Perrier Mineral Water When Pregnant

FARC AND THE AGREEMENT

Failed mediation of President Chavez of Venezuela in the release of those kidnapped by the FARC in Colombia, the obvious question is, what now?

But maybe first we should ask who really cares and is interested should a humanitarian agreement and the release of the hostages, as well as natural family and civil society.

President Uribe has many achievements to show. In public security, strengthening democracy, on economic, foreign investment, employment, rural development, education, etc. perhaps the greatest mole has been its inability to free the hostages, some of them carrying up to 10 years in captivity and political attrition that comes with living the human drama of family members who have international solidarity and good of the country, well as the media trying to indicate to the Chair as the culprit that the agreement is of non-humanitarian. This issue is perhaps the most difficult for the President and the one you can damage the image nationally and internationally. There is no doubt that a hostage release would be of great benefit to the image of President Uribe.

On the side of the FARC is not clear that a humanitarian agreement will bring benefits. On the contrary, this can put them in a situation even more precarious than they do today. It is clear that the FARC has lost militarily and politically. Militarily are rounded up and lost their ability to penetrate and achieve progress in the war waged against Colombian society. In the political field are discredited before the Colombian public opinion and are classified as international terrorists. The "spoils" of the hostages is essential for them to remain at the front pages of newspapers, have the option of having their struggle to be known and disseminated worldwide, and while they are in power will continue to be interest by foreign governments organizations and human rights defenders and NGOs. It is clear that the hostages are their greatest asset and if they deliver or lose are unprotected and highly vulnerable.

So for the FARC is not appropriate to the humanitarian agreement. I would just like initiating a peace process and when really willing to lay down arms. And there seem to be inclined to do for this government. The attempts at negotiations that the Uribe government is tried so far, the FARC has used to open and save time waiting for the government of Uribe finished and hope to negotiate in the future with a government more inclined to give large political concessions their demobilization. If the FARC

enter a humanitarian agreement without a peace process, will have more pressure from the army, will lose most vulnerable and relevant national and international policy and pass to resemble more the ELN guerrilla or a dissolution process .

Es muy probable que en el futuro inmediato no habrá nuevos intentos de acuerdo humanitario con ayuda internacional, pues el mas interesado que seria el Presidente Uribe debió haber quedado muy afectado con el fracaso de la intermediación de Chávez y del deterioro que por este motivo sufrieron las relaciones con Venezuela.

Jorge Pineda
Miami
Noviembre 27/2007

Chest Wall Pain More Condition_symptoms

HUMANITARIAN RIGHTS NATIONAL SECURITY VS.

Uno de los temas que más me despertó interés en el ultimo debate en Nevada entre los precandidatos demócratas fue el relacionado con la situación en Pakistán.

Muy interesante y sorprendente la respuesta del Gobernador Richardson. El claramente dijo que la protección de los derechos humanos debería be a priority in the management of U.S. international relations and achieving solid democracies be achieved resulting in greater protection for U.S. security, thus avoiding schemes that endanger world security. Somehow got over the defense of human rights to security of the American state.

The interviewer then cleverly asked the rest of the candidates was a priority for them, if national security or defense and respect for human rights and all but Richardson answered that it was national security priority. Of course this in the context of the discussion on the situation in Pakistan.

And obviously this response was expected, since it is the Americans want to hear from any President and any presidential candidate.

traditional policy has been pragmatic in the U.S. to its allies. The case of Pakistan is one more in a long list of similar cases throughout history. And somehow we are the same U.S. who have created their most bitter enemies and dictators, despots, in various regions of the world.

For me, Richardson's position makes sense. It is the only way to build long-term stability and reduce conflicts between nations. U.S. should support all efforts made in a government seeking democracy and respect for citizens and condemn the abuses of power and limitation of individual freedoms, even at the cost of not having transitional support those regimes in international-type conflict.

With the theory that national security takes precedence over human rights is to justify torture, extra trials of suspects, Guantanamo Bay, surveillance over citizens and the loss of civil rights and privacy. Democrats have long criticized President Bush for his actions in this direction but in the end would do the same to protect any aggression against his country. There is no doubt that the old practice that the end justifies media remains more relevant than ever. Jorge Pineda


Miami, 11/21/07

Free Brochure Template

DEMOCRATS AND COLOMBIA. LESSER EVIL

a Colombian is difficult to understand the negative position the Democratic Party of the USA has taken over our country. Gore's rebuff to President Uribe earlier this year in an international forum, memos critics who have supported some Democratic Congressmen on the human rights situation in Colombia, Mrs. Pelosi's position on NAFTA etc., Are some of the manifestations of the Democratic Party over the country, a position that does not comport with the great sacrifices that Colombia is to achieve security, institutional, democracy, freedom of expression and association, thus seeking to improve the conditions of citizenship.

One wonders if this corresponds to a widespread ignorance of the Democratic Congress on Colombia, which I refuse to believe. Or respond to the lack of truthful and reliable and not just the reports of some NGOs who are just looking to hurt the government for their differences and disagreements with President Uribe. Or rather their behavior reflects a purely political interest to say what sounds good to trade unions and leftist sectors of the U.S. Democratic Party and with this win votes and approval.

American Congressmen are not stupid, nor ignorant and are surrounded by highly trained consultants who research and analyze the various sources, informing them properly before committing to positions and even more when they are international.

The only possible reason then that explains his myopic behavior toward Colombia is to put forward their domestic political interests, the interests of communities and nations, friends and neighbors. In an effort to attack and distance themselves from the administration of President Bush's lead to take extreme positions on issues of managing international relations.

Hopefully these pre-election debates will side pass to what may be a policy outside of the next government, likely to be Democratic administration and will have to deal with urgent priority and U.S. relations with other countries in the world, a relationship that is going through the worst periods in decades, because of the war in Iraq, the oil crisis and the inconsistency in handling its relations with authoritarian and undemocratic regimes. Jorge Pineda


Miami, FL
Noviembre 8 / 2007