This looks promising.
Right before it happened? Like years ago “right before it happened” or last week? Because it was the latter I say, “Great!”.
Too little, too late.
Or in other words, companies went in and gave them work for wages and they decided it was in their interest to do so, and Noam Chompsy is showing once again why he is a venal, ignorant idiot.
I consider any place that dutifully lauds the Lord Chompsky to be my mortal enemy. Sort of like quoting Satan.
Let’s see: we re-installed the duly elected President of Haiti back in 1994. Can’t see what’s wrong with that, even if it didn’t do much long-term good.
I mean, supposedly we’re the proponents of democracy.
As for the reasons this coup ousted Aristide, it’s hard for me to believe that a group that Baby Doc seems to be on good terms with ousted Aristide on account of his corruption and violence. Put me in the “they wanted to be beneficiaries of the corruption, and dishing out the violence” school.
I also haven’t seen anything about the relative levels of violence employed. I’m not buying into the Haitian equivalent of “Bush and Kerry both took special interest money, therefore they’re morally equivalent on the issue”.
Wow, that’s a pretty sweeping statement. Let me summarize:
“Shodan: Haiti beyond salvation.”
What reforms did Aristide resist that were unreasonable to resist?
OK, my bad. My apologies.
I disagree. Look at it this way: the US had several choices here. They were:
What 2,3, and 4 all involve is a decision by the U.S. of who should be running Haiti. #4 also involves some genuine nation-building if it’s to mean anything. (It’s the one we kinda pretended to do, by putting Aristide’s constitutional successor in charge, but from news accounts, it doesn’t look like he’s in charge of much at all, and the rebels have taken over. So we’ve effectively chosen #3, especially since we’re not going to stick around and play the nation-building game in Haiti.)
We know the rebels are a bunch of bloodthirsty killers. So what honest reasons do we have for plucking out Aristide and letting them take over? Seems like we don’t have an improvement here for Haitians, and we’re essentially saying, “Hey, if you want to invalidate an election via mob violence, we’ll help.”
If we’re in the business of encouraging the spread of democracy, this isn’t exactly how you do it - even if Aristide is not the tiniest bit better than the rebels.
Last fall, Bush was making speeches about our ‘forward strategy’ of actively promoting democracy. To go against our official policy so clearly here either means we had it in for Aristide, or the policy was BS in the first place. (OK, so it was probably the latter. But it forces that issue for free; I’ll pick up that chit in the next Iraq debate.)
I’m glad you were struck by them. Explain the problem, given Bush’s long and detailed history as liar, obfuscator, deceiver, and breaker of promises. I don’t know enough to say whether Aristide deserves any benefit of the doubt. But I know about Bush.
And since I was talking about aid in that first quote, you’re right: Haiti is a shithole. But unlike you, I’m not prepared to write an entire country off as unredeemable. However, it won’t happen without money. And while it’s reasonable for us to choose not to help Haiti under whatever ruler, there was no reason for us to constrain the IMF or the IADB or the World Bank from doing so if they saw fit. Yet that is apparently what we did. And that strikes me as prima facie evidence of hostile intent.
I’m such a person. I think the facts are on my side.
[QUOTE=xtisme}I’m sorry…I should have been clearer. I meant to say, list some GOOD reasons for the US to directly involve itself in Haiti’s mess at the cost of god knows how much money and the perminient stationing of troops…and most likely the bad will that this will generate IN Haiti towards the US and possibly the rest of the world as we nose into yet another countries internal problems. [/quote]
This question seems to assume we’ll hang around awhile. I’m dubious.
Monroe Doctrine, perhaps?
Certainly, but like I said to Shodan, Haiti’s problems weren’t going to fix themselves; outside money was needed to have a prayer. Refusing to aid Haiti ourselves can be defended; blocking the other international agencies we’re part of from doing so strikes me as actively hostile.
Well, we have been doing everything we can about Castro, short of military intervention. (And we even halfheartedly tried that once, long ago.) It just hasn’t worked.
This is a very ideologically pro-corporate crew that’s running the country. I’ve gotta agree that if Aristide was fighting privatization of state-run businesses (something we tried to push through in Iraq right after Bremer took charge) and defending a higher minimum wage than the corporations with plants there would have liked, there’s a lot of people in the Bush administration who would have been quite irritated by that. Especially if the corporations in question were giving money to the GOP.
His name is Chomsky, not Chompsy. There is absolutely nothing “venal” about him – that is, no hint of scandal motivated by greed has ever attached to his name. As for “ignorant” – obviously it is tempting to apply that label to any political commentator whose views conflict with your own, but please bear in mind that Noam Chomsky is generally reputed as one of the most brilliant scientists in the history of linguistics. When it comes to society and politics, you might disagree violently with his interpretations of the facts, but you cannot make out a case that he is “ignorant” of anything important. What it really comes down to is not that you know something he doesn’t, or vice-versa, but that his values are fundamentally different from yours. Different, and better.
Note that I also lumped Castro and Kim in with Baron Munchausen – i.e., as preposterous liars all, but still to be trusted over GWB. This does not mean I am a Communist, nor does it mean I am credulous about the tall tales of an 18th-Century German aristocrat. What it means is that I really, really mistrust GWB, as all rational people should by this point in his administration. Get an English Comp 101 text and read up on the literary device known as “hyperbole.”
Other than the fact that he publicly supports the killing of Americans, since, after all, we cause everything bad in thew world and should die.
snort I’ve seen his theories. He’s a fraud start to finish. He may be a popular fraud, but so was Freud.
Huh? Cite, please?
Daniel
Random shots in both directions:
Or maybe not.
Cite? And such a statement, if he had made it, might be inflammatory and objectionable in a lot of ways, but it still wouldn’t be “venal”. From the Encarta online dictionary:
Of course it doesn’t. I was merely trying to point out that, unlike some people who set themselves up as political commentators, Noam Chomsky cannot in any sense be characterized as “ignorant” or an “idiot.” For the rest – yes, Chomsky’s a bit weird even by my standards, I don’t even pretend to understand what he means by labeling himself a “libertarian socialist”, but I’ve never heard or read any particular public statement of his that appeared to me to be ill-informed or poorly thought out. Even when I disagree with him I can follow his thinking easily. I really cannot imagine why anybody, even an extremist further off the right-wing end of the scale than Chomsky is off the left-wing end, would think of calling him a “venal, ignorant idiot.”
The fact that it did no long-term good is what is wrong with it, IMO.
Probably. Same motivations as everyone else who ever ran Haiti.
Yup, pretty much. Unless you would rather phrase it “Haiti’s problems cannot be solved by US intervention”. Or maybe “propping Aristide back up won’t do any good this time either”.
I don’t think he was overthrown because he resisted reforms; at least, that was not the motivation of the coup leaders. I believe the reason the US did not prop him back up (again) is because he refused to forswear political violence, and the roving gangs of thugs, that you and LHoD mentioned.
No problem.
Actually, #1 involves a de facto decision of who should be running Haiti as well. And, as I believe the task of nation-building in Haiti is beyond our powers by anything short of outright invasion, conquest, and a long period of colonialism, and that such a process is politically unfeasible, I believe #1 is the best response.
This looks a lot more like Viet Nam than it does anything else. Half-measures would be worse than none. It seems funny to hear arguments from those who oppose the invasion of Iraq so strenuously in favor of US wading into the Haitian slough.
Regards,
Shodan
Interesting comments by a member of Aristide’s security team
Aristide wasn’t forced out
I am not sure yet I would put it that way, specially coming from a group that was going to protect Aristide only if he was going to leave.
I picture this now as a miscommunication (I still suspect it was on purpose), together with exaggerations from Aristide. However, I see something that can not be denied: there was pressure for him to leave; staying, after being told his security would leave him if he was not, was suicide. Thugs one hundred times worse than what Aristide allegedly was, were moving in. I see that resignation as being done virtually under the gun.
One should see the recent hearing on the political situation in Haiti. from the House Hearing on Haiti Situation.
Asst. Sec. of State Roger Noriega & others testify before a House International Relations Subcmte.
http://www.c-span.org/homepage.asp search for Haiti on Videos.
IMO the republican representative from Florida actually said nothing in her first remarks. Very little to defend regarding the timing of the whole deal, so the typical republican remarks were only a thanks to the chairman, non sequiturs, and an argumentum ad populum from the chairman no less (All the calls I am getting are in favor of the intervention!) and permeating everything: reason 4506 on why the war on drugs exists: as an excuse to intervention.
Moving forward, it is necessary to make it clear that even if Aristide is no longer around, the thugs will be deal with. For some reason, I am not holding my breath for that one. Until then, this whole deal remains a signal for other gangsters in the Americas to do their worse, with very little repercussions for them.
From your link (my emphasis):
Sounds like he was depending on third hand information. Not exactly an eyewitness to the “resignation” process. But I thought this was interesting:
In any case, more info re Steele:
Witnesses who support Aristide’s version: http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=497303
If Aristide left of his own free will, why did he not know where he was going until he got there? When the pilot asked him where to go, do you think he said “surprise me”???
Also, who gave the plane that took Aristide away permission to land in Haiti? McClellen wouldn’t answer that one.
The U. S. State Department (and the NY Times) claim that Aristide requested asylum in South Africa and the government of South Africa refused to give him asylum. However, the South African ambassador to the United Nations, Dumisani Kumalo, confirmed that Aristide did not request asylum in South Africa, nor did the SA government deny him asylum or exile.
Officials in the CAR have now denied Aristide the use of a telephone, or access to the press w/o prior authorisation release from them (probably to stop him repeating his allegations). He was whisked away to a place he didn’t know he was going to, he can’t leave, he is being held under guard by French and African soldiers, and now he can’t even use the phone or speak to the media.
But it would be crazy to be suspicious of all this, right? :rolleyes:
They have no resources to speak of…and they mostly export poor people. What do they have? As far as I know, they have a little sugar and coffee production, and manufacture baseballs. Outside of this, what is there to sustain 8 million people?
Here’s a little snippet about the Haitian “rebellion” and it’s implications…
Haiti Political News
Haiti: ‘rebels’ used to break union at Grupo M (Levi’s) factory
2004-03-06 09:30:21
by Haiti Support Group
The new union of workers at the Grupo M factory at Ouanaminthe on Haiti’s border with the Dominican Republic has been violently busted. The Grupo M management has enlisted the support of the armed insurgents, who earlier this week overthrew the Haitian government, to break the union. Please take action now to demand the re-instatement of the sacked union members.
http://www.newshaiti.com/index.php?mode=single&n=513&PHPSESSID=f799b8fa069435543610244275cbb29a
Haiti has ALWAYS had major human resources availabe for exploitation. Thus the continuing U.S. intervention whenever things get “out of hand” , like the original slave revolt that founded the nation, and any subsequent attempts at real self-determination on the part of the Haitian people.
Very little seems to be written about this period. However, I understand that just about the ONLY roads built in Haiti were made during that period. Anyway, what exactly did the US do during the occupation? I assume schools were built…does the University of Haiti date from this period?
Finally, was the initial occupation done to prevent the Germans from having a base in the western hemisphere?