BF2S Forums Whose Side Are You On ...Colombia or Ecuador/Venezuela/Nicaragua?

Allies ftw, Go Columbia

Someone has to supply all the cocaine

Chavez is a hero.

He will free the colombian people and stop the flow of cocaine into my nose.

Kmarion wrote:

Braddock wrote:

So what do you reckon ...were Colombia quite right to do what they did? How would America feel if Mexico carried out a raid in Texas resulting in 16 deaths.

If they were chasing terrorist and the dead were terrorist.. gee I might be ok with it. Bordering countries should cooperate on such issues imho.

What if Cuba carried out a strike in Florida to get Possada and his associates, they would be terrorists in Cuban eyes but not neccesarily US eyes. From what I gather from many South Americans FARC are a divisive bunch and have a certain amount of recognition. Even in Ireland Sinn Fein have a controversial relationship with them and are apparentlly on quite good terms (off the record).

Kmarion wrote:

Braddock wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

If they were chasing terrorist and the dead were terrorist.. gee I might be ok with it. Bordering countries should cooperate on such issues imho.

What if Cuba carried out a strike in Florida to get Possada and his associates, they would be terrorists in Cuban eyes but not neccesarily US eyes. From what I gather from many South Americans FARC are a divisive bunch and have a certain amount of recognition. Even in Ireland Sinn Fein have a controversial relationship with them and are apparentlly on quite good terms (off the record).

Do you support FARC?

Ecuador doesn't. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4672922.stm
So to the point of the original question. If Mexico crossed our border to go after a common terrorist group then no I wouldn't be losing any sleep. (Providing they didn't have enough time to warn us beforehand)... nice try btw.

If Cuba was supporting terrorist operating in the United States I guarantee you we would have bigger issues to discuss.

I don't know much about FARC to be honest other than they appear to have strong socialist/communist policies and are recognised as 'terrorists' by most of the Western world ...I certainly don't agree with their methods though (kidnapping of innocent civilians and raising funds via drugs). Chavez does seem to be a strong supporter of them, hence his support against Colombia, but you are quite right to point out that Ecuador has struck against them in the past but that just emphasises Colombia's bad manners at not co-ordinating with Ecuador on the operation.

To go back to my point about Possada though ...I completely regard him to be a criminal and a terrorist (a perfect definition of one in fact). He was responsible for the deaths of many innocent people and actively schemed to attempt to bring down the Cuban government with help from others. To me Cuba would have as much right to go after a group like this as Colombia would have to go after FARC, if not more. How would you feel if they carried out an operation without touching base with Washington?

It can't wait until we invade down there somewhere and some conspiracy theorist believes this was a false flag operations.

My guess is that Colombia has had diplomatic exchanges with Ecuador prior to the strike.  I would also guess that Ecuador was sent notice prior to the attack.

Braddock wrote:

avman633 wrote:

I think you used Gringo wrong, it's what Hispanics call White Americans.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=gringo

I know ...I used it for comic effect because many white people here in Europe (or Ireland at least) make the same mistake. There used to be an old guy who lived in the same town as me when I was young who was nick-named 'Gringo' because he looked Mexican ...irony!?

Wow thats weird

Braddock wrote:

Pug wrote:

It can't wait until we invade down there somewhere and some conspiracy theorist believes this was a false flag operations.

My guess is that Colombia has had diplomatic exchanges with Ecuador prior to the strike.  I would also guess that Ecuador was sent notice prior to the attack.

...and that they just acted annoyed for the craic?

wtf is a craic?

Braddock wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Braddock wrote:

What if Cuba carried out a strike in Florida to get Possada and his associates, they would be terrorists in Cuban eyes but not neccesarily US eyes. From what I gather from many South Americans FARC are a divisive bunch and have a certain amount of recognition. Even in Ireland Sinn Fein have a controversial relationship with them and are apparentlly on quite good terms (off the record).

Do you support FARC?

Ecuador doesn't. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4672922.stm
So to the point of the original question. If Mexico crossed our border to go after a common terrorist group then no I wouldn't be losing any sleep. (Providing they didn't have enough time to warn us beforehand)... nice try btw.

If Cuba was supporting terrorist operating in the United States I guarantee you we would have bigger issues to discuss.

I don't know much about FARC to be honest other than they appear to have strong socialist/communist policies and are recognised as 'terrorists' by most of the Western world ...I certainly don't agree with their methods though (kidnapping of innocent civilians and raising funds via drugs). Chavez does seem to be a strong supporter of them, hence his support against Colombia, but you are quite right to point out that Ecuador has struck against them in the past but that just emphasises Colombia's bad manners at not co-ordinating with Ecuador on the operation.

To go back to my point about Possada though ...I completely regard him to be a criminal and a terrorist (a perfect definition of one in fact). He was responsible for the deaths of many innocent people and actively schemed to attempt to bring down the Cuban government with help from others. To me Cuba would have as much right to go after a group like this as Colombia would have to go after FARC, if not more. How would you feel if they carried out an operation without touching base with Washington?

Your hypothetical situations are so far from reality it's hard for me to even attempt an educated response. There are so many (obvious) different factors involved in your equation that I don't even know where to start. For one Cuba does not "border" the United States. For them to make an incursion into the US it would require quite a bit of planning (Like what to do when they meet our Coast guard). This is completely contradictory to the idea of simply being involved in a terrorist pursuit.

CameronPoe wrote:

Pug wrote:

Braddock wrote:

...and that they just acted annoyed for the craic?

wtf is a craic?

It's an Irish term, it comes from Gaelic. It's meaning depends on the context but the gist in this case would be 'acted annoyed for the sake of it', i.e. they just acted annoyed for a laugh...

PS It's pronounced 'crack'.

ahh, ty

like i said, i assume they have been warned several times.  a country will always be craicy when the action finally happens.

of course, no warning...well...

BTW the Mexican Army has indeed crossed the border.. chasing drug runners. http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=95467 My opinion is consistent and none hypocritical. Intent must be considered to prevent greater conflicts.

I think we should get out of Colombia and let all these bastards fend for themselves.

LOL...  well, D.C. sucks too, but we have to live with it.