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: 09:23:44 03/05/04 Fri
Author: Dave Huber
Subject: Re: Jean-Bertrand Aristide
In reply to: Cousture 's message, "Re: Jean-Bertrand Aristide" on 21:28:15 03/04/04 Thu

>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!

Thanks very much, Monsieur Cousture! It is most appreciated.

>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.

No, it is not obvious that Bush lied to get us into war. As I said, it certainly may have been Bush's intention to confront Saddam all along -- a legitimate move, IMO -- and he may have lied -- either about his true intentions or even about the intel. However, there is NO conclusive proof that he indeed lied. My point about Democrats (Clinton, in particular) relying on the very same intelligence as Bush is that if Bush lied, then virtually everyone else in American government is also guilty of such. (See http://www.invincibleironman.com/hube/January2004.htm#CLINTONBELIEVEDINWMD for starters.)

Yes, there may not be any WMDs turning up. But with a country the size of California, I wouldn't give up just yet. However, there has been evidence of links between Saddam and al Qaeda. Bill Clinton knew of such. See http://www.invincibleironman.com/hube/December2003.htm#WHATSADDAM-ALQAEDATIES? for that info.

>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.

Are you referring to David Kay? Yes, he said that encountering WMDs appears unlikely, but read his testimony to Congress here: http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/2003/david_kay_10022003.html

>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?

No, you're correct. I, too, believe that the US should bug out of other nations' business. Of course, the US didn't do this with Kosovo, and I believe you were in favor of military action there, ne c'est pas que c'est juste?

But when and where should the US get involved? In Kosovo, it was to prevent mass killings. The same thing happened (and was happening) in Iraq. They were a possibility in Haiti. Personally, I wish the US would stay out of other countries' business almost altogether and worry about ourselves.

>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.

It's racial politics, an ever-present factor to consider in the US. The Black Caucus is probably the biggest supporter of Aristide here in the US -- they pressed Bill Clinton to essentially keep him in power in the early 90s. Randall Robinson is a notoriously anti-American leader of the group TransAfrica, and whose new book Quitting America is a diatribe about American racism and white hatred of blacks.

>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.

You'll notice from above that I agree w/you. But the original issue was whether Aristide was forced from power by the US (and France) as he claims (and is backed up by the Black Caucus and others), or not. Colin Powell, speaking for the administration, vehemently denies Aristide's claims. Currently, there is no evidence of such, either. The point is that is it irresponsible to demand politically-charged investigations when evidence of wrongdoing is either non-existent or very sketchy -- as Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry has done?

>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?

American racial politics. Your last sentence is essentially correct.

>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?

But one can ask why should even the UN get involved in a sovereign nation's internal affairs? What gives them the right? Just b/c Haiti is a small, poor nation? Certainly powerful nations like the US or France would never permit UN intervention in an internal uprising.

[ 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.