LINKER

Well, the Americans are in Haiti now too. I love that there's already a conspiracy theory that Aristide was "abuducted" by US troops instead of stepping down as previously reported. I'm not saying that those allegations are true, just that it seems that no matter what the US does, there always seems to be somebody trying to throw in their own bullcrap agenda into the mix.

On top of that, some are saying the US waited too long to go into Haiti. Are these the same people that said we went into Iraq too early? If so, do they realize the laughable irony in their accusations?

I've come to the conclusion that no matter what America does, good or bad, you will always have a chorus of people trying to turn it around into an "evil America," story. This coupled with a greedy press ready to report on it, and you have a no-win situation for the US.


I do think that its funny that America went into Haiti with:

-no UN resolution
-a very small international coalition
-the intentions of helping to remove a leader from power
-the intentions of setting up a temporary government
-the intentions of ultimately restoring control to the Haitians
-wanting to do all these things in order to achieve safety in the country and region

...and to most its perfectly acceptable. It sounds an awful lot like another recent conflict that most don't feel to warm about.

You know for once I might agree with you. I read on CNN some of the criticisms from some of the Dems:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS...reax/index.html

While I do see a few elements of truth in their statements, I cannot help but think it is somewhat contradictory to call out Bush on this problem versus Iraq. I could be wrong. Perhaps if I think about it seriously for a few moments, I can find a nice Liberal twist in it somehow .

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

The real interesting thing I find about the critics who said the US should have sent troops earlier is that they are only saying this now, I would give them credence if they actually called for it two weeks ago. No one did however, because the reality two weeks ago that was that this was a minor rebellion, distant from the capital and with no visible real threat to the frenchy-named leader.

The situation changed quick and dramatically all in a span of about 2-3 days. If you are arguing that the US should have acted quicker in that timespan, then you are arguing the impossible. The pure bureaucratic work to arrange such an "immediate" deployment doesn't exist yet.

___________________
SAVE ZIONIST MUSTARD: BUY ZIONIST KETCHUP!


Click here to support the free mustard alliance.

i can agree with you in one way, but in another i cannot.

I can admit that i was pro the iraq war in the beginning, when i was stupid enough to trust the american government on that there was WMD. Bush obviously knew that there was no WMD, and therefore the world/I have all rights to criticize him and the war.

in this case they obviously need help, and US has nothing really to earn on it when it comes to money (as far as i know). which makes it harder to criticize them.. and ther IS a un resolution about it, and there are other countries sending troops there soon.

Do you have a link to the UN resolution calling for military interaction?

EDIT: Nevermind, I found it. Although American forces were there before the resolution passed.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono Do you have a link to the UN resolution calling for military interaction? EDIT: Nevermind, I found it. Although American forces were there before the resolution passed.

Well the UN passed the resolution but I guess Bush sent troops before it was passed.

quote:

On Sunday, with armed gangs roaming Port-au-Prince, President Bush ordered the Marines deployed to the country and said, "I urge the people of Haiti to reject violence and give this break from the past a chance to work and the United States is prepared to help." Shortly after the Marines landed in Haiti later in the day, the U.N. Security Council voted unanimously to send a multinational peacekeeping force to Haiti for up to three months.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/ameri...volt/index.html

___________________
Retro ...

neophono, isn't it a bit early to judge things??

and you compare Haiti with Iraq???

___________________
[/IMG]http://i54.tinypic.com/ngycqo.png[/IMG]

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew Bush obviously knew that there was no WMD, and therefore the world/I have all rights to criticize him and the war.

Wow. That means Bush knowingly, and intentionally lied to the world. We should impeach him and hang him! Bush didn't lie. Bush acted on the best intelligence there was at the time. He didn't make up data, he didn't say anything that was factually inaccurate based on his most reliable sources. Don't go starting this Bush flame simply because you don't like him.

NeoPhono makes some pretty interesting cases. The conclusion I draw is that if you do something unpopular, you're a hawkish wing-nut, but change the context ever so slightly and if you don't act, you're being slow to act and are responsible for more people dying.

Me? I think we MUST be going to Haiti for the oil!

I don't think it will be a mess. Simply because the experience in 1996 was not a mess. I think most parties involved want law and order restored. Plus I don't think that very many people have access to heavy weaponry such as rpgs. I support the peace keeping effort. Plus I support going in before the UN sanctioned it. HA take that UN!

___________________
Retro ...

My post was a little sensationalist to get people to read it (I'm a whore, I know).

I don't necissarily think that it will be a "mess," I just find it laughable that we already have a conspiracy theory AND the democrats saying we went in too late. Where the "mess" will be is in the political machine in Washington rearing its ugly head yet again at any and all actions made by this president (or any president for that matter). I realize Washington is under a microscope, but this is rediculous.

I do compare Haiti and Iraq in terms of the way action was initially carried out and at least partially in the motivation of the two. I also see similarities in the way the democrats are attacking Bush, although this time instead of going into Iraq too soon, we've gone into Haiti too late.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Wow. That means Bush knowingly, and intentionally lied to the world. We should impeach him and hang him! Bush didn't lie. Bush acted on the best intelligence there was at the time. He didn't make up data, he didn't say anything that was factually inaccurate based on his most reliable sources. Don't go starting this Bush flame simply because you don't like him.

so you actually think CIA couldn't figure out if iraq had WMD or not?

one funny thing with this is that the swedish press don't even mention the conspiracy theory (not even the socialist tabloid one, what i could see). so in this case it looks like the americans are the biggest america haters