|
Jairzinho (m)
|
i'm beginning to question the intelligence of some of you guys. liberalism has to with freedom of individual and freedom of thought. chavez isn't a liberal but a socialist. Richyblack is leftist but a socialist. no liberal leader would support the nationalization of industries or closing down private stations.
Pally stick to the issues & don't cast aspersions on my I.Q,you don't want to go there. Like 4play said its common to link the term 'liberal' with leftist(socialist )policies, just like conservatism is generally associated with words like right wing, pro-establishment,etc. |
|
|
|
|
|
Topsido
|
United States reigns!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sabisabi
|
United States reigns!
Na somebody build that country wey you dey praise so. Olodo |
|
|
|
|
|
JayFK (m)
|
this is wrong, pakistan has allowed the US to conduct millitary operations against al qaeda in pakistani territory in some cases. that wasn't an act of war. u are overgeneralizing the situation here. chad has chased rebels into sudan, that wasn't an act of war against sudan.
That's a whole different issue, the host Country allowed the United States to conduct operations on Her soil, keyword here being "allowed"
mexico has a right to take action if the US REFUSES to take actions against the menace residing in the US. of course mexico is allowed.
so are you saying if Mexico conducts an operation (hypothetically) on US soil that the US has no right to retaliate?
correction, it was actually the UN that invaded. the UN force was only spearheaded by american forces. i'm tired of restating my points. are u claiming the UN is partial now??
are u kidding? read up on the history of the gulf war, my bad though I meant the UK and not the US, the UK pressured the United States into helping out Kuwait and of course, once that domino falls the rest are sure to follow, they then came under the guise of the UN and of course the US succeeded in establishing a military presence in Saudi Arabia. I sincerely hope you are kidding about the UN not being partial? the UN is almost synonymous with the US now, it is basically United States interests it grants now no sanctions for those permanent members who go against Her wishes. The US and Uk interests were aligned, of course prior to this new prime minister. Thats why we have those two clusterfucks in Iraq and Afghanistan. A council where only permanent members look out solely for their interests in "lesser" countries and have Veto power? are you kidding me? |
|
|
|
|
|
bawomolo (m)
|
That's a whole different issue, the host Country allowed the United States to conduct operations on Her soil, keyword here being "allowed" international laws don't protect u when u intentionally harbor a terrorist group. this argument is mute since ecuador courts the FARC. so are you saying if Mexico conducts an operation (hypothetically) on US soil that the US has no right to retaliate? of course it has a right to retaliate by taking appropriate actions like expelling the rebels? don't u think so. are we absolving the FARC of guilt here. they then came under the guise of the UN and of course the US succeeded in establishing a military presence in Saudi Arabia. lol, u are arguing the semantics, the saudi king basically allowed the US base to counter the rise of syria and iraq. no one forced the creation of a base in saudi. the UN allowed the force to go through. it's pretty sad if u think, the US should have allowed Kuwait to be invaded on false claims. the goal of the UN is to protect the sovereignty and rights of it's member nations. the UN is almost synonymous with the US now, false, the UN security council is composed of france,china and russia. countries that aren't so fond of US foreign policy. i see it's the new nairaland phenomenon to blame the US for everything. next thing we know, the UN has no right to intervene in sudan. A council where only permanent members look out solely for their interests in "lesser" countries and have Veto power? are you kidding me? there are temporary seats in the security council, did anyone force them to join the UN? no |
|
|
|
|
|
JayFK (m)
|
international laws don't protect u when u intentionally harbor a terrorist group. this argument is mute since ecuador courts the FARC.
This point holds no water, like i said if the host Country allows them, that's a whole different issue.
of course it has a right to retaliate by taking appropriate actions like expelling the rebels? don't u think so. are we absolving the FARC of guilt here.
lol so you are saying if Mexico conducts military operations on US soil, the US has a right to retaliate by expelling the rebels? These are people that might go to war. What if the US doesn't want to expel the rebels by citing human rights or sumn like that?
false, the UN security council is composed of france,china and russia. countries that aren't so fond of US foreign policy. i see it's the new nairaland phenomenon to blame the US for everything. next thing we know, the UN has no right to intervene in sudan.
there are temporary seats in the security council, did anyone force them to join the UN? no
I guess you just proved the partiality of the UN no? Why didn't they intervene in Rwanda, since Rwanda is a UN member? lol, u are arguing the semantics, the saudi king basically allowed the US base to counter the rise of syria and iraq. no one forced the creation of a base in saudi. the UN allowed the force to go through. it's pretty sad if u think, the US should have allowed Kuwait to be invaded on false claims. the goal of the UN is to protect the sovereignty and rights of it's member nations.
I didn't say it was by force, UK pressured the US into intervening in Kuwait (both Countries have their interests aligned) The US uses that opportunity to gain a foothold in the Middle East? Do you understand my point here? |
|
|
|
|
|
bawomolo (m)
|
This point holds no water, like i said if the host Country allows them, that's a whole different issue. in other words, countries can hold rebels as long as they want. harboring terrorists is a violation of international law by the way. What if the US doesn't want to expel the rebels by citing human rights or sumn like that? human rights for what?? u don't start attacks form another man's country then claim human rights. it's the right of that country to expel rebels as it wants. it's refugees that has such protection not rebels. I guess you just proved the partiality of the UN no? Why didn't they intervene in Rwanda, since Rwanda is a UN member? weren't there UN troops in rwanda, was rwanda invaded by foreign troops?? i guess we have to redefine the meaning of sovereignty. any country has a right to say no to UN troops. I didn't say it was by force, UK pressured the US into intervening in Kuwait (both Countries have their interests aligned) The US uses that opportunity to gain a foothold in the Middle East? Do you understand my point here? i honestly don't, every country have their own personal interests.i don't know how it relates to this thread. the Kuwaiti's more than welcomed American influenced. it seems u guys have no problem with FARC. |
|
|
|
|
|
Novacaine (m)
|
The Iraq and Middle eastern thingy is getting played out we could use some fresh battles and crisis whats with the US always trying to meddle in every crisis isnt the case of Iraq bad enough?
|
|
|
|
|
|
subice (m)
|
Every nation and ofcourse individual has to understand the intricacies and workings of the politics of self interest. Chavez understands that as is evident in his international and domestic politics. America understands and thrives on it, and they have been playing it for a long time,
So true. |
|
|
|
|
|
JayFK (m)
|
in other words, countries can hold rebels as long as they want. harboring terrorists is a violation of international law by the way.
The definition of terrorist is very vague.
human rights for what?? u don't start attacks form another man's country then claim human rights. it's the right of that country to expel rebels as it wants. it's refugees that has such protection not rebels.
How about when American trained rebels tried to invade Cuba? My point here is, If the host country refuses to hand over the rebels? What next? especially if the country is smaller/less powerful. I guarantee you, if America was in Cuba's position it would have been a whole different story. Likewise, Venezuela and Ecuador have the right to defend their borders especially if it interprets Colombia's actions as aggressive i.e. Conducting a military operation without explicit approval on their soil. Like I said in one of my previous posts Venezuela might have overreacted, as the situation could have been solved with diplomacy. But nonetheless they have the right to what they did, the whole point of "Sovereignty" here is defense against "external aggression" and external aggression can be interpreted in different ways, no matter how warped the Country's interpretation is. weren't there UN troops in rwanda, was rwanda invaded by foreign troops?? i guess we have to redefine the meaning of sovereignty. any country has a right to say no to UN troops.
i honestly don't, every country have their own personal interests.i don't know how it relates to this thread. the Kuwaiti's more than welcomed American influenced. it seems u guys have no problem with FARC.
My point is the partiality of the UN, where you said there was none. The US and UK have no interests in Rwanda therefore they can let that one go to hell, the whole Vietnam issue communism, military funding of rebels communism, the middle east oil, Sudan/Chad Is'lamic influence, all of which are in the UN aka US interests. I guess we can let this one rest because the UN is definitely a partial body and it has nothing to do with the OP. |
|
|
|
|
|
bawomolo (m)
|
The definition of terrorist is very vague. it isn't vague in reference to groups like the PKK,shining path, hezbollah or FARC(do u call them freedom fighters?) I guarantee you, if America was in Cuba's position it would have been a whole different story. you are right, this is the world we live in. Like I said in one of my previous posts Venezuela might have overreacted, as the situation could have been solved with diplomacy the truth is venezuela had no reason to react, this is a dispute between ecuador and colombia. the rivalry between ecuador and colombia goes back to a border. hugo chavez is just being nosey and had no reason to get involved in the conflict. venezuela can only complain if colombian troops landed on it's soil |
|
|
|
|
|
RichyBlacK (m)
|
OAS resolution says Colombia violated Ecuador's sovereignty
WASHINGTON, March 5 (Xinhua) -- The Organization of American States (OAS) adopted a resolution on Wednesday and said Colombia violated Ecuador's sovereignty by launching a military raid into its territory but stopped short of formally condemn Bogota.
The resolution was adopted at an emergency meeting of the 34-member OAS with its headquarters in Washington.
Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa had asked the OAS to quickly condemn Colombia for its military action in its territory on Saturday. However, the United States has backed Colombia and claimed the raid was against a terrorist group.
The resolution also agreed to form a commission to visit Ecuador and Colombia to investigate the Colombian raid.
According to media reports, Colombia bombed and dispatched troops into Ecuador in a weekend raid that killed a Colombian rebel leader in his jungle camp.
The US. government has expressed support for the Colombian action. However, countries including Brazil and Venezuela have condemned the raid by Colombia, which has been a key US. ally in South America.
|
|
|
|
|
|
4Him (m)
|
RichyBlack . . . is Ecuador a province of Venezuela?
|
|
|
|
|
|
RichyBlacK (m)
|
So you want Venezuela to wait till that US lap dog called Uribe violates Venezuela's territorial integrity before acting?
|
|
|
|
|
|
RichyBlacK (m)
|
Colombia attack slammed at crisis summit
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- An attack into Ecuadoran territory by Colombia was criticized Wednesday by South American states trying to defuse tensions between the two nations.
The Organization of American States passed by voice vote its planned solution to ending the crisis that arose Saturday, when Colombia's military attacked a rebel camp in neighboring Ecuador.
Since then, Ecudaor has broken off relations with Colombia, and Venezuela says it has moved troops to its border with Colombia.
In the resolution passed Wednesday, the OAS called the attack "a violation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ecuador and of principles of international law" and noted that it led Ecuador to break relations with Colombia.
It ordered a commission, headed by OAS Secretary-General Jose Miguel Insulza and composed of four ambassadors designated by him, to visit both countries to investigate the matter, "and to propose formulas for bringing the two nations closer together."
OAS foreign ministers are to meet March 17 in Washington "to examine the facts and make the pertinent recommendations," the resolution concluded.
US. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Wednesday that he saw little chance of war erupting among Colombia, Ecuador and Venezuela. Learn more about the countries »
Gates added that the United States would not need to assist its Colombian allies should armed conflict break out.
"My personal view is that there is relatively little likelihood of a military conflict between them, and my further impression is that the Colombians can take care of themselves," he said at the Pentagon.
After the OAS resolution, Bahamian Ambassador Cornelius Smith praised Ecuador and Colombia for showing "a desire and a commitment to ensure that we could find common ground."
"With the spirit of consensus in mind, we are pleased that the delegates of Colombia and Ecuador have agreed to a test that could lead to a satisfactory resolution to this impasse," said the acting permanent representative of the US. Mission to the OAS, J. Robert Manzanares.
"We wish to reiterate our support for a timely diplomatic resolution."
But the organization's resolution did not mollify everyone. "The facts have a cause, and this commission will have to confront that cause in its totality," said Colombia's representative, Ambassador Camilo Ospina. He added, "terrorism brought us here."
Saturday's raid by Colombian police and troops killed the second-in-command of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC. The group, which Colombia, the United States and the European Union label a terrorist organization, has fought a decades-long battle against the government in Bogota.
Ecuador has cut diplomatic relations with Colombia as a result of the attack. Ecuador and Venezuela, whose leaders share close ties, have sent troops toward their borders with Colombia.
|
|
|
|
|
|
4Him (m)
|
So you want Venezuela to wait till that US lap dog called Uribe violates Venezuela's territorial integrity before acting?
1. Your response in no way answers my question. 2. Uribe did not violate Ecuador's territorial integrity just on purpose . . . there was a clear REASON so your prevarications are nothing but bogus speculations that reside in the fantasies of ostriches who have their heads firmly buried in the sands of denial. 3. Why is Venezuela and not Ecuador the one crying loudly over Uribe's actions? 4. Why is this event of more importance than Turkey's recent incursion into Southern Iraq? |
|
|
|
|
|
4Him (m)
|
RichyBlack take your head out of the sand, not a single one of your news clippings addresses the REAL QUESTION - why is Venezuela crying more than the bereaved?
|
|
|
|
|
|
4 Play (m)
|
This is like one of those impotent resolutions they pass regularly in respect of Israel.This won't be the first time such a resolution was passed for Colombia's actions in Ecuador.
|
|
|
|
|
|
RichyBlacK (m)
|
This is like one of those impotent resolutions they pass regularly in respect of Israel.This won't be the first time such a resolution was passed for Colombia's actions in Ecuador.
Hey you should be updating yourself with political facts instead of always blindly supporting neoconic views. Back to topic: the OAS has not passed any resolution against the racist, Zionist and Apartheid state of Israel in the last 40 years. |
|
|
|
|
|
4Him (m)
|
Richie my questions are waiting. Hey you should be updating yourself with political facts instead of always blindly supporting neoconic views.
Perhaps you should be updating yourself with political facts instead of always blindly supporting Arab imperialist ideals espoused by the likes of Chavez. |
|
|
|
|
|
4 Play (m)
|
Its obvious this RichyBlack is a bit 'slow.'
|
|
|
|
|
|
RichyBlacK (m)
|
RichyBlack take your head out of the sand, not a single one of your news clippings addresses the REAL QUESTION - why is Venezuela crying more than the bereaved?
1. Venezuela is crying foul because they see the hands of the evil cabal of death in Washington DC in this brazen violation of international laws. 2. They know that George W. Bush and his henchmen directed this temporary invasion of a sovereign nation. 3. They know that the person they're targeting is none other than Hugo (Boss) Chavez himself. 4. They are aware that the bloodthirsty cartel in the present White House will do anything to get at Chavez. 5. They are also aware that Bush and his goons want to use lies, just as they lied against Saddam Hussein, to implicate Hugo Chavez in (i) funding terrorism; (ii) attempting to purchase nuclear weapons; (iii) having links with al-qaeda; etc. We know Bush's plan to steal Venezuelan oil, just like he has stolen Iraq's oil, and this time he will surely fail! The American people are now smarter and wiser after he fooled many of them. |
|
|
|
|
|
Tornadoz (m)
|
Richie my questions are waiting.
Venezualian's are not waiting for the marauding Colombian army to enter Caracas. |
|
|
|
|
|
RichyBlacK (m)
|
Its obvious this RichyBlack is a bit 'slow.'
See this mumu! I've openly challenged you before to a comparison of academic qualifications and you smartly declined. You think I'm one of those pub crawlers you fraternize with in London? Look, whenever you're ready we'll arrange for a comparison and publish the results here on Nairaland to see. Anuofia. |
|
|
|
|
|
Tornadoz (m)
|
Its obvious this RichyBlack is a bit 'slow.'
F*ck me, I thought you were the one slowing down with old age. |
|
|
|
|
|
4Him (m)
|
Venezualian's are not waiting for the marauding Colombian army to enter Caracas.
The Colombian army was not a maurading jaunt but to hunt down a known international terrorist. Why is Ecuador not responding as fiercely as Venezuela is responding? That should be food for thought for clueless people like you who spend more time typing than thinking. 1. Venezuela is crying foul because they see the hands of the evil cabal of death in Washington DC in this brazen violation of international laws.
2. They know that George W. Bush and his henchmen directed this temporary invasion of a sovereign nation.
Conspiracy theories that have no basis in reality are the last preserve of the desperately ignorant. 3. They're know that the person they're targeting is none other than Hugo (Boss) Chavez himself.
Dont you think a brazen attack in Ecuador was one of the worst ways to go about hunting an enemy in Venezuela? If the CIA wanted to kill Chavez they don't have need of the Colombian army. 4. They are aware that the bloodthirsty cartel in the present White House will do anything to get at Chavez.
5. They are also aware that Bush and his goons want to use lies, just as they lied against Saddam Hussein, to implicate Hugo Chavez in (i) funding terrorism; (ii) attempting to purchase nuclear weapons; (iii) having links with al-qaeda; etc.
Disgraceful. We know Bush's plan to steal Venezuelan oil, just like he has stolen Iraq's oil, and this time he will surely fail! The American people are now smarter and wiser after he fooled many of them.
Turkey surely went to Southern Iraq to steal oil too don't you think? |
|
|
|
|
|
RichyBlacK (m)
|
F*ck me, I thought you were the one slowing down with old age.
Here comes a comrade. Tornadoz, how far jo? Kilo happen? Leave all these " America come bomb my village kill everybody finish because na you be my oga kpatakpata" people. Na them go taya.  |
|
|
|
|
|
4 Play (m)
|
See this mumu!
I've openly challenged you before to a comparison of academic qualifications and you smartly declined. You think I'm one of those pub crawlers you fraternize with in London?
Look, whenever you're ready we'll arrange for a comparison and publish the results here on Nairaland to see. Anuofia.
The above illustrates how slow you are. Only an Ewu Hausa like you will be yarning the above. |
|
|
|
|
|
Tornadoz (m)
|
The Colombian army was not a maurading jaunt but to hunt down a known international terrorist.
Why is Ecuador not responding as fiercely as Venezuela is responding? That should be food for thought for clueless people like you who spend more time typing than thinking.
Hunt down a "known terrorist" by violating the integrity of another nation. Read the response of the OAS. As for spending more time typing than thinking, I thought you were the one who believed the theory that the hitting on the keyboard by several monkeys could recreate the works of Shakespeare. Dont you think a brazen attack in Ecuador was one of the worst ways to go about hunting an enemy in Venezuela? If the CIA wanted to kill Chavez they don't have need of the Colombian army.
A bit of research would tell you the evil CIA has been trying to kill Hugo "Boss" Chavez. Where do you get your news? |
|
|
|
|
|
Tornadoz (m)
|
Professor Richyblack himself. I dey fine my brother.
|
|
|
|
|
|
RichyBlacK (m)
|
Conspiracy theories that have no basis in reality are the last preserve of the desperately ignorant.
US intelligence helped us strike rebel leader: ColombiaThe Times of India4 Mar 2008, 0459 hrs IST,AFPBOGOTA: US intelligence helped Colombia carry out a weekend strike against a FARC rebel camp inside Ecuador that has triggered a regional crisis and military standoff, Colombian officials said Monday. Colombian police chief General Oscar Naranjo told reporters "it's no secret" that his country's agencies have "a very strong alliance with federal agencies of the United States," though he did not specify which ones. The raid early Sunday that killed Raul Reyes, reputed to be the number two leader of the insurgent Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), was an "autonomous operation" that relied on information from several sources, he said. A high-placed official in the Colombian defense ministry said on condition of anonymity that it was a US intelligence agency that first told Bogota several weeks ago that Reyes was sporadically using a satellite telephone, whose signal could be pinpointed. "The United States handed over the identification of the satellite telephone to (Colombian) police intelligence units, which in turn processed the information and was tasked with finding the location of the telephone," the official said. "There were also informants," the source said. "Once the police located the satellite phone, General Naranjo informed the defense minister, Juan Manuel Santos, so that he could coordinate the operation," he explained. "The United States did not participate directly in this information, but its help was vital in leading us to the site where Reyes was," the official said. Reyes, real name Luis Edgar Devia, 59, was killed along with 16 other rebels and one Colombian soldier. He was considered the right-hand man to 77-year-old FARC leader Manuel "Tirofijo" ("Sureshot") Marulanda and his likely successor. The raid took place 1.8 kilometers (one mile) inside Ecuador, sparking a regional crisis and the rupture of diplomatic relations between Quito and Bogota. Ecuador and its ally Venezuela have ordered troops to mass on their borders with Colombia, raising the specter of armed conflict between the two OPEC members and Washington's main South American ally. The United States, which considers the FARC a "terrorist" group, has said it supported Colombia's cross-border strike but denied providing any material aid. State Department deputy spokesman Tom Casey, asked whether Washington provided any intelligence or logistical support for the operation, replied: "Look, I'm not aware of any US government role in this particular military event." He said Bogota was an important ally, and he urged Colombia and Ecuador to work out their differences diplomatically. "Certainly, we expect that that's how this is going to be resolved. And I don't think anybody, at this point, ought to be talking about military action," Casey said. Asked whether Bogota had given Washington advance notice of the strike, Casey replied: "No, I'm not aware that we found out about this other than after the fact." Dont you think a brazen attack in Ecuador was one of the worst ways to go about hunting an enemy in Venezuela? If the CIA wanted to kill Chavez they don't have need of the Colombian army.
So if the CIA killed Chavez you'll jubilate? The cabal of death, the bloodthirsty cartel is surely expanding its membership. Why do you all like killing people? Why is death and blood the only way you can see the resolution of a conflict? Shamefully pathetic!!! Turkey surely went to Southern Iraq to steal oil too don't you think?
The US controls Iraq and Turkey is a NATO ally of the US. America allowed Turkey in so that it can test some of their newly acquired military armament. As for the oil in Iraq, it's now owned by America; if they want to give some to Turkey, who cares? |
|
|
|
|
|
4Him (m)
|
Hunt down a "known terrorist" by violating the integrity of another nation.
1. Was Venezuela the nation in question? why is it crying louder than the Ecuadorians? 2. Turkey did the same just a few weeks ago in Iraq . . . Syria has been doing same in Lebanon for decades . . . where is the condemnation from you? Read the response of the OAS.
It is just another worthless piece of paper . . . A bit of research would tell you the evil CIA has been trying to kill Hugo "Boss" Chavez. Where do you get your news?
By using the Colombian army? Where do you get your theories? |
|
|
|
|
|
![Nairaland [Nigerian Forum] Home](http://www.nairaland.com/Themes/default/images/english/home.gif)
Author
