itxaka said:
I don´t even know what obtuse means
And I was answering at his post about "we have the right to ..." saying that they don´t, globally, the USA, as there is international laws, etc...
No personal attacks from my side, at least i didn´t intend to do that ;D
It seems as if English is not your first language, so I will refrain from arguing over semantics.
Again, your argument is vague: "saying they don't, globally, the USA, as there are international laws." I assume you mean my position on intervention in Pakistan. Frankly, I don't know of a more clear-cut example justifiable intervention
provided the host country is unable/unwilling to act to quell those extremist's that pose a direct threat to the security of the United States. Even Obama, the most liberal member of the Senate (and to be honest, whom I support for election), has come out in favor of this, given its clear international justification.
The reason this is applicable to Colombia is that they face an almost exactly similar situation. A group that has proven their ability to murder, kidnap and destroy Colombian property is operating out of Ecuadorian territory for many years without Ecuador doing anything to stop them.
You may think that international law can solve these situations, and, quite frankly, I wish it could, as it would be a lot easier, but given the forty years of time time that has passed since the start of the Colombian Civil War, it is clear that Ecuador is either unable or unwilling (or even collaborating with FARC, if this evidence is to be believed) to expel or extradite FARC rebels from its territory. At which point Colombia is forced to act in order to protect the lives of its citizens (which is the ultimate mandate of any government.)
Now Colombia does not have clean hands. Their backlash against FARC has led to the rise of paramilitary groups that have killed anyone contributing to FARC, whether those people where forced to or not, but the fact remains that Colombia has a right to preserve its own sovereignty by every international law provided by the UN, and America having provided military assistance to Colombia to fight FARC shares responsibility in the present crises, and subsequently has an obligation to prevent the fall of Colombia to Venezuelan/Ecuadorian forces. And we have a better chance of preventing subsequent abuses of power if we are actually involved than if we say "well it's not our problem, let them fight it out."
This is the reality of the situation. As much as we would like the UN (which is an extension of the international law you cite) to swoop in and save the day,
which I sincerely hope it can, we (America) have to be honest about our responsibility for the present crises, and take appropriate action that Colombia does not cease to exist as an independent state, provided Chavez's military movement is not posturing.