What's everyone's opinion about recent events in Haiti?

A desperately poor, very volatile nation. The people brutalized and the economy and environment raped over the course of decades by the ruthless dictatorship of "President-for-life" Papa Doc, then baby Doc. Whom some say were supported by the U.S.

The best thing we ever did was to help get Baby Doc out of power, though in the process we helped preserve the life of a man who didn't deserve it.

IMO, every time we go in there and mess around with them, we just mess everything up, then leave them to deal with our mess.

This time?

This time, we ought to just leave them the heck alone. Everytime we go and try to help out some 3rd world country we just mess things up even more. Papa Doc Duvalier and Baby Doc were just torturing despots whom we helped place in power. Seems the only thing the CIA can do is screw things up.

Whenever we go in to help the populace, the populace eventually rises up against us killing American soldiers. If they don't want to help themselves, what should we care. I don't know that we've ever done any good in Haiti over all these years. They still have drinking water problems, open sewers and a corrupt government. Seems the only thing we do is involve the USAID (United States Agency for International Development) who dumps more and more money into the county without positive results.

Besides, there's no oil there. <sarcasm>

I heard on the tv today where Hati has had over 30 coup d'etat. That country desperatly needs help, and what we've been doing in the past obviously hasn't worked out.

Good one Yossarian!

I just heard today that our troops were protecting officials of Aristide's Lavalas party from rebel troops. Physically blocking them. In this, our troops are taking defensive military action against the rebels.

That's not protecting the innocents - that's taking sides! Bush, if you're listening, I can't demand loudly enough that you get the **** out of their business!

By the way, I wonder how anyone can call this a "peacekeeping" mission when peace has not been declared?
Keep this up, and once again we'll be sent home with our tails between our legs.

It looks too like the State Department is ratcheting up their rhetoric aganst the rebel leader, Phillipe.

Hmmmm . . . something tells me he recently refused to be a puppet of the U.S. government. In which case you can count on us intalling somebody, anybody, regardless of how evil and ruthless, in his stead.

This isn't a partisan political matter either - it's been U.S. SOP in the region for decades. Heaven forbid we allow a nation to determine its own destiny. Sickening!

When will our country (& it's not just Bush it was Clinton before him too) realize that we don't rule the world, and unless a country is physically threatening us we don't need to go in there and change everything. BMIC, are the other foreign troops such as the Canadians and French protecting the Lavalas party people as well?

I haven't heard yet. I kinda doubt the media will bother to report - they're too busy trying to help Kerry's campaign.

Actually I'm not surprised. The media doesn't seem to care to spend much effort looking into nor reporting about events in countries where the majority of citizens are black. Nor does our government care to pay much attention to those countries either. We tend to ignore their issues until they reach a crisis, when we go in and stir things up, then leave things more messed up than they were to begin with. I'm white as white can be, but you don't have to look very hard to sdee how racist our media and governemtn are. Again, it matters not which political party you're looking at - put their rhetoric aside, and it's pretty much the same.

Consider our actions against refugees. Nowadays, one can argue National Securiy concerns (but then look at the so-called border with Mexico). But prior to 9/11, our policies towards Haitian refugees was blatantly racist.

I was most upset by the State Department. Boucher is talking VERY tough towards the rebels, and the media doesn't seem to care enough to try to get to the truth. An interesting viewpoint that we're not hearing muc about - if we prevent the victors from getting at their enemies we'll just leave Haiti in an even more unstable condition when we decide to leave.

I actually watched a C-span hearing on the issues of Haiti last night for 1 1/2 hours (yawn). Alot of the Democratic party members really grilled the Ambassador to Haiti on the topic of the US not stepping in to help keep the rebels at bay and defend Aristide. Alot of interesting topics came up during that hearing.

Anywho, I believe France ought to take care of this mess. It seems like when France leaves a colony it turns into "Our" problem. Remember Vietnam? You don't see our former territory of Guam going into Anarchy!!! Granted, it is the Mexico of the asian islands, but its a stable place.

We had the Congressional Black Caucus too, I believe, pushing for the same thing - propping up Aristide's corrupt, abusive regime. Once again I say, U.S. SOP for the region, and totally unacceptable.

The union of Carribean nations, or whatever they're called, is also condemning us for failing to support Aristide. But there, I expect many of them are rightly afraid of their own populace revolting - huge differences between the very rich ruling class and the rest of the citizens has the ruling class constantly living in fear. So they look to us to support their opression.

Wish I had seen that hearing. Always interesting to see what kind of spin various folks put on things.

France? You've got to ask yourself WHY their former colonies always descend into anarchy once they leave. I know in Haiti under the French, they had a very polarized society, and they have ever since. Is there something that the French did to increase the economic disparity? To encourage the abuse of the poor? When the French leave, there isn't much left to keep the masses from rightly trying to do away with the inequities.

Also consider that in such a system (lots of class disparity), the masses of the poor never get a chance to learn how to govern anyone. They're usually violently prevented from doing so. So when they do manage to take over, they haven't a clue how to run their new government and the cycle starts all over again.

I'd like to add Congo to the list of French colony failures. BMIC, you bring up a good point in reguards to polariaty of French society. Seems in all these former French colonies the rich stay rich and the poor seem to get poorer. Thats Socialism for ya.

Now Aristide's saying he never went into "exile". He's going back when he's good and ready.

I say let him - the Haitians will put an end to this story right quick!

Of course you see nothing about it on the major news websites now.... as I predicted.

I also liked how Aristide said that the Americans made him go into exile in Africa. Even though I don't believe that our gov't did that, if I had been Aristide I'd been happy they made me instead of being killed in Hati. Here are some other failed French colonies, Tahiti (had that uprising or whatever a while back) and Cambodia. You also can add most of Africa too.

They have been fighting amongst themselves for 200 years and will be still fighting 200 years from now. The US has to stay involved because this country is so close to our shore and a mass exodus of people to Florida would be disastrous for our country.

Atiisde is only trying to save face by claiming that he was kidnapped. You notice that there has been very little interest in this story even by the more liberal press? And did anyone notice who was standing behind him in Africa and issuing statements on his behalf for awhile?? None other than our own Jessie Jackson!

Good point. And when YOUR ancestors came to the U.S. to escape oppression or whatever it was they were trying to get away from, it was a HUGE disaster for our Country!

Jesse Jackson's involvement and that of other prominent "african-americans" must be tempered with the realization that there are "african-americans" and there are more recent immigrants from African and other predominantly black nations. They are distinctly different groups, and many would say that one cannot speak for the other.

Come on BMIC, must we continue to cite our ancestors fleeing Europe's religious oppression everytime Haitians, Cubans, and the ilk want to enter the U.S.? And, yes - it was a huge disaster to the North American Continent when our ancestors came here. Ask the Seminoles, the Cherokee, the Apachee, the Nez Pierce, the Lumbee, and any of the other "Native American" tribes.

And, if you want to further enforce our immigration restrictions, take a ride -- NO, TAKE A WALK -- thru Little Havana or Little Haiti at night. Then tell me we need to accept every single immigrant to our shores.

My best friend is a Cuban-American and my ex-wife is a Haitian-American. Sorry but you're not likely to change my mind on this one.

I've heard the same arguments plenty of times, and they just don't persuade me in the least. We are talking about PEOPLE here. When you put a face on them, especially if they're the faces of those whom you love, it's not so easy to just turn them around and send them back without giving it a thought.

Hey BMIC, I wouldn't even attempt to change your opinion! I respect your views and always value your postings. I know there are faces to these people; sons, daughters, mothers, fathers, cousins, etc. But, in my opinion, we really do need to restrict our borders, being especially important after 9/11. Not that I'm saying Cubans and Haitians are terrorists. A lot of those folks are fleeing political tyranny, and a lot of those folks are fearful for their lives. The only difference in the European immigrants was that most of those folks became gainfully employed; I'm not so sure about the Latinos and Caribs.

How much responsibilty should the U.S. have in taking care of these immigrants. Our welfare rolls are already swollen. Now, I'm not saying these folks are seeking welfare, I'm just saying that there may not be enough jobs to provide these folks with gainful employment. And, without employment, I fear an increase in crime.

It's a double-edged sword. Provide refuge and risk the commonly associated problems.

I'm not sure what the answer is. I'm not sure there is an answer. Education would be one hope. Ensuring democracy would be another -- at the risk of again labeling U.S. aid as capitalist pigs.

I just don't think unrestricted access to our borders is a solution.

It's not a solution, in fact, I believe it would be the downfall of this country. It's just not feasible. Imagine if we allowed all of the immigrants from 3rd world countries into our country? We don't have enough jobs for the people who ARE citizens, let alone the ones who are not.

As much as I would love to go from country to country, protecting the citizens who are not treated fairly, the U.S. just does not have the resources or manpower to do that. We must choose our battles wisely (even though, IMO, some have not been chosen wisely). I think that enough men and women have died protecting other countries, for causes that I still am not clear on.

Hey BMIC talk to someone who's orginially from Miami and see what they have to say about the Cubans and Haitains. My neighbour is from Miami Beach and when she grew up there it was your average middle-class Florida nieghbourhood, now it's just a hell-hole.

I think that's at least as much a matter of urban sprawl as anything else. Lok at the D.C. Metro area. I grew up in a nice middle-class neighborhood a few miles outside the Beltway and now it's got a totally different character. Some would blame it on the increased population of minority residents. But to me it's just a matter of being more "city-fied" as DC basically spills over its borders.

I do get the issue, especially since 9-11, but before then we were just as insistent about turning Haitians away. Everyone talks about the importance of keeping forgeigners out. But what is it that's inscribed on the Statue of Liberty?

I see our soldiers are disarming the populace - hmmmm. Isn't that the way the British kept us under subjugation so effectively? That's why we have the second amendment. Our forefathers believed that the people should have the ability to rise up and make a change if the government gets out of control. Some people think that's no longer desireable. Some still believe it's an important and necessary precaution in case things change for the worst.

But here we are, stopping the people of Haiti from determining their own fate, and disarming them. We have prevented the rebels from knocking out Aristide and his henchmen. While not every Haitian believes this is desireable, who are WE to force our will on them? There are millions of Haitians. Only a very small percentage were killed in the struggle, yet we all freak out because we have a peaceful society ruled by a system that works well enough that we're not inclined to rise up against it. Not so with Haiti.

It's worth thinking about.

I agree. We go around bullying a lot of different countries, where we have no business sticking our nose into. Hence the reason so many countries have disdain for the U.S.

It's a no win situation. People hate us if we DON'T help, and people hate us if we do help. However, I think if the U.S. would let other countries fight it out for themselves, a lot more would probably be accomplished, or at the very least, a lot less Americans would die. We can't be the world police.

I agree Phish. You are right, if we don't help we are frowned upon and when we do help we are frowned upon.

Agreed!

We REALLY need to get out of the business of policing the world. And choose our battles wisely. The reason people hate us if we don't help is because we have become far too involved in the affairs of other countries. We're expected to solve everyone's problems for them. While it may sometimes (practically never in my opinion) be necessary to intervene, overall we have GOT to stop interfering with the rights of other sovereign nations to determine their own futures.


I use the same argument against our participation in and subjugation by the United Nations (we are and must remain a sovereign nation not subject to control by others), but that's best left for another thread. But along those lines, IMO there's nothing worse than an American soldier being killed wearing a UN uniform.

Thats the truth.