Haiti

[jarhead]

Question for the audience........

I have noticed that many of the same U.S. and foreign politicians, who opposed U.S. troops on the soil Iraq, are now urging the U.S to send Marines into Haiti. In particular, I noticed Barbara Boxer with an extreme condemnation of the Bush administration for not acting sooner on ending the anarchy in Haiti, yet she was one of the foremost detractors for the liberation of Iraq from Sadam. The French government also, is urging intervention in a civil war, with no national interest at stake for anyone. "Just" humanitarian interests are involved here. If Haiti had oil, would we hear the cry of "no blood for oil"?

I'd be interested in opinions from y'all, as to why this apparent contradiction (hypocrisy, IMO) exists.

 

[Gulfstream 200]

naah...if they had oil - we would be there!

I guess they dont have much, just a bunch of animals rioting...send a small group of Marines to put on a good front like we really care.....yeah.

really, we care.

 

[EagleRJ]

Opinion of the Democratic Party = opposite of whatever Bush does.

 

[wil]

After reading Dubya's post it I have to say the answer is contained within that wonderful speech. I hope for the people's sake we can get stability to that island.

I also wonder, why is the Dominican Republic is 180 degrees different when they share the island?

 

[surplus1]

There are vast differences between Iraq and Haiti. It is literally night and day.

We are not invading Hati or bombing its people into submission with the intent to overthrow its government (at this point it essentially has no government) or occupy its territory. It is improbable that, if we send a small contingent of marines, we will not kill even one Hatian or lose any American lives. The action in Haiti, just as our previous action there, is truly a police action. Its purpose will be to maintain a modicum of order, keep the peace and avert killing and destruction by what is essentially a mob. If anyone is unable to see the difference, it has to be because you have inadequate knowledge of Haiti, of Iraq or both.

France's interest in Haiti exists only because it was once a French colonial possession and its people speak a French patois (dialect). The French have paternalistic syndrome with respect to former colonies, so long as the populations of those countries don't move to France.

Not only does Haiti have no oil, it doesn't even have an exportable banana crop or the ability to feed its population with the most basic of necessities. The overall poverty is something that most Americans can't even imagine.

The action of any military force, whether it comes from the United States, the Caricom countries or a combination of others will in fact serve no agenda other than the humanitarian. There will be no war in Haiti.

The United States has one additional "interest" in avoiding total chaos in Haiti. Anarchy in Haiti will produce an exodus of thousands of refugees to the shores of Florida and they all happen to be of a race that the government has no interest in harboring. That statement may not be politically correct but it is true nonetheless.

To the gentleman commenting about the Dominican Rebulic, it is not in fact 180 degrees different. We have previously invaded and occupied the Dominican Republic for an extended period, leaving a legacy of a dictator installed and supported by the USA over a 30-year reign of terror. When that dictator was assasinated, we invaded again to prevent anarchy and remained until a government to our liking was installed by the people.

The Dominican Republic also suffers from much poverty (though not nearly as bad as Haiti) due mostly to infiltration of its borders by a large number of Haitians, numbering over a million and changing the country substantially. Before that infiltration the Dominican Republic could in fact feed itself. It no longer can. There is now a huge exodus of Dominicans to the island of Puerto Rico as a result.

 

[jarhead]

I am a little puzzled, Surplus, by your contention that it is unlikely that any of our troops will be killed by a humanitarian police intervention. Is that not what the U.S. and others did just a few short years ago in Somalia? Did you read the book, or see the film "Blackhawk Down"? U.S. soldiers were killed and brutalized in that effort to bring food to a starving nation.

 

[Mr. Irrelevant]

The D.R. and Haiti are certainly different. One issue that has truly been a contributor to Haiti's poverty is their side of the island has basically been razed. No growth whatsoever. It's been that way for a very long time. They have almost no resources to provide for their own people. It is to my knowledge the only third world country in the western hemisphere. The D.R. at least has a pretty well known sugar cane industry, some tourism and exports hundreds of baseball players a year to our minor and major leagues!

Having been there before(many years ago), I can tell you it's poverty like you've never seen or could imagine here in the U.S. The QOL separation between their rich and their poor is like the Grand Canyon. When I had been there people would throw human waste out onto the street from a bucket in the morning. If you walk thru a market place people grab at you, beg you, follow you. Five dollars will feed them for a week, at least! Lastly, I recall the hotel was surrounded by cement walls with broken glass chards on the top to prevent people from breaking in. But that wasn't very effective.

Maybe some U.S. troops may be killed, who really knows. It certainly won't be hundreds as in Iraq. Last time we went there I don't recall many troops being killed either. I seriously doubt a book or movie should be used as reference to whether sending troops as part of an international force is the right idea


Mr. I.

 

[jarhead]

The book and film was not fiction. It was documentation. U.S. soldiers were killed by armed bands of thugs in Somalia, just as those now roaming the streets of Haiti, robbing and executing people at random. I see a very close parallel in Haiti, for the potential to duplicate the killing of troops that took place in Somalia

 

[surplus1]

I am a little puzzled, Surplus, by your contention that it is unlikely that any of our troops will be killed by a humanitarian police intervention. Is that not what the U.S. and others did just a few short years ago in Somalia? Did you read the book, or see the film "Blackhawk Down"? U.S. soldiers were killed and brutalized in that effort to bring food to a starving nation.

I did not read the book but I did see the film. Yes, US troops were killed and brutalized in Somalia however, if you check more thorougly I think you will find that our military did not go to Somalia for the purpose of bringing food to a starving nation.

American Marines, numbering about 2000, went to Somalia as part of a UN peacekeeping force attempting to end a civil war between clans and keep the peace. We were there for nearly two years before any Americans were killed. It is only when we engaged by choosing sides in the civil war and attempting to hunt down and capture General Aideed, a leading warlord, that US troops came under fire and some were killed when one of the hunting helicopters was shot down, presumably by Aideed supporters.

In the two years following the intervention more than 50,000 Somalis were killed in the factional fighting and another 300,000 died of starvation because supplies could not be distributed. The mission failed and the UN had to withdraw.

This was the first time that the UN had ever intervened in the affairs of a soverign nation without the permission of that nation.
Had we attempted only to keep the peace, instead of choosing sides, it is not likely that any Americans would have been killed.

 

[jarhead]

I will not dispute what you have stated about the U.S. trying to capture General Aideed. That is indeed factual. My recollection on what I am about to say is a little hazy right now, so please correct me if my recall is in error.

Did not U.S. forces become involved in the hunt down of Aideed because roaming bands of thugs in their “Technicals” (little Toyota’s with mounted machine guns) were attacking those people who were trying to distribute food to the starving people of Somalia? My recollection is that the U.S. felt that Aideed was the “leader” of these folks who were actually bringing more anarchy to the country than it already had. I remember the debacle in the news when military commanders requested more heavy armor, and were refused by the then Secretary of Defense, Les Aspin. When Americans saw on live TV, the body of a dead pilot being dragged through the streets, it cost Mr. Aspin his job. Someone had to take the “hit” for President Clinton for the debacle that went from a humanitarian effort, to soldiers being killed by these warlords and their followers.

I hope that type of thing will not repeat itself in Haiti, but there are “forces” there that are loyal to its deposed president, and there are “forces” loyal to the rebels. Is not the intervention of outsiders just the same as what was done in Somalia? I have seen NBC news footage of Haiti in recent days, and the anarchy, replete with burning buildings and rotting corpses in the streets. I see footage of Haitian men and boys running and jumping around, all with pistols and rifles in their hands. It escapes me as to how this civil war is any different. I see no national interest of the U.S. to be there at all. The coast guard has cutters off shore to turn back any flood of boat people trying to “float” to Florida. That is the only national interest of America.

Since the French government is eager to quell the rebellion and unrest, why not let them spend their treasure and military assets, without Americans involved? We have enough on our plate. I sense this is all political, to appease the supporters of Charlie Rangle, Barbara Boxer, Al Sharpton, and other prominent black “leaders” in our country. That is not to say that I am insensitive to the awful condition that the Haitians are living under. Perhaps this is the kind of place that the United Nations can take the lead. I see no reason for the U.S. to be taking the lead in this with our Marines. It is a civil war among Haitians.

 

[merikeyegro]

...

As a registered Democrat, I actually have to say that I support Bush's position in this matter. Not that it matters, as I support very little else of what he does. However, Haiti is not really our business aside from boat people. The force we're sending is measured, proportional, and responsible for maintaining some semblance of peace.

The parallels to Somalia are a little loose, if you ask me. Just a thought.

Nonetheless, any Democrat standing against Bush in this matter, IMO, is just posturing. Each one of them should stick to the anti-preemption stance they've taken since Iraq. You can't have your cake and eat it, too. I would likely vote against any Democrat that is standing up against this. Do not blame Bush now. We're better off without thousands of Haitians showing up again.

Bush was still wrong in Iraq. I'm not convinced this wasn't about oil. We have no interest in Haiti aside from humanitarian crisis. However, he's right in this respect.

 

[I Hate Freight]

Boortz's take on Haiti

THE BLACK CONGRESSIONAL CAUCUS AND HAITI

Now we have U.S. Marines on the ground in Haiti. To be perfectly blunt, I don't believe that Haiti is worth the life of one single American Marine. That dog-squeeze of a country needs to be colonized.

Here's an idea ... Let's tell the United Nations that their lease on the East River property is up ... and that their new home is Haiti. The Roman Catholic Church has the Vatican .. it's own sovereign nation. Let's give the UN Haiti. It's all theirs. Have a blast.

You do notice, of course, that Charles Rangel, Maxine Waters and the rest of the Congressional Black Caucus have their stretch pants in a wad over what's goin' down in Haiti. The caucus almost unanimously agreed that American troops needed to go in there, sooner rather than later, and set things right.

Interesting, isn't it. The members of the Congressional Black Caucus are just as opposed to using military force to liberate Iraq from Saddam Hussein as they are to use our armed forces to save Aristide's corrupt posterior. Surely you don't wonder why. One word ... race. Haiti is a black nation ... and that is all the excuse the caucus needs to send our troops in. Just call it what it is.

The latest? Now Aristide is saying that the U.S. Military forced him out .. and, once again, it was because of race. As Aristide puts it ... "white American, white military." Maybe Aristide is upset because he didn't get to take all of his money with him. Here is a man who was a Catholic Priest ... vow of poverty and all that. He becomes politically active, is elected president of Haiti, and ends up being the richest man in Haiti. How do you do that?

Who are you going to believe? George Bush and Colin Powell, or former Haitian dictator Jean Bertrand-Aristide? That's right, former dictator. The Democrats are running around calling Aristide the "democratically elected leader" of Haiti. Of course, this isn't true...the elections in 2000 that put him in office have long been denounced by many as fraudulent and rigged. So why is it then that the Congressional Black Caucus held a press conference yesterday blasting the administration for "kidnapping" Aristide? Why politics, of course.

Aristide is only alive because the United States provided him safe passage into exile. He is now calling everyone who will listen to spread lies about how he got there. From Jesse Jackson to the Congressional Black Caucus, he's really working the lines from his new home in the Central African Republic. His version of events go like this: he was sitting in his Presidential palace minding his own business when the "white military" knocked down the door, forced him to sign his resignation at gunpoint, and then threatened to shoot him if he didn't come with them to the airport. Yeah right...dry that one out and you could fertilize the lawn.

The truth is much different. According to Secretary Powell, Aristide called a US Ambassador on Saturday and decided that resigning was the best course of action. The U.S. then leased a jet and worked the phones to find a nation that would take him in exile. Aristide was escorted by his personal security detail to the airport, where he flew out the country. Even the communications minister for the Central African Republic where Aristide was taken says that the kidnapping claim is "absolutely false."

The solution? A listener suggests that the U.S. Military simply go over there to Africa, scoop Aristide up, and then deposit him right in the middle of the Haitian Capital. There ... all fixed up.

 

[bart]

The UN needs to head somewhere else. Kofi Annan would look funny running from a machete wielding mob.