Colombia Reports

Colombia news, sports, culture and travel

Tuesday
Feb 09th
Text size
  • Increase font size
  • Default font size
  • Decrease font size
Home Opinion Cantonese arepas Plan Colombia: U.S. failure, Colombian success?

Plan Colombia: U.S. failure, Colombian success?


Colombia news - capitol

Finally U.S. politicians have understood that the War on Drugs and by extension Plan Colombia has failed. As it was to be expected the Colombian government swiftly refuted this view. Paradoxically both views are right to some extent depending of the perspectives used. But the facts are against the Colombian government.

On April 28 2009, the “Western Hemisphere Drug Policy Commission Act of 2009” was introduced in the House of Representatives. Last Thursday October 15 the Western Hemisphere subcommittee of the Foreign Affairs committee approved the bipartisan initiative. The purpose of the bill is to create a commission composed of 10 independent members that would “evaluate U.S. policies and programs aimed at reducing illicit drug supply and demand.” Eight of these members would be appointed by leaders of both parties in Congress and two would be appointed by President Barack Obama. The purpose of the commission is to...

“…review and evaluate United States illicit drug supply policy, with particular emphasis on international drug policies and programs directed toward the countries of the Western Hemisphere and demand reduction policies and programs. The Commission shall identify policy and program options to improve existing international and domestic counternarcotics policy.”

The sponsor of the bill, Democrat Eliot L. Engel, acknowledged a report prepared by three former Latin American presidents in 2009 to support the view that the U.S. drug policy had been a failure. Nevertheless, he also emphasized that he does not support the rejection of the current policies aimed at curtailing the supply of drugs, nor their legalization. Paradoxically, these were the conclusions of the three former presidents.

The reasons for this commission are obvious. Nixon’s 1971 War on Drugs has been a failure in terms of stemming the flow of drugs to the U.S. From 1988 to 2008 the area under coca cultivation in the Andes has not varied. It has remained at about 200.000 hectares. During the last seven years the U.S. has spent 6.8 billion in Plan Colombia. But the flow of drugs to the U.S., where 17.2 percent of world drug users are found, has not been significantly stemmed. The flow of drugs, according to the UN, is moderated by the demand side of the equation more than anything else. Thus, the only winners of the War on Drugs are the druglords that enrich themselves from a very profitable monopoly.

Naturally, the Colombian government, at the helm of the Defense minister, Gabriel Silva Lujan, does not render Plan Colombia a failure. The government's arguments are based on the positive results of the counterinsurgency efforts, specifically against the FARC, which have been achieved with Plan Colombia; something that Colombians are greatly indebted for. In other words, the modernization of the armed forces saved Colombia from joining the infamous club of failed states: the fate that international commentators predicted for the country 10 years ago. Moreover, supporters of Plan Colombia in Capitol Hill avidly mention the importance in helping regional governments to build strong institutions to strengthen democracy. Thus, the U.S. government on its effort to delude the general public goes as far as to certify Colombia’s government and armed forces on their efforts to promote respect for human rights, thus permitting U.S. military aid to flow.

But even with the relative military success of Plan Colombia, the country’s democracy has not been strengthened. Uribe’s first reelection has undermined democracy’s crucial check and balances and now he exerts control over eight public institutions, which would be otherwise independent. Moreover, the successes in terms of security have been short-lived. Violence in urban areas has been increasing dramatically in past months, mainly due to never demobilized right-wing death squads. And the FARC’s old-fashioned guerrilla tactics have resulted in heavy casualties for government forces. Furthermore, the relative success against the FARC has not decreased considerably coca cultivation and drug production -- this may question the extent to which the guerrilla controls cocaine exports. Finally, the largely questionable means with which the military successes against the guerrilla have been achieved undermine the effectiveness of U.S. funds.

It is too early to know whether the “Western Hemisphere Drug Policy Commission Act of 2009” will become a reality. But if the commission is handicapped in terms of the possible conclusions that can be reached, there may not be significant changes on how the whole War on Drugs policy is approached. Therefore, this bipartisan initiative is bound to fail in proposing sustainable solutions to the social problems arising from illicit drug use.




Reddit! Del.icio.us! Mixx! Free and Open Source Software News Google! Live! Facebook! StumbleUpon! TwitThis Joomla Free PHP

Comments (45)add comment

gringomedeliin said:

0
...
Finally U.S. politicians have understood that the War on Drugs and by extension Plan Colombia has failed I think the jury is still out on this in Washington, from what I have read so far it is a small hand full that believe this, Just recently we had Former President Clinton come out and call Plan Colombia a great success. It seem those most vocal in calling it a failure are those aligned to the far left of their party and in close communication to one Colombia Oppostion Senator.
 
October 21, 2009
Votes: +0

tomtom33 said:

tomtom33
...
Any efforts short of legalization are doomed before they start by the big money at play. And I continue to fear for Colombia because of the corrosive effects of that big money.
 
October 21, 2009
Votes: +0

Bluebird said:

Bluebird
...
@gringomedellin.......you are right. The far left will pounce on the opportunity to criticize the mixed results. I firmly believe that there is no solution out there that is going to produce quick, miraculous results. This is going to be an ongoing struggle for years to come. I just don't see how we can throw our hands in the air and say ok from this point forward everyone is welcome to swallow, smoke, or inject anything they want. That solution is as untenable as the one we have now.
 
October 21, 2009
Votes: +1

Adriaan said:

Adriaan
...
How I hate to disagree with Mr. Clinton smilies/wink.gif but you can't really call Plan Colombia a success, can you? Not that I know what would work, but I think it's pretty safe to say that there has been very little effect in both the production and consumption of cocaine. Not enough to be calling it a success anyway.
 
October 21, 2009 | url
Votes: +1

Guest said:

0
...
Just legalize marijuana, people will learn its a safe alternative to the hard drugs and the world will be a better place
 
October 22, 2009
Votes: -2

azunoman said:

azunoman
...
same old sorry stories...the left say it's a failure...the right say's it's the right thing to do........only those without kids think legalizing drugs is a good answer....I could on with this justification of fighting the war on drugs....it's just to tiring....

and for those that think that Plan Colombia was a failure...I am middle class republican retiree....I'd never have moved here in a million year without Plan Colombia....I've come to hate the retread stories like this....but it does solicit the different sides...for me it's comforting to know my side will wins...
 
October 22, 2009
Votes: +0

Sebastian said:

Sebastian
...
These are "the same old sorry stories" with the same side taking irremovable stands. Choosing to ignore the facts about plan Colombia (or any other topic for that matter) because they contravene your republican/conservative stand, or because Clinton claims that the plan his administration designed is a success, certainly makes any "story" extremely boring.

When someone can back up with facts their criticisms to the view that Plan Colombia has been a failure, this “story” may become more interesting.
 
October 22, 2009
Votes: +0

Adriaan said:

Adriaan
...
@ Azunoman,

It's not my tax money that's being spent, but spending $6 billion only for the comfort of your personal retirement seems a bit expensive. I hope Clinton had other things in mind when pulling your and your compatriots wallet.

The thing is that it's not very clear what the money exactly was spent on and what positive results it had. You can't base a conclusion on a policy on what you personally think you got out of it.

You can't say if it was because of Plan Colombia or Uribe or a strategic error of the FARC or a genius police program that you are now able to live safely here. There's Americans living comfortably in Venezuela and you'd find it ridiculous if they said this is because of Chavez' "fight against the empire."

A non-politicized check to see if a policy was worth the money to me seems vital if you want your government to improve over time and spend your tax money more wisely in the future, or to find out it had helped a great deal and deserves a compliment and continuation.

A discussion gets old and boring if we're all just going to sit in our left or right wing trenches. It becomes interesting if we seriously seek the truth.
 
October 22, 2009 | url
Votes: +0

gringomedeliin said:

0
...
When someone can back up with facts their criticisms to the view that Plan Colombia has been a failure, this “story” may become more interesting.

And what facts have you put forth it is a failure, you haven't, you state that the number of land used has not changed, I have seen many conflicting reports as to the number of acres , the fact is no one knows how many are used to grow coca, When plan Colombia was started Colombia was a country controled by the FARC, Para groups and drug lords, that is not the case to day, bein ghte huges success of Plan Colombia, becuase it doesn't fit your failure agrument does not make it less important . Colombia could easily say to the US not thanks we don't want to fight drugs anymore ,keep your money. Leaving the US to stop the importing of drugs into the the USA, but how many more people wil be displaced once Colombia does this? What kind of security will there be in Colombia for the growing tourist industry in Colombia? The facts are that thanks to Plan Colombia , the country has benifited for increased security, increased economic growth, increased investment in Colombia. Is the War on drugs a winable war, I would say no, but that doesn't make Plan Colombia a failure, Colombia has a better chance of winning the war with terrorist then drug lords.
 
October 22, 2009
Votes: +0

gringomedeliin said:

0
...
I read the bill introduced in the US House, not sure if it will pass, but the numbers it uses are from 2007. It would be interesting to see more updated numbers which are clearly estimates ( one person's best guess problem is their are many people making guess as to the number of drug users) I say this becuse since that time 20 States in the USA now regulate Medical marijuania, My home State of Massechusetts , passed a ballot question making personal dose of marijuania a citation resulting in a $50.00 , no longer a felony. I recently read that less marijuania is being imported into the USA , in large part due to the quality grown legally in the USA is much higher then that being imported from Mexico and the rest of Latin America. With a recent Presidentail directive issued putting a stop to the Federal Government for going after users and grows in those States with laws making it legal. Will be interesting to see if more States will adopt Medical mariajunia or personal dose laws.
 
October 22, 2009
Votes: +0

tomtom33 said:

tomtom33
...
I don't know of many Venezuelans living comfortably in Venezuela, and I have family there.

There is no good answer to drugs. But legalization is the best of poor alternatives. And I do have children.

There are different measures of success. I don't think that any law enforcement effort against drugs will have much effect. But I do think that the Plan Colombia money did help to stabilize Colombia. Of course that stabilization train seems to have derailed in the last several months.

That left-right crap gets ridiculous. Both sides have the best interests of the country in mind. Politics are the main cause of the figurative blood-letting. I do prefer figurative to literal in this case.
 
October 22, 2009
Votes: +0

Sebastian said:

Sebastian
...
The arguments against legalization in the previous comments are that it is "untenable" (Bluebird) and that "only those without kids think legalizing drugs is a good answer" (Azunoman). Would you two care to support those opinions? For instance, cocaine is already widely available in the U.S. Moreover, the illegality of the drug increases the propensity of its use.

By reading azunoman's and Bluebird's comments in other articles I will assume that you both staunchly believe in the free market. If that is the case, what would you say if someone argues that the War on Drugs is actually distorting the price of illicit drugs (namely cocaine), thus increasing the profits for druglords and decreasing the money available for health services that cater to drug addicts (btw, addiction will always exist, regardless of the substance, activity, etc)?
 
October 22, 2009
Votes: +1

azunoman said:

azunoman
...
Part of the war on drugs is in fact to drive up the price. This is one of the ways in which they measure the effectiveness of their programs. As for my statement concerning those with kids do not want to see drugs legalized, this is the opinion of the majority.

That being said, the reason I truly believe that the US does not look at other means to combat 'drug use' is because of the huge government and private organizations that have thousands of employees and probably a billion or two in budgets..to fight the war..who would fight any changes to legalize or otherwise decriminalize drugs and affect their budgets...

As for Plan Colombia, fighting the war on drugs is at best a pretext for helping Colombia achieve strong institutions and the rule of law. Fighting the war on drugs Is a great sell to the American people. As for condemning Plan Colombia because one can still buy cocaine in the US and elsewhere discounts all the other progress Plan Colombia has achieved...that is what I meant about tiring of these sort of articles...as it focuses on the popular topic of legalizing drugs and brings out the 5%...

and tell the 800+ drug dealers sitting in US Federal prisons serving at least 80% of their 30+ year sentences that they won the war on drugs.....

How about an article thanking the US for Plan Colombia?...and the many positives that have been realized by the Colombian people....no, not every Colombian...but a majority.
 
October 22, 2009
Votes: +0

azunoman said:

azunoman
...
@adriaan.....there is a reason why Colombian's are disappointed when they ask you if your from the EEUU and you say no...The Colombian people have found someone that will stay the course and help them stop a fifty year old civil war. That is where the money goes.....so they can put the boot to the neck of the 'terrorist', for that is what they are.....fok drugs...it's a pretense easily sold to the US voter....just like the argument Plan Colombia fails because union members are still killed...etc.,,etc,,,

But I long ago learned not to expect a thank you from anyone outside of my home country for anything ever. (oh, wait, someone said we made good hambrugers)....So please continue the badgering of the EEUU everyday in every media. We are very used to it. World you are welcome anyway...
 
October 22, 2009
Votes: +0

Sebastian said:

Sebastian
...
@Azunoman,
1. The price of cocaine has dropped over time. But it still makes economic sense for druglords. Take a look at this interview, especially the last question: http://www.comunidadesegura.or...nd-figures
2. The rhetoric has been to claim that Plan Colombia has strengthened Colombian institutions. But Plan Colombia's focus has always been militaristic. Originally 80 per cent of Plan Colombia had been earmarked for the military and the police, this increased after Bush's War on Terror. Moreover, even if strengthening institutions had been a goal then this goal has also failed because now the President controls 8 public institutions. The only truly independent institution, the Supreme Court, is continually attacked by the government.
3. Writing about the failure of Plan Colombia is a legitimate topic because of the facts supporting the argument. These facts have been acknowledged by Democrats and Republicans alike when sponsoring the bill. Writing an article about Plan Colombia that fails to critically analyze the issue has no value, that would be propaganda. The U.S. government is already the champion in that area.
4. You may be right about the interests that some institutions have in maintaining Plan Colombia alive. That's why the main sponsor of the bill, Democrat Eliot L. Engel, does not support the rejection of current policies aimed at curtailing the supply of drugs, namely Plan Colombia.
 
October 22, 2009
Votes: +0

Adriaan said:

Adriaan
...
@ Azunoman,

I agree with the moral support Colombians have received from the US and when people show their appreciation for that you deserve it. You haven't so far seen me promoting arguments that are easily sold, but by popularizing Plan Colombia (spending money on putting the boot on the terrorists) or its failure (you're supporting a demon) isn't exactly using clean arguments.

What I would love to see is a U.S. discussion on what their goals were and if these goals were met. And if they want to continue Plan Colombia, if they should improve it to increase effectiveness.
 
October 22, 2009 | url
Votes: +0

Andrewmann552 said:

Andrewmann552
...
Plan Colombia has not "failed," it has succeeded fully in its original aims: To turn Colombia into a base of US operations and dominance in the hemisphere. US politicians could care less about the Colombian people or their own people's drug use.

Read Noam Chomsky:

http://www.chomsky.info/talks/20090921(1).htm
 
October 22, 2009
Votes: -3

Adriaan said:

Adriaan
...
ah yeah, that's exactly the politicized conclusion we were looking for. smilies/cry.gif
 
October 22, 2009 | url
Votes: +0

Bluebird said:

Bluebird
...
For the readers that accept this declaration of failure I have one question. Do you remember, I mean REALLY remember what Colombia looked like prior to Plan Colombia? Is it perfect now???Hell no...nobody in their right mind would argue that. Is it better now that it was then? Absolutely. As most of you remember, HUGE areas of the country were under FARC control. It was considered "crazy" to drive between most cities. I think that if one is going to base their personal decision about Plan Colombia on a narrow set of metrics such as reduction in drug production/ consumption then yes you may consider it a failed policy but if you are careful to include broader metrics in your deliberationsthen the answer becomes
becomes more ambivelant. I personally do not consider it a resounding success nor do I consider it an utter failure. I do know that ,generally speaking, the landscape is at least better than when the plan was implemented. Is this enough reason to throw the whole thing in the trash can? In my opinion, no. Do adjustments to the plan need to made as we go along? Absolutely. The problems that Colombia face are huge and complex and the effort to address those problems will not be accomplished for many years if ever. Sometimes it will seem as if the government is gaining the upper hand and sometimes it will seem as if the bad guys are gaining the upper hand. It will be a long term ongoing struggle. Pray that FARC does not win................
 
October 23, 2009
Votes: +2

Laureles191 said:

Laureles191
...
First off, Andrewmann552 you really need to stop with your childish propaganda.We all know that you think every politician in America is evil.Contrary to your belief,there are many private citizens and politicians in America who do care and do help. So please stop with your ridiculous conspiracy theory bs.It's getting very tiring.I usually oppose Sebastians' perspective in his articles, but this one was well written with some good points. Plan Col. was mostly a failure as far as eradication goes.Users in the US still have the cocaine they need, and many Colombian farmers who weren't growing coca fell victim to the eradication process, destroying their soil, effectively ruining their lives. But as far as the increased violence recently, it would be a large stretch of the imagination to say that it is as bad as it was previously.The government has gained control of large amounts of land which even the poorest of Colombians weren't safe traveling through before.Unfortunately,it is the US's ultra ambitious goals which help define it's results as a failure. It is likely very unrealistic to think a solution to the problem would come from this plan, but there is no doubt that Colombia is better now than it was before.Yet, there is still much undue animosity towards the US for trying.It is easy to call out the US as being incompetent and criticize their efforts,just as it is easy for people in other countries to complain while sitting on the side lines and doing nothing themselves.
 
October 23, 2009
Votes: +2

Adriaan said:

Adriaan
...
*applauds Laureles191*
 
October 23, 2009 | url
Votes: +0

Bluebird said:

Bluebird
...
@ Laureles......well said, well said.
 
October 23, 2009
Votes: +0

Adriaan said:

October 23, 2009 | url
Votes: +0

gringomedeliin said:

0
...
I have mixed feelings about Plan Colombia, but support it over a TLC which I feel would do more harm then good to Colombia. I also disagree the writer has laid out soild facts as to Plan Colombia's failure, repeating others people opinions , is not facts, but just regurgitating other peoples view while trying to support your own view. The price of cocaine continues to fluctuate as does the purity. as the purity of raw cocaine increase history shows the price drops, when purtiy decrease the price increases.
 
October 23, 2009
Votes: +0

Andrewmann552 said:

Andrewmann552
...
Laureles, the problem is you live in a fantasy land. I invite you to read serious scholarship on what the US foreign policy is, the US has no interest in bringing down drug trafficking or helping the Colombian people, why would it when its own population is seeing jobs slashed at the rate of thousands a day? You sound like the very small minority still believing the US went to Iraq to spread democracy. The only reason you praise the plan is because "the streets are safer," you sound more like a character out of Dostoevksy's "The Brothers Karamazon": "Keep us in chains as long as you give us bread." There will never be a stable Colombia until the real needs of the population are addressed such as the horrendous inequality, something Plan Colombia is not designed to address.

Very interesting how none of the attackers responded to the Chomsky article, or provided any detailed scholarship aside from "Uribe makes me feel safe!"
 
October 23, 2009
Votes: -2

Andrewmann552 said:

Andrewmann552
...
I am not surprised at Bluebird's responses which always sound like classic statist worship. Orwell and Huxley would recognize this kind of posting easily. If Colombia was Germany 1936 Bluebird would be out there saying "Adolf is keeping us safe from those dirty Soviets!"
 
October 23, 2009
Votes: -2

Andrewmann552 said:

Andrewmann552
...
As for Adriaan, there is a classic saying: "The truth is often a bitter pill to swallow." You honestly believe the main backers of Plan Colombia in Congress such as Lincoln Diaz Balart and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, who have travelled to Honduras to support Micheletti, and protect violent terrorists like Luis Posada Carriles in Miami, have the interests of the Colombian people at heart? Colombia was the first country where the US tested napalm before sending out to Vietnam, read Greg Grandin's excellent book "Empire's Workshop." Educate yourselves people, we're talking about the real world here.
 
October 23, 2009
Votes: +0

Andrewmann552 said:

Andrewmann552
...
Here is the Chomsky article in Spanish:

http://www.chomsky.info/talks/20090921(2).htm
 
October 23, 2009
Votes: +0

tomtom33 said:

tomtom33
...
"Educate yourselves people, we're talking about the real world here."

Take to heart what you say, and your eyes may open.
 
October 23, 2009
Votes: +1

Adriaan said:

Adriaan
...
@ Andrewmann552,
I have great respect for Noam Chomsky and I read some of his work. What I fundamentally disagree with in your responses is that you love your own dogmas and will not respectfully listen to what someone who disagree with you says. Only by respectfully listening to your opponents and respectfully responding to them to clarify your own opinions you may have the chance you will convince someone. Now it appears you think you are the smartest of all and everyone who disagree with you is stupid and a supporter of the Great Satan himself. This modernist thinking gets old. The people here that have conservative beliefs have the right to do so. There are smart people on both the left and right, it's not a matter of intellect, but of ideology. The people here who support Uribe and love him for what he has done have their reasons to. You and I may disagree, but we best treat them with respect and we best listen to them carefully, because they are the ones who are going to tell us something we don't know yet. Don't preach.
 
October 23, 2009 | url
Votes: +0

Bluebird said:

Bluebird
...
Do we really have to be subjected to excerpts from Chomsky??? Andrew was kind enough to provide links for anyone that might wish to read leftist propaganda. If Chomsky wants his opinions posted here then let him log in and post it himself. What's next? Posting the musings of Hugo or Fidel????
 
October 23, 2009
Votes: +0

Laureles191 said:

Laureles191
...
Generalization will be your worst enemy if you have even the slightest intention of debating intelligently. “US politicians could care less about the Colombian people or their own people's drug use.” There are so many flaws in this skewed statement, nobody who even shares political views with you would dignify this statement which generalizes that no US politicians care. What you write here doesn’t even offer a fraction of “scholarly insight”, but only displays ignorance and hatred with no intention of being persuasive.
You invite me to read serious scholarship on US policy, but what you offer can only be described as extremely biased distorting rhetoric...
 
October 23, 2009
Votes: +1

Laureles191 said:

Laureles191
...
Pertaining to “illegal aliens”, Chomsky writes, “Their stand is consistent with the legal principle, established by the Supreme Court, that these creatures are not "persons" under the law, hence are not entitled to the rights granted to persons. And at the very same moment, the Court is considering the question of whether corporations should be permitted to purchase elections openly instead of doing so only in more indirect ways -- a complex constitutional matter, because the courts have determined that unlike undocumented immigrants, corporations are real persons under the law,”
Recently an Arizona man who had his ranch repeatedly vandalized and destroyed, and his livestock killed by illegal aliens crossing the border was sued. This man held them at gun point after they illegally crossed the border and trespassed on his land. He lost the suit and the illegal immigrants “who are just “creatures” not persons” were awarded $78,000.
 
October 23, 2009
Votes: -1

Laureles191 said:

Laureles191
...
This is just one example of how Chomsky will selectively take material out-of-context to distort his listener’s point of views. The US only cares about large corporations? yeah.. You say I “praise” the plan, but if you can read I did the exact opposite and stated it was mostly a failure. I suppose a self-proclaimed scholar like yourself would miss that minor detail. You focus so intently on portraying yourself as some scholar doing important research by citing some obscure passage, philosopher, or scholar, that you fail to add anything constructive and lose any original thoughts of your own.

(sorry for taking up so much space)
 
October 23, 2009
Votes: +1

Sebastian said:

Sebastian
...
FYI:
"Assessing U.S. Drug Policy in the Americas
Mark Schneider"
Testimony of Mark L. Schneider, Senior Vice President of the International Crisis Group, to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs’ Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere, 15 October 2009
http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=6353&l=1

 
October 24, 2009
Votes: +1

Bluebird said:

Bluebird
...
For anyone that is interested... The International Crisis Group cited above is a far left organization that advocates U.S. outreach to known terrorists such as Muqtada al-Sadr , terrorist organizations such as Hamas, PLO etc. and nations that support terrorism such as Iran and Syria. How much credence can we give to conclusions reached by this "organization"?
 
October 24, 2009
Votes: -1

Adriaan said:

Adriaan
...
@ Bluebird,

the Intentional Crisis Group is not exactly a far left organization. Don't stigmatize organizations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Crisis_Group
http://www.time.com/time/asia/2005/heroes/icg.html

@ Andrews, please stop randomly picking quotes from scholars and pseudo-scholars who can not be identified and for many are unknown. You end up talking to yourself only and are pushing guys like Chomsky (who often makes very good points) look like d**k. Just because you call them scholars, doesn't mean what they say is always true. Why don't you seriously debate with us and not just preach at us as if we're a bunch of morons?
 
October 24, 2009 | url
Votes: +0

Bluebird said:

Bluebird
...
Adriaan..... One question..... What part of the political spectrum does or would even consider advocating outreach to the likes of these individuals ,,groups, and countries? The conservative right? Nope,,,,, The centrists? Nope...... The conservative left? Nope........ All that leaves is the far left and the extremist radical left and I don't think the group falls in the extremist radical category althought they have individual members that do. The organization isnot stigmatized by my observations or words, If stigmata has indeed occured regarding this group it is because of their own agenda.......... not because of my thoughts about them.
 
October 24, 2009
Votes: +0

Adriaan said:

Adriaan
...
@ Bluebird,

You and I obviously come from different backgrounds, so we have different references and everything. But what I consider far left is people that take up guns or desire revolutions. You did not provide us with reading material on the alleged support for radical groups, so I can only base my conclusions on what I did read. And what I did read about them made me think they were pretty moderate. Give me some links, so I can do some reading on it.
 
October 24, 2009
Votes: +0

Bluebird said:

Bluebird
...
@adriaan....... yes I agree with you that we use completely different points of reference. It has been several months since I have done any reading on this group but I will try to do some digging this weekend if possible. The other thing I wanted to mention..........I am less sure about how Wikpedia is regarded in Colombia but in the U.S. it is not considered a reliable source of information for anything of importance because there is little or no control of the veracity of information posted there. I will find some links to send you privately so as not to stir the fire further on this thread which appears to have run it's course. I think everyone has prety much had their say regarding this article! LOL
 
October 24, 2009
Votes: +0

Bluebird said:

Bluebird
...
By the way........ you guys need to consider giving Sebastian a pay raise! He is almost always able to get a "big fire" going with his articles which is, of course, the whole point. A good controversial article draws more readers, increases the number of "hits" and traffic on your website, etc. He is certainly doing his part to help you guys succeed and I hope you do! Even though I disagree with many of the things you guys write I can't help help but admire your boldness and sense of entrepreneurship in starting up this enterprise in the midst of global downturn. Regardless of political differences, I wish good luck to all of you.
 
October 24, 2009
Votes: +0

Adriaan said:

Adriaan
...
I just upped the commie's salary with 200%. He's now receiving nothing like the rest of us :-)

Many thanks for the compliments, Bluebird, even though I think you're a rabid right-winger, you know I love you smilies/wink.gif

By the way: http://news.cnet.com/Study-Wik...97332.html
 
October 24, 2009 | url
Votes: +0

Bluebird said:

Bluebird
...
LOL....well, if he receives nothing then maybe that is for the best. He might find the act of receiving money repugnant and offensive to his sensibilities. It's probably better not to offend him by offering to pay him! LOL Just kidding Sebastian. And you know, if we all thought alike this would be an awfully boring world to live in. I find it interesting to read all the various points of view of your readers. Even Andrew's contributions (mis-guided as they are lol) add diversity, color, and texture to the conversations that occur here. I realize that there is nothing I can say or post here that could ever persuade Andrew to "come into the light" nor is there anything he could say or post here that would persuade me to "embrace the darkside". LOL Again...just kidding Andrew...... Either way, I think I can speak for most of your readers when I say that the often spirited dialogue is interesting and enjoyable even though I sometimes get so mad there is steam coming from my ears! LOL
 
October 24, 2009
Votes: -1

Laureles191 said:

Laureles191
...
Not for nothing, but according to the UNODC, coca cultivation in Colombia from the years 1994 through 1999, was increasing by an average of 29.4% a year (in Ha) up until Plan Colombia was initiated. From 1998-99, cultivation between those two years alone increased 56% to appr. 160,000 hectares. If you project that ave. growth through 2006 (as unrealistic as it may be) of 29.4% a year, you end up with 970,000 hectares of coca cultivation. I know the sustained growth of 29.4% through another 6 years is unrealistic, but that was the average growth rate for the years of 1994 through 1999. if you compare that with the actual cultivation in 2008 which was 81,000 hectares, maybe PC wasn't as unsuccessful as we would like to believe.
 
October 24, 2009
Votes: -2

Frank said:

0
...
You are wrong PC is a failure
 
January 01, 2010
Votes: +1

Write comment
smaller | bigger

security image
Write the displayed characters


busy
 

Your opinion please

Uribe should be allowed to take part in the upcoming presidential elections
 

CR members

Advertise with us

Reach out to the tens of thousands reading Colombia Reports