Ecuador's Justice Minister Gustavo Jalkh said that Colombia's action to kill members of FARC 1 mile inside the border of Ecuador "cannot be justified by any arguments." Well, let's see if that's true.
Suppose that there was an active rebel group fighting in the U.S. We'll call them Marxists Fighting Against Reality (MFAR). Now suppose that they have been killing AMerican citizens on a fairly regular basis and that they have captured hostages. Now let us suppose that the U.S. government learned that a group of MFAR rebels had crossed over into Canadian territory and that 1) we knew Canada to be supportive of MFAR and 2) there was a narrow window of opportunity to attack the group before we lost track of them, meaning 3) we did not have enough time to inform the Canadian government of what we were going to do AND get their permission to do it (with the likelihood that they wouldn't approve of it anyway). Should the U.S. be able to attack the rebel group? I would argue that, yes, they can -- the U.S. has a right to protect itself from rebel groups. Not attacking MFAR in this case would endanger more American lives. Since the first duty of any government is to protect its citizens, the U.S. government has the duty to attack the rebels who have just crossed the border. Further, if Canada were to give safe haven to MFAR, they would be protecting an enemy of the U.S. How is it not an act of war to give protection to a group at war with your country? I would argue that Ecuador complaining as it is (other than a "we wish you wouldn't have done that -- could you call us first next time?") indicates that they support FARC, meaning they are supporting a group at war with Colombia and were giving them safe haven. Thus, Ecuador has tacitly declared war on Colombia.
Jalkh makes the specious argument that Ecuadoreans were endangered -- but we see that such an argument is specious precisely because the attack took place in the jungle. The only Ecuadoreans put in any danger would have been those helping FARC, meaning they were actively engaged in war with Colombia, making them a legitimate target.
As far as I'm concerned, the information coming out of the attack on FARC shows that both Venezuela and Ecuador have been supporting FARC directly. Such support is a tacit declaration of war on Colombia. I have little doubt the international community, being all too pro-Leftist, won't care one bit about this fact and only blame Colombia for all this. Nonetheless, I am of the firm opinion that Colombia is in the right if it wanted to declare war on both Ecuador and Venezuela over this, since clearly both countries have declared war on them.
1 comment:
Off Subject but thought you would like to know. Some Hillary ads darken Obama's skin color. Does Hillary think that darker skin person equals a less worthy person for president?
Lumberjack
Post a Comment