Why won't Bush defend democracy in Haiti?

[Borealis]

this is what you stated: "So, should Bush be sending troops? It's a tough question. For humanitarian reasons, I'd say yes, just as they did in Iraq. "

It sounds awfully like you're claiming that Bush should be sending troops into Haiti for humanitarian reasons just like for Iraq.

I could have stated it more clearly. How's this? "Should Bush be sending troops as he did into Iraq? For humanitarian reasons, I'd say yes."

Fair enough?

you thought I was referring to you? "that aside, how about showing the world you're not a big hypocrite on claiming that the war in Iraq was over human rights when you won't even lift a finger to intervene in an impeding civil war on your doorsteps?"

Well, you did quote my post. What do you expect me to think? I read it as an attack on myself.

If you had parsed the sentence correctly you would have known that I was referring to America since you were asking what America had to gain from sending in troops. Also, did you really think the whole war cared about what you think about Iraq/Haiti?

Okay, maybe you should try expressing yourself more clearly as I did above. Especially that last sentence...it makes no sense at all.

proof? What about French peacekeepers in Congo; in the Ivory Coast; in Kosovo? Are they there to embarrass the Americans?

Those countries aren't right next to the United States.

nice try. we're talking about sending in troops to Haiti, not reaction to Bush's State of the Union. That speech took place a month ago. Try again to find me someone accusing Bush of sending troops into Haiti unilaterally.

Then be more specific in your accusations. Here's what you posted:

I know it's convenient to accuse the 'left' of accusing Bush of acting unilaterally; but let's not distort facts.

Nobody's accusing Bush of acting unilaterally on Haiti; they're accusing him of not acting at all. The only 'unilateral' argument you could have been referring to was the Iraq war.

funny, but why exactly is Bush 'inviting' (more like begging) for UN help in Iraq? Maybe he finally realized that he has bitten off more than he can chew, and the UN does have its place after all?

I don't know; I'm not inside his head. His reasons, and the reasons of his government, are their own. If it was me, sure I'd invite them back; it's the Christian thing to do, remember? Forgive and love your enemies? And you'll also note that as soon as the terrorists turned up the heat even slightly on the UN, they tucked their tails and ran for the hills.

PERSONAL ATTACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Where are the mods???????????

My. Overly sensitive much, are we? I'll stand by my statement.

 

[Diakonos]

So this is how it plays out. Aristide flees the country. Boniface Alexandre, chief justice of the Haitian Supreme Court, is sworn in as interim head of state until presidential elections can be held. Bush sends troops to Haiti to stabilize the situation.


Aristide (in a broadcast referring to those who overthrew him) said:

They cut down the tree of peace, but it will grow again.

Guy Philippe (Rebel leader) said:

I think the worst is over, and we're waiting for the international forces. They will have our full cooperation.

Bush said:

It is essential that Haiti have a hopeful future. This is the beginning of a new chapter in the country's history.

John Kerry (with Senator John Edwards in agreement) said:

Bush's actions were late, as usual.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-03-01-us-haiti_x.htm
My prayers are with the people of Haiti. <><

 

[mikefromwichita]

What a waste of American military resources. Another Black Mark against the Bush Presidency.

 

[whatbogsends]

For political reasons, the question is simple: what does America gain?

Here we have the crux of it. "What does America gain?" The people who supported the war in Iraq for "humanitarian purposes" balk at a situation where the only valid reason for helping would be humanitarian purposes. Is it not abundantly clear that humanitarian purposes are simply the rationale of last resort used by the Bush administration to defend it's actions in Iraq after it's initial claims (WMD and being a terrorist state) were debunked?

There's no oil to trade,

Now oil is part of the reason we went into Iraq?

no threat of weapons of mass destruction,

Just like Iraq

and no need to stabilize the Caribbean region (because there aren't thousands if not millions of fanatical zealots in Haiti planning to slaughter innocent Americans).

Do you feel that the Middle East is become more stablized since the invasion of Iraq? Which fanatical zealots in Iraq were planning on slaughtering innocent Americans?

 

[KLLM82]

What a waste of American military resources. Another Black Mark against the Bush Presidency.

I suppose you already know the outcome of this multinational peacekeeping force for you to consider it a waste?

~Katia~

 

[mikefromwichita]

I suppose you already know the outcome of this multinational peacekeeping force for you to consider it a waste?

~Katia~

Jousting at the windmill of a dysfunctional society is not a Constitutional use of the Military.

 

[KLLM82]

Jousting at the windmill of a dysfunctional society is not a Constitutional use of the Military.

First, I'd like to ask you this...what makes you consider Haiti (its people) to be a dysfunctional society?

~Katia~

 

[Borealis]

Here we have the crux of it. "What does America gain?" The people who supported the war in Iraq for "humanitarian purposes" balk at a situation where the only valid reason for helping would be humanitarian purposes. Is it not abundantly clear that humanitarian purposes are simply the rationale of last resort used by the Bush administration to defend it's actions in Iraq after it's initial claims (WMD and being a terrorist state) were debunked?

Since when was it debunked that Iraq was sponsoring terrorism? That's an irrefutable fact to all who haven't stuck their heads in the sand. There were more than humanitarian reasons for going to Iraq. However, I have no problem with America sending troops for humanitarian aid.

Now oil is part of the reason we went into Iraq?

Yes, it is, because Saddam was trading future oil favours to France, Germany and other countries to get them to oppose American intervention. You do know that Saddam had a lot of contracts signed with European heads of state giving them first crack at the oil when the sanctions came down, don't you?

Do you feel that the Middle East is become more stablized since the invasion of Iraq? Which fanatical zealots in Iraq were planning on slaughtering innocent Americans?

Not yet, it's not. But give it time. Democracy is a great way to stabilize a region. Right now the pot is boiling, I won't argue that. But you look at how other nations are starting to rethink their position on WMDs (Libya being a prime example of that). Look at Syria tentatively opening negotiations with Israel. Look at the moderates in Iran; the mullahs are having to tighten their grip even further to keep them under control, and it's still not working.

Afghanistan has a constitution; Iraq will soon have one. That will make three democracies in the Middle East. Not a bad start toward stability. No one expect it to happen overnight (except some fanatical anti-American liberals who keep demanding to know why it hasn't totally stabilized yet). That's an area that has been a powderkeg for centuries, made worse by the futile attempts to destroy Israel in the past sixty years. It won't happen right away, but it WILL happen.

 

[whatbogsends]

Since when was it debunked that Iraq was sponsoring terrorism? That's an irrefutable fact to all who haven't stuck their heads in the sand. There were more than humanitarian reasons for going to Iraq. However, I have no problem with America sending troops for humanitarian aid.

There has been nothing showing Iraq is any more a sponsor of terrorism than any other country.

Yes, it is, because Saddam was trading future oil favours to France, Germany and other countries to get them to oppose American intervention. You do know that Saddam had a lot of contracts signed with European heads of state giving them first crack at the oil when the sanctions came down, don't you?

I am aware that France and Germany had substantial trade agreements with Iraq regarding oil. I fail to understand the problem with Saddam giving European heads of state first crack at the oil. I also understand that a large part of France and Germany's motivation for opposing the war against Iraq so vehemently was because of oil. I still don't see how Iraq possessing oil provides justification of war.

Not yet, it's not. But give it time. Democracy is a great way to stabilize a region. Right now the pot is boiling, I won't argue that. But you look at how other nations are starting to rethink their position on WMDs (Libya being a prime example of that). Look at Syria tentatively opening negotiations with Israel. Look at the moderates in Iran; the mullahs are having to tighten their grip even further to keep them under control, and it's still not working.

It's not democracy that they're using to stabilize the region, it is threat of force. Right or wrong, it is threat (and use) of force that is causing changes. I do not adhere to the "might makes right" school of politics. Do you?

Afghanistan has a constitution; Iraq will soon have one. That will make three democracies in the Middle East. Not a bad start toward stability.

In Haiti, we see how much democracy yields stability. The contrast in Bush's policies towards Iraq and Haiti shows that democracy is merely a buzzword, and not the real basis of action.

No one expect it to happen overnight (except some fanatical anti-American liberals who keep demanding to know why it hasn't totally stabilized yet). That's an area that has been a powderkeg for centuries, made worse by the futile attempts to destroy Israel in the past sixty years. It won't happen right away, but it WILL happen.

The conservative mantra. Origininally, we were told that the Iraqi's would welcome us with open arms. Now they tell us we will stabilize the region, it will just take time. The question is, do they really mean stabilize, or do they mean conquer?

 

[mikefromwichita]

First, I'd like to ask you this...what makes you consider Haiti (its people) to be a dysfunctional society?

~Katia~

You are Joking right? Do you KNOW anything about that place?????????????

A few basic facts to start-

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ha.html

a little more depth-

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=12277

 

[KLLM82]

You are Joking right? Do you KNOW anything about that place?????????????

I do not consider a good percentage of Haiti's society to be what you call "Dysfunctional".

~Katia~

 

[mikefromwichita]

I do not consider a good percentage of Haiti's society to be what you call "Dysfunctional".

~Katia~

Read the LINKS I placed in my earlier post. Then we will have a basis for conversation.

 

[billwald]

"what makes you consider Haiti (its people) to be a dysfunctional society?"

What is a functional society? I propose one that provides personal safety and a reasonable standard of living for the working people. Haiti scores zip.

The myth is that "democracy" can be exported. Sorry, it must be fought for and won.

 

[KLLM82]

Read the LINKS I placed in my earlier post. Then we will have a basis for conversation.

The way I interpreted your post about Haiti being a dysfunctional society was that its people weren't "normal" because of the way they live etc...so my thoughts on that was the reason most (not all) of them behave or live the way they do would be because they don't know any better; they live their lives according to what they know. Can you blame them?

Looking at your links, I see that you were refering more towards what Haiti provides for its people...then yeah, it wouldn't be considered a functional society. And "Billwald" is right, Haiti scores zip when it comes to providing personal safety and a reasonable standard of living for the working class people....however, the upper class have mostly everything they need because they can afford it.

~Katia~