Haitian earthquake was used as an excuse for US invasion

JihadJane said:
What did Medialens do to get on the Teach-Yourself-Rightwing-Bigotry blacklist?

The US "put Aristide back in power" with his arms and legs tied to corporate policies dictated by the US, who later kidnapped him and flew him out of the country.

The Vultures Circle Haiti at Every Opportunity,Natural or Man-made
Click to expand...

Your article not only seems to mistake privately owned corporations for the US, but it doesn't even mention that the US military restored Aristide to power, which is odd to me because it does mention that the coup that was overthrown to do so was "US backed".

It also throws France and Canada into the CT mix, accusing these nations who rarely do anything together on the international stage of overthrowing Aristide in 2004 so that Walmart can build sweatshops.

And this is somehow not insane?

Oh, and I should also point that the US once again put boots on the ground in Haiti during that rebellion in 2004, again as a peacekeeping force. It again seems that the US would start a rebellion to force Aristide out, put in troops until a new government was established, then pull out and wait for an earthquake to invade again.
 
Last edited:
Pardalis said:
Perseus, you want the return of Aristide. Fine. What's that going to change? Are people going to get the help faster? Are the government institutions and infrastructures going to reappear suddenly?
Click to expand...

No I want the return of a genuinely democratically elected candidate, not one forced in or out due to Western interests, especially a country which misuse the words 'freedom' and 'democracy'. What the US mean is 'free' to elect a right wing candidate who will 'free' the markets and allow multinationals to effectively exploit the country. Of course Haiti can 'try' to export to the US and compete with US state subsidised food, or even purchase it. It's far cheaper than Haitan stuff! Isn't is strange how the US slide in Socialism by the back door when it suits them?
 
Last edited:
perseus said:
Of course Haiti can 'try' to export to the US and compete with US state subsidised food, or even purchase it. It's far cheaper than Haitan stuff!
Click to expand...

Just like the US can "try" to export to China and compete with Chinese state subsidized products, or even purchase it. It's far cheaper than the American stuff!

Ain't reality a bitch?
 
Perhaps the Chile discussion should be split off into a new thread? Because I'd like to discuss it more but don't want to derail things.

perseus said:
No I want the return of a genuinely democratically elected candidate, not one forced in or out due to Western interests, especially a country which misuse the words 'freedom' and 'democracy'.
Click to expand...

"Western Interests" are "human interests." The US returned Aristide to power once with conditions intended to transform Haiti from a Crony Capitalism state into something better. That you choose to characterize those conditions as "evil" does not mean they were.

perseus said:
What the US mean is 'free' to elect a right wing candidate who will 'free' the markets and allow multinationals to effectively exploit the country.
Click to expand...

By "exploit" do you mean "provide employment?" If not, please describe these "exploitations."

perseus said:
Of course Haiti can 'try' to export to the US and compete with US state subsidised food, or even purchase it. It's far cheaper than Haitan stuff! Isn't is strange how the US slide in Socialism by the back door when it suits them?
Click to expand...

I take it the US is the only country in the world capable of purchasing Haitian sugar.
 
perseus said:
No I want the return of a genuinely democratically elected candidate, not one forced in or out due to Western interests, especially a country which misuse the words 'freedom' and 'democracy'. What the US mean is 'free' to elect a right wing candidate who will 'free' the markets and allow multinationals to effectively exploit the country. Of course Haiti can 'try' to export to the US and compete with US state subsidised food, or even purchase it. It's far cheaper than Haitan stuff! Isn't is strange how the US slide in Socialism by the back door when it suits them?
Click to expand...

You know an idealogical rant is coming when someone trots out the "Western interests" boogyman in a discussion about a North American country.

Kinda shows how much thought he's put into this...
 
Rogue1stclass said:
Your article not only seems to mistake privately owned corporations for the US, but it doesn't even mention that the US military restored Aristide to power, which is odd to me because it does mention that the coup that was overthrown to do so was "US backed".

It also throws France and Canada into the CT mix, accusing these nations who rarely do anything together on the international stage of overthrowing Aristide in 2004 so that Walmart can build sweatshops.

And this is somehow not insane?

Oh, and I should also point that the US once again put boots on the ground in Haiti during that rebellion in 2004, again as a peacekeeping force. It again seems that the US would start a rebellion to force Aristide out, put in troops until a new government was established, then pull out and wait for an earthquake to invade again.
Click to expand...


Yes, I guess as long as one is wedded to the myth of the US as a benevolent global charity organization, lots of things must seem "insane".

The drive to protect "US interests", and its sense of entitlement to do so, makes it a fickle lover, not infrequently backing both sides in conflicts it involves itself in, whatever suits at the time.
 
Last edited:
JihadJane said:
Yes, I guess as long as one is wedded to the myth of the US as a benevolent global charity organization, lots of things must seem "insane".

The drive to protect "US interests", and its sense of entitlement to do so, makes it a fickle lover, not infrequently backing both sides in conflicts it involves itself in, whatever suits at the time.
Click to expand...

If the US stopped providing aid to other countries, stopped protecting its interests abroad, and just withdrew into its own borders, would that make you happy?

How about all the economies around the world that would collapse as a result...would the billions of people affected be happy as well?

Is it possible that the latent dysfunctions of the US efforts to be part of the global community are NOT deliberate attempts at global domination?

Just asking questions.
 
I get the impression that Jihad Jane thinks a total global collapse would be a good thing because it would force us into a "Green" lifestyle. That she has Ned Lud as a hero should tell you something.
 
JihadJane said:
Yes, I guess as long as one is wedded to the myth of the US as a benevolent global charity organization, lots of things must seem "insane".
Click to expand...

I don't care what you think about the US, the idea that it would conspire with France and Canada of all places to overthrow the Haitian government for any reason is insane.

The drive to protect "US interests", and its sense of entitlement to do so, makes it a fickle lover, not infrequently backing both sides in conflicts it involves itself in, whatever suits at the time.
Click to expand...

Aristide, and really anyone holding this CT, vastly overestimates the importance of Haiti.
 
Milton Friedman dispels this nonsense here:


oops - meant to post in that thread, but it's harmless here i guess.
 
Last edited:
I support a Mixed Economy, with a strong Social net,but the idea of a group of bureaucrats deciding what economic level people should have on the basis of "Equality" gives me nighmares.
 
Perhaps it should be made clear why I introduced this topic. I really expected a balanced discussion of the pros and cons behind the theory, and with the exception of Jihad Jane we seem to have degenerated into a patriotic discussion of why the US is so moral and great. I find this attitude rather annoying since patriotism blinds the truth. I have no such claims for my country or totalitarian Marxist regimes, most of the latter which were utterly corrupt. I just think the West are just more subtle about the way they use the media to control the people. If it is obvious it doesn't work!

Coming back to Haiti, it is easy to polarise the discussion into either

a) it was an blatant invasion by the US with the sole purpose of controlling the people or

b) the large presence of the US military is an inevitable consequence of the need for security whilst delivering aid in an already unstable country where the government functions have totally broken down due to the earthquake

Usually the truth lies between these two extremes. No doubt there are some genuine people in high places within the US administration who wish to help the Haitian people, no doubt there is a need for a higher security presence than in other disaster relief situations. However, it is unrealistic given the history of US influence in Latin America that the Pentagon didn't stress the need for a large military presence. This is symbolic of who is really in charge, and a reminder to Aristide and his supporters that a revolution is unacceptable.
 
Last edited:
perseus said:
Usually the truth lies between these two extremes. No doubt there are some genuine people in high places within the US administration who wish to help the Haitian people, no doubt there is a need for a higher security presence than in other disaster relief situations. However, it is unrealistic given the history of US influence in Latin America that the Pentagon didn't stress the need for a large military presence.
Click to expand...

With the Pentagon having to scramble to find enough personnel to maintain the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, I highly doubt they would be big fans of sending another large deployment of troops to some powerless little Carribean country.

This is symbolic of who is really in charge, and a reminder to Aristide and his supporters that a revolution is unacceptable.
Click to expand...

Are you saying the Pentagon is in charge? Then why is there no draft?

If you told someone back in the 70's that we could wage war in two different places in the Middle East without implementing the draft, they would say you were crazy. It is the elected officials that make sure eligible voters do not get sent overseas to die against their will. It is certainly not in the military's best interests (at least not in the current situation) to take this stand.
 
aggle-rithm said:
With the Pentagon having to scramble to find enough personnel to maintain the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, I highly doubt they would be big fans of sending another large deployment of troops to some powerless little Carribean country.



Are you saying the Pentagon is in charge? Then why is there no draft?

If you told someone back in the 70's that we could wage war in two different places in the Middle East without implementing the draft, they would say you were crazy. It is the elected officials that make sure eligible voters do not get sent overseas to die against their will. It is certainly not in the military's best interests (at least not in the current situation) to take this stand.
Click to expand...

I think Perseus is coming in from the angle that the Pentagon is not in charge, but is a lackey of those in charge of the US:The Evil Capitalists.
I am betting he is of the "Marxism is not wrong, it was only tried by the wrong people" opinion.
 
Perhaps it should be made clear why I introduced this topic. I really expected a balanced discussion of the pros and cons behind the theory
Click to expand...

Just curious - if this was your intention, why did you make the title of the thread a flat statement? Maybe a qualification that it was a hypothesis, or phrasing the title as a question would have been a better indicator that you were inviting discussion.

"Haitian earthquake was used as an excuse for US invasion" makes you sound just as doctrinaire as you are accusing everyone else of being.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom