The U.S. Responds to Haiti... - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 02-11-2004, 02:08 AM   #16
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 10:06 PM
Dreadsox,

"Does not meet self-defence...."

It certainly does. Last I knew, we fought a war to remove Saddam's forces from Kuwait. It has been US Military and defense policy to defend the Persian Gulf Region and the oil supplies there since the late 1940s at all cost. The planet rely's directly upon the energy supplied from oil fields in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

"Last I knew that was 13 years ago"

Thats irrelevent do to the fact that Saddam's has failed to this day to resolve the issue stemming from his invasion of Kuwait.

One of those issues was that he VERIFIABLY DISARM of all WMD. Failure to do so can only be construed as an attack on the international community in light of his prior behavior. The international community does not have the luxury of presuming benign intent in non-compliance.

Insuring VERIFIABLE disarmament is an act of Self Defense.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 02-11-2004, 01:42 PM   #17
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 04:06 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
Dreadsox,

"Does not meet self-defence...."

It certainly does. Last I knew, we fought a war to remove Saddam's forces from Kuwait. It has been US Military and defense policy to defend the Persian Gulf Region and the oil supplies there since the late 1940s at all cost. The planet rely's directly upon the energy supplied from oil fields in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.
So it is about oil?!

Quote:
Originally posted by STING2

Insuring VERIFIABLE disarmament is an act of Self Defense.
So by this logic a police officer can shoot a burglar on site and claim self defense because the burglar hasn't told the cop he doesn't have a gun. This isn't how it works, a cop can only shoot when he feels his life is in danger and unless you see this burglar with a gun in his hand, he can't claim self defense. The cop doesn't shoot first and ask questions later.

Your self defense claim doesn't work.
__________________

__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 02-11-2004, 06:26 PM   #18
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 10:06 PM
BonoVoxSupastar,

"So it is about oil?!"

Protecting the planets energy supply is a vital necessity.

"So by this logic a police officer can shoot a burglar on site and claim self defense because the burglar hasn't told the cop he doesn't have a gun. This isn't how it works, a cop can only shoot when he feels his life is in danger and unless you see this burglar with a gun in his hand, he can't claim self defense. The cop doesn't shoot first and ask questions later."

"Your self defense claim doesn't work."

Your analogy does not fit the situation. Saddam was armed and had used his weapons. The criteria as to whether there would be further military action depended on whether Saddam met his obligations to verifiably disarm as well as other unmet obligations.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 02-11-2004, 06:42 PM   #19
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,297
Local Time: 05:06 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
Protecting the planets energy supply is a vital necessity.
Is drinking water next?

Should we develop a nuke in Canada just to make sure ya'all don't come up and "protect" our water? Many historians have argued that freshwater will be a major cause of conflict in the future.

And who is protecting whose things? Is it the job of Americans to protect the oil in Arab lands? Since when? Why? Who gets to decide this?
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 02-11-2004, 07:12 PM   #20
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 05:06 PM
Fernando says "Darlings, make love not war over water."

dreadsox says protecting the oil supply does not make it self defence.

dreadsox says....this thread is about HATI
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-11-2004, 07:19 PM   #21
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 04:06 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
BonoVoxSupastar,



Your analogy does not fit the situation. Saddam was armed and had used his weapons. The criteria as to whether there would be further military action depended on whether Saddam met his obligations to verifiably disarm as well as other unmet obligations.
This guy could have easily had a prior conviction, still doesn't make it self defense.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 02-11-2004, 07:21 PM   #22
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,297
Local Time: 05:06 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
Fernando says "Darlings, make love not war over water."
What about IN water?

As for Haiti, I remember reading an article in the travel section of a newspaper about a year ago, how the people there were really looking next door at the Dominican Republic and their tourism and hoping to one day be able to compete on the same level. Now, having been to the Caribbean, I am not sure how much the local populations there actually benefit personally from foreign tourism, but I was struck by the amount of optimism in the people interviewed. I feel very bad for them that these are dangerous times.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 02-11-2004, 07:30 PM   #23
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 05:06 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram


What about IN water?

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-11-2004, 08:41 PM   #24
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 10:06 PM
BonoVoxSupastar,


"This guy could have easily had a prior conviction, still doesn't make it self defense."

Was his prior conviction the invasion and attack of four different countries and the murder of 1.7 million people in the process? As I said before, the analogy does not apply. The criteria for the use of military force against Iraq was based on Saddam's compliance with UN resolutions.

Dreadsox,

Its been US policy to defend the vital energy supply in the Persian Gulf Region from all threats since the late 1940s.

anitram,

" And who is protecting whose things? Is it the job of Americans to protect the oil in Arab lands? Since when? Why? Who gets to decide this?"

The United States working with several Persian Gulf States including Saudi Arabia over the past 5 decades have trained and developed strategies for defending the region in various contingencies. The Oil in the region and its flow to other parts of the world is VITAL to economies of the countries in the Persian Gulf. It is also VITAL to the rest of the world in keeping the cost of energy low.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 02-11-2004, 09:08 PM   #25
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 05:06 PM
the life sucking sound of a derailed thread...
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 03-02-2004, 04:39 PM   #26
Blue Crack Addict
 
joyfulgirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 16,615
Local Time: 03:06 PM
another violent regime change sponsored by the good ol' you know who

Published on Tuesday, March 2, 2004 by the Guardian/UK

Why They Had to Crush Aristide
Haiti's Elected Leader was Regarded as a Threat by France and the US

by Peter Hallward

Jean-Bertrand Aristide was re-elected president of Haiti in November 2000 with more than 90% of the vote. He was elected by people who approved his courageous dissolution, in 1995, of the armed forces that had long terrorized Haiti and had overthrown his first administration. He was elected by people who supported his tentative efforts, made with virtually no resources or revenue, to invest in education and health. He was elected by people who shared his determination, in the face of crippling US opposition, to improve the conditions of the most poorly paid workers in the western hemisphere.

Aristide was forced from office on Sunday by people who have little in common except their opposition to his progressive policies and their refusal of the democratic process. With the enthusiastic backing of Haiti's former colonial master, a leader elected with overwhelming popular support has been driven from office by a loose association of convicted human rights abusers, seditious former army officers and pro-American business leaders.

It's obvious that Aristide's expulsion offered Jacques Chirac a long-awaited chance to restore relations with an American administration he dared to oppose over the attack on Iraq. It's even more obvious that the characterization of Aristide as yet another crazed idealist corrupted by absolute power sits perfectly with the political vision championed by George Bush, and that the Haitian leader's downfall should open the door to a yet more ruthless exploitation of Latin American labor.

If you've been reading the mainstream press over the past few weeks, you'll know that this peculiar version of events has been carefully prepared by repeated accusations that Aristide rigged fraudulent elections in 2000; unleashed violent militias against his political opponents; and brought Haiti's economy to the point of collapse and its people to the brink of humanitarian catastrophe.

But look a little harder at those elections. An exhaustive and convincing report by the International Coalition of Independent Observers concluded that "fair and peaceful elections were held" in 2000, and by the standard of the presidential elections held in the US that same year they were positively exemplary.

Why then were they characterized as "flawed" by the Organization of American States (OAS)? It was because, after Aristide's Lavalas party had won 16 out of 17 senate seats, the OAS contested the methodology used to calculate the voting percentages. Curiously, neither the US nor the OAS judged this methodology problematic in the run-up to the elections.

However, in the wake of the Lavalas victories, it was suddenly important enough to justify driving the country towards economic collapse. Bill Clinton invoked the OAS accusation to justify the crippling economic embargo against Haiti that persists to this day, and which effectively blocks the payment of about $500m in international aid.

But what about the gangs of Aristide supporters running riot in Port-au-Prince? No doubt Aristide bears some responsibility for the dozen reported deaths over the last 48 hours. But given that his supporters have no army to protect them, and given that the police force serving the entire country is just a tenth of the force that patrols New York city, it's worth remembering that this figure is a small fraction of the number killed by the rebels in recent weeks.

One of the reasons why Aristide has been consistently vilified in the press is that the Reuters and AP wire services, on which most coverage depends, rely on local media, which are all owned by Aristide's opponents. Another, more important, reason for the vilification is that Aristide never learned to pander unreservedly to foreign commercial interests. He reluctantly accepted a series of severe IMF structural adjustment plans, to the dismay of the working poor, but he refused to acquiesce in the indiscriminate privatization of state resources, and stuck to his guns over wages, education and health.

What happened in Haiti is not that a leader who was once reasonable went mad with power; the truth is that a broadly consistent Aristide was never quite prepared to abandon all his principles.

Worst of all, he remained indelibly associated with what's left of a genuine popular movement for political and economic empowerment. For this reason alone, it was essential that he not only be forced from office but utterly discredited in the eyes of his people and the world. As Noam Chomsky has said, the "threat of a good example" solicits measures of retaliation that bear no relation to the strategic or economic importance of the country in question. This is why the leaders of the world have joined together to crush a democracy in the name of democracy
__________________

__________________
joyfulgirl is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:06 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com