Why won't Bush defend democracy in Haiti?

[Borealis]

There's a huge laundry list of countries in the midst of civil unrest, crimes against humanity and the like. Should the US get involved in every last one of them? Would it be appropriate? Are we the police of the world? Is Haiti a concern to the US merely because of it's geographic proximity to the US? Is that the determining factor?

If Haiti should be dealt with by the US for any reason other than it's close proximity, then we really need to beef up our military force. The world is waiting....so many countries, so little time.

Exactly. First the liberals complain because Bush went to Iraq, disregarding the mass graves, rape rooms, death squads, gassed Kurds, terrorist sponsorship...and say it's just because of the oil. Now when someone that the liberals supported (Clinton's administration was instrumental in getting Aristide elected, remember) turns out to be a ruthless dictator instead of the nice guy the left wishes he was, they complain that Bush isn't going in with guns blazing to protect him.

Aristide, from all accounts, could be another Hussein in the making. The liberals complained when Hussein was taken out; maybe Bush is trying to not rile them up again...

 

[Dragonfly]

"Does ANYONE on here have an idea as to why the situation in Africa is ignored by us???? And the united nations, and if it is....i want to know something about it!"

I might have an idea.

You see, if we go in to Africa it will be seen as the British, French, Belgian, and German Empires of the late 19th century all over again.

It's almost funny, the Africans fought all sorts of wars getting us White Imperialists to leave, and they massacred Whites in Rhodesia, and now they beg for us to return, especially in Liberia.

And if we returned they would probably still complain of Imperial oppression.

Good point. Thank you!

 

[datan]

Exactly. First the liberals complain because Bush went to Iraq, disregarding the mass graves, rape rooms, death squads, gassed Kurds, terrorist sponsorship...and say it's just because of the oil. Now when someone that the liberals supported (Clinton's administration was instrumental in getting Aristide elected, remember) turns out to be a ruthless dictator instead of the nice guy the left wishes he was, they complain that Bush isn't going in with guns blazing to protect him.

you must have missed the news that Haiti is now in danger of civil war.
Iraq wasn't in danger of civil war until the US invaded it.

 

[Larry]

nevermind

 

[datan]

And Americans should care about that because....................

isn't it ironic that this statement exactly exemplifies his point about arrogance?

 

[datan]

never mind

 

[Larry]

were those major crimes against humanity taking place at the time Iraq was being invaded, or was it ten years after the fact?


you must have missed the news about the UN Security Council wanting to get involved. that isn't unilateral.



why repeat this point? to make your diatribe look more impressive?
Were there crimes against humanity taking place at the time that Iraq was being invaded?



who exactly are these "a lot of people"? Can you be more specific rather than some vague handwaving?

I'm sorry datan. I did not mean to get you, or anyone, upset or in a defensive posture against me. I am merely putting my 2 cents in, from my own observations in these discussions.

I will withdrawl my remarks.

 

[Borealis]

you must have missed the news that Haiti is now in danger of civil war.
Iraq wasn't in danger of civil war until the US invaded it.

Only because there was a lunatic in Baghdad killing anyone who looked at him cross-eyed.

I haven't followed the news about Haiti; it's not getting much coverage in the Canadian newspapers that I read (admittedly, I mainly read the opinion pages). I don't watch much television, and you couldn't pay me to watch CNN.

So, should Bush be sending troops? It's a tough question. For humanitarian reasons, I'd say yes, just as they did in Iraq. If Aristide is killing people in batch lots, I'll lead the charge myself. If the rebels are doing so, I'll fire the rocket into their base camp. But if it's a skirmish on the level of what you see in LA or Detroit on a regular basis, why send in a lot of troops? Peacekeeping is a United Nations service, not an American one.

For political reasons, the question is simple: what does America gain? There's no oil to trade, no threat of weapons of mass destruction, 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). So, what's in it for America? If Bush does send in the troops, do we get to hear screaming and moaning from the left about Bush acting unilaterally again? I'd say we would, and it would be from the same people screaming at him that he's not doing anything right now. And as soon as a white American soldier killed a black Haitian for ANY reason whatsoever, the cry of RACISM would spread far and wide across the land, trumpted on the front pages, repeated ad nauseum on television, and raised like a banner by Corrine Brown.

No matter what Bush does, his opponents will not praise his actions; they'll twist it around to score political points, especially in an election year. So, I'd go with the humanitarian viewpoint, as I described it above.

Perhaps my opinion is a simple one; as I said, I don't have a lot of information on the situation. If I learn more, my opinion will change accordingly.

 

[Borealis]

I'm sorry datan. I did not mean to get you, or anyone, upset or in a defensive posture against me. I am merely putting my 2 cents in, from my own observations in these discussions.

I will withdrawl my remarks.

I saw nothing inappropriate in your post. It made a lot of sense to me, actually. It certainly wasn't a diatribe. If datan thinks it was, he hasn't read many of my posts.

Stand by what you believe and post. If everyone puts in two cents, it'll add up in time.

Datan didn't quite read the post thoroughly when he asked why you were repeating a point. You were restating it from the opposite position. Perhaps a bit wordy, but I'm not one to bicker about that, am I?

And if he wants you to name names, don't be afraid to do so. I'm willing to bet you can put the name 'Corrine Brown' at the top of that list.

 

[Dale]

*

KLLM82 in post #23:
<< Aristide practices voodoo and he does his rituals and what not...his rituals involve the killing of babies and pregnant women. Haiti is really a poor country...and it's easy for him to kill a poor person for his rituals. >>
*
Would you care to apologize for this? Aristide is an ordained Catholic priest. If you have any evidence that he has ever practiced voodoo I haven't seen it.
*

 

[datan]

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

this was never the reason for the war, so let's not pretend it was.

Peacekeeping is a United Nations service, not an American one.

and peacekeepers come from member countries eg. Australia in East Timor; Britain in Sierra Leone; France in Congo/Ivory Coast; Nigeria/America in Liberia etc.

For political reasons, the question is simple: what does America gain? There's no oil to trade, no threat of weapons of mass destruction, 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).

So, what's in it for America?

political stability just south of its borders?
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?

or maybe you can turn around and ask why France wants to create a multi-national force to help clean up a problem in America's backyard? What does France have to gain? The exact same nothing. Yet they are willing to contribute troops to a multi-national task force. What do they have to gain? Why are they doing this?

If Bush does send in the troops, do we get to hear screaming and moaning from the left about Bush acting unilaterally again? I'd say we would, and it would be from the same people screaming at him that he's not doing anything right now.

where do you get the idea that it would be 'unilateral'? The UN Security Council is getting involved, for crying out loud. I know it's convenient to accuse the 'left' of accusing Bush of acting unilaterally; but let's not distort facts.

 

[Dale]

*
*
Something we may be overlooking...
The US did invade Haiti about ten years ago. On PBS, Congressman Rangel said that not one American soldier was killed by hostile fire in that action.That could be a point in favor of going back.
*
Nevertheles...
One reason Americans may be reluctant to go back is simply that we went that route and it didn't seem to do much good. A counter-argument might be that the US didn't stay long enough and didn't demand big enough changes when we were there.
*
On poverty in Haiti, I read a intriguing story on American business in Haiti in the late 1990's. Baseballs were being made in Haiti. Here is the interesting part: People managing church pension funds, owning major amounts of stock in some companies, were horrified by the low wages paid to Haitian workers. Never mind that Haiti is considered the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere. Anyone who has any kind of a job that pays real cash is doing above average. Still, these church pension fund managers, including nuns, were determined to stop American companies from exploiting Haitian labor.
*
The result: American companies making baseballs in Haiti, sensitive to these stockholder complaints, shut down their operations in Haiti. They started making baseballs in Thailand, I believe, instead.
*
Does anyone with a brain cell in their head believe this did Haiti any good?

*
*

 

[revolutio]

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=4461202&section=news

Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide, facing anarchy, food shortages and rising pressure from Washington to resign as rebels close in, tried on Saturday to rein in armed loyalists terrorizing the capital.

...

"We urge him to examine his position carefully, to accept responsibility, and to act in the best interests of the people of Haiti," the White House said in a statement. "This long-simmering crisis is largely of Mr. Aristide's making."

I don't know quite what to make of this. I do think that military intervention to keep the peace would be beneficial. Atleast three people were killed in the capital and that number will likely go up.

These people are not fanatical. They are not driven by unshakable dogma. They just want a stable country and the necessities of life, neither of which the leadership is providing. The vast majority are not going to pick a fight with an organized military force of any nationality. A presence of such a force will give the collective governments time to work together and sort this mess out and get the Haitian people back on their feet.

Haiti is one of the poorest countries in the Americas if not the poorest. They are in need. I think it is time to show the world that both the UN and US can act out of something other than bare self-interest. I don't think anyone is going to field any serious claims of countries having something to gain from intervention in Haiti other than possibly some good PR.

 

[mikefromwichita]

isn't it ironic that this statement exactly exemplifies his point about arrogance?

Arrogant no, practical yes. haiti has problems that only the haitians can resolve.

 

[KLLM82]

*

KLLM82 in post #23:
<< Aristide practices voodoo and he does his rituals and what not...his rituals involve the killing of babies and pregnant women. Haiti is really a poor country...and it's easy for him to kill a poor person for his rituals. >>
*
Would you care to apologize for this? Aristide is an ordained Catholic priest. If you have any evidence that he has ever practiced voodoo I haven't seen it.
*

I'll tell you one thing...a lot of people in Haiti who claim to be Catholic practices voodoo indeed, sad but true and Aristide is one of them. I know people who knows him and yes, they have said it. His involvement in rituals have also been spoken about in the news radios in Haiti...in addition, it has been said that he goes in the Catholics churches and do what he needs to do.

~Katia~

 

[armed2010]

@ Armed 2010...Why would put such a picture with the written words you included? Is that what you believe should be done?

~Katia~

Its called humor.

 

[DaveSZ]

Their refugees?

And besides -- Haitians speak French. REAL patriots know not to have ANYTHING to do with ANYTHING that's French.

Except French's Mustard.

You mean Freedom Mustard?

 

[Borealis]

this was never the reason for the war, so let's not pretend it was.

I did not state that the war was begun for humanitarian reasons. I'm stating that there were humanitarian reasons for fighting it, even if they weren't articulated beforehand by anyone on either side. The end result was a good thing, wasn't it? A mass murdering, psychotic terrorist sponsor is out of power, and Iraq is on its way to becoming a democratic nation. Please explain why this is bad, and try to do it without resorting to 'Bush is a Nazi'-style rhetoric.

and peacekeepers come from member countries eg. Australia in East Timor; Britain in Sierra Leone; France in Congo/Ivory Coast; Nigeria/America in Liberia etc.

You're going to lecture a Canadian about peacekeeping? Canada's Lester Pearson was the guy who came up with the idea. Believe me, Canadians are well aware of what peacekeeping is all about.

political stability just south of its borders?
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?

It's not on my doorstep; I'm not American. And again, you totally ignored what I actually posted. That's becoming quite a habit with you, isn't it? Did you read the part where I said 'if there is mass murder being done by either side, go in with guns blazing?' No, of course not, because that statement makes your accusation of my hypocrisy inconvenient.

At least this time you didn't quote my entire post. Maybe you're learning.

or maybe you can turn around and ask why France wants to create a multi-national force to help clean up a problem in America's backyard? What does France have to gain? The exact same nothing. Yet they are willing to contribute troops to a multi-national task force. What do they have to gain? Why are they doing this?

That one's easy. France was humiliated when Bush told them they were irrelevant and was proven right. Now the French want to turn the tables on the Americans and make them look bad. It's pure political garbage.

where do you get the idea that it would be 'unilateral'? The UN Security Council is getting involved, for crying out loud. I know it's convenient to accuse the 'left' of accusing Bush of acting unilaterally; but let's not distort facts.

Wow. You really have that whole 'irony' thing down pat, don't you? Let's see...ah, yes. I love this quote:

Even the most powerful nation in the history of the world must bring other nations to our side to meet common dangers. The president's policies do not reflect that. He has pursued a go-it-alone foreign policy that leaves us isolated abroad and that steals resources we need for education and health care here at home.

Gee, sounds like an accusation of 'unilateralism' to me, doesn't it? Care to retract your 'distorting facts' accusation?

The UN Security Council is desperate to regain a semblance of relevance in the modern world; they're jumping on Haiti as a chance to reclaim pride of place in a world that's rapidly moving beyond them. They lost all credibility when they refused to enforce their own resolutions against Iraq. Not that they had much left after their treatment of Israel over the past few decades.

In short, you're trying to twist what I posted around to make it look like I said things I didn't say. Typical left-winger; when truth is inconvenient, make up your own truth and run with it.

 

[datan]

I did not state that the war was begun for humanitarian reasons. I'm stating that there were humanitarian reasons for fighting it, even if they weren't articulated beforehand by anyone on either side.

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.

It's not on my doorstep; I'm not American. And again, you totally ignored what I actually posted. That's becoming quite a habit with you, isn't it? Did you read the part where I said 'if there is mass murder being done by either side, go in with guns blazing?' No, of course not, because that statement makes your accusation of my hypocrisy inconvenient.

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?"

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?

That one's easy. France was humiliated when Bush told them they were irrelevant and was proven right. Now the French want to turn the tables on the Americans and make them look bad. It's pure political garbage.

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

Gee, sounds like an accusation of 'unilateralism' to me, doesn't it? Care to retract your 'distorting facts' accusation?

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.

The UN Security Council is desperate to regain a semblance of relevance in the modern world; they're jumping on Haiti as a chance to reclaim pride of place in a world that's rapidly moving beyond them. They lost all credibility when they refused to enforce their own resolutions against Iraq. Not that they had much left after their treatment of Israel over the past few decades.

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?

In short, you're trying to twist what I posted around to make it look like I said things I didn't say. Typical left-winger; when truth is inconvenient, make up your own truth and run with it.

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

 

[PhantomLlama]

According to BBC news, Aristide has resigned, saying he wanted to 'avoid bloodshed'.

Bush has said American troops will be part of an international peacekeeping force.