theworldofdreams.com

Given the political unrest and turmoil in Haiti, is it okay for the U.S. to send troops?

Just curious...

Only if they discover oil

Wolfie wrote:Only if they discover oil

That or someone from haiti comes and tells us they've seen WMDs hidden somewhere in the island.

In haiti it pretty much comes down to a choice between thug A and thug B. the incumbent is pretty bent i hear and the wannabee leaders are famed largely for being in charge of death squads in the good ol days. meanwhile of course the avg joe goes hungry and risks picking up a stray round.
what the place needs is a good ol fashioned british colonial gov't for oh 30 years or so. get some economic development going on and some education of the masses along with the idea that the rule of law means something.
things were so much simpler when Queen Victoria ran the world

Joram Lionheart wrote:

Wolfie wrote:Only if they discover oil

That or someone from haiti comes and tells us they've seen WMDs hidden somewhere in the island.

you want instant action spread the word that Haiti is going to flood the US with world price sugar or cotton. place will be a scorched wasteland inside a week.

we have no troops left to send. Peace keeping there would take 35,000 troops, millons of dollars and for it to work one would have to stay 10 years cleaing house.

Ehran wrote:In haiti it pretty much comes down to a choice between thug A and thug B. the incumbent is pretty bent i hear and the wannabee leaders are famed largely for being in charge of death squads in the good ol days.

Problem is, not all of those wannabe leaders are powerhungry anarchists. From what I hear, it's a coalition of different interest groups who want to oust Aristide, and some of them may very well be nothing more than political enemies who fell out of favor with the "President."
The problem with these latin American "democracies" is that they usually are nothing more than a constitutional republic, often times giving the executive disproportinate amounts of power. The concept of checks-and-balances, and balance of power is all but non-existant in those so-called democracies.

I hate to admit it but probably the best solution would be to force Aristide to call early elections, and someone oughta make sure neither he nor the opposition parties tamper with those elections. I say use force because it doesn't sound like Aristide wants to step down (despite of all his "I'll die for my country" talk). Also, some of the rebel factions may very well be downright anarchists and "terrorists" as Aristide has branded them. Unless someone steps in and convinces the more rational members of the coalition to forsake their radical friends, the coup won't be put down. Going in a shooting everybody isn't going to help anyone either (sounds like Aristide has already shot enough people).

If Bush and Powell don't want to risk another political controversy so close to the elections, at least they oughta let the Organization of American States handle the issue (but handle it for real, not just proclaim resolutions left and right). And I read somewhere that the French may want to send troops. I don't know what the attitude of Haitians is towards their former colonial rulers but if I were them I wouldn't feel too comfortable or willing to compromise with my old slavemaster. French occupation of the island may arose some hard feelings especially from the opposition parties. Come to think of it, so would U.S. intervention, wouldn't it? (considering we've helped Aristide before)

If force was to be used a single battalion of any western countries army would put the run on the "rebels" in a couple days. Of course that really doesn't solve anything unless you are willing to spend a good few years babysitting the place.
Takes a while for the notion of the rule of law to really settle into these 3rd world countries and outside the british i don't think any western power has the patience for it. we've seen over the last hundred years that a steady diet of gunboat diplomacy is a miserable failure at creating "democracies" around the world.
In this case i think the french would be the best people to go in and try to fix this mess. they at least speak the language which makes life so much easier on the forces and the haitians. The OAS pretty much all speak spanish and their armed forces are generally second rate at best.

Joram Lionheart wrote:

Wolfie wrote:Only if they discover oil

That or someone from haiti comes and tells us they've seen WMDs hidden somewhere in the island.

That same person actually saying that are no longer any WMD there whatsoever seems to be enough.
read this:
http://www.fair.org/press-releases/kamel.html

the actual report in discussion:
http://www.fair.org/press-releases/kamel.pdf

<a href="http://www.motherjones.com/news/update/2004/02/02_402.html">... and here's a more politized version of the story =/</a>

Wolfie wrote:Only if they discover oil

AND?????

Hor hee hor hee hor hee hor hee. My Lord...what a knee slapper that is. That comment cracks me up. And...only if they find WMD's there Ha ha hor hee hee. Man what funny statements. For those of you that want to continue to bash Bush and the UNited States for actions in Iraq...here are a few facts:

We have been in conflict with Iraq since 1991. This most recent military action was not "new" or some half crazed idea to "steal oil". This current military conflict in Iraq is just the final chapter in a conflict that has lasted over ten years.

In 1998, President Clinton (psst he was a Democrat) stated that we may have to invade Iraq because Saddam is hiding his WMD's, and he recently said his intelligence showed Saddam to be looking into nuclear weapons.

Have we forgotton September 11, 2001?? If you say Iraq had nothing to do with it, then let me tell you how naive you are. Iraq was a safe training haven for terrorists and Osama's ilk until we removed Saddam from power. Terrorist training camps were blasted throughout the land after Saddam's fall. Saddam rewarded "Homocide Bomber's" families with cash (U.S. Cash by the way) and openly called for the death of the U.S. How about the mass graves?? These mass graves look like a scene from Nazi Germany.

So cut out the childish jokes, and know that each U.S. soldier that dies gives his/her life so that you can criticize our government freely. Remember that with each funny statement, you are basically saying those soldiers are nothing.

Iraq was a safe training haven for terrorists and Osama's ilk until we removed Saddam from power. Terrorist training camps were blasted throughout the land after Saddam's fall.

Your right, now they are just practiceing what they learned on our troops, Iraqi Police, and the innocent. Not to mention there is no proof of what you say. Specualtion is not proof.

Part of what we need to do is be more world friendly. So instead of useing a soft glove and working with the world to get things done, you would use a hammer? There are more people like Al'Kaeda out there, and the numbers are growing daily. Take for instance what happened yesterday, all those people killed on a holy day. They are not blameing our enemies, they are blameing US, get it? US!.

So instead of doing things like oh say... let the inspectors do there job? come in with a hammer and turn it to dust? only to let innocent Iraq people die because we dont have the strength to inusre proper security?

When the WORLD is tellilng you, slow down, let them do there job, you should listen. Instead he rush's in to "get those WMD", then it changed into "get rid of a brutal dictator". The inspectors were there, THEY WERE THERE. There was no need to go in there before they had a chance to the job they were sent there to do.

Now i am not stupid, there are alot of things Bush has done that are positive. And I would be first in line to say hey great job Mr. Pres! But he needs to realise there are reasons that these groups are pissed off at us. This is a war that will be fought by some bus boy assassinateing a guy in a restaruant in Bombay. Not something that a tank can do. All the tanks will do is drive people to be recruited. He has done nothing but fill their ranks.

Take this with a grain of salt, or what have you. No one has/will forget 9/11. But there are multiple ways of getting things done besides invadeing a nation right in the center of a region that does not like us.

Wolfie wrote:Only if they discover oil

AAAHAHAhahahhaahahaaa.....that was a good 'un, Wolfie.

Dargo saddam ran the closest thing to a secular gov't in the middle east. those terrorist camps that got attacked belonged to people who wanted to overthrow the gov't in iran. if anything they were the "good" guys until the us put troops into iraq and realized these folks might present a problem in the ensuing power vacuum.

as for 9-11 there are no links between saddam and that day's events. if there were any real links they would have been trumpeted loudly and long by the media. despite this the bush administration has through the use of innuendo managed to convince half the american public that saddam was in major part responsible for what happened.

since bush has shifted away from wmd as the rationale for the invasion toward the "saddam was a very very bad man" approach the US has been trying to assume the moral high ground. sadly no one outside the US is buying this. this is actually a good thing because it relieves the US from having to live up to the higher morality by invading and tossing out the dictators of a good many countries every bit as nasty as saddam. US priorities in iraq have been quite clear for some time to anyone who cares enough to pay attention. for instance there were guards all over the national petroleum ministry building the day after the occupation began while hospitals, museums and banks were freely looted. Iraq was pumping oil into tankers what 2 weeks after the occupation of baghdad while months down the road water and power are still things dreamt of in most of baghdad.

this entire exercise seems to be almost futile other than enriching various american firms.

Dargo wrote:So cut out the childish jokes, and know that each U.S. soldier that dies gives his/her life so that you can criticize our government freely. Remember that with each funny statement, you are basically saying those soldiers are nothing.

You know Dargo you are the one saying that those soldiers mean nothing.

Each U.S. soldier gave their life so we can criticize the government. So you then decide to say that some can't do it. Your saying the soldiers deaths mean nothing then.

Try to come up for fresh air. The fumes of "anyone that says bad things about bush and US military actions are un-patriotic and a threat" way of thinking is cutting off your air supply to your brain.

Your post proves that Bush fed propaganda is working. Which is a bad thing.