BS: Uh oh. U. S. in Columbia?

Subject: Uh oh. U. S. in Columbia?
From: DougR
Date: 31 Aug 00 - 02:34 AM

Newscasters were predicting today that the U.S. may be heading for another debacle in Columbia. Debacle as defined by Viet Nam. Any thoughts on that?

Subject: RE: BS: Uh oh. U. S. in Columbia?
From: Bert
Date: 31 Aug 00 - 05:33 PM

If they were to legalise drugs here, Columbia would take care of itself.

Subject: RE: BS: Uh oh. U. S. in Columbia?
From: DougR
Date: 31 Aug 00 - 06:20 PM

From reports today, the media must have hit the panic button on this one. Doesn't appear U. S. troops are headed Columbia way.

And Bert, Arizona voted to legalize a lot of drugs of cerain illnesses. The government has blocked it someway though. Might as well legalize 'em, after all, booze is legal. DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Uh oh. U. S. in Columbia?
From: Amergin
Date: 31 Aug 00 - 06:27 PM

Doug, that has happened elsewhere, too. Here in Oregon a few years ago, we voted to legalise doctor assisted suicide and that got tied up in the courts....

Subject: RE: BS: Uh oh. U. S. in Columbia?
From: Jim the Bart
Date: 31 Aug 00 - 06:46 PM

If true, this is but another reason why the choice of the next president is truly important. I doubt that either major candidate, or any of the alternative candidates, would be able to change our drug laws. And although it is Congress and not the Pres that determines where our troops are sent, there are always circumstances that allow the President to get us involved where we shouldn't ought to be - or where we should ought to be by act of Congress only.

I think that how we got sucked into Viet Nam is one lesson that we should never forget. As I understand it, in the beginning we were just trying living up to committments made in our name by past Presidents and treaties. The Iran/Contra situation was also the result of policy machinations of the executive branch. How the new President views foreign policy, and how successful he is in controlling the various government agencies that deal with foreign governments and with American interests in foreign countries, could determine whether we find our country on that same old slippery slope.

Subject: RE: BS: Uh oh. U. S. in Columbia?
From: DougR
Date: 31 Aug 00 - 06:52 PM

Bartholomew: I think there are conditions that allow a president to commit troops without the approval of the Congress. Not sure the President had the Congress's approval to go into Haiti, for example. Usually he will send in troops to serve in an advisory capacity and as I recall, that's the way our involvement in Viet Nam began.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Uh oh. U. S. in Columbia?
From: Mbo
Date: 31 Aug 00 - 07:31 PM

I can't tell you the way I feel, because the way I feel is oh-so new to me. Yeah yeah yeah!

Subject: RE: BS: Uh oh. U. S. in Columbia?
From: catspaw49
Date: 31 Aug 00 - 07:33 PM

Yeah Doug....and I seem to reacll another one of them President fellers who took it upon himself to invade....Grenada? Wowowow....That was a piece of work wasn't it? There were reports that several people there did have BB guns however, so I can see why the assault was in fact needed.(:<))

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Uh oh. U. S. in Columbia?
From: DougR
Date: 31 Aug 00 - 10:36 PM

Grenada, Spaw? That's in the Pacific, isn't it? :>) DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Uh oh. U. S. in Columbia?
From: catspaw49
Date: 31 Aug 00 - 10:45 PM

But I thought Granada was a Ford.....or was it a Reagan?

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Uh oh. U. S. in Columbia?
From: DougR
Date: 31 Aug 00 - 10:48 PM

Rumor has it Clint Eastwood got the film rights for only a 15.5 million dollar donation to the Republican Party. I haven't confirmed that of course. (Just kidding, kidding, kidding)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Uh oh. U. S. in Columbia?
From: Grab
Date: 01 Sep 00 - 07:40 AM

Some differences though. Vietnam was an ideological thing - "everyone has the right to self-determination, so long as they decide to follow the same political views as us". Basically the whole imperialist bullshit. The North Vietnamese _really_ believed in what they were fighting for, and had a fair amount of popular support.

Columbia is purely a criminal thing. The police are fighting an ongoing (some would say "losing") battle against drugs gangs in most US cities, too, but that's not a reason to withdraw the police. And any support the drugs cartels have from the locals is purely out of fear - it's not cos they believe in the rights of the drugs barons to ship this stuff, it's cos the drugs barons can have them and their family tortured to death.

"Clear and Present Danger" to the contrary, any US troops in Columbia are advisors. Whilst that covers a multitude of sins ("advisor" is a pretty loose description, and can be anything from just coordination of effort up to leadership, intelligence, training or SAS fireteams), it doesn't include volumes of draftee grunts going in.

And one thing you can at least be glad of - your current Pres isn't going to get you into this to salvage some votes, like Grenada, etc.

Grab.

Subject: RE: BS: Uh oh. U. S. in Columbia?
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Sep 00 - 08:55 AM

Columbia? As in District of Columbia? Where is this Columbia place? If you mean the cocaine capital of the world, then you must mean the country of Colombia, methinks.

Used to be the power rested with the people. What the politicians perceived as popular consensus dictated their positions. But over the years the promotion of rugged individualism and 'doing your own thing' fractured our notions of connectivity and belongingness and it was left to the monied corporations to wield the forces of influence. Nowadays you can't get two individuals to agree that one plus one equals two. If a survey were taken and it was determined that the majority of voters thought drugs were okay, you'd see Dub-ya and Gore wallowing in mountains of cocaine in their political ads, and instead of kissing babies they'd be handing them vials of crack.

Subject: RE: BS: Uh oh. U. S. in Columbia?
From: Whistle Stop
Date: 01 Sep 00 - 11:23 AM

The whole question of when the President needs Congressional authorization to send troops is a pretty murky one. Constitutionally, the power to wage war rests with the Congress. But the President is Commander in Chief of the armed forces, charged with the responsibility of responding to any "clear and present danger" to the US (there's a murky phrase for you -- I'd rather try to reach consensus on "what is folk?"). Our elected officials sometimes try to clarify this through legislation (the War Powers Act being perhaps the most pertinent recent example), but more often they prefer to leave the definitions fuzzy so they can decide what they want to do with respect to any particular issue on political and party grounds. Often our Congressional representatives prefer to wait and see how an operation turns out before they express an opinion; they initially dodge the question by saying that "while our troops are under fire, we think it's important to stand behind the President," while still reserving the right to object after the fact.

It's worth noting that every President who has been subject to the War Powers Act has objected to it as an unconstitutional encroachment on the powers of the Executive Branch, and none has stated that he considers himself bound by it in all cases. It's also worth remembering that, before we mobilized on a large scale in Vietnam, President Johnson sought and obtained sweeping authorization from Congress through the infamous Tonkin Gulf resolution. So we should not assume that the Congress will necessarily keep the President in check when it comes to military actions.

Subject: RE: BS: Uh oh. U. S. in Columbia?
From: SINSULL
Date: 01 Sep 00 - 11:53 AM

Colombian immigrants make up a sizeable percentage of the population in my neighborhood. I was astonished at their interest in and support of US intervention in Colombia. Thanks, Guest - the "u" was driving me crazy. The drug lords there control with money and fear the police, politicians, poor working class - at least in the eyes of these people who chose to leave. As Colombian immigrants they are viewed with suspicion and contempt by many here who assume that Colombian is synonymous with drug dealer. One woman who owns a huge ranch there wants me to visit but warns that there are guerillas who kidnap and murder people on her property. It is a simple fact of life.

Unfortunately, I am getting a real sense of naive expectations that Jack Armstrong is going to saunter in and set everything straight. And when our next president needs to boost his ratings in time for re-election I can see another potential Viet Nam. At least this time we won't have a draft.

Subject: RE: BS: Uh oh. U. S. in Columbia?
From: catspaw49
Date: 01 Sep 00 - 01:11 PM

Here's a piece of advice Sins......I love ya' ......Don't go!

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Uh oh. U. S. in Columbia?
From: SINSULL
Date: 01 Sep 00 - 01:57 PM

I don't know Spaw. The White Slave Trade can be awfully appealing on cold winter nights. ...Of course I am not going. I can barely handle the rogue gangs in NY. I am not up to ones on horseback.

Subject: RE: BS: Uh oh. U. S. in Columbia?
From: GUEST,Visitor
Date: 01 Sep 00 - 02:10 PM

Oh no! We're not going to bomb a Columbian aspirin factory are we? I can't believe we are still wagging the dog.

Subject: RE: BS: Uh oh. U. S. in Columbia?
From: GUEST,Luther
Date: 02 Sep 00 - 01:33 AM

well... Crappy "action adventure" movies aside, "clear and present danger" has nothing to do with how, when, where or why the American president sends troops. It is a pretty significant bit of American history, though. Anyone who cares can look it up. Here are some hints: Holmes, First Amendment, Schenck v. United States.

US involvement in Colombia and the civil unrest within Colombia have a very long and complex history, the cocaine situation is part of a much larger picture. Anyone who wants to learn more about it can do so here:

www.colombiareport.org

Subject: RE: BS: Uh oh. U. S. in Columbia?
From: DougR
Date: 02 Sep 00 - 05:05 PM

Thank you for posting that "clicky" Guest Luther! I read it and found it very interesting. There was little information (actually none) about INOTA, though. Do you know if that is a non-partison watch group of some sort, or do they have an axe to grind?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Uh oh. U. S. in Columbia?
From: GUEST,Luther
Date: 03 Sep 00 - 11:07 AM

DougR -- Yeah, that is an oversight, they really should have at least a little "who we are" blurb. As you probably noticed, the articles come from a very wide range of sources, some of which are probably unfamiliar. Some of the writers are staff from NACLA, a non-profit that publishes an English language magazine on Latin America -- you can probably dig up a copy at the library, or a newstand with a decent "international" section. Jim Hightower, of course, is a Democrat, former Agriculture Commissioner of Texas (yep, the same Jim Hightower). The New York Times, CNN, BBC et al. probably don't require explanation ;). "INOTA" itself is likely just a small non-profit set up to run the web site. Is it "non-partisan" -- well, the site clearly has an anti-war, pro human rights agenda. If you're concerned about the accuracy of the information (and that's always a legitimate concern) you might want to follow the links to some of the better known organizations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.

I picked that site for the "blue clicky" because it's well organized, links a wide range of sources, and is focused specifically on the Colombia "aid" issue. There's an enormous amount of information and opinion about Colombia on the net, you'll find a variety of facts, figures, and interpretations. The one thing that emerges consistently, though, is that the spin on this coming from the Clinton administration doesn't bear close, or even casual scrutiny.

I know, I know -- it's hard to believe our president would lie...

;)

Subject: RE: BS: Uh oh. U. S. in Columbia?
From: DougR
Date: 03 Sep 00 - 03:36 PM

Thanks, Guest Luther. Yes, accuracy was my concern. I know little about the region, or the problem and hoped that I might learn more from this Thread.

DougR