Chavez, Correa call for condemnation of Colombia's cross-border...

In a bid to ease the diplomatic crisis, the Organization of American States approved a resolution earlier Wednesday that called the Colombian military raid a violation of Ecuadorean sovereignty.

[Esther]

As latina I am tired about what happen in the mind of Venezuela Presidente Hugo Chavez and his latinoamerica cruzade for revolution in the region. What revolution???? Now is very clear how close is the relationship between Chavez, Ecuador government and others countries with the terrorist guerrillas FARC! Colombia show all the proof that how those goverment support criminals and terrorist Colombia groups to destroy Colombia society!!!!
The OAS, UN and the international society should review all those issues by Hugo Chavez and other countries in terrorism and criminal actions againt Colombia!

[Juan Gabriel Osuna]

It is important for CNN to say that FARC is not a rebel group but a terrorist group. I think that CNN is deviating the US public opinion talking about rebels. We have to call things the way they are: the FARC is a terrorist group.

[John]

Condemnation, I am not sure.
If you want to invade my coutry to capture, kill rebels that my country otherwise wouldn't do a thing about it, fine.
And venezuela is upset why ?
I wonder why Vezezuela is Worrying about rebels from FARCS being killed...
I thought the issue is Colombia Invading Ecuador.
I am not sure why Hugo Chavez is involved.
I think he should worry about venezuela and it's people. Stop sticking his nose on someone else's business.

[David Germany]

As the majority of Colombians I'm simply tired of Chavez and his crazy ideas, his dissrespect, and his prehistoric ideals.. Why does he allow the guerrillas (terrorists) in his territory ? and then critizices our National Army, when they kill a criminal terrorist ?
This makes no sense at all...

[Justin Fox]

It amazes me how one country (Columbia) can pull off a bombing raid in another country (Ecuador) and what appears in western commercial media are news pieces about President Chavez (of Venezuela), and his reaction. Why is it that our trusted news services have failed to report that presidents of most South and Central American states have also called for condemnation of Columbia's actions? Why is it that our media insists on sensationalizing yet another news story into a Chavez boogie man piece. I can't help but wonder here if there is a hidden agenda here of priming the American public for another Oil War.

[Justin]

When Hugo Chavez was addressing the UN, he wondered what he was smelling. Now we know that it was probably his own FARC. Terrorist leave a particularly bad smell in the air. Supporters of terrorists pick up that scent and wonder what they are smelling.

[Leo]

Hugo Chavez agenda is to destabilize the region and he becoming the next Fidel Castro.As a Mexican I support the action taken by Columbia. Ecuadorans should be grateful since there's two dozen less terrorists in their country.

[ProCol]

Whare is the condemnation against Venezuela and Ecuador for harboring futitives who are the ones who kidnap, kill and deal in illegal manufacture and distribution of drugs? They help instigate the situation which makes Colombia frustrated in dealing with these menaces. If the OAS doesn't understand this, then they should be reanalyzed.

[ProCol]

TO my understanding, the President of Colombia called the President of Ecuador to inform him of the actions. There was no outcry at the moment. Not until Chavez called Correa. Now I've come to believe that President Correa from Ecuador is a puppet to Chavez. Did Chavez also use Venezuelan people's money to fund his campaign to be President???

[Justin Fox]

Leo wrote:

Hugo Chavez agenda is to destabilize the region and he becoming the next Fidel Castro.As a Mexican I support the action taken by Columbia. Ecuadorans should be grateful since there's two dozen less terrorists in their country.

How interesting, I wonder as a Mexican national how you would have felt if say, Guatemala, or more realistically the US bombed your country to get rid of a political inconvenient.

[Joseph Biendal]

Why is Chavez so oud when the incursion did not happen in his country. Can't Correa fight his own fights? Chavez is just a egotistical, loud mouth.
Shut your mouth Chavez!! You're a loser.

[Joseph Biendal]

Yea right! Another right winger trying to scare the public. You want to know why our media covers the story yhte way they do. Because we are glad that Columbia did it and we don't care to hear about others demanding condemnation. Chavez is a tyrant and therfore gets a lot of the public scrutiny.

Justin Fox wrote:

It amazes me how one country (Columbia) can pull off a bombing raid in another country (Ecuador) and what appears in western commercial media are news pieces about President Chavez (of Venezuela), and his reaction. Why is it that our trusted news services have failed to report that presidents of most South and Central American states have also called for condemnation of Columbia's actions? Why is it that our media insists on sensationalizing yet another news story into a Chavez boogie man piece. I can't help but wonder here if there is a hidden agenda here of priming the American public for another Oil War.

[Joseph Biendal]

Nuke him!

John wrote:

Condemnation, I am not sure.
If you want to invade my coutry to capture, kill rebels that my country otherwise wouldn't do a thing about it, fine.
And venezuela is upset why ?
I wonder why Vezezuela is Worrying about rebels from FARCS being killed...
I thought the issue is Colombia Invading Ecuador.
I am not sure why Hugo Chavez is involved.
I think he should worry about venezuela and it's people. Stop sticking his nose on someone else's business.

[Margo]

Here's a good documentary that gives a bit of history regarding the U.S. role in Central and South America. If Columbia is misbehaving, it's a good bet that it's doing so with U.S. approval (and very likely, it's acting as a U.S. proxy).
.
"War on Democracy" - John Pilger
http://video.google.com/videoplay...

[BillinErie]

Margo wrote:

Here's a good documentary that gives a bit of history regarding the U.S. role in Central and South America. If Columbia is misbehaving, it's a good bet that it's doing so with U.S. approval (and very likely, it's acting as a U.S. proxy).
.
"War on Democracy" - John Pilger
http://video.google.com/videoplay...

I knew it! Before we know it, a couple of planes flown by FBI agents will be flying into Venezualan (sp) oil fields detonating explosives planted by the CIA in order to appear that Al Qaida has struck in South America, when we all know that we are behind every terrorist act in the world giving the impression that there are OTHER terrorists out there. This takes all focus off the fact that we are the only terrorist country in the world. Now I get it..........

[Margo]

BillinErie wrote:

<quoted text>
I knew it! Before we know it, a couple of planes flown by FBI agents will be flying into Venezualan (sp) oil fields detonating explosives planted by the CIA in order to appear that Al Qaida has struck in South America, when we all know that we are behind every terrorist act in the world giving the impression that there are OTHER terrorists out there. This takes all focus off the fact that we are the only terrorist country in the world. Now I get it..........

Watch the video, Bill. You might learn something.
The U.S. gets one fourth (!) of its oil from Venezuela. It was implicated in the coup attempt on Chavez back in April 2002, and there is little doubt that it will continue its efforts to "remove" Chavez and any other of populist leaders that have won elections recently across the region that might "threaten U.S. interests" (which have zero to do with your interests or my interests, by the way, and certainly NOTHING to do with the interests of the vast majority of the citizens of these countries).

[BillinErie]

All documentary video that I have ever seen or heard about is made by a person telling a story as he or she sees it. Whether there is an agenda or not, that is all I get from them. For every one, there is someone out there who could make an equally compelling story from the other side, just as believable. I make all my decisions from what I observe and read, then make up my mind from there. I know that not everyone shares my beliefs, and I respect the opinion of all, whether I agree or not. Please e-mail me Margo, [e-mail] and I would like to correspond with you. If you care not to, that's fine, it's just a better forum to share opinions and beliefs, I think.

[Margo]

BillinErie wrote:

All documentary video that I have ever seen or heard about is made by a person telling a story as he or she sees it. Whether there is an agenda or not, that is all I get from them. For every one, there is someone out there who could make an equally compelling story from the other side, just as believable. I make all my decisions from what I observe and read, then make up my mind from there. I know that not everyone shares my beliefs, and I respect the opinion of all, whether I agree or not.

This is lame reasoning, Bill. Of course documentaries invariably depict limited points of view and are incomplete. This is no reason not to watch documentaries. In fact, it's a good reason to watch more of them! You gain a broader understanding of the subject and may even develop a recognition of the motivations for telling a story in a particular way. You can also learn to spot b.s. The better documentaries not only provide you with information that may be unfamiliar to you, but may punch fatal holes in opposing view points that you thought were iron-clad fact.
.
Here's another excellent documentary on Hugo Chavez, filmed by an Irish documentary crew that just happened to be making a film about him when the 2002 coup took place. I guarantee you that you will see things in that film that you are unlikely to see on any of your usual news sources. One of the most interesting excerpts deals precisely with the subject of media manipulation, of how the images and words chosen and the editting can completely alter the way an event is interpreted. If you have hi-speed internet, it's worth watching:
.
"The Revolution Will Not Be Televised"
http://video.google.com/videoplay...

[Justin Fox]

Juan Gabriel Osuna wrote:

It is important for CNN to say that FARC is not a rebel group but a terrorist group. I think that CNN is deviating the US public opinion talking about rebels. We have to call things the way they are: the FARC is a terrorist group.

Don't you think the term "Terrorist" is a somewhat arbitrary definition? The fact of the matter is Columbia has been engaged in a civil war for the past 50 years. The tactics used by the government of Columbia have been equally if not more horrific than the FARC. Government tactics have included :Torture; the Funding and support for right wing militia groups (comprised in part by children forced to be soldiers); Indiscriminate spraying of herbicide which kills off legitimate crops of poor Columbian villagers thus stripping them of their livelihoods, not to mention lush rain forest in addition to the coca crops they hope to target(A source of funding shared by FARC and government backed militia groups. Columbia has also actively engaged in a campaign of and arbitrary disappearances and detentions. The Columbian human rights record is a vulgar one.
Moreover the word Terrorist could easily be applied to anyone who was politically inconvenient. It was after all applied to the founding fathers of our great nation by the British when they sought independence form the dominant economic and military power of the time.

[Justin Fox]

Joseph Biendal wrote:

Yea right! Another right winger trying to scare the public. You want to know why our media covers the story yhte way they do. Because we are glad that Columbia did it and we don't care to hear about others demanding condemnation. Chavez is a tyrant and therfore gets a lot of the public scrutiny.
<quoted text>

Interesting that you think Chavez is a tyrant. He was democratically elected in 99, was again elected in 2001 after the drafting of a new (and very progressive constitution), he was re-elected in a presidential referendum, and then again in the last presidential election. He is extremely popular in Venezuela (and throughout South America for that matter) yet you write he is a tyrant. Why is that I wonder, could it be because that is what you have been told?