haiti or Iraq
 

there are people killing each other just south of us in Haiti, this has been going on for sometime now.
We have so many troops in iraq, and we invaded that country to help out the people. Why do we not help out the people of haiti?
Does haliburton have no interest there?????

mr b

Haiti is going to get worse before it gets better. Too bad they don't have an ocean of oil below them.

The problem is, how can the US help Haiti?

All they can do is help one side win the civil war (allright, guarantee one side wins) - the violence wont stop.

America cant stop people fighting, it can just defeat one side or the other. If they throw Aristotle out, his people will become the new rebels, if they help him put the rebels down, it wont stop the civil war, it will just create more hatrid of Aristotle.

Peacekeeping is a great idea, but I dont see how you can stop people from fighting when they are determined to do it. The way to help Haiti is through aid and helping ease the terrible poverty there, and in fairness, there are many American missionaries there trying to do that.

All America can really do is not sell these people weapons, but even that doesnt help, because the Russians sell weapons to anyone anyway.

Well then will the violence stop in Iraq? If we are willing to help Iraq, then don't we have to help other countries as well or do we just pick and choose as to where the money and the best investments will be???

The violence in Iraq will never stop while American troops occupy the country.

that is exactly what Nader said this morning in meet the press after he announced his run for the white house.

mr b

America's problem is that Iraq is a country created falsely by British colonists, and it has always been split into three factions... the most dangerous part of the Iraq war was when they had to rush to occupy Northern Iraq before Turkey invaded (a country that America rightly fears) - they cannotback the Kurds because it would create war with Turkey, they cannot back the Ba'arth party, those are the people they have spent the last year destroying, which leaves the Shi-ites - who are more dangerous and hostile to America than any other group in Iraq.

This is why America will not withdraw and let the Iraqi people rebuild, they know that the new Iraq will be a far greater threat to them than the old one... yet every day they stay, they make it worse.

Haiti would welcome US intervention, much like Liberia did. Political pressure for Aristide to step down and new elections to take place. Then send in peacekeepers to make sure that elections are fair. These are the only steps the US should take at this point.

As for Iraq, there will not be peace while US forces are there but after they leave they should have installed a basis for a Democracy. This will enable Iraqis to inherit a somewhat powerful government that can control the country and contain the interests of the people. Of course thats an optimist's point of view.

The vegas odds of a democracy in Iraq not installing an islamic dictatorship is something like 120:1.

The Shi-ites are the majority in Iraq, that is a fact. If a free election is held, Anti American, Islamic extremists will win.

The really scary thing is listening to Islamic people from the East aping the words of the European crusaders of the middle ages... they talk of believers and infidels, of a jihad, a holy war...

Haiti will never get US help because like a previous poster said there is no ocean of oil beneath it. I also agree with everything that Strange Famous said regarding Iraq and the changeover of power from American to Iraqi. Islamic Extremists will take over this country if and when the US leaves.

Strange, contrary to popular belief, the Iraqi shiites by and large do not support Islamic extremism. The extremists will certainly try to grab hold of power, by any means they deem necessary, but they will not win. Iraq has been secular for too long for such an extreme faction to suddenly rule the country.

Other countries have bigger stakes in Iraq's oil, not us, thats why we are there.

Now the US is looking out for the best interests of others, thats the funniest thing I've heard all day. I'm not trying to antagonize or start anything I genuinely did find it funny.

The US has helped Haiti
 

Just as the UN has. The final US troops were pulled out in 2000. And, as I recall, there was no ocean of oil there then.

Good post.
Iraq for democracy..freedom..so little girls can gave all the ooportunities life should offer them. I think Haiti qualifies right about now.

correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it the U.S. that helped put Aristide in power?

and didnt we go back and restore order when the people rebelled against him then?

not to mention the fact that the military is a bit overstretched the way it is.........

Re: haiti or Iraq
 

http://www.seretogis.org/files/linkables/troll.gif

Clinton put Aristide in power, why would Dubya want to help bring him back to power if he has done nothing to limit corruption and the people want him out?

Actually yes, you are incorrect.

Aristide was the democratically elected leader of Haiti who was ousted in a military coup. The US invaded and restored him to power.

Because he was democratically elected, and we invaded Iraq on the pretense that restoring democracy is worth fighting for?

That's just a guess on my part, maybe your thought process is different. :)

Democracy is good in some parts of the world but not in the ones without oil.

What I'm just not getting is how you and some others are completely ignoring the fact that the US DID invade Haiti at one point to restore the democratically elected government.

That was a different President that wasn't fixated with oil and war, although the two do go hand and hand one pays for the other.

ummm, what?

Can you clarify?

For a guy not 'fixated' on war, Clinton sure had fun sending our troops all the hell over and blowing things up.

What i meant was that bush is fixated with oil i have never denied that Clinton liked to send troops into combat because we all know he did. Was Clinton not Pres. when the US first helped Haiti, and now that Bush is in power he won't help because what does Haiti have to offer him?

How is Bush oil crazy?

Thanks for the clarification :)

No, that was Reagan.

EDIT CORRECTION:

Lebell didn't google his facts like he normally does.

Silent Jay was indeed correct: It was Clinton, NOT Reagan and the year was 1994.

And much Embarasslarity ensued...

-lebell

sorry abourt that Lebell I must have had a brainfart. Thanks for letting me know it was Reagan, I really wasn't sure and didn't want to google it.

Where did Bush choose to invade? even though N. Korea posed a bigger threat. I think this war explains how Bush is oil crazy.

Does driving an oil company into the ground count as crazy ?

*blatant threadjack*

Silent_Jay its called policy, thats what Iraq was about, not oil. And hey I'm not unreasonable, oil was part of that policy, but not in terms that you are saying.

Umm, no the US has a history of helping Haiti that goes all the way back to at least 1913.

Interesting that those who decry Bush for invading countries want him to invade yet another.

Mojo I highly doubt Iraq was about policy, I'm pretty sure the two things involved in his decesion to go to war were Oil, and revenge (remember Saddam tried to kill hid "daddy")

Ya I realized Reagan was President then onetime read a bit higher Lebell already corrected my mistake. And where did it say I wanted the US to invade Haiti, would I not be a hypocrite then, because I oppose the Iraq war? No I don't want the US to invade Haiti but helping with negotiations and maybe leaning on the parties to resolve thier disputes.

I wouldn't call helping the democratically elected leader of a country, at his request, put down a violent coup attempt "invading".

Like him or not, he is the elected leader. Does the USA want to preserve democracy or not?

For bonus credit, research how Saddam Hussein came to power. Apply that research to the Haiti situation, and draw conclusions about what Haiti will turn into if we allow the coup to happen.

So, sending military forces should be the first response? What ever happened to ridiculing Bush for not using diplomacy?

Do you believe Haiti will become another Iraq?

How about reading up on the past "leaders" of Haiti and the impact the US has had on resolving the conflicts there in the past? It was just a couple of years ago that we sent forces to "stabilize" Haiti, obviously it does not work.

Doing the same thing and expecting different results, not a good plan in my book.

I wasn't talking about Reagan. I know he's old, but he was just a baby in 1913.

I also never said you wanted to see Haiti invaded. I should have been more clear in my assertions.

Aristotle initially had a lot of popular support in Haiti as I understand, but has become corrupted once in power.

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.

Theyre getting US help, if you call 50 Marines help. And theyre there to protect the US Embassy, if nothing else.

link

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.

thanks, wasnt positive on that fact

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.

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?
:confused:

How unlike you.

Should we help Haiti?
 

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?

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

But this topic is currently being dicussed here .

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 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.

AHA! You admit he was popular. :D

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

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.

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

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.

true my mistake

:hmm:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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 :)

thanks for clarifying.

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

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

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.

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?

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

I posted in the other thread:

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

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

Now me on the other hand... :D

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..

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.

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

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

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