Replies

exerpt from your link: ...In August of this year, Colombia inaugurated a new president: Alvaro Uribe, an independent, Oxford- and Harvard-trained former mayor and governor whose father was killed by the rebels and who has himself survived four assassination attempts. Uribe was elected with an unprecedented first-round majority after Colombia's four-year-old peace process collapsed earlier this year. Sweeping into office on a hard-line platform, the president-elect promised to provide Colombians with "democratic security" -- meaning a frontal assault on the country's two leftist guerrilla groups and, perhaps, its right-wing paramilitaries as well. Stopping these rebels will not be easy. Colombia's new president faces three main opponents: an 18,000-strong drug-financed insurgent group, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (known by its Spanish acronym, FARC); a 12,000-body paramilitary umbrella group, the United Self-Defense Groups of Colombia (AUC), also financed by drug money; and a dwindling leftist insurgency, the National Liberation Army (ELN), that still boasts 3,500-5,000 guerrillas.

sounds like the columbian government (with aid from the US) is going to take on all the narco-terrorists. thanks again for providing evidence to support that position.

Columbian government = Columbian criminals.

Lots of smoke and mirrors, but you haven't even come close to defending this statement. Elements of the Columbian Army have links to an umbrella group of para-militarys (UAC) that support their anti-communist efforts by 'taxing' local drug shipments. How does this make the columbian government = columbian criminals?

Does newly elected Columbian president Uribe come from the ranks of the military? (No) Has he sided with the paramilitary elements in his country against the United States? (No) Is he willing to cooperate with the US and extradite the head of the UAC as requested by the Justice department this morning? (Yes)

Your analysis of the situation in Columbia is weak and leaves much to be desired. Unless you can support and defend statements like the one above, you're better off not making them in the first place. Don't you agree?