This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I am working toward a Masters Degree in International Relations, Conflict Resolution. This is my first semester. I mention this because in my conflict resolution class, we had the choice of studying:
Guess which country I choose?
By the end of the semester I have to come up with a viable peace plan for Columbia as a group, and present it to our class.
Going into this project I knew nothing about Colombia. Now, a week later, I wish I would have picked Kashmir or Sudan for a project. The problems with Colombia seem insurmountable.
I am impressed with this wikiarticle. I learn best when I interact with others and bounce off ideas. I wanted to introduce myself before I start to tinker with this article, so as not to offend any wikipedians who feel this is their creation, particularly user:Juancarlos2004, who has contributed by far the most to this article.
I have 6 books on the conflict, and I hope to read all 6 by the end of the semester. I have already started the book: Inside Colombia.
I also have:
I was thinking of also buying:
Several magazine articles that I have read thus far, have emphasized without solving the human misery of the Colombian people, there will never be a solution to the conflict. This emphasis on class conflict is currently almost completly absent in the article. Travb 09:48, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
I would also like to create a timeline which I could use in my presentation, similar to the plagerized timelines that I created for the
I would also like to mention more about America's role in this conflict. Two authors I have read thus far mentioned that America "hijacked" the Plan Colombia program. (Pearce in Inside Colombia: The US...effectively hijacked...Plan Columbia; Humble Pie The American Prospect June 18, 2001: But what started out as a homegrown socioeconomic development effort was quickly hijacked by the United States)
Maybe this is something to be discussed in the Plan Colombia page instead of here?
Is it possible that America could be the broker for peace in my hypothetical peace plan?
From my readings thus far, the US seems very slanted toward the right, and so they would probably be rejected immediately by FARC and ELN. (although the US is slanted toward Israel, and that didn't stop several US sponsored peace plans) In fact, some authors argue that America has become an active participant in the violence, albeit a secondary actor.
The author of America's Other War : Terrorizing Colombia, in an article, brought up a really excellent point:
Is this a correct statement? This statement seems to ignore the real threat of extradition to the US that many of this paramilitary leaders face.
There was a review of this book (the only review I could find) by a conservative organization, and the reviewer surprisingly gave the book good reviews. The review can be found on my web blog here.
From a cursory look at these books I have, I am surprised at how many of these authors seem to give America part of the blame for the disaster of Colombia. Maybe I unconsciously gravitated to leftist bash-America books. I don't know.
Pearce in the forward to the Livingstone book, Inside Colombia, states:
So a "blame America" attitude, as Stokes argues in America's Other War : Terrorizing Colombia, appears naive. That is why I haven't gotten this book, and probably won't get this book. I have learned way to often not to trust partisans with agendas, no matter what politic persuasion. Partisans tend to cherry pick facts to suit their own biases. Travb 09:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Wow I love wikipedia! I came to the right place! Thank you so much Juancarlos2004 for your comments and the UN article. I am very ignorant of the Columbia conflict, and I came here to learn, and maybe, in time, teach others what I have learned.
Amen Juancarlos2004, you are preaching to the choir!
I love what you wrote:
If only more people saw things this way, I just argued almost the exact same thing to a conservative ideologue today. I have argued repeatedly here and web blogs, that only presenting one side of an argument actually weakens a persons argument.
I came up with this a few weeks ago. Here is a heirarchy of information and reasearch, most Americans never go beyond the first step, few ever get to the last, deepest step of study (excuse me in advance if you are not familar with these personalities):
Stage | Source | Example | Deepth, Breadth, Commitment |
1 | Pop culture partisans | Michael Moore, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly | Least depth of information. Broad but shallow. Little commitment needed |
2 | Web blog partisans | Commondreams.org, Frontpagemag.org | |
3 | Written partisans | Chomsky | |
4 | Broad historical partisans |
Howard Zinn; A Patriot's History of the United States : From Columbus's Great Discovery to the War on Terror by Larry Schweikart and Michael Patrick Allen |
|
5 | Specific historial partisans | Inevitable Revolutions, The United States in Central America; Benevolent Assimulation | |
6 | Specific historial non-partisans | ||
7 | Source material of historians | Congressional records, Original historical documents | Greatest Depth of information. Deep but narrow. High commitment needed. |
Right now in my study of Colombia I am probably at Stage 4-6.
You are probably at stage 7, the deepest and highest stage of learning about a subject.
I have reached stage 7 in some respects with the Philippine-American War, and hope to get at least to stage 6 with my study of Colombia. (There is a language barrier for me to reach stage 7, and my interest in the subject does not that deep.)
Once I got to stage 7 of the Philippine-American War, my interest waned.
Every stage requires more commitment than the last stage.
Thanks for your insight. Travb 20:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
If this article gets to big and cumbersome, I could always make a Colombian armed conflict statistics page. My fear is that if I do, my work is more susceptible to speedy deletion, a vote for deletion, or the copyright police (I have had bad experiences with both).
The quotes section can also be moved to wikiquote.
Let me know what you think.
Right now I am just adding surface material, as my research deepens and widens, I may edit and add to the article itself, the real "meat" of this article. Travb 20:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
This is for my International Conflict Resolution Class.
Assumptions:
DRUGS
POVERTY
US
FARC and AUC (paramilitaries)
PRESIDENT AND MILITARY
HYPOTHETICAL PEACE PLAN:
1st: Give the FARC a semi-autonomous region of the country (the lowlands), similar to:
This would be similar to what was given to the FARC in the failed peace process in 2002.
2nd: America's role in the region would change dramatically:
3rd: A general amnesty would be given to both the FARC and paramilitaries. A truth commission would be set up, similar to what has been established in East Timor (although stronger) and Cambodia.
4th: Send UN (regional South Americans) or NATO troops into the region to act as peace keepers and to guard the borders of the new autonomous regions.
5th: After the general amnesty, any massacre or incursion by either side will be dealt with harshly by ???? (big question)
Tell me what you think fellow students in this project and Colombia expert here, Juancarlos2004. Signed: Travb 02:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I plan to read your comments in depth this weekend.
Juancarlos2004 does this statment sound correct? One student brought it to my attention:
"The conflict is not a civil war, where the major competitor to state authority represents a coherent political program and a substantial base of popular support.50 In fact, the FARC, the largest force making war against the state and society, forcibly recruits and enjoys, at best, only 2 to 4 percent of popular support, the ELN about the same, and the AUC slightly more at 6 percent. The FARC does not have a large base, unlike the AUC which has a higher level of support in some areas."
This is from a US military site: http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB10.pdf
Thanks in advance! Travb 09:42, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
2nd: America's role in the region would change dramatically:
3rd: A general amnesty would be given to both the FARC and paramilitaries. A truth commission would be set up, similar to what has been established in East Timor (although stronger) and Cambodia.
4th: Send UN (regional South Americans) or NATO troops into the region to act as peace keepers and to guard the borders of the new autonomous regions.
5th: After the general amnesty, any massacre or incursion by either side will be dealt with harshly by ???? (big question)
The map link I added are pretty poor maps. If you have a better site that you know of, with better maps, please add them. Travb 23:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
I know this place should be just for discusions regarding the article contents, but I just want to say that this is a very good work. Good job guys! (and sorry for the off-topic)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I am working toward a Masters Degree in International Relations, Conflict Resolution. This is my first semester. I mention this because in my conflict resolution class, we had the choice of studying:
Guess which country I choose?
By the end of the semester I have to come up with a viable peace plan for Columbia as a group, and present it to our class.
Going into this project I knew nothing about Colombia. Now, a week later, I wish I would have picked Kashmir or Sudan for a project. The problems with Colombia seem insurmountable.
I am impressed with this wikiarticle. I learn best when I interact with others and bounce off ideas. I wanted to introduce myself before I start to tinker with this article, so as not to offend any wikipedians who feel this is their creation, particularly user:Juancarlos2004, who has contributed by far the most to this article.
I have 6 books on the conflict, and I hope to read all 6 by the end of the semester. I have already started the book: Inside Colombia.
I also have:
I was thinking of also buying:
Several magazine articles that I have read thus far, have emphasized without solving the human misery of the Colombian people, there will never be a solution to the conflict. This emphasis on class conflict is currently almost completly absent in the article. Travb 09:48, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
I would also like to create a timeline which I could use in my presentation, similar to the plagerized timelines that I created for the
I would also like to mention more about America's role in this conflict. Two authors I have read thus far mentioned that America "hijacked" the Plan Colombia program. (Pearce in Inside Colombia: The US...effectively hijacked...Plan Columbia; Humble Pie The American Prospect June 18, 2001: But what started out as a homegrown socioeconomic development effort was quickly hijacked by the United States)
Maybe this is something to be discussed in the Plan Colombia page instead of here?
Is it possible that America could be the broker for peace in my hypothetical peace plan?
From my readings thus far, the US seems very slanted toward the right, and so they would probably be rejected immediately by FARC and ELN. (although the US is slanted toward Israel, and that didn't stop several US sponsored peace plans) In fact, some authors argue that America has become an active participant in the violence, albeit a secondary actor.
The author of America's Other War : Terrorizing Colombia, in an article, brought up a really excellent point:
Is this a correct statement? This statement seems to ignore the real threat of extradition to the US that many of this paramilitary leaders face.
There was a review of this book (the only review I could find) by a conservative organization, and the reviewer surprisingly gave the book good reviews. The review can be found on my web blog here.
From a cursory look at these books I have, I am surprised at how many of these authors seem to give America part of the blame for the disaster of Colombia. Maybe I unconsciously gravitated to leftist bash-America books. I don't know.
Pearce in the forward to the Livingstone book, Inside Colombia, states:
So a "blame America" attitude, as Stokes argues in America's Other War : Terrorizing Colombia, appears naive. That is why I haven't gotten this book, and probably won't get this book. I have learned way to often not to trust partisans with agendas, no matter what politic persuasion. Partisans tend to cherry pick facts to suit their own biases. Travb 09:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Wow I love wikipedia! I came to the right place! Thank you so much Juancarlos2004 for your comments and the UN article. I am very ignorant of the Columbia conflict, and I came here to learn, and maybe, in time, teach others what I have learned.
Amen Juancarlos2004, you are preaching to the choir!
I love what you wrote:
If only more people saw things this way, I just argued almost the exact same thing to a conservative ideologue today. I have argued repeatedly here and web blogs, that only presenting one side of an argument actually weakens a persons argument.
I came up with this a few weeks ago. Here is a heirarchy of information and reasearch, most Americans never go beyond the first step, few ever get to the last, deepest step of study (excuse me in advance if you are not familar with these personalities):
Stage | Source | Example | Deepth, Breadth, Commitment |
1 | Pop culture partisans | Michael Moore, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly | Least depth of information. Broad but shallow. Little commitment needed |
2 | Web blog partisans | Commondreams.org, Frontpagemag.org | |
3 | Written partisans | Chomsky | |
4 | Broad historical partisans |
Howard Zinn; A Patriot's History of the United States : From Columbus's Great Discovery to the War on Terror by Larry Schweikart and Michael Patrick Allen |
|
5 | Specific historial partisans | Inevitable Revolutions, The United States in Central America; Benevolent Assimulation | |
6 | Specific historial non-partisans | ||
7 | Source material of historians | Congressional records, Original historical documents | Greatest Depth of information. Deep but narrow. High commitment needed. |
Right now in my study of Colombia I am probably at Stage 4-6.
You are probably at stage 7, the deepest and highest stage of learning about a subject.
I have reached stage 7 in some respects with the Philippine-American War, and hope to get at least to stage 6 with my study of Colombia. (There is a language barrier for me to reach stage 7, and my interest in the subject does not that deep.)
Once I got to stage 7 of the Philippine-American War, my interest waned.
Every stage requires more commitment than the last stage.
Thanks for your insight. Travb 20:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
If this article gets to big and cumbersome, I could always make a Colombian armed conflict statistics page. My fear is that if I do, my work is more susceptible to speedy deletion, a vote for deletion, or the copyright police (I have had bad experiences with both).
The quotes section can also be moved to wikiquote.
Let me know what you think.
Right now I am just adding surface material, as my research deepens and widens, I may edit and add to the article itself, the real "meat" of this article. Travb 20:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
This is for my International Conflict Resolution Class.
Assumptions:
DRUGS
POVERTY
US
FARC and AUC (paramilitaries)
PRESIDENT AND MILITARY
HYPOTHETICAL PEACE PLAN:
1st: Give the FARC a semi-autonomous region of the country (the lowlands), similar to:
This would be similar to what was given to the FARC in the failed peace process in 2002.
2nd: America's role in the region would change dramatically:
3rd: A general amnesty would be given to both the FARC and paramilitaries. A truth commission would be set up, similar to what has been established in East Timor (although stronger) and Cambodia.
4th: Send UN (regional South Americans) or NATO troops into the region to act as peace keepers and to guard the borders of the new autonomous regions.
5th: After the general amnesty, any massacre or incursion by either side will be dealt with harshly by ???? (big question)
Tell me what you think fellow students in this project and Colombia expert here, Juancarlos2004. Signed: Travb 02:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I plan to read your comments in depth this weekend.
Juancarlos2004 does this statment sound correct? One student brought it to my attention:
"The conflict is not a civil war, where the major competitor to state authority represents a coherent political program and a substantial base of popular support.50 In fact, the FARC, the largest force making war against the state and society, forcibly recruits and enjoys, at best, only 2 to 4 percent of popular support, the ELN about the same, and the AUC slightly more at 6 percent. The FARC does not have a large base, unlike the AUC which has a higher level of support in some areas."
This is from a US military site: http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB10.pdf
Thanks in advance! Travb 09:42, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
2nd: America's role in the region would change dramatically:
3rd: A general amnesty would be given to both the FARC and paramilitaries. A truth commission would be set up, similar to what has been established in East Timor (although stronger) and Cambodia.
4th: Send UN (regional South Americans) or NATO troops into the region to act as peace keepers and to guard the borders of the new autonomous regions.
5th: After the general amnesty, any massacre or incursion by either side will be dealt with harshly by ???? (big question)
The map link I added are pretty poor maps. If you have a better site that you know of, with better maps, please add them. Travb 23:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
I know this place should be just for discusions regarding the article contents, but I just want to say that this is a very good work. Good job guys! (and sorry for the off-topic)