I don't visit this section often, but I am shocked there isn't anything in here on what's happening in Haiti, so I'll start.

 

I ranted at work all day about this.....

 

As the rebels move in on Port Au Prince, I was curious as to why Mr. Bush had not made any move to help Aristide in this matter. Oh, wait, I do know.....there is nothing to gain by the U.S. in helping him. As a matter of fact, I have heard reports that Bush said the best thing for Aristide to do is step down.

 

President Bush, asked if Aristide should resign, pointed to comments from Secretary of State Colin Powell on Thursday. Powell had said Aristide should "examine his position carefully," indicating U.S. support for him was wavering.

 

This is ridiculous. We go in and take over a country(Iraq) and over 500 Americans are killed for people who don't even want the U.S. there. Now someone really needs our help and we are wavering. UNBELIEVABLE. Actually, yes it is. It's Bush.

 

I work with someone that has a wife in Haiti, and he still works and never talks about it. This is not headline news either. It's just starting to get talked about more because now the rebels are at Port Au Prince. I guess the other cities they took over didn't matter.

 

anybody have an opinion on this or is it just me?

It hasnt been in the news....

 

 

Blame the media on that for the most part. They are too hell bent on Iraq and the election to really pay attention to much else going on in this world.

 

 

Iraq is an example of where we shouldnt be.

 

 

Haiti is an example of a place we should at the very least consider sending in aid to the land.

 

 

America should be the 'force' in the Western Hemisphere. The nation that all others in this hemisphere look up to and goto for help in times of need, knowing that we will be ready to help.

 

But after Bush gave the world the big 'F-You' that no longer is to be expected.

neither bush, clinton, nor kerry would waste american dollars or lives there...we have no business ties there, so whats the point for them? Iraq is a boon for corporations and keeping us dependent on oil for another hundred years.

is it all about oil, or is it about actually helping people?

 

Not to mention one is about 750 miles away, and one is what, 10,000?

is it all about oil, or is it about actually helping people?

 

Not to mention one is about 750 miles away, and one is what, 10,000?

for bush to a large extent it is.

is it all about oil, or is it about actually helping people?

 

Yes, it is all about the oil. How would helping haiti benefit our country in any way. As much as some people wish it weren't, we DO live in a "what's in it for us" world. You hit the nail on the head in your 3rd (i guess) paragraph. There is nothing for the U.S. togain by helping haiti. Why do some people complain about us being the worlds police force because of our involvement in iraq, but then complain about us not helping haiti?

You can look at it in a moral way or in a political way.

 

Moral - Haiti's like 500 miles off our coast and since we stick our asses in everyone elses business, it should be our obligation to help them out

 

Political - What would we gain if we helped them? There's nothing in it for us so why do it for them?

 

Politics are eating up morality. Sad but true.

politics have always gone above morality. that is nothing new

I know it's nothing new, that's the sad part.

I wonder if the reason is that the reason is that it's half an sland of black people. I mean, we helped the kosovars and such.

 

No war we fight was truly for humanitarian purposes for a long while. Yet people think iraq is worth billions.

is that it's half an sland of black people.

just wondering, why would that be a factor to influence the US to not help?

that reason really wouldnt surprise me. this country still has problems with race

that reason really wouldnt surprise me. this country still has problems with race

Thinking back to all the gay forums, obviously race isn't the only problem in the US.

 

 

I know the first problem though - the president.\

 

And without that problem fixed, the other ones won't be solved either.

but race can be a factor in deciding to help a country, sexual orientation isnt.

it is possible. Do you think America would let a nearby island full of anglosaxons get brutally taken over? i honestly don't see it happening.

it's not so much a question of what we gain by helping them.

 

we need to figure out how exactly we can actually be of help to them.

 

at the moment, aristide is still technically president of haiti. we can't just bring in troops to bring in order and leave him in control; he so clearly cannot remain the viable leader of his people. at the same time, it's probably not a smart idea for us to remove him by force. if i had to guess, i'd say we'll probably send in a peacekeeping force after he (hopefully) surrenders to the rebels and we'll try to institute some sort of provisional government.

 

in any case, we can't just come in and help keep aristide in power unless we want to see all this happen again.

 

on another note, it looks like my march plane tickets to port au prince on american airlines are useless now.

washington turned up the heat on aristide to resign yesterday, aristide resigned today & left the country, and now we're sending a small peacekeeping force to haiti.

 

damn i'm good.

This is going to turn uglier now with Aristide resigning. How you ask? Because this isn't a united rebel front. There is the original rebel uprising, which began it's movement at the beginning of the month, that is somewhat peaceful. They are actually in this for a democratic government. On the other side there are the generals and such from the last dictatorship that came in from the DR right after I got home from Close Up (I believe the 15th was the day they marched into the country). They are the ones cutting of humanitarian aid, and they are disgustingly armed. There are alot less of them (I have heard reports of anywhere from 150-400, with the most common number thrown around being 200) but they have enough firepower to run a small war. Which is actually what this will turn into in a few days. There will be ALOT more people dead unless those armed militia are killed off or imprisoned.

 

Why did the US not get involved before? Well, because they were the ones that put Aristide in power in the first place. They marched in troops a few years back and made sure he was in power. Now the ones kicked out are coming for their power back, and the US has a big problem on their hands. They threw out one dictatorship for another, and now they are paying the price for continued apathy. And there is PLENTY to gain by keeping the peace in Haiti, because if Haiti is run over the DR is next. And after that, then Miami will be flocked with Haitians running all over the Richenbacher Causeway. Money isn't always the most important thing to be gained in a conflict.

 

What the smart thing would be is to go all out and turn Haiti into an example. Anyone wants to start a problem in the New World, they are going to have to answer to the US. No, that isn't ideally how latins like myself would want it, but the US' s***ty policy towards Latin America over all of the 21st century (no matter which party was in power) is coming back to haunt them and in 20-30 years if the problems that exist now are allowed to become bigger than the US will fall just like Rome did.

not to mention the entire 20th and 19th centuries...we have totally screwed Latin America like the Euros shafted Africa.

not to mention the entire 20th and 19th centuries...we have totally screwed Latin America like the Euros shafted Africa.

exactly.

 

 

 

we have given the screw job to Latin America over and over again in our history.

What the smart thing would be is to go all out and turn Haiti into an example. Anyone wants to start a problem in the New World, they are going to have to answer to the US. No, that isn't ideally how latins like myself would want it, but the US' s***ty policy towards Latin America over all of the 21st century (no matter which party was in power) is coming back to haunt them and in 20-30 years if the problems that exist now are allowed to become bigger than the US will fall just like Rome did.

you mean even your boy Reagan had a s***ty policy toward Latin America...which you didnt really want to acknowledge a while back....

Everyone has had a s***ty policy towards Latin America. Go top to bottom, all 43 of them have screwed up.

When generals overthrow a government "to create a democracy" no democracy will be had. believe me.

When generals overthrow a government "to create a democracy" no democracy will be had. believe me.

Well, not necessarily. But in this case yes.

I would say the historical record in most cases does what I say.

 

Will see what Chavez does in argentina, i'm sure he will reject the democractic recall election that was petitioned for.