-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Colombia votes "No" on Peace Deal with FARC
- Thread starter NYCmetsfan
- Start date
- Status
D
Deleted member 80556
Unconfirmed Member
Gah, that's fucking heart-breaking. The endurance of some people here is astounding.
I'm not colombian but I imagine some people were scared that the political seats given to the FARC could open the way for some Chavismo (or at least something to close to it) into the country, right?
I'm sure that people want peace but on better conditions, that doesn't make them dumb like some gaffers here seem to imply.
I think you got it wrong, I'm pissed some people, and in the case of the post I quoted a clear foreigner, trying to say that the people who voted "no" have not been ravaged by FARC's violence. They have, we have, quite literally.
But even as someone undecided yet leaning to the "no" side, which didn't matter because me being outside the country meant I couldn't vote, even then, I can't really be happy with the result, I'm not celebrating, at all.
And I do not appreciate people calling my mom and dad, who have experienced their fare share, "dumb" or "ignorant" because they voted "no".
I still feel like giving a hug to every Colombian I could, this has been such a huge deal, we had a huge fight over WhatsApp with all my cousins, this isn't as simple as people outside think it is.
It is pretty ignorant and corrupt as well
WAR recon zero
Banned
It's like trump. You vote for him and you associate with racists and bigots
Same for brexit
You vote no and you are associated with bigots and warmongers. I could understand a war scarred person to vote no, but not the people that voted against the atheist marxist communist homosexual state
KurtSloane
Banned
Worked in Northern Ireland, as the people are the victims of any conflict then they have the supreme authority when making these decisions.
The result is the result and the people have spoken, back to the drawing board.
This time not ignorance or corruption are the reasons for this major fuck up.
Admiral Woofington
Member
All I know is many voted no purely out of spite. I can't blame my uncle who was previously kidnapped by the FARC to vote No after what they made him go through for no reason besides monetary gain. The rest of my family though I genuinely feel are using him as a martyr/figurehead for their vote when I reality it's the selfish nature of you wanting more justice.
D
Deleted member 80556
Unconfirmed Member
The President had been elected on the promise of a peace deal. People were expecting this deal to go through no matter what.
It's not like this deal blindsided the Colombian people out of nowhere.
From my quick wikipedia research the election was 50,95% vs 45,00%. I don't think it's as easy to say that every single person of those 50,95% had the peace deal as a motive for his/her choice. Even less so to say they all voted for him to get a peace deal no matter the actual content.
Granted I didn't follow the post-referendum reactions, but the logical next step would be to let things calm a bit, then renegotiate some minor stuff that you can sell as "Now it's more fair!" to the public and then have another referendum. I can't imagine people voted the way they did because they love war and bloodshed but because they don't consider the deal (in regards to procedure to FARC fighters) appropriate/fair in its current form.
D
Deleted member 80556
Unconfirmed Member
The main issue throughout the campaign was that of the peace deal with FARC. Heck, one might say it was the only issue throughout the campaign. Sure not everyone voted for him for the peace deal but rather prevent a far-right leader to take power (from the same party that advocated No, ironically, or not).
People can say all they want that people thought this was not a fair deal, but you could see all the time people saying "I vote No, because I don't like Santos administration", or even the pettiest of them all: "I don't want Santos/Timochenko to win the Nobel Peace Price". They were protesting with a vote completely unrelated to the issue at hand.
Back to the issue that spawned this conversation, I don't think it was wise to have given people choice in this issue in such direct way, since they had already voted for this issue and other issues when electing president. No matter the difference between the candidates in the last election. After all, that's how democracy works.
Once again, people equate being anti-referendum to being anti-democracy.
WAR recon zero
Banned
Points the opposition will push back
1. Illegal bought Land to be returned to the peaseants.
Why they push back against? The opposition has support from the big land owners and they say they will not return lands that were bought, according to their eyes, legally.
Fun fact: most of the land bought illegally was done via violence by paramilitary groups.
2. FARC members will be armisticed.
Why they push back? They claim the victims are not having justice.
Fun fact: it's more expensive to keep a person in prison than giving them armistice and they will not be resocialized anyway.
Take a look at out our fucking prisons
http://app.eltiempo.com/multimedia/infografias/carceles-y-presos-de-colombia/14739475
3. Keep out ideology of gender out of the documents.
Why they push back? Because they are fucking bigots.
Fun fact: churches (with an s, bigotry unites churches in hate) are celebrating the deat and demand to be heard.
I still think uribe will stall everything until they are back in power
1. Illegal bought Land to be returned to the peaseants.
Why they push back against? The opposition has support from the big land owners and they say they will not return lands that were bought, according to their eyes, legally.
Fun fact: most of the land bought illegally was done via violence by paramilitary groups.
2. FARC members will be armisticed.
Why they push back? They claim the victims are not having justice.
Fun fact: it's more expensive to keep a person in prison than giving them armistice and they will not be resocialized anyway.
Take a look at out our fucking prisons
http://app.eltiempo.com/multimedia/infografias/carceles-y-presos-de-colombia/14739475
3. Keep out ideology of gender out of the documents.
Why they push back? Because they are fucking bigots.
Fun fact: churches (with an s, bigotry unites churches in hate) are celebrating the deat and demand to be heard.
I still think uribe will stall everything until they are back in power
D
Deleted member 80556
Unconfirmed Member
Number 3 makes no sense at all. It's as if the Church wants the LGBT and female community to get fucked and have no truth in their reparations. Because there's no ideology of gender apart from that.
Number 1 is the one that pisses me off the most. We finally had the chance to put working people to have their own lands and work them. Along with the infrastructure developments planned we could have pushed the country to become an agricultural giant. But noooo, muh "private property" (fact check: the lands that they were to give were FARC's ot no one's, not from any honest working man).
Number 1 is the one that pisses me off the most. We finally had the chance to put working people to have their own lands and work them. Along with the infrastructure developments planned we could have pushed the country to become an agricultural giant. But noooo, muh "private property" (fact check: the lands that they were to give were FARC's ot no one's, not from any honest working man).
Corronchilejano
Member
El Tiempo has an interesting article up today
The five modifications Uribe will ask Santos to support the agreements.
The five modifications Uribe will ask Santos to support the agreements.
Ragnar Blackmane
Member
Yes, and FARC will also stay in the jungle, after building a wall around it with their own cash, of course.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
No. Presidents aren't about one issue, they represent a bundle of issues. Did they vote for a president because of the peace deals? the economy? immigration? welfare? Who knows. Normally, the democratic legitimacy provided by a legislature is enough. Sometimes it isn't, especially for wounds that run this deep. Northern Ireland's referendum was enormously important in empowering moderates in the IRA against their opposition within the IRA.
I don't think one "side", by which I think you want to say something like the conservative/traditionalist side?, does win referendums. They didn't in Northern Ireland in 1998. They didn't in the UK in 1975. They didn't in Estonia in 2003. They didn't in Hungary in 2003. They didn't in Ireland in 2015 when they legalized gay marriage, something we all celebrated recently. I could keep going. The fact that sometimes referendums are lost is what gives referendums their power - if they were just a rubber stamp, they wouldn't mean anything.
PdotMichael
Banned
What is true democracy?
When male citizens going to the towns marketplace and decide their stuff?
Corronchilejano
Member
The scary thing would be if FARC dissappears, but the members just straight up join Bacrims, like when Uribe "demovilized" the paramilitaries.
WAR recon zero
Banned
D
Deleted member 80556
Unconfirmed Member
Oh, let me remind all Colombians that the next referendum we want to do is homoparental adoption.
Damn, it feels good to dictate which rights a minority gets. Democracy! /s
This fucking guy. Lets see:
The whole fucking point was them changing weapons for politics to make a change in Colombia, if you take that away, you essentially say "sorry but your initial cause is BS", the FARC will not accept that.
Justice or peace? Hmm. The FARC will not accept that.
These people don't even read Colombian newspapers or what? (they had already promised to financially repair their victims)
They'll never fucking learn that the War on Drugs didn't help anyone, except the mob.
Now they're just being dense. They weren't going to substitute the constitution, they were going to make changes so the FARC could have their seats in Congress. Ahhhhh.
Damn, it feels good to dictate which rights a minority gets. Democracy! /s
This fucking guy. Lets see:
The whole fucking point was them changing weapons for politics to make a change in Colombia, if you take that away, you essentially say "sorry but your initial cause is BS", the FARC will not accept that.
Justice or peace? Hmm. The FARC will not accept that.
These people don't even read Colombian newspapers or what? (they had already promised to financially repair their victims)
They'll never fucking learn that the War on Drugs didn't help anyone, except the mob.
Now they're just being dense. They weren't going to substitute the constitution, they were going to make changes so the FARC could have their seats in Congress. Ahhhhh.
WAR recon zero
Banned
There's a meeting with all parties today in the house.
Guess who's not going. The CD opposition
Guess who's not going. The CD opposition
D
Deleted member 80556
Unconfirmed Member
This is just sad. People getting to vote for peace when it's more than likely had no direct influence on their lives and still vote no to peace knowing full well lots of people have been affected is awful.
Dreams-Visions
Member
Pretty fucked up, actually.
Led_Zeppelin
Member
Latinoamerica has issues like this since forever. It is nothing new. Bloody military coupes and armed extremist were bread and butter in the region in the 70's (Thanks Uncle Sam!) and even to this day there is a rift between people that ask for justice (and some argue, actually ask for revenge) and another part of the population that wants everything in the past, forgotten so we can "move on" (and the other side argues that they are just defending their own fascist friends and ideas). So there is a political element to this as well and not just humanitarian since this two factions have been at each other throats for decades now and I doubt this will change anytime soon, specially now that the region is controlled by mostly "socialist" parties that are deeply corrupted and made possible a resurgence in the region of center-right parties mostly aided by the anger of the people to the political figures of the last decade over their obscene corruption (Kirchner and Dilma/Lula being the prime examples).
Coriolanus
Banned
As with every place that continues to practice it, they're most likely perfectly aware that it doesn't help anyone. Alas, political football. They kept the lie going too long.
What's pretty fucked up is people buying into this flat out lie, or you simply have no idea of the history of the departments of Arauca, Casanare, Meta and specially freaking Caqueta, Google about the previous peace deal and El Caguan and what happened then.
Led_Zeppelin
Member
Is easier to believe that the people that don't agree with you aren't just wrong but also selfish or aren't affected for what they are voting or blame democracy or whatever.
Corronchilejano
Member
I'm sure you understand FARC's presence there affected the whole region right? It wasn't limited to San Vicente, a place where they were law and order for several years and it comes as no surprise they voted yes.
Of course many victims voted yes, but also many victims voted no. It's no surprise the big cities carried the no, the bulk of FARC victims are displaced people, guess where they live now? This narrative that people who voted no never suffered is nonsense.
Corronchilejano
Member
They have minor support from a few hundred thousand farmers.
We've been through this already. Senator Uribe, during his tenure as President, attempted to erradicate them for eight years, and instead succesfully killed thousands of civilians. We already know fighting them won't get us anywhere.
Nobody is winning, and that's the problem.
WOuld you like me to also cross the region FARC had with the region that voted in San Vicente? Because it was the same region. I'd like you to also do a bit of homework too and maybe look at the website for the national registry and show me a few places where victims also voted no. Currently, I've done my job.
SOME victims. MOST victims voted yes. You are free to prove me wrong, again, with some links.
Do you even live in Colombia?
And a referendum where not even half of the population votes shouldn't be valid.
Corronchilejano
Member
That's why it wasn't a referendum. Santos was sure he wouldn't be able to reach the minimum threshold.
God Dayumm
Banned
Giving terrorists some political seats is a though pill to swallow. Should that happen, at best Colombia would become like Venezuela. If only they could entice them with a peace treaty and then round them up like the animals they are, but that is probably not feasible.
jakonovski
Member
Now conscript those who voted against peace.
Corronchilejano
Member
This old lie.
Venezuela became how it is because of its weak institutions. Chavez was part of the Venezuelan armed forces and thanks to them is how he stayed in power. The closest we've been to this institutional weakness was when Uribe started changing the constituion to remain in power, exactly as Chavez.
You are the one arguing that, the burden of proof is on you. People said the ones who voted "no" have not suffered anything, they are wrong, whether the majority of the victims voted yes or no.
Led_Zeppelin
Member
And give the murderers that rebel against the state and killed innocent people and even a governor a state subsidize paid by the tax payers while the people that live their entire life without hurting anyone have to pay for it? Damn that is really progressive.
dave is ok
aztek is ok
Hasn't FARC has said the cease fire would remain even if 'No' won?
Led_Zeppelin
Member
All sides are currently calling for a renegotiation and that the "No" vote doesn't actually mean that there will be a restart in the hostilities between the government and the FARC, the problem is that according to Latin american news papers (based on what TELAM Colombia has been publishing) there seems to be several issues why people voted "No". Some are economical others are morals and other is just plain hatred towards the FARC.
There are several sources that said basically that there is going to be a renegotiation of the peace deal. The No voters basically don't want the high ranking officials of the FARC to be able to run for any position in government and to be able to judge them by the ordinary justice since they are accused of crimes against the humanity.
No idea if is going to happen since most of it will basically mean that the high ranking officers of the FARC will basically be held accountable and be thrown in jail for a long time, unless they make a deal to get released by another president, somewhere down the line like it happen to most of the officials and high ranking officers during the military coupes in Chile, Argentina, Brazil and other Latin American countries.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked