Colombia: One step back for the humanity.

http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Colombia-Votes-No-on-Peace-Accord-Countrys-Future-Uncertain-20161002-0007.html

Impressive... nearly all existing polls accounted for a Yes... I wonder what made them change their minds.

Comunicado de las FARC-EP luego de los resultados del plebiscito.

Lainaa:

Las Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia - Ejército del Pueblo (FARC-EP), lamentan profundamente que el poder destructivo de los que siembran odio y rencor hayan influido en la opinión de la población colombiana.
Con el resultado de hoy, sabemos que nuestro reto como movimiento político es todavía más grande y nos requiere mas fuertes para construir la paz estable y duradera.
Las FARC-EP mantienen su voluntad de paz y reiteran su disposición de usar solamente la palabra como arma de construcción hacia el futuro.
Al pueblo colombiano que sueña con la paz, que cuente con nosotros.
La paz triunfara!

¡La esperanza vive!

... I hope so

Hani mut

Don't you think it could have been manipulated?

Las zonas mas afectadas por la guerra - de las guerrillas, ejercito, narcos, paramilitares, etc. - votaron por el SÍ; los capitalinos votaron por el NO.
O sea, lo hijoeputas que no son afectados directamente por la guerra se oponen al proceso de paz... los hermanos, madres, hijas, etc. de las víctimas están dispuestas a "perdonar" y emprender el proceso de paz.
¿¡Qué loco no!?

Kirjoittanut RaulPB, 03.10.2016 at 04:39

Don't you think it could have been manipulated?

With all the polls saying otherwise just weeks before it happens... it could'be.

Kirjoittanut Columna Durruti, 03.10.2016 at 06:45

Las zonas mas afectadas por la guerra - de las guerrillas, ejercito, narcos, paramilitares, etc. - votaron por el SÍ; los capitalinos votaron por el NO.
O sea, lo hijoeputas que no son afectados directamente por la guerra se oponen al proceso de paz... los hermanos, madres, hijas, etc. de las víctimas están dispuestas a "perdonar" y emprender el proceso de paz.
¿¡Qué loco no!?

http://www.eltiempo.com/politica/proceso-de-paz/resultado-por-ciudades-de-votacion-en-plebiscito-2016/16716727



Actually Bogota, Barranquilla and Cali voted yes; but the majority of the inner, urban cities voted no. And as you said is true: the cities that suffered less from the violence were the ones who voted No.

Just like brexit where the old population was the one who supported it the most, in comparison with the younger population who wanted to remain.

Vamos por la paz Colombia

Kirjoittanut Columna Durruti, 03.10.2016 at 06:45

Las zonas mas afectadas por la guerra - de las guerrillas, ejercito, narcos, paramilitares, etc. - votaron por el SÍ; los capitalinos votaron por el NO.
O sea, lo hijoeputas que no son afectados directamente por la guerra se oponen al proceso de paz... los hermanos, madres, hijas, etc. de las víctimas están dispuestas a "perdonar" y emprender el proceso de paz.
¿¡Qué loco no!?

Please talk english in public forums!!

There is a spanish forum right below!

DDDD

ho clovis

What the fuck is cd saying ching chong spanish forum or off topic

Kirjoittanut Franz, 29.10.2017 at 07:38

What the fuck is cd saying ching chong spanish forum or off topic

hahahahahahahaha

Tfw you get a translate notification on opening this thread.

2.6 Only the English language is permitted in public chat channels (room, help, global and the forums). You may use non-English in private chat and private password protected games or in their respective rooms.


Ban CD...

Kirjoittanut Khal.eesi, 29.10.2017 at 10:01

No CD...

I don't understand what's going on with Latin American countries. New World, plenitful of resources, not touched by WW1 and WW2, had no collapse in the 90's, and they're still third world. Only imagine, Colombia had guerillas till recently, in 2017.

Kirjoittanut Skanderbeg, 29.10.2017 at 13:03

I don't understand what's going on with Latin American countries. New World, plenitful of resources, not touched by WW1 and WW2, had no collapse in the 90's, and they're still third world. Only imagine, Colombia had guerillas till recently, in 2017.

Corruption ..

Honestly now letting drug dealers and terrorists control major part of the country doesnt seem like a way to drive nation forward. The world should save them not push them into certain collapse

Kirjoittanut Rock Lee, 29.10.2017 at 14:38

Honestly now letting drug dealers and terrorists control major part of the country doesnt seem like a way to drive nation forward. The world should save them not push them into certain collapse

Why should the world help countries rebuild and become somewhat of a treath to the economical markets? Cough... cough.....

Kirjoittanut Skanderbeg, 29.10.2017 at 13:03

I don't understand what's going on with Latin American countries. New World, plenitful of resources, not touched by WW1 and WW2, had no collapse in the 90's, and they're still third world. Only imagine, Colombia had guerillas till recently, in 2017.

You forgot the U.S factor there...

Kirjoittanut clovis1122, 31.10.2017 at 06:49

Kirjoittanut Skanderbeg, 29.10.2017 at 13:03

I don't understand what's going on with Latin American countries. New World, plenitful of resources, not touched by WW1 and WW2, had no collapse in the 90's, and they're still third world. Only imagine, Colombia had guerillas till recently, in 2017.

You forgot the U.S factor there...

Pax americana

Kirjoittanut Skanderbeg, 29.10.2017 at 13:03

I don't understand what's going on with Latin American countries. New World, plenitful of resources, not touched by WW1 and WW2, had no collapse in the 90's, and they're still third world. Only imagine, Colombia had guerillas till recently, in 2017.

Building a wall is not cheap..

D

Kirjoittanut clovis1122, 31.10.2017 at 06:49

You forgot the U.S factor there...

Brazil is as big as the U.S.

Kirjoittanut Skanderbeg, 31.10.2017 at 14:24

Kirjoittanut clovis1122, 31.10.2017 at 06:49

You forgot the U.S factor there...

Brazil is as big as the U.S.

Dont act clueless, usa is a superpower,if size mattered russia would have been the strongest right?

Kirjoittanut Rock Lee, 29.10.2017 at 14:38

Honestly now letting drug dealers and terrorists control major part of the country doesnt seem like a way to drive nation forward. The world should save them not push them into certain collapse

Its not like they want that to happen, they just cant stop it

Kirjoittanut 4nic, 31.10.2017 at 15:31

Dont act clueless, usa is a superpower,if size mattered russia would have been the strongest right?

Umm, but Russia is the strongest, i don't understand? Hacked DNC, interfered in German elections, swayed Brits to vote Brexit and installed a puppet in the White House.

CNN, Hillary Clinton and Tweeter says so.

Kirjoittanut 4nic, 31.10.2017 at 15:33

Its not like they want that to happen, they just cant stop it

They gotta believe in the spirit of the youth and the will of fire

Kirjoittanut Skanderbeg, 31.10.2017 at 14:24

Kirjoittanut clovis1122, 31.10.2017 at 06:49

You forgot the U.S factor there...

Brazil is as big as the U.S.

Back in the 1776's, it would have been quite easy for any Viceroyalty to fight against the U.S. However Spain had interest in allying the U.S because they were fighting Britain. When U.S expansion into Spanish territories began, Spain was exhausted by the Napoleon wars and the tribal wars in places such as Florida. Frencies opportunity sold Louisiana to the U.S, a territory which they barely controlled. Then the Adams-Onís Treaty happened (which is understandable, given the again hard situations by Spain).

After most of the Spanish countries gained independency, the Mexican empire (later on Mexican republic) was the only country strong enough to compete with the U.S. They didn't however had passed the political crisis after the independence. U.S took advantage of this by interfering in the Texas's independence and later sending their own men to die in a disputed territory. They didn't respected Adams-Onis treaty, but instead interfere in Mexican business and finally forced them to secede 55% and the richest part of their territory to the U.S.

I believe that was the time where the U.S became the strongest country in the American continent.

Of course, Spanish countries would have grow better if the U.S had stopped there. But they didn't. They sunked their own people in a ship near Cuba and claimed that it was Spain, and used it as a pretext to war. They supported several rebellions across the continent such as the one that grave Panama independence over New Granada (obviously, Panama Channel would then be secede to the U.S for 99 years). Many of the central american countries are undeveloped nowadays... for reasons. Even in remote countries such as Brazil and Argentina they supported coups, bribes, and more. I could keep it going, but you'd better off by reading the history of Latin America by yourself.

Back after the very few American countries could actually carry theses type of stuffs in the U.S... I'd say Canada (which probably still tries to gain influence to protect it's interests in the U.S nowadays), New Granada, Brazil, and maybe Rio de la plata. With the time no Spanish American country retained or gained such power at such scale as the U.S.

So while other people might answer you arguing about how UK invested in their colonies unlike Spain, that's hardly the case. Most of the conflicts where caused by external interventions.

Kirjoittanut clovis1122, 31.10.2017 at 18:51

Back in the 1776's, it would have been quite easy for any Viceroyalty to fight against the U.S. However Spain had interest in allying the U.S because they were fighting Britain. When U.S expansion into Spanish territories began, Spain was exhausted by the Napoleon wars and the tribal wars in places such as Florida. Frencies opportunity sold Louisiana to the U.S, a territory which they barely controlled. Then the Adams-Onís Treaty happened (which is understandable, given the again hard situations by Spain).

After most of the Spanish countries gained independency, the Mexican empire (later on Mexican republic) was the only country strong enough to compete with the U.S. They didn't however had passed the political crisis after the independence. U.S took advantage of this by interfering in the Texas's independence and later sending their own men to die in a disputed territory. They didn't respected Adams-Onis treaty, but instead interfere in Mexican business and finally forced them to secede 55% and the richest part of their territory to the U.S.

I believe that was the time where the U.S became the strongest country in the American continent.

Of course, Spanish countries would have grow better if the U.S had stopped there. But they didn't. They sunked their own people in a ship near Cuba and claimed that it was Spain, and used it as a pretext to war. They supported several rebellions across the continent such as the one that grave Panama independence over New Granada (obviously, Panama Channel would then be secede to the U.S for 99 years). Many of the central american countries are undeveloped nowadays... for reasons. Even in remote countries such as Brazil and Argentina they supported coups, bribes, and more. I could keep it going, but you'd better off by reading the history of Latin America by yourself.

Back after the very few American countries could actually carry theses type of stuffs in the U.S... I'd say Canada (which probably still tries to gain influence to protect it's interests in the U.S nowadays), New Granada, Brazil, and maybe Rio de la plata. With the time no Spanish American country retained or gained such power at such scale as the U.S.

So while other people might answer you arguing about how UK invested in their colonies unlike Spain, that's hardly the case. Most of the conflicts where caused by external interventions.

Nuh-uh, this is obviously propaganda. Fake news. Don't make stuff up.

Kirjoittanut Skanderbeg, 31.10.2017 at 14:24

Kirjoittanut clovis1122, 31.10.2017 at 06:49

You forgot the U.S factor there...

Brazil is as big as the U.S.

Please just spread your ignorance on/in Europe... just don't cross the Atlantic. I beg for mercy.

Accusing North America for the failure of whole continent is a bit immature.