haiti or Iraq (merged threads)

[seretogis]

Originally posted by powerclown
The US's biggest interest in Haiti (or, more specifically, the Dominican Republic across the island) is Tourism, illegal immigration into Miami, and 'humanitarian' concerns.

Not to mention stopping drug trafficking into the US through Haiti, which Aristede's corrupt political pals have their fingers in, according to the State Department. This is hardly an innocent do-gooder being overthrown by nasty "terrorists", heh.

[HarmlessRabbit]

Originally posted by onetime2
That is also the thinking from the US govt perspective. It has suggested a plan which would offer some shared power between the rebels and Aristide in the interim while new elections can be completed.

Bush was popular at first too but since then he and his staff have become corrupt. Can someone invade us? PLEASE?

[Ustwo]

Originally posted by HarmlessRabbit
Bush was popular at first too but since then he and his staff have become corrupt. Can someone invade us? PLEASE?

You mean you wouldn't worry about the innocent civilian deaths from the invasion?


How unlike you.

[vapusforever]

If the situation in Iraq really was a threat than how is the situation in Haiti not. Haiti is 90 minutes away by plane and is currently in a time of crisis, to me it seems like a much more serious threat. We ae afterall the cause of current problems in Haiti with our stepping in 10 years ago. What do you think?

[Mephex]

I think we should get the hell out and let them figure it out

But this topic is currently being dicussed here .

[Ustwo]

Haiti isn't a threat because it has no resources with which to threaten anyone. In the good old days of the cold war, there might have been a threat.

Here is a question for you, who's side do we pick?

[vapusforever]

I personally feel that a civil war is something that needs to be worked out and settled by the country in which it is taking place independently. It is ultimately the responsibility of the people who live in the country to determine the fate of their future. It is too hard for a thirdparty country to pick a side to fight for. It is up to the people to decide, and if it means a civil war, so be it.

[onetime2]

Originally posted by HarmlessRabbit
Bush was popular at first too but since then he and his staff have become corrupt. Can someone invade us? PLEASE?

AHA! You admit he was popular.

Alright, I'll play. Who would you like to see invade us?

[silent_jay]

Originally posted by seretogis
Not to mention stopping drug trafficking into the US through Haiti, which Aristede's corrupt political pals have their fingers in, according to the State Department. This is hardly an innocent do-gooder being overthrown by nasty "terrorists", heh.

This seems to be a trend with any nation that considers the US to be friends or allies, remember when Saddam was all good and Rumsfeld went to visit him in Bagdad. They helped the mujahadeen in Afghanistan against the Soviets, years later Afghanistan invaded, Vietnam, the helped Ho Chi Minh during WW2 next thing you know war, it seems the US should pick a person popular with the people instead of someone they can control and pull their strings.

[onetime2]

Originally posted by silent_jay
...it seems the US should pick a person popular with the people instead of someone they can control and pull their strings.

Aristide was popular with the people and it seems to have worked out smashingly.

[Phaenx]

Originally posted by Ustwo
Haiti isn't a threat because it has no resources with which to threaten anyone. In the good old days of the cold war, there might have been a threat.

Here is a question for you, who's side do we pick?

I pick fuck them, they're god damn useless and I don't care what they do with their damn pissant aids infested nation. There is no side to pick, they're both assholes.

[silent_jay]

true my mistake

[Sparhawk]

Originally posted by Phaenx
I pick fuck them, they're god damn useless and I don't care what they do with their damn pissant aids infested nation. There is no side to pick, they're both assholes.

I try to stay away from trolls, but this is beyond the pale... I hope for the sake of your humanity this isn't your real opinion.

[theusername]

We have to help them. Now im not saying send in the troops but if we dont find a way to stop the violence innocent people will continue to be slaughtered. We went into Iraq PARTIALLY (dont turn this into an Iraq war thing) because of human rights issues and we have an obligation to protect the human rights of those around the world. Im sure we'll get involved somehow, not sure what those 50 marines are going to do though.

hmmm... maybe the UN will help them LMAO. They are absolutely useless.

[Scipio]

Haiti and Iraq are apples and oranges. They don't really stand up to comparison.

Haiti is in our own back yard (Monroe doctrine), and we should not hesitate to intervene if it becomes necessary. I haven't been following the story closely, so I'm not in a position to judge. So far, all we've seen is the mobilization of marines to protect the embassy, which is a very conservative and standard move. It allows headlines like "Marines Sent to Haiti," yet isn't really a military intervention.

Like I said, I don't know enough about it to say either way.

[Seaver]

Every politician will say yes.

Every military man will say no.

We are fighting in two countries on the opposite side of the world. Yes Haiti is in our backyard, but our military is already having stretch marks.

You cant just send in some Marines, you have to factor in logistics. The Navy and Merchant Marine are already busting their ass supporting our troops (and many native troops) in Afghanistan and Iraq, a few would have to be rerouted to Haiti and would put a lot of pressure on an already strained logisitcs team.

Ordinarily I would say yes, but in our current situation I would say no.

[Strange Famous]

Originally posted by Ustwo
Haiti isn't a threat because it has no resources with which to threaten anyone. In the good old days of the cold war, there might have been a threat.

Here is a question for you, who's side do we pick?

I agree with Ustwo, all America could do is help one side win the civil war... and the peace this brings is only fleeting, because whicever side loses today becomes tomorrow's rebels - or even of the faction is destroyed completely, new rebel groups will form themselves.

The way to help haiti is not by military intervention, it is by aid, trade, and diplomacy, and these are all things America are doing already to various degree's.

[silent_jay]

Originally posted by Strange Famous
I agree with Ustwo, all America could do is help one side win the civil war... and the peace this brings is only fleeting, because whicever side loses today becomes tomorrow's rebels - or even of the faction is destroyed completely, new rebel groups will form themselves.

The way to help haiti is not by military intervention, it is by aid, trade, and diplomacy, and these are all things America are doing already to various degree's.

I agree the world as a whole should try and find diplomatic solutions and stay out of civil war because all that ends up in the end are running battles between rebels and government forces much like is going on now. I really wish people would stop all the UN bashing as theusername has done a few posts ago we don't approve of calling politicians names ie: Shrub, Hitlery, and the like, in this forum yet the UN seems to be a fair target, for whatever people want to call it. Is this not a double standard?

Originally posted by Phaenx
I pick fuck them, they're god damn useless and I don't care what they do with their damn pissant aids infested nation. There is no side to pick, they're both assholes.

I was going to leave this alone because I don't dig trolls but Jesus if this is your real opinion and there are others out there like you I pity us all.

[Lebell]

Originally posted by silent_jay
I really wish people would stop all the UN bashing as theusername has done a few posts ago we don't approve of calling politicians names ie: Shrub, Hitlery, and the like, in this forum yet the UN seems to be a fair target, for whatever people want to call it. Is this not a double standard?

Not at all.

A double standard would be calling Kofi Annan (sp?) Coffee something.

People are still bashing Bush around here, but so long as they do it with content then it's all good (from a discussion standpoint).

Same with the UN.

[silent_jay]

My mistake double standard was the wrong choice of words .
Why is this not allowed then. I'm just trying to clarify why one is ok and the other is not allowed, I'm not trying to troll or start anything just curious. Lebell you posted this in another forum:

Just a note,

Calling the president "Shrub" as well as other name calling really detracts from your arguments, as much as me calling H. Clinton "Hitlery" might.

It is a practice that I strongly discourage on both the left and the right, as it adds nothing to the conversation.

Carry on.


Could the same not be said for the bashing of the UN?

[Ustwo]

If you called the UN the United Nitwits (I just made that up, I like it) then yes.

Saying the UN is worthless, no, thats fine.

P.S. I was once yelled at for using the term 'nitwit' in a gerneral way here

[silent_jay]

thanks for clarifying.

quick thinking on the United Nitwits, even though i don't like it to be said it is rather comical

[Jizz-Fritter]

Now if the rebels in Haiti started talking about land reform, you know we would be in there faster than you can say Quidditch.

[Lebell]

Originally posted by silent_jay
thanks for clarifying.

quick thinking on the United Nitwits, even though i don't like it to be said it is rather comical

Yeah, that pretty much nailed it.

And even calling Bush "Shrub" isn't against the rules per se, but it really doesn't add to the conversation either.

Basically the line all the mods try to walk is to let everyone have their say while keeping the forum from turning into a flame fest.

I'll be the first to admit that it is a hard line to walk sometimes and that I've made my fair share of mistakes while doing so.

[losthellhound]

Originally posted by Seaver
Every politician will say yes.
Every military man will say no.

Thats an interesting point, and raises a good question.. What are the advantages and disadvantages of going to Haiti? (Im jumping in here because even though the conversation is about the US going to Haiti, Canada is a major peacekeeper operator and if the UN says peacekeepers go, we'll be in there)

The Rebels
--------------
The rebels (and they are rebels still) are not just threatening to topple a leadership, they are torching the country bit by bit and attacking police forces (the only military) with impunity..

They have recruited and brought back someone who has been labelled as a "death squad leader".. This man is by all civilized meters, a monster. If the rebels win, this will lead to a cleansing that we just don't see in the news.. I doubt that any foreign nationals will stay and foreign assets are in doubt as well

The government
---------------------

The current leadership is supported only by a small margin of the people and has been accused of atrocities of thier own

If the current leadership survives with intervention, the problems that caused the rebellion will continue and history shows us they will most likely get worse..

Who to pick.. the evil we know, or the evil we don't?

[hammer4all]

You guys need to brush up on your history. We are probably the main cause of this mess in Haiti. It is looking more and more like this coup d'etat is being supported by the United States.

http://www.fair.org/counterspin/022004.html

2/16/04 - http://www.democracynow.org/article....=thread&tid=25

2/18/04 - http://www.democracynow.org/article....=thread&tid=25

2/19/04 - http://www.democracynow.org/article....=thread&tid=25

2/25/04 - http://www.democracynow.org/article....=thread&tid=25

http://tinyurl.com/2nmsh

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ed...nG=Search+News

[hammer4all]

I posted in the other thread:

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...754#post993754

[Lebell]

Originally posted by HarmlessRabbit
Bush was popular at first too but since then he and his staff have become corrupt. Can someone invade us? PLEASE?

You have no recourse for a corrupt govt. because you don't like guns.

Now me on the other hand...

[Lebell]

Threads merged (just seemed the thing to do).

[losthellhound]

Originally posted by Lebell
Threads merged (just seemed the thing to do).

Thanks.. was making my head woozy trying to keep track of both of them Thought I'd ask something too..

You have no recourse for a corrupt govt. because you don't like guns.

Are you saying that the only recourse for a corrupt government is internal or external war? We're seeing the fruit of such movements in both Iraq and Haiti, just different ways of doing it..

(edited because I hit enter too quickly before I finished my sentance)

[Lebell]

Originally posted by losthellhound
Thanks.. was making my head woozy trying to keep track of both of them Thought I'd ask something too..

Are you saying that the only recourse for a corrupt government is internal or external war? We're seeing the fruit of such movements in both Iraq and Haiti, just different ways of doing it..

(edited because I hit enter too quickly before I finished my sentance)

Well,

All kidding aside, I don't think violence should EVER be the first resort to ANY conflict. Revolution is a bloody business usually resulting in a lot of pain and suffering for all involved.

The ballot box should be the first resort, but if all else fails, then yes, the gun should be used.

[hammer4all]

Today, Democracy Now! interviewed congress member Maxine Waters (D-CA) and independent journalist Allan Nairn about our roll in the current coup of the democratically elected Haitian President, Jean-Bertrand Aristide. They also touch upon recent history.

For a closer look at what is happening right now on the ground in Haiti, we look back at the involvement of the U.S. in the 1991-1994 coup period with veteran investigative journalist Allan Nairn who broke a number of stories that proved the direct links between US intelligence agencies and Haitian paramilitary death squads in the early 1990s.

http://www.democracynow.org/article..../02/26/1612207

http://www.democracynow.org/article..../02/26/1612211

[silent_jay]

Originally posted by Lebell
Basically the line all the mods try to walk is to let everyone have their say while keeping the forum from turning into a flame fest.

I'll be the first to admit that it is a hard line to walk sometimes and that I've made my fair share of mistakes while doing so.

I wouldn't want to want to walk that line. You all do a great job and thanks for doing it.