about your luck, Beaners?

Where did I say that Ecuador or Venezuela are not friends or allies?
I was simply referring to what the treaty says, nothing more.

You apparently didnt read the treaty I linked to, or you would not have asked your question.

As for your reference to coffee, coke, or whatever else you might like to indulge in, I dont use any of that so I dont know if its good or not.

And where did I ever say anything about Chavez?
I was simply repeating what the treaty said.

I suggest you read it before you comment again.
That way you wont make such a fool of yourself.

As for making a fool of oneself, an exercise in which someone can only sit at the feet of the master when it comes to your posts, this is what you wrote:

mysteryman wrote:

The US has an obligation to honor any treaties we might have with Columbia.
Also lets not forget that there are 3 US military installations in Columbia...

. . .

So the question is, do we honor the treaty or not? (emphases added)

No mention there of treaty obligations to Ecuador, no mention of Ecuador in your post at all--and the entire bruhaha derives from Columbia's violation of Ecuadoran territory. You very obviously have decided that Columbia is our only ally worth mentioning in the region, and to hell with Venezuela and Ecuador.

Save your puerile hostility for someone else, and don't tell me i'm a fool for responding to exactly what you had written. Jackass.

*************************************

I did find Finn's typical drivel about Darfur hilarious, though. Is he suggesting that there is a great humanitarian crisis looming in Ecuador?

We must be in North Ontario, or so it seems, with all the loons around here.

0 Replies

I think we should sit back and see how Canada reacts and follow their lead.

0 Replies

The Columbian incursion across an unguarded Equadorean border to capture a FARC leader who had a base there, is clearly a violation of Equadorean territory. However, in view of the duration and seriousness of the FARC insurgency, it is arguably justified, based on Columbia's national security.

I don't think we have any information about what may or may not be happening on the Columbian side of their border with Venezuela. Chavez may be reacting to real provocations (though he hasn't yet cited any), or he may merely be attempting to distract attention from the FARC (which he has indeed been supporting) and from his own domestic problems.

I doubt that there is any necessity for us to provide any overt support for Columbia, and certainly no political benefit for us in doing so. I expect we will see none.

0 Replies

BTW it is Colombia.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

What is our obligation if any?

Some opinions are already here, a thread I started Sunday.

The Monroe Doctrine?

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

mysteryman wrote:
Setanta wrote:
So MM, what is your basis for considering Columbia a friend and ally, but not either Venezuela or Ecuador? Is it because you love the coffee . . . or the reefer . . . or the coke? Is it because Chavez is a vile, scum-sucking Commie Satanist? Where does that leave Ecuador? Sorry about your luck, Beaners?

Where did I say that Ecuador or Venezuela are not friends or allies?
I was simply referring to what the treaty says, nothing more.

You apparently didnt read the treaty I linked to, or you would not have asked your question.

As for your reference to coffee, coke, or whatever else you might like to indulge in, I dont use any of that so I dont know if its good or not.

And where did I ever say anything about Chavez?
I was simply repeating what the treaty said.

I suggest you read it before you comment again.
That way you wont make such a fool of yourself.

As for making a fool of oneself, an exercise in which someone can only sit at the feet of the master when it comes to your posts, this is what you wrote:

mysteryman wrote:
The US has an obligation to honor any treaties we might have with Columbia.
Also lets not forget that there are 3 US military installations in Columbia...

. . .

So the question is, do we honor the treaty or not? (emphases added)

No mention there of treaty obligations to Ecuador, no mention of Ecuador in your post at all--and the entire bruhaha derives from Columbia's violation of Ecuadoran territory. You very obviously have decided that Columbia is our only ally worth mentioning in the region, and to hell with Venezuela and Ecuador.

Save your puerile hostility for someone else, and don't tell me i'm a fool for responding to exactly what you had written. Jackass.

*************************************

I did find Finn's typical drivel about Darfur hilarious, though. Is he suggesting that there is a great humanitarian crisis looming in Ecuador?

We must be in North Ontario, or so it seems, with all the loons around here.

You must not have read my post, because if you had you would have seen this...

Quote:

While I do think Columbia made a mistake when they went into Ecuador after the FARC terrorists, I think that Chavez is simply looking for an excuse to start a war.

So do you still want to say that I didnt mention Ecuador at all?

Roxxxanne said...

Quote:

The Monroe Doctrine?

That applies to any intervention in the Americas by foreign powers, mainly European nations.

http://www.ushistory.org/documents/monroe.htm

Read it, its interesting.

0 Replies

Roxxxanne wrote:

BTW it is Colombia.

Thank you.

0 Replies

if we invade we'll be welcomed as liberators and we can finance the cost of the war through cocaine revenues....

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Roxxxanne wrote:
BTW it is Colombia.

Thank you.

Neophyte.

0 Replies

The United States maintains a complex web of military facilities and functions in Latin America and the Caribbean, what the U.S. Southern Command (known as SouthCom) calls its "theater architecture." U.S. military facilities represent tangible commitments to an ineffective supply-side drug war and to underlying policy priorities, including ensuring access to strategic resources, especially oil.

Much of this web is being woven through Plan Colombia, a massive, primarily military program to eradicate coca plants and to combat armed groups (mostly leftist guerrillas of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia). In the last five years, new U.S. bases and military access agreements have proliferated in Latin America, constituting a decentralization of the U.S. military presence in the region. This decentralization is Washington's way of maintaining a broad military foothold while accommodating regional leaders' reluctance to host large U.S. military bases or complexes.

http://www.fpif.org/briefs/vol9/v9n03latammil.html

------------------------------------------------

Drug War Fails to Dent U.S. Supply;

Despite $5.4 billion spent since 2000, coca growth in the Andes is high and prices in America low. More money is on the table.

http://www.soaw.org/article.php?id=1128

0 Replies

Uncle Scrooge, Huey, Dewey, and Louie, along with Donald Duck used to have adventures in South America when looking for the Lost Seven Cities of Gold somewhere in the Andes. Naturally, the Beagle Boys got into these adventures in some adversarial manner. These comic books adventures harken back to the special 52 page issues that cost more than 10 cents. So, obviously we have been in South America going back a ways, at least in the fictional comic book world.

And, I appreciate ignoring my cogent thoughts earlier in the thread. Regardless, Colombia is an ally. If our allies, in our own hemisphere can't rely on us, who would?

0 Replies

War in S. America? - What is our Obligation if any

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know