Should the US Get Invloved In Haiti?

Call the world organization.........The defunct United Nations, oh wait, thats right, they'll end up calling or demanding the US to take measures.


regards
seekerof

Or the U.S. may have some points that input needs to be put forth.

The greatest empire ever, Rome, fell. I don't think that Americas will last 1/4 as long.

Seekerof,

It comes down to who is the most powerful organisation on the planet. Currently that�s U.S and the U.N. For one of those organisations to say' to hell with the rest of you' is sad in the extreme. I wouldn't want to be part of any organisation that dismissed the pain of others when at the same time they had the power to change it.
Isn't that what we as humans are meant to be all about?

Yes, they may hate you for it. Has that stopped any other of the past that made a difference? Is that reason to say I give up! To hell with you all!

Or are we now all about our economy, our share prices , Our unemployment levels and our all together general selfishness? Criticism never killed. Inaction has.

Before anybody says it, I was waiting for it. The difference is making out that's the reason because you know people would support it, in the ways I have said, when it's just lies.

Kegs...
No fear....the US is will get involved, this is academic, yes? There is the refugee influx, etc.
Liberia was a UN failure and the US was called in, as the French were pulling out. Now the French are considering help for Haiti?! WTF? The US is currently sending a group of military advisors to evaluate the situation...France is where?
You getting my drift here, and my anger at this also?
The US is "damned if you do and damned if you don't"!
Makes no frailin' sense....*shrugs*

Nonetheless, I found this interesting article...you will need to register to read it all but I will post some excerpts:

"Kerry Pushed For Military Invasion of Haiti in 1994"
www.nytimes.com...

Excerpt:

"In 1994, John Kerry wrote a lengthy op-ed piece on Haiti, and why he believed that military invervention should be on the table. Below is the editorial in full. Read it and laugh along with me as Kerry brags repeatedly of our military success in Desert Storm and appears to almost take credit for that success. But a bit of warning. You may want to have a barf bag handy because the hypocrisy may cause you to hurl your guts out.

"Haiti�s military rulers continue to thumb their noses at the United States and the rest of the world. Since the ouster of President Jean-Bertrande Aristide in September 1991, the international community has consistently tried to pressure the junta to step aside, but nothing has worked --not diplomacy, not tighter sanctions, not a partial naval embargo. By tolerating their defiance and unrelenting brutality, we have empowered Haiti�s military thugs.

As a result, our credibility as a world leader is at stake. Haiti�s military leaders must now be put on notice that we�re prepared to take all steps necessary to restore democracy and prove to all renegade elements that we mean what we say. We need to pursue an aggressive diplomatic course, to escalate sanctions and to impose a total naval blockade if necessary. But if those don�t work, we must be willing to seek international approval to use military force......

In the absence of clear and present danger, the United States should not use force unilaterally. If ultimately needed, the force should be similar to the international one used in the Persian Gulf. It should consist of troops from the �four friends� -- the United States, France, Canada and Venezuela -- and from other nations in the region. The military power should be massive, to minimize casualties, and the intervention should be short. Granted, it will take leadership and persuasive power to build the coalition. But the United States succeeded in both regards in Grenada, Panama and Iraq, and there�s no reason it can�t accomplish the same for Haiti."



regards,
seekerof

[Edited on 19-2-2004 by Seekerof]

Seekerof,

Your damned if you do and your damned if you don't was partly my point.

Since when has that been a reason to give up on what you think is right? If you do you�re a coward of the highest ranking, especially if you�re the worlds leading power. (I don�t think the U.S should go into Haiti at this moment, I�m talking in general.) It�s no good for the U.S to throw the dummy out the pram on international relations that actually matter on all else because most people disagreed on what one stupid man decided. Especially if as a country you truly want to be respected and have the power as such on the world stage.
Wither you agree with Bush or not, it is imperative that America does not become insular. Not just for America, but for the world.






[Edited on 19-2-2004 by kegs]

Well, this whole Haiti issue is starting alot like the Iraq issue. First off, it is becoming more and more frequent to view in the evening news and such. Second, the Haiti president is begging for our support, and some other allied countries are pushing us to do it. (That is unlike the Iraq issue) Now, as far as I can see, it looks like Bush may end up sending some troops for support. He has already sent an "assessment team" to check out "security" around the Embassy there. He did the same in Iraq. Depending on what they determine, even though I don't think the rebels there would be stupid enough to attack a U.S. embassy - though they might. If the security team, which consists no more than 10 I think, determines that the U.S. officials there, along with Haiti officials on U.S. property are in danger, then the U.S. would end up sending troops to "defend" itself at the embassy. Of course, if things get too hot at the embassy itself, and some major battle occurs, then yes, I think the U.S. should definately put those rebels in their place. Other than that, the rebels haven't become "too" violent yet, though they have taken command of some cities, they haven't struck any major government places - yet. If this happens, the U.S., may too put U.S. troops to defend those places. When this happens, the rebels will come to take command, the troops will fight, and it becomes not just a Haiti civil war - but the U.S.'s problem as well.

(Though, if nothing happens before the next election, assuming Bush loses, which I don't think he will, though if he does, and a Democrat gets in the white house, we could be looking at a whole different situation. I don't think Kerry or Edwards would want to risk another global fight by going into Haiti.)

EDIT: The Haiti situation is entirely different than the Iraqi situation, and, if we (the U.S.) did go into Haiti, I believe we could redeem ourselves in the world, this would be a straight forward liberation..no conspiracy here.

(BTW: Who said Rome was the best ever? Personally, I think the Huns, while led under Attila, was the best roaming empire - they were undefeated, and controlled most if not all of the Asian continent, and some of Europe, which lasted, I believe, a couple or few hundred years. BTW: They defeated the Romans in combat multiples times Most of the time, the Roman strategy of stacking shielded men didn't work - the ruthless Huns ran right through them on horseback, while the skilled archers took out officers and leaders.

-wD


[Edited on 19-2-2004 by WeBDeviL]

What is it with the damn french. Everytime they do something, we have to step in after the mess it all up.

I also remember Vietnam being a French U.N. function.

Funny that the same political softies protested the U.N. backed war in Vietnam, protest the war in Iraq now, yet for the same reasons as the other wars want them and us to step into Haiti?

Makes no sense.

Human suffering sucks, we all know it. But there is a limit to our ability in the world if everyone hates us and refuses to help us.

Regime change has put us at odds with a lot of people, should we continue regardless now?

You might as well blame the problems in America on the British.

Try to be more ambiguous when you post Keggy. It makes people like you better and aids in information transfer.

Good work.

Carry on.

if the UN comes calling the US should just say "# YOU GUYS! YOU HANDEL IT!" im tired of the US being the back bone of all UN operations!

Haiti is of no value,,, no oil,not even and special food products we might want to defend.

Latest, besides the French comments:

"U.N. considering help for Haiti"
interestalert.com.../sn/02170004aaa049d2.upi&Sys=siteia&Fid=LATEBRKN&Type=News&Filter=Late%20Breaking

Excerpt:

"

UNITED NATIONS, Feb. 17 (UPI) -- U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said Tuesday the world organization has been considering how it can help in violence-torn Haiti.

"We are extremely concerned about the situation in Haiti and we have been in touch with Caribbean Community and the Organization of American States in reassessing our own participation and how we should become much more actively engaged," he said. "I may have some announcements in the next few days."

Annan met during the day with Ambassador Jean Alexandre of Haiti about the situation, said a spokesman, who added a U.N. interagency mission has been in Haiti for more than a week."


4 days later and yet to see how the UN is going to address this.


regards
seekerof

Originally posted by BeingWatchedByThem
I for one, am sick of the United States being the "police of the world". Screw Haiti! Bring the troops home, and protect OUR nation, not everyone elses!

Couldn't have said it any better...