Russell Chapman wrote: > >> The problem of Columbia is exactly the opposite: the USA >> *wants* to get there and take control, because Columbia >> has been in civil war for about half a century. > >Your part of the world, my mistake. > :-)))))
>I had thought that the US was >supporting the current administration with financial aid and military >equipment, and my suggestion was that if the US were to suddenly walk >away, the country would be destabilise or become a despot dictatorship. > Hmmm... Let's take it by parts. The USA supports any relatively legitimate g*vernment that has dollars to buy weapons - as it's the case with Columbia. The USA can't "walk away" from Columbia [BTW, is this the English spelling? In Spanish it's Colombia] because AFAIK there are no USA troops there. And the country can't be destabilised - as it is a mesh of three or four groups that take control of large parts of it. >Does the US support (materially) the Columbian government? > No more than the USA supports Argentina O:-) >Is it an overt war, or a Northern Ireland/Moro type thing? > Columbia is a _very_ violent place to live. Kidnappings and political assassinations are common. However, there's no overt war, and this is something that I can't understand. Probably the military forces are so corrupt that they don't have any will to fight the guerrillas, and the guerrillas - who control about 50% of the country - are happy with the status quo, getting money from drugs and crime [something that would have to stop once they became a legitimate g*vernment!] Alberto Monteiro
