 |
|  |
 |
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001 time: 00:28
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Fez
Well lets just say they have plenty of reserves as I said of cash. |
Your lack of logic is astounding. We shouldn't attempt to cut off funding because they have reserves of cash? So I guess it was nonsensical for the Bush Administration to cut off sources of Al Queda funding, because they happened to have reserves? You make no sense.
quote: He is cutting them off at the knees and is taking decisive action. No, what you describe is not preferable. |
Why not? You would still get the bloody combat campaign that you seem to crave, it would just be shorter and easier, because the rebels would have no money. Mr. Economist, why does it not make sense to eliminate funding for the rebels while combatting them? It is patently illogical (your favorite term) to do otherwise, unless you're just blood-thirsty and want the war to drag on for years longer than needed.
quote: I don't like Pinochet, only his economic policies.
|
You excused Pinochet's murders because he brought about what you thought were good economic changes. So I am baffled by your previous condemnation of Hitler, because although he was a murdering sociopath, at least he brought about good economic times for the Fatherland.
quote: Foolish you.. always putting your trust in weak leaders. Who would you want in office in Colombia? Pastrana? The man who only talked but didn't produce any results? The man who gave away half of his country to rebels for negioiations that went nowhere? Oh please. |
Who says I don't support what Uribe is doing? Where did I say he should go soft? All I said is that it would be of even greater benefit to his campaign against the rebels if their source of funding was cut off by ending the stupid drug war. You and the drug bosses are in the same bed with regards to legalization, you are aware of this, yes?
quote: You cannot talk with the FARC or ELN. You have to kill them all for the criminals they are. |
Rest my case. Bloodthirsty, aren't ya? Don't froth too much at the mouth when you see the footage of people being slaughtered. I can send you some pics from the Congo if you want to get off more.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Giancarlo
|
 |
Los Angeles
Apr 2000 time: 02:28
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Your lack of logic is astounding. We shouldn't attempt to cut off funding because they have reserves of cash? So I guess it was nonsensical for the Bush Administration to cut off sources of Al Queda funding, because they happened to have reserves? You make no sense. |
Because much of their money is in Colombia itself.
quote: Why not? You would still get the bloody combat campaign that you seem to crave, it would just be shorter and easier, because the rebels would have no money. Mr. Economist, why does it not make sense to eliminate funding for the rebels while combatting them? It is patently illogical (your favorite term) to do otherwise, unless you're just blood-thirsty and want the war to drag on for years longer than needed.
|
How exactly do you eliminate funding then? Uribe is tackling that issue aswell. Trying to find ways to get to the cash.. however how would you do that? You say legalization. This is cocaine we are talking about, not marijuana. And legalization is not an option.
quote: You excused Pinochet's murders because he brought about what you thought were good economic changes. So I am baffled by your previous condemnation of Hitler, because although he was a murdering sociopath, at least he brought about good economic times for the Fatherland. |
I never excused Pinochet's murders. That is something I will not do. So stop comparing me to Hitler, you brainless ****.
quote: Who says I don't support what Uribe is doing? Where did I say he should go soft? All I said is that it would be of even greater benefit to his campaign against the rebels if their source of funding was cut off by ending the stupid drug war. You and the drug bosses are in the same bed with regards to legalization, you are aware of this, yes? |
The reason Colombia got a major military package of Black Hawks and other equipment was because of the drug war. You want to end this?
quote: Rest my case. Bloodthirsty, aren't ya? Don't froth too much at the mouth when you see the footage of people being slaughtered. I can send you some pics from the Congo if you want to get off more. |
The rebels are illegal combatants and are not allowed to exist in Colombia. Therefore they should be captured, if they resist killed.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001 time: 00:28
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Fez
Because much of their money is in Colombia itself. |
Helloooooooooo. Q: Where is this money from? A: the drug cartels. You say they have reserves. Well, reserves get depleted, especially when there is no new money coming in, thanks to eliminating the profits of drug dealing. Very simple.
quote:
How exactly do you eliminate funding then? Uribe is tackling that issue aswell. Trying to find ways to get to the cash.. however how would you do that? You say legalization. This is cocaine we are talking about, not marijuana. And legalization is not an option. |
The only rationalization people like you give to legalization not being an option is because you just don't want it to be legal.
The drug war has been waged unsuccessfully for 20 years. In that time, the U.S. alone has spent hundreds of billions of dollars in its useless efforts. In the meantime, drug use has remained at the same levels, crime related to drug dealing has gone through the roof, and the drug cartels have seen ever-increasing profits. We've tried the "war" solution, it has failed, miserably. It's time to try something different, regardless of what brainless fascists think.
quote: I never excused Pinochet's murders. That is something I will not do. So stop comparing me to Hitler, you brainless ****. |
You said, when confronted with Pinochet's murders, that "at least he improved the economy." Speaks for itself.
And I didn't compare YOU to Hitler, I said that by your logic, you should at least admire him as you do Pinochet. Don't flatter yourself.
quote: The reason Colombia got a major military package of Black Hawks and other equipment was because of the drug war. You want to end this? |
Ladies and gentleman, here you have it: Fez wants the drug war to drag on so Colombia can get more military equipment. If you don't see how blatantly immoral this is, you are hopeless. Thousands die every year in the drug wars, of COURSE I want it to end. If Colombia didn't have to fight the war anymore, they wouldn't NEED the helicopters. Or, here's an idea: maybe if they want helicopters, they should buy them themselves?
quote: The rebels are illegal combatants and are not allowed to exist in Colombia. Therefore they should be captured, if they resist killed. |
This isn't an issue. We're talking about making the job of getting rid of the rebels easiest. If what is easiest (least expensive, least time consuming and least destructive to both property and lives) is ending the drug war, thus cutting off their funding and making them far easier to wipe out, isn't that best? Oh no, you wouldn't think so, you like war because it means Colombia gets cool military toys to play with, people dying not withstanding.
Unbelievable. 
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Giancarlo
|
 |
Los Angeles
Apr 2000 time: 02:28
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Helloooooooooo. Q: Where is this money from? A: the drug cartels. You say they have reserves. Well, reserves get depleted, especially when there is no new money coming in, thanks to eliminating the profits of drug dealing. Very simple. |
They have stockpiled a lot. It would take years for them to finish off their reserves!
quote: The only rationalization people like you give to legalization not being an option is because you just don't want it to be legal. |
Legalization for cocaine is not an option and never will be. I would never consider it because the drug is harmful. This isn't marijuana we are talking about.
quote: The drug war has been waged unsuccessfully for 20 years. In that time, the U.S. alone has spent hundreds of billions of dollars in its useless efforts. In the meantime, drug use has remained at the same levels, crime related to drug dealing has gone through the roof, and the drug cartels have seen ever-increasing profits. We've tried the "war" solution, it has failed, miserably. It's time to try something different, regardless of what brainless fascists think. |
The Pastrana adminstration in Colombia has tried to negoigation route. You want to know how that turned out? Complete and utter disaster. Not only were the FARC abled to double themselves they increased their money reserves substantially.
quote: You said, when confronted with Pinochet's murders, that "at least he improved the economy." Speaks for itself. |
Yes but I still dislike him for the killings he did.
quote: And I didn't compare YOU to Hitler, I said that by your logic, you should at least admire him as you do Pinochet. Don't flatter yourself. |
Hell no.
quote:
Ladies and gentleman, here you have it: Fez wants the drug war to drag on so Colombia can get more military equipment. If you don't see how blatantly immoral this is, you are hopeless. Thousands die every year in the drug wars, of COURSE I want it to end. If Colombia didn't have to fight the war anymore, they wouldn't NEED the helicopters. Or, here's an idea: maybe if they want helicopters, they should buy them themselves? |
Then what do you suggest? And Colombia does shovel the money over to pay for this equipment.
quote: This isn't an issue. We're talking about making the job of getting rid of the rebels easiest. If what is easiest (least expensive, least time consuming and least destructive to both property and lives) is ending the drug war, thus cutting off their funding and making them far easier to wipe out, isn't that best? Oh no, you wouldn't think so, you like war because it means Colombia gets cool military toys to play with, people dying not withstanding.
Unbelievable. |
So the rebels can use their reserves and the Colombian military is shorthanded equipment, and the war could go on even longer than what I suggest? The rebels will find a way to raise money in different areas.. such as their connections to the drug trade in Peru and Bolivia, where they can easily get money from. How shall you say you solve that?
Really, you have no clue what you are talking about.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Pekka
|
 |
em seu burro dos pais!
Feb 2002 time: 07:28
|
|
The big problem in Columbia is that there is no jobs, or good standard of living. Most people are poor as hell, and the ones living in country side, they can live ok if they produce coca leafs and sell them to cartels. There's nothing much else they can really do, so there's always going to be cocaine. Cartels have lots of money, maybe more than the goverment, and everything else needed to run the show. They have big clients in the US, and they keep wanting more of that cocaine, so there's the demand in all stages. It's gone far too long to hope this would stop. That's why IMO all out war is the only option, but we just need to kick it up few notches. Just throw napalm in the air and plainly kill them all.
Or we can have that forever lasting guerilla war. Stopping the war is not an option at this point, since they have way too much power and money, and looks like they can survive small wars too. Determined attack to save no one could give serious results. Multiple attack with fighters and ground troops, save no ammo, take no prisoners.
Surely they will move to bordering countries, but we make them allies with this, and make deals that we can enter their countries to attack these people, with co-operatin with the local authorities. If there are corrupt people in the forces, round them up with and save the ones that turns around to give information, the ones who keeps their yaps shut, well just bullet in the neck.
THey are far too hardcore to be negotiated with. Maybe earlier, but now it's impossible. But they would need few strong leaders who keeps up the pace, and makes the people come in their side too, and not be intimitated by the criminals. They must also prevent the lynching mob thing, since then it gets out of the hands and innocents die. I'd say it's over in few years, just STRONG attacks that have that fire, evil intentions to wipe them out literally. With this there needs to be plan what the farmers etc poor people could do, to make a living so they don't feel betrayed. Then we can attack the demand in the US and other countries, because it's harder to kill.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001 time: 00:28
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Fez
They have stockpiled a lot. It would take years for them to finish off their reserves! |

Your synapses aren't firing, son. Listen carefully: The rebels are receiving the bulk of their funds from drug money. No matter how much they have in reserves (you haven't supported that assertion, btw. How do you know what they have in reserves?), they will still have LESS money to work with if the drug money is cut off. It's not hard to understand.
quote:
Legalization for cocaine is not an option and never will be. I would never consider it because the drug is harmful. This isn't marijuana we are talking about. |
Marijuana is harmful as well, don't treat it so innocuously. But that's irrelevant. Alcohol is quite harmful, too. None of that speaks to the reasons for legalization. More people are hurt by criminalization of it than would be if it were legal. Legalization will ease suffering.
quote: The Pastrana adminstration in Colombia has tried to negoigation route. You want to know how that turned out? Complete and utter disaster. Not only were the FARC abled to double themselves they increased their money reserves substantially. |
You are on some other bizzare wavelength here. Notice how I pointed out, several times, I don't object to using force against the rebels. Legalizing drugs in the U.S. wouldn't effect that at all, except by CUTTING OFF FUNDING FOR THE REBELS, MAKING FIGHTING THEM MUCH EASIER. I don't see why this is so hard for you to grasp.
quote: Yes but I still dislike him for the killings he did. |
But you tolerate thm because of good economic results. How so very moral of you!
quote: Then what do you suggest? And Colombia does shovel the money over to pay for this equipment. |
I've given my suggestion. U.S. ends drug war = disasterous fall in drug prices for cartels = drying up of rebel money sources = rebels go bye-bye after shorter, less deadly campaign. Recipe for success.
quote: So the rebels can use their reserves and the Colombian military is shorthanded equipment, and the war could go on even longer than what I suggest? The rebels will find a way to raise money in different areas.. such as their connections to the drug trade in Peru and Bolivia, where they can easily get money from. How shall you say you solve that? |
You aren't paying attention. If the U.S. and other countries ended drug prohibition, it wouldn't matter about the drug trade in other countries... THEIR PROFITS WOULD ALL BE CUT OFF. No one is talking about shortchanging the Colombian military, we're talking about making their job much, much easier by eliminating funding for the rebels, for the UPTEENTH time.
quote: Really, you have no clue what you are talking about. |
That's rich. Tell me, where are your numbers backing up your assertions about their reserves? And, Mr. Economist, since you know the rebels are receiving new funding through drug money, why does it not make sense to eliminate that as a source of income?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Giancarlo
|
 |
Los Angeles
Apr 2000 time: 02:28
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov

Your synapses aren't firing, son. Listen carefully: The rebels are receiving the bulk of their funds from drug money. No matter how much they have in reserves (you haven't supported that assertion, btw. How do you know what they have in reserves?), they will still have LESS money to work with if the drug money is cut off. It's not hard to understand. |
Yes but later I brought up what about other trades they have around the world... they can get money from the Peruvian/Bolivian drug trade.
quote: Marijuana is harmful as well, don't treat it so innocuously. But that's irrelevant. Alcohol is quite harmful, too. None of that speaks to the reasons for legalization. More people are hurt by criminalization of it than would be if it were legal. Legalization will ease suffering. |
I disagree with legalization based on ideological reasons. Is that a good enough answer?
quote: You are on some other bizzare wavelength here. Notice how I pointed out, several times, I don't object to using force against the rebels. Legalizing drugs in the U.S. wouldn't effect that at all, except by CUTTING OFF FUNDING FOR THE REBELS, MAKING FIGHTING THEM MUCH EASIER. I don't see why this is so hard for you to grasp. |
I again disagree with legalization for ideological reasons. I do not believe legalization would solve the problems but actually create more problems.
quote: But you tolerate thm because of good economic results. How so very moral of you! |
I hate Hitler. I am not particularily fond of Pinochet anymore. But what he did for the economy is a fact.
quote:
I've given my suggestion. U.S. ends drug war = disasterous fall in drug prices for cartels = drying up of rebel money sources = rebels go bye-bye after shorter, less deadly campaign. Recipe for success.
|
Well the rebels always found ways to get money in other venues.
quote: No one is talking about shortchanging the Colombian military, we're talking about making their job much, much easier by eliminating funding for the rebels, for the UPTEENTH time. |
But what about other venues the rebels could take to make profit?
quote:
That's rich. Tell me, where are your numbers backing up your assertions about their reserves? And, Mr. Economist, since you know the rebels are receiving new funding through drug money, why does it not make sense to eliminate that as a source of income? |
In the article I provided.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001 time: 00:28
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Fez
Yes but later I brought up what about other trades they have around the world... they can get money from the Peruvian/Bolivian drug trade.
|
And once again, irrelevant, since I'm talking about cutting off the incoming money for all drug cartels. Legalization is the only way to destroy their profits.
quote: I again disagree with legalization for ideological reasons. I do not believe legalization would solve the problems but actually create more problems.
|
But your ideological reasons are arbitrary. We don't prohibit certain harmful substances, like alcohol and tobacco. We know that legalization in countries where it has occured has not caused these dire consequences, and the elimination of drug cartel profits, most drug-related crime and freeing up prison space for real criminals instead of drug users are all undoubtable benefits.
quote: I hate Hitler. I am not particularily fond of Pinochet anymore. But what he did for the economy is a fact. |
So why the love of Franco, if not Pinochet? Franco probably killed more people than Pinochet. Why don't you hate him?
quote: Well the rebels always found ways to get money in other venues.
But what about other venues the rebels could take to make profit? |
Their biggest venue, by far, is from drugs. Replacing that amount of profit would be near-impossible. Second, even if they do seek out other venues, does that mean we shouldn't bother destroying the ones they have now?
You're sidestepping all the points and just making non sequitir rants about things nobody is arguing!
quote:
In the article I provided. |
Oh, you liar. NOWHERE in that article does it provide any mention of how the rebels are funded and what their reserves are. 
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:28. Apolyton Time is 00:28. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|