VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, [2] ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 21:28:15 03/04/04 Thu
Author: Cousture
Subject: Re: Jean-Bertrand Aristide
In reply to: Dave Huber 's message, "Re: Jean-Bertrand Aristide" on 13:01:35 03/04/04 Thu

>Thanks for the kudos on the site, first of all. I
>appreciate it.

It is most deserved my friend. You're doing a marvelous job here. With all the stupid brainless sites popping up like mushrooms everywhere, yours is a breath of intellectual fresh air!

>I would like to know precisely where Bush
>"lied" about Iraq. He relied on the very same
>intelligence as his predecessor, and most every
>prominent Democrat has been quoted as saying virtually
>the same thing as Bush w/regards to Saddam and WMDs

I'm no Democrat, heck, I'm not even an American, so I'm not saying that the Democrats are better than the Republicans. All I'm saying is that he lied. Isn't it obvious? Am I missing something? There are no weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein was not a threat to the security of the USA and there are no connections whatsoever between him and Al Qaeda. Those were the arguments used to start the war and they all turn out to be bogus. So either American intel is useless, or your president made it all up to get his war.

>He may have wanted a war w/Iraq
>regardless, but that doesn't mean he "lied" if the
>very same intel was used by everyone else -- intel
>that proved to be ultimately quite faulty.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the head of the CIA or some Intelligence big wig come out a while ago to deny that he ever told the White House anything about WMDs or links between Hussein and Ben Laden? Do you know who I'm talking about? It was just a news report among many to me, I didn't pay it any particular attention though, but I remember it made quite a lot of noise in the US.

>As for Aristide, the US (and France, by the way) made
>it clear that it was time for him to go (resign).

Yup, I'm aware of that, and I agree. But does France, the USA or any other country have the right to decide which leaders can stay in power and which must leave? Who was given this extraordinary power while my back was turned?

>You
>are correct in that, despite being [apparently]
>democratically elected, he was becoming more like Papa
>and Baby Doc Duvalier. So, we have the accusations by
>Aristide himself whom we both know to be a despot, and
>he is backed up by folks like Randall Robinson, who is
>notoriously anti-American, as well as the
>Cuba-friendly Congressional Black Caucus. (Oh, and
>Jesse Jackson, too.)

I'm afraid I've never heard of Robinson or the Black Caucus, if you could provide links to enlighten me, I'd appreciate it. But my personal curiosity aside, I don't see what these people have to do with the Haitian situation.

>Even IF this is a true story, let's consider: The US
>and France already were on record as telling
>Aristide it was "time to go." If Aristide had
>remained, further bloodshed would have occurred,
>possibly a lot.

But his leaving is no guarantee that peace will return and that the rebels will disarm. Clearly, I'll agree with you on that, it seems to have calmed things down in the short term. It remains to be seen how this all plays out.

>If it is known that Aristide has been
>a despot, what exactly is the big deal in the whole
>scheme of things?

As I have said Dave, I actually agree with the removal of Aristide. What I'm not crazy about is the idea that a country (any country) can take direct action in another country's internal affairs without needing anybody's permission. I do not want to see a single country on this planet declare itself the "Earth Police, Jury and Executioner". The conflict of interest in a situation like that is obvious because ultimately, every country looks out for its own interests first, not the interests of the country it's butting into.

>1. Aristide, despite being a hoodlum, was
>democratically-elected (although many doubt the
>legitimacy of that "election.")

I'm one of them. I have many friends who are of Haitian origin (being a French-speaking state, Quebec has become home to many Haitian expatriates). Although he was first perceived as a saviour, most agree that he had become something else entirely.

>2. Aristide is black and Haiti is a black nation.

I don't see the connection, but being a foreigner, maybe I fail to see (or am not as sensitive to) the importance of the whole "black" argument. Why is this being even brought up by critics? They're saying Bush would not have acted if this had occurred in a country with a white population?

>3. It is an election year, so Democrats of all colors
>will make hay out of any issue.

You're probably right about that, just like the Republicans probably did last time around.

But what I'm saying has nothing to do with Rep or Dem... all I'm saying (and we've discussed this in the past), is that a single nation should not be allowed to butt into another country's business like that. Sounds to me like it is not the way to establish a balanced world order where all countries have an equal voice in the future of this planet. I'm glad Aristide is gone, but I wish the UN or some international body had jurisdiction in cases like that. I wish there was some organisation on this planet that was above the petty interests of individual nations and who was actually putting human interest above all.

A dream perhaps, but a nice one... no?

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-5
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.