Isn't a false "false positive" just a positive?
Venezuelan government spokesmen sound genuinely worried about a Colombian attack on the border region these days. Talk of a "False Positive" - an attempt, as the Venezuelan government would have it, to attack a fake FARC-camp inside Venezuela - is on the rise.
The up-tick in Venezuelan government paranoia could well be much ado about nothing, but it may also signal that Chávez miscalculated last year when he all but cut off commercial relations with Colombia.
By now, everybody who follows this stuff seriously knows that FARC has substantial a presence in Southwestern Venezuela, both in the Andean and Plains regions, as well as on the sierra to the west of Zulia state. So far, Colombia has refrained from attacking them there, due to a confluence of three factos: a lack of actionable intelligence; fear of the diplomatic and military consequences of a strike vis-à-vis Caracas; and concern about the commercial impact of such an action.
Last year, though, Chávez changed the strategic calculus by prematurely shutting down the border to trade before a shot had been fired. In doing so, whether he realizes it or not, he shifted the strategic calculus facing the Colombians, who no longer have to fear the economic dislocations an attack might bring. Those dislocations have already been brought about by Chavista paranoia alone.
Which is not to suggest that the choice facing Colombia is easy. On the one hand, everyone understands that FARC is nearly impossible to defeat so long as they have a sanctuary in Venezuela. This is true both for military and financial reasons. FARC continues to use drug-trafficking routes enabled by sectors of the Venezuelan military to finance itself, and any Colombian offensive is thwarted as the rebels just melt back across the international border. On the other hand, picking a fight with a militarist narcisist fresh off a Russian weapon shopping spree comes with its own risks.
It's a tough call. It's difficult to imagine any government anywhere in the world accepting a military threat like that right on its doorstep. A year ago, the threat of commercial retaliation might have restrained them, but now, only the prospect of bumbling into a shooting war remains.
Chavismo will try to keep the Colombians guessing, wondering if an attack would really carry a major military cost. And some uncertainty will certainly remain. After all, almost by definition, all wars start on the basis of a miscalculation. But my guess is that if the Colombians get some proper, actionable intelligence - something on the level of precision that led to the Raul Reyes raid in 2007 - they're going to act.
Faced with a fait accompli, would Chávez take on the risks retaliation would imply? Could we be sleep-walking into a crisis here?
Juan Cristobal
Francisco Toro
lgg.jpg)
.gif)
Nope
Its highly improbable that Venezuela and Colombia will end up in an armed conflict.
If there is one single thing most Venezuelan's agree in is that Chavez has screwed up the relationship with Colombia. Im going by what I have read from polls.
Either way, the political price for Chavez is just too high. How many Colombo-Venezuelans are there? I would bet that atleast a million.
An attack on Venezuelan soil would also take a toll on the political capital of Uribe or whoever is running the show in Colombia.
All of this is just noise, Colombia will do its best to keep the Guerrilla outside of its borders without risking a military conflict. In my opinion they will also press to re-open trade routes. On the other hand Chavez will keep up with his crying and moaning to try to focus the attention of Venezuelans on things different than the problems of their day to day life...
But Chavez is not stupid, a war with Colombia would not only be costly in terms of political capital, but also in $USD which we don't have.... Its also highly probable that Venezuela would lose. Our armed forces are not prepared for a conflict and some generals might not be willing to follow him to war.
No war without miscalculation
I agree with just about everything you wrote, tanquecito, except the conclusion.
The thing is, there's no war without miscalculation. Think about it: two countries go to war only when each thinks it can win. By definition, both can't win. Somebody somewhere is miscalculating...and yet, wars do happen, and often.
When an escalation dynamic takes hold, recursive miscalculations can take two adversaries, neither of which started out wanting a war, to war. It's easy to imagine how this could happen. The Colombians could calculate that if they launch a Reyes style attack, Chávez will huff and puff but take it no further. Presented with actionable intelligence of high value FARC targets just inside the borders, Uribe could go for it. Uribe might even get a nationalist surge of support for it, as the only thing in Colombia less popular than Chávez is FARC.
But what if he's wrong? What if Chávez decides a retaliatory raid? A limited one, for sure, but one designed to "hacerse respetar" while, at the same time, trying out those fancy jets he's been buying? What if he calculates that Uribe will quickly seek a settlement after that...but miscalculates, not seeing the huge surge in nationalist outrage such a move would set off?
There are any number of variants on this kind of scenario - where neither side sets out to have a war, but both sides end up with one anyway. I don't really think it can be dismissed out of hand.
Agreed.
I agree.
I could see a small skirmish coming out of a miscalculation. I could see Chavez and/or his colombian counterpart paying a steep price for a miscalculation in the near future... I just don't see a fully fledged war like some in the media have been mentioning and discussing(which I know is not what you meant).
Popular political website seeks copy-editor
Young Venezuelan living in Canada who inexplicably responds to the name of a character from a 70's Mexican sitcom (and has an even more inexplicable inclinations for sporting unsightly facial hair) seeks experienced editor.
The ideal candidate must possess the following:
The capacity to stomach working with a hard-headed Maracucho with the initials JC is a plus.
Loved the Southpark
Loved the Southpark reference.
ID apply.. but I cant edit for **** in english.
Dang...must remember to add a
Dang...must remember to add a blushing, embarassed-face emoticon to the next version of the software...
Don't worry, we know it was the kitten
And while we're on the subject of the next version of the software, here's a suggestion: change the whole way the "Anonymous" comments work.
I understand what you're trying to do here, but there are a handful of bugs in your system:
I am another anonymous. Ban anonymous!
Anonymous is very annoying and IPs are not reliable at all, even for the same pc.
Here
I don't see any issue with asking people to register. It takes less than a minute.
Newsflash: Anonymous said Anonymous is wrong
First off, the issue with the IPs is about differentiation, not identification. For instance, there's a guy who calls himself "ElTank". Whether or not he's an actual tank is irrelevant. The point is that when I see a post by ElTank and then one by Kepler, I can easily differentiate between the two. They might actually be the same guy with two logins, but that's not relevant. The point is that I can talk about one guy's post or the other guy's post and everyone knows who and what I'm referring to. Most websites that label anonymous posters as just "anonymous" at least have the decency to put numbers on the posts so you can say "Anonymous from post #37 is an idiot."
Second, how is it possible that I'm on a website dedicated to talking about a government who considers George Orwell's "1984" to be a heartwarming tale of the triumph of good vs evil and the best example of how a proper government should be run, yet I still have to explain why people might be reluctant to give any kind of personal information to people they've never met? Do you guys remember why is it that in every real democracy, voting is always private (i.e., nobody but you knows what you voted for) even though it would be infinitely easier to avoid fraud if it was public?
And never mind the fact that email addresses, let alone usernames or "real name" fields, are about as reliable in identifying people as IP addresses. What exactly is there preventing me from registering 50 times with 50 different names and 50 fake email addresses? Ever heard of gmail, hotmail or even mailinator?
And have you ever heard of that old saying, that the greatest problem with economists is that they try to manage the economy by using the carrot and the stick, but they seem unaware that the economy is a crocodile, not a donkey: it doesn't care about carrots and if you try the stick, it'll only turn around and bite your hand off. Internet dwellers are like that. Doubly so for politically charged forums. DO NOT try to force people to do things the way YOU want to do them. You'll only get a whole lot of people trying very hard to annoy the hell out of you until you make things the way THEY want.
In essence: if you want people to come to this site and freely express their opinions, the first thing you need to do is make them feel welcome and comfortable. Forcing people to register doesn't accomplish that. You'll either get a lot of stupidly false information (did you guys remember to put a word filter on the usernames field or can I use naughty words?) or a whole lot of people will simply go back to their deranged screaming on noticias24.
I am talking about differentiation as well
(I was that Anonymous)
The thing is this: imagine I post here as "Anonymous". There are other anonymous who post after that. I go to bed. Tomorrow I appear again and write something as anonymous. I am very likely to get another IP and for all you care, the IP will be from Antwerpen or from Brussels. Imagine someone else from Belgium writes as anonymous. Well, that is what happens in many regions: dynamic IP allocation.
So, this is not even whether one is pretending to be someone or not: anonymous will always be a bigger mess.
Using a name is 1) no lose of privacy as you admitted (I can create as many accounts as I want) and 2) more reliable for identification than IPs, which, even if we don't want, often change (more in some systems than others, but still).
I haven't seen much rubbish here. The system is good and it would be even better if everyone chooses one constant name, even if it is Superman. The out-of-place things I see here are
mostly written by "anonymous"
Bonsai conversations vs the freedom to grow
Great idea Anonymous about putting a number instead of a name.
"The point is that I can talk about one guy's post or the other guy's post and everyone knows who and what I'm referring to. "
THAT'S THE PROBLEM....it is important for people to concentrate on the ideas and not 'who' said something.This is always the problem we have in Venezuela-It is always focused on WHO and not on a more impartial analysis of an idea.Extreme addictions call for extreme measures.
If we eliminate any kind of name it will be impossible to concentrate on anything but ideas.A number though sounds like an Excellent Idea, because the number would change in every post, thus only used to respond to an idea.
When people invest emotionally based on psychological and behavioral compensation, this sets up, or leads to,the inevitable disruptions that can unexpectedly manifest between an individual and the community with which the individual has established a social bond( in this case the regular commenters or the blog owner).
A deep and impartial discussion of ideas, for it to be good, MUST depend on detachment.Dependence will mold behavior so as to eliminate depth of discussion.Only independent people are capable of mature discussion.A setting of anonymous numbers will force dependents to concentrate on what they themselves actually think.
Brilliant idea.
I repeat: it is technically not reliable!
If I go to the same post the following day and try to answer, Quico will get another IP. That happens in a lot of places.
So: same thread, different IPs. That can get confusing.
creating an account, even one called "Anonymous23" is better, Firepig.
Asking for understranding
ANONYMOUS REPLIES to Kepler on the subject of IP'S.
I realize I am ignorant of the IP business.
... if many people always reply as Anonymous, doesn't Quico still have the problem of the IP then? How does it work ?? Indulge in helping me to understand, but please do not make assumptions about my Anonymity.Anonymity is allowed on this blog so please respect it....unless there is some agreement now that has changed all of that.
My concern for Anonymity has nothing to do with self protection, I thought I was clear, but maybe not. It has to do with principles.I could just as easily put my real name up for all I care.
I think this blog is way too much like N24( on an emotional level) and would like to see it change.Miguel and Daniel have very civil blogs without creating judgmental nonsense, groupthink and sycophantic cliques.Ow, I must admit has a very immature blog, bless his heart.He may not be the brightest crayon in the box when in comes to interpersonal understanding but he has the patience of a saint.I actually like OW, but his judgment is sorely lacking in my opinion.
Anyway, I digress..What exactly goes on with the IP addresses.
IP
Dynamic IPs: not everywhere, but in many places a person can get assigned by her provider a new IP address every time. Imagine
there are two persons in the Netherlands or in Ohio (I don't know if it is also an issue in Ohio, but just as example) and for both dynamic addresses are generated. Both of them are writing as anonymous and there is a post with lots of comments. Next day they come back they log in...if the blog software is basing the names on those IPs, you will get
"anonymous22"
"anonymous92"
"anonymous13"
"anonymous42"
and then there is a whole mess, as probably there will be also an anonymous 77 with a static IP etc.
The thing is: you may get the impression someone is contradicting himself or the like.
I don't see what is the point with asking for a nickname.
can you please explain what "principle" that is?
Thanks
thanks Kepler
Kepler,
Thanks for the explanation.I understand better now.Still I think that if Quico allows anonymity maybe we can drop the subject, unless it has been suggested as part of the discussion on a particular post..It seems to be that it is far better to be anonymous than have your posts whited out (in terms of visibility); someone can at least see the hidden posts if they allow all comments.
Well, my principle is that I think this blog could have a lot more merit( I mean I think it has potential ), if people were less groupthink and judgmental, often falling into personality attacks.Miguel's and Daniel's blogs seem to avoid that a lot more, in my opinion without all the fancy software.I think it has a lot to do with role modeling.People should not be judged when emitting an opinion.Simply we should have the right to discuss any opinion without groupthink and so many snide remarks, otherwise people will try to avoid being honest.
I realize this is my opinion and not necessarily the whole truth, but I am glad we have the right to choose on this blog, which is one good aspect of this new system.On intense debate we were given negative points.This format is an improvement because people can choose to look at anonymous comments or not.
comment to those who think time is the problem
The fact that registering takes a few minutes has nothing to do with it.People keep saying that- but none of us cares.
It is the fact that we might disagree with the system, which also nobody who is registered seems to care about or honor.How many anonymous are commenting as opposed to Anonymous just out of curiosity?
correction and question
How many anonymous are commenting as opposed to registered users ?
If Anonymous commenting is terrible to most of you, then why it is allowed?
Hey!
Who you callin' hard-headed?!
Thanks for the editing tips, btw.
No invasion, no attack.
Worst case scenario is that Chavez will claim an attack close to the border was inside Venezuela. (just as he has claimed drones violated air space over the border between Venz/Colombia) With the U.S./Colombia access agreement, I doubt the Obama adminstration would approve of a cross-border attack. I doubt Colombia would risk its aid, military and monetary from the U.S., by conducting a unilateral cross-border attack.