America the hypocrites!!!

America already helped Haiti...depending on your definition of help.

Four years ago the US reinstated the "Pres" militarily after he was thrown out.

Originally posted by samfashow

apnews.myway.com...
Ok right now in Haiti rebels are overthrowing the government, which is corrupt, and running into little resistance from outside governments. What is the ethics behind the U.S. then...? How in hell can we sit there and choose which country to take over and change to our liking?? WTF!!! Is this not as plain to everyone else. We can sit there like a bunch of French people and say it does not concern us... well then either does Iraq. I am sorry but these are some screwed up ideals. I can not stand hypocrites.

samfashow,

First off, US foreign policy is currently very cautious concerning Central America, South America and the Caribbean. Coarsely put the US does not want to crap in it's own backyard unless drug interdiction or national security are the issues.

One may ask, why? The US has never been squeamish about manhandling the smaller countries to the south before?
The fact is, we now have a president who is courting Mexico and other neighbors to the south and he is very mindful of how America has been viewed in the past and how he would like to improve that less than stellar view.

Bear in mind that the perception south of the border is negative no matter what the US president does. It is in fact a damned if you do - damned if you don't senario.

If the US intervenes in the affairs of Haiti then there will be a rash of anti-American sentiment, "There they go, interfering in our affairs again!"

On the other hand, if the US does not intervene there will be a similar backlash from the south, "They don't care about us, they are content to see blood on the streets in Haiti!"

It is important to see that the US has more at stake with unrest in Fidel-friendly, oil-rich Venezuela, but the US has stayed out of the foray... why? A changing foreign policy towards the south.

To further understand, you need to realize that the difficult, eroding situation in Haiti presents the United States with two classic problems already touched on.

The first is basic to advocating democracy across the world. What do you do when the people of a country elect a president who then rules the country badly, to the point of provoking revolt? Does the United States resist intervening because he was chosen democratically? Or does it support forces in the country who are seeking to remove him, with the idea of replacing him with someone more apt to rule?

That is the problem now presented by the former Roman Catholic priest President Jean-Bertrand Aristide, elected in 1990, thrown out by undemocratic forces, then installed as president by the U.S. military in 1994. Mr. Aristide was re-elected in 2000.

The second problem for the United States is how to deal with the growing disorder in the country. Unrest has grown to the point that armed rebels control significant parts of the country. The specter of boatloads of illegal Haitian immigrants heading for South Florida lurks in the background.

The Bush administration resists the idea of putting American troops into Haiti again, repeating the action the Clinton administration took in 1994, for a range of good reasons. It is better in general if regional problems are dealt with by regional authorities or a combination of international organizations and neighboring countries.

So far, however, efforts to resolve the Haiti problem through the good offices of the Caribbean Community, the Organization of American States and the United Nations have been unsuccessful.

America also definitely does not have extra troops on hand at the moment for use in Haiti, given heavy commitments in Iraq, Afghanistan, South Korea, Germany, Japan, Kosovo and Bosnia-Herzegovina.

Yet there is an argument that if Haiti is eventually going to require an insertion of American troops to put the lid back on, perhaps it is better to do so now rather than let the situation deteriorate further, which might then require a larger troop contingent.

At the very least, the Bush administration should take whatever pains are necessary to see that if American troops go in, they work beside forces from other countries in the region, to share responsibility and to put a regional stamp on the intervention. That will require the administration to share authority in a way that it was reluctant to in Iraq, but that it has done with NATO in Afghanistan.

Sources:


The Rand Corporation - Caribbean in Crisis
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Hoover Institution - Essays in Public Policy



Thanks to Intelgirl for your technical help !

All of the senarios mentioned are those that we would take a stance on either side. Eaither we do go in and help the country restore it's rightful order or we sit back and let it happen. There is one other stance that we could take and that would be to hold a neutral feeling towards the diminshed government and the rebels. We could aid those such as the 57 people that have already died.

wierd that I would come across this now but: news.independent.co.uk...

Either he is a liar or his intellgence is wrong
But that is a definate play in central american affairs.

The US would probably let Haitians settle their own affairs, and that is the best thing to do, except communists always seem to get involved.

I'm hoping this time around that this is a real people's uprising and does not involve communists. If so then I hope the people prevail.

Originally posted by THENEO
The US would probably let Haitians settle their own affairs, and that is the best thing to do, except communists always seem to get involved.

I'm hoping this time around that this is a real people's uprising and does not involve communists. If so then I hope the people prevail.

communists or the terroist network? The communists are no longer a large threat as they were when Cuba wsa overturned. What if it becomes the new hot-spot for terroism... they wont need an ICBM to hit us from there. (Or would they I dont know)

Originally posted by samfashow

apnews.myway.com...
Ok right now in Haiti rebels are overthrowing the government, which is corrupt, and running into little resistance from outside governments. What is the ethics behind the U.S. then...? How in hell can we sit there and choose which country to take over and change to our liking?? WTF!!! Is this not as plain to everyone else. We can sit there like a bunch of French people and say it does not concern us... well then either does Iraq. I am sorry but these are some screwed up ideals. I can not stand hypocrites.

All i can say is National Security: This is a quote from the White House Overview of America's International Strategy.

"The U.S. national security strategy will be based on a distinctly American internationalism that reflects the union of our values and our national interests. The aim of this strategy is to help make the world not just safer but better. Our goals on the path to progress are clear: political and economic freedom, peaceful relations with other states, and respect for human dignity."

samfashow,

where ever there is chaos you will be sure to find your enemy looking for opportunity.

Originally posted by kinglizard

Originally posted by samfashow

apnews.myway.com...
Ok right now in Haiti rebels are overthrowing the government, which is corrupt, and running into little resistance from outside governments. What is the ethics behind the U.S. then...? How in hell can we sit there and choose which country to take over and change to our liking?? WTF!!! Is this not as plain to everyone else. We can sit there like a bunch of French people and say it does not concern us... well then either does Iraq. I am sorry but these are some screwed up ideals. I can not stand hypocrites.

All i can say is National Security: This is a quote from the White House Overview of America's International Strategy.

"The U.S. national security strategy will be based on a distinctly American internationalism that reflects the union of our values and our national interests. The aim of this strategy is to help make the world not just safer but better. Our goals on the path to progress are clear: political and economic freedom, peaceful relations with other states, and respect for human dignity."

If I may, I will quote the smae artical "We will defend the peace against the threats from terrorists and tyrants." GWB
well could the rebels be seen as terroists or the curput government seen as a tryany?

Originally posted by samfashow

Originally posted by kinglizard

Originally posted by samfashow

apnews.myway.com...
Ok right now in Haiti rebels are overthrowing the government, which is corrupt, and running into little resistance from outside governments. What is the ethics behind the U.S. then...? How in hell can we sit there and choose which country to take over and change to our liking?? WTF!!! Is this not as plain to everyone else. We can sit there like a bunch of French people and say it does not concern us... well then either does Iraq. I am sorry but these are some screwed up ideals. I can not stand hypocrites.

All i can say is National Security: This is a quote from the White House Overview of America's International Strategy.

"The U.S. national security strategy will be based on a distinctly American internationalism that reflects the union of our values and our national interests. The aim of this strategy is to help make the world not just safer but better. Our goals on the path to progress are clear: political and economic freedom, peaceful relations with other states, and respect for human dignity."

If I may, I will quote the smae artical "We will defend the peace against the threats from terrorists and tyrants." GWB
well could the rebels be seen as terroists or the curput government seen as a tryany?

The thing is, the Unites States contrary to popular belief and can�t solve every problem on the face of the planet. We have limited resources that we can call on. Our own National Security will always come first as they should for any country. If the US didn�t have such �full plate� we could and would help in other areas as we always have.

Originally posted by samfashow
wierd that I would come across this now but: news.independent.co.uk...

Either he is a liar or his intellgence is wrong
But that is a definate play in central american affairs.

Hugo Chavez has been playing the "evil colossus to the north is meddling in our affairs" card for years in order to garner support from his neighbors - a lesson that pal Fidel Castro taught him.
It is to the US's advantage to maintain stability in Venezuela regardless of whether it's Hugo Chavez in the driver's seat or someone else - due to the country being a major oil exporter right in the US's backyard.

The recent unrest in Venezuela cause oil production stoppages and in turn caused oil prices to rise in the US.
The support of more democratic oriented political powers in that country does not mean funding unrest and definitely does not mean military intervention.

Hugo Chavez is the only one who benefits by the unrest, his people nor US business interests do.

Is Chavez a liar?
Let's put it this way - Chavez is a master of misinformation "soviet" style... take whatever he says with a grain of salt - and you'll be like 78% of his people who also do not believe a word that comes from his lips.

The US may eventually deal with the Chavez situation out of "national interest" but the administration would definitely rather things just calm down and get back to the levels of oil production as before.

Bios,
I told you this was addictive...

Good posts by the way - good professional analysis, you should do this for a living~

Originally posted by intelgurl
Bios,
I told you this was addictive...

Good posts by the way - good professional analysis, you should do this for a living~

ya think?!? LOL!

Of course it's hypocrisy. Of course we're doing it for strategic dominance in the middle east. When I complain about it here I'm told "love it or leave it". I'm just trying to help people locally now. What I hate is when other countries tell us that we are being misled and lied to. "They're not called globalists for nothing." "Did you people in Europe vote for the European Union? Didn't think so."