Was the "NO" the best option for our situation?

I believe that the best option we could have was voting for the no, I talked with many people and one of them was my father, a military, and you must think things as: ¨your father does not wants to end the war because his job will be reduced¨¨or¨the militaries will gain less money because they wont work the same as they actually do¨¨, things like that, but no, the results were perfect, because my father has been in the war for 26 years, and he told me that ¨¨Las F.A.R.C¨¨does not deserve the inclusion in our politic, because they can start to invade us, in adition, it is not fair to pay them, because they just had ¨destroyed¨ our country

Juanzapata31 wrote:I believe that the best option we could have was voting for the no, I talked with many people and one of them was my father, a military, and you must think things as: ¨your father does not wants to end the war because his job will be reduced¨¨or¨the militaries will gain less money because they wont work the same as they actually do¨¨, things like that, but no, the results were perfect, because my father has been in the war for 26 years, and he told me that ¨¨Las F.A.R.C¨¨does not deserve the inclusion in our politic, because they can start to invade us, in adition, it is not fair to pay them, because they just had ¨destroyed¨ our country

I think that No is the best option in some cases, because now the supporters of the no can apport a more objective view about the deal, so it will be better complemented.

The decision of saying that one option was better than other depended on what your position was, making it very subjective to decide towards it.
In my opinion, no was a step to make this process bigger and more effective because now ELN could be introduced inside a parallel peace process, making it a better context for our country's future. Nevertheless, the fact that no has won puts the ball inside FARC's court because they are the ones who will decide to continue with the process or not. Obviously, the government will continue with a friendly attitude towards FARC and the process, which could make it to give more facilities to this groups.

Camilo.DlH wrote:The decision of saying that one option was better than other depended on what your position was, making it very subjective to decide towards it.
In my opinion, no was a step to make this process bigger and more effective because now ELN could be introduced inside a parallel peace process, making it a better context for our country's future. Nevertheless, the fact that no has won puts the ball inside FARC's court because they are the ones who will decide to continue with the process or not. Obviously, the government will continue with a friendly attitude towards FARC and the process, which could make it to give more facilities to this groups.

Camilo, you should be aware that ELN has been invited to negotiate with our government. In fact, they did stablished an initial conversation on exploration state that would take place on Quito,Ecuador. Unofortunately, ELN didn't accept to free all of their civilians in captivity as a condition to start negotiations. So, a parallel chair with ELN has nohing to do with the new chances the country has right now that ''NO'' has won.

juanfeCISF wrote:

Juanzapata31 wrote:I believe that the best option we could have was voting for the no, I talked with many people and one of them was my father, a military, and you must think things as: ¨your father does not wants to end the war because his job will be reduced¨¨or¨the militaries will gain less money because they wont work the same as they actually do¨¨, things like that, but no, the results were perfect, because my father has been in the war for 26 years, and he told me that ¨¨Las F.A.R.C¨¨does not deserve the inclusion in our politic, because they can start to invade us, in adition, it is not fair to pay them, because they just had ¨destroyed¨ our country

I think that No is the best option in some cases, because now the supporters of the no can apport a more objective view about the deal, so it will be better complemented.

Voting NO was giving the power to FARC to decide if they what to renegatiate or not. Also you have to take into account the little range of time the government has to make the new and "better" agreements. The supporters of NO like Uribe and "Centro Democratico" were the ones who most convinced people of voting for NO. When they win and Santos tells them they are going to have a reunion in order to listen to their ideas, they just decided to dont go to that reunion. In other words, when they convince people this agreement was bad and when they fighted they told colombians they wanted to be taken into account but now they just decided to back up.
It is possible this agreement could be better but there is also a great and huge possibility thta there is not a new agreement or that the new one will be worst. That is why voting NO was the worst desicion colombians made.

juanfeCISF wrote:

Juanzapata31 wrote:I believe that the best option we could have was voting for the no, I talked with many people and one of them was my father, a military, and you must think things as: ¨your father does not wants to end the war because his job will be reduced¨¨or¨the militaries will gain less money because they wont work the same as they actually do¨¨, things like that, but no, the results were perfect, because my father has been in the war for 26 years, and he told me that ¨¨Las F.A.R.C¨¨does not deserve the inclusion in our politic, because they can start to invade us, in adition, it is not fair to pay them, because they just had ¨destroyed¨ our country

I think that No is the best option in some cases, because now the supporters of the no can apport a more objective view about the deal, so it will be better complemented.

Juanfe, in this case ''NO'' boosters like Centro Democrático are looking for ambotious and personal benefit traties that will hurt the imparciality and objectivity the rejected ones had. Uribe and his combo only want to be inside history,keep their illegal lands and to avoid investigations towards their links with paramilitary groups in the past and even today. So, now negotiations will be even more complicated and our strong wish of peace will have to await a couple of more years.