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: 14:13:17 03/05/04 Fri
Author: Cousture
Subject: Aristide and Iraq
In reply to: Dave Huber 's message, "Re: Jean-Bertrand Aristide" on 09:23:44 03/05/04 Fri

Enjoying this conversation very much by the way, like all the political discussions I've had with you in the past. The fact we're not doing it privately for once means that other people can join in, which makes it even more interesting.

>However, there is NO conclusive proof that he indeed
>lied.

You see, that's another thing I don't get. A full inquiry is made when a president is suspected to have lied about having sex with an intern, but when another one is suspected of lying about a war (a much more serious issue in my opinion, because the whole thing cost many lives), there's nothing? What's up with that? Wouldn't you like to know once and for all if he did indeed lie or not?

>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.

My understanding of the climate that existed in the USA after 9-11 may be tainted (I am after all looking at this from the outside), but it was my understanding that after the attack, anyone who would have DARED to argue or disagree with the President's desisions would have been branded a traitor and would have seen his or her political career go up in flames. Is that not true? Clearly, for a little while, it did seem that the whole country was in the grip of some strange paranoia. One simply needs to look at everyone over-reacting to France's opposition to the war to see that the rules of the game had changed. Thankfully, it now seems to have returned to normal.

Another explanation would be that American politicians do not have direct access to intel, they only see what the President chooses to let them see, is that not correct?

>Yes, there may not be any WMDs turning up. But with a
>country the size of California, I wouldn't give up
>just yet.

Maybe I have more faith in the US military than you do, but I just don't see how an efficient well-oiled machine like that with the high tech equipment at their disposal could have failed to find them after all this time. Besides, as I remember, the Bush administration was quite categorical when talking about the presence of WMDs. There was no "maybes" or "perhaps" about it, the way they went on about it, it was an absolute certainty. They even went as far as quantifying it, Powell said the Iraqis had "between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agents. That is enough agent to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets". He also talked to the UN of mobile labs (with setellite photos)... The official transcript of Powell's address is here: www.un.int/usa

>However, there has been evidence of
>links between Saddam and al Qaeda. Bill Clinton knew
>of such.

Interesting link, thanks. But the fact Clinton made the same connection between the two doesn't mean the connection is real.

In fact, didn't an American general called Wesley Clark come out and declared that right after 9-11, he was asked by the White House to invent a connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq on television? I also read many well-informed and well-researched expert analysis over the monthes that say Hussein and Ben Laden actually hated each other since Hussein had turned Iraq into a secular state and continually persecuted the Shiites, which is a documented fact. And they want us to believe that these two men who had every reason to despise each other suddenly banded together to plan 9-11? I find that hard to believe.

>Are you referring to David Kay? Yes, he said that
>encountering WMDs appears unlikely, but read his
>testimony to Congress here:

Thanks, that's not the guy I'm talking about, but it's very interesting.

The guy I'm talking about came out after Bush's state of the union speech if I remember well and said that there was no evidence of what Bush had said. It's fuzzy in my memory, do you know what I'm talking about?

>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?

Oui, cher ami, absolument. But the US was not acting unilaterally in this case, all of the NATO allies agreed to act together. Action was clearly necessary, I don't remember anyone disagreeing about that at the time. Ethnic cleansing was being carried out.

As for the US bugging out of other nations' internal affairs, I agree. Having said that, the USA still has a big role to play in international matters and should take action (not unilaterally, but along with other countries) when atrocities are being committed and defenseless populations are being massacred.

>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.

Had happened, yes. Was still happening, no.

>They were
>a possibility in Haiti. Personally, I wish the US
>would stay out of other countries' business almost
>altogether and worry about ourselves.

The situation in Haiti is quite different. It is not a case of ethnic cleansing like Kosovo or Rwanda. This was a clash between armed factions, rebels and forces loyal to Aristide.

>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.

Ah... so they have actual power in government decision-making?

>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.

Have you read it or parts of it?

>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.

Absolutely, and I think it's important to know what it is that actually happened, which is why an enquiry is necessary.

>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?

Sure, is this a democracy or not? This is a very serious allegation made by the former ruler of another country, it can't just be ignored. If the Bush administration has nothing to hide, let them just come out and say what happened. Shouldn't they own their decisions and their consequences? I'm sure they did what they felt was the best thing, now let the people be the judge of that in the upcoming election. That's the way I see it anyways...

>>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.

Racial politics... your country will always remain a strange foreign land to me I'm afraid. Then again, I suppose things are similar here but are linguistic instead of racial...

>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.

You make a very valid point and you are absolutely right of course. But I just wish that the UN would receive such a mandate and that it would be allowed to intervene in cases where human rights are baffled and mass killings are taking place. As Rwanda has shown, the current system of international diplomacy and everyone looking out for their own (usually financial) interests is slow, unefficient and terribly biased.
.
.

[ 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.