Discussion in 'Politics' started by Avatar4321, Oct 18, 2004.
What people can't seem to grasp is that John Kerry will say ANYTHING to get elected, and innocent Hatians be damned, American servicemen be damned, the actual U.N. coalition be damned, the unborn be damned, and you and I be damned.
Aristide's supporters are, of course, making the collossal blunder of believing one word that comes out of that man's mouth.
Three thoughts if I may
1) see what happens when you second guess a serious presidental decision... keep your frigging mouth shut about stuff that your words could make worse
2) isn't it great to see Brazil and other Latin American nations taking the lead to fill the peacekeeping force in Haiti and lead it?
3) this still doesn't absolve the US role to play, since this time Washington underplayed their military role to allow a more broad international face on the mission, the US should overstate its financial role this time... yes money was wasted in the past, but pres. bush can make sure (by substantially funding and supporting Haiti's reconstruction) we don't have to do this again a decade down the road. It would one more notch on his subtantial foreign policy legacy, and a great relief to Americans and Haitians alike.
ATTENTION TO DETAIL, PLEASE!!!
EXCERPT FROM THAT VERY ARTICLE
Eight months ago the Bush administration withdrew all support for Mr Aristide and made it clear he should leave Haiti.
John Kerry called that "short-sighted" and said he would have sent troops to protect Mr Aristide, who was an elected leader."
After Aristide's exile, Condoleezza Rice, Bush's National Security advisor, appeared on NBC's Meet the Press. When asked as to the difference between the crises in Iraq and Haiti, Rice referred to Haiti as a "democratically elected" state and that we should support Aristide.
So who's flip/flopping here? The answer is BOTH!!!
Bush withdrew from Haiti NOT because it was the right thing to do, it was because it would lead to the very same bloodshed that is now taking place in Iraq. Hypocritical
Kerry wants "bloodshed for freedom" in Haiti rather than in Iraq. Hypocritical
I'd served in both regions during my military career and was rewarded the Humanitarian Service Medal twice for it. I'd talked to Iraqis as well as Haitians. Based on both opinions about their perspective governments, I saw no difference between the two countries; they both have the same problems. Ruthless leaders, constant uprisings, massacres and people seeking freedom from it.
I'd criticized both the Bush and Kerry campaigns for trying to find a difference between Iraq and Haiti; there is no difference...Well, other than Race and Oil. I don't see this issue as an advantage for either candidate simply because both had stated their positions on Haiti quite well. THEY DON'T CARE!
However, I'll bet you that if there were Al Queda cells in Haiti, we would see American troops there.
"When it comes to ignorance, the best way to hide something is to simply leave it in plain view"
- Rod Sterling
I respect your service and your insight. However, you seem to have answered your own questions in your last sentence:
"...I'll bet you that if there were Al Queda cells in Haiti, we would see American troops there".
Well...yeah. Is that a BAD thing? Don't we need to prioritize? Isn't it good that other nations are doing some of the lifting around the world? Isn't that kind of what a coalition DOES?
It is grossly unfair and inaccurate to say that U.S. involvement in Iraq, and not Haiti, is about race and oil. Aristide is not a terrorist bent on destroying the Western world.
Separate names with a comma.