Why is the US keeping haiti destablized? why?

[actinanass]

Bruh I think you are questioning current motive while past motive and actions and current actions are there to be seen as evidence of their destabilization of Haiti. I question the motive currently as well but facts are facts. And yes people do blame the US for what goes on in Cuba economically.
Haiti is all fucked up. Many Haitians are to blame. Many non-hatians are to blame. It isn't necessarily easy for a nation like Haiti to pull itself up by its own bootstraps. Haiti needs real help no different than a Liberia. Its a fuckin wasteland. The economic problems around the globe makes any outside help far away. The best possible solution would be a smart tough economically savvy dictator. The biggest source of instability is the factional shit and poverty.

On the contrary, I think a dictator is the last thing any country needs. Why can't the people decide their leader?

Its easy to blame the United States if your country fucks up. Hey black people have been blaming everyone else for their problems since the END of slavery *some blame was legit*. My point is IT IS EASIER to blame someone else than take ownership of your situation. Haiti's situation is Haiti's fault. Someone who was running Haiti thought they will get something for nothing from the United States. United States found something more valuable *world war 2, oil, ect* and whoever ran Haiti didn't get off their ass. Not to mention, they listen to other countries *like the French*, and fuck around with the economy. Haiti is that cousin that just won't do right. Always listening to the wrong people, and blame you when they fuck up. Its sad for the people over there, but Haiti put themselves in that position.

PS, when I say Haiti, I'm talking about the leadership....

 

[Turbulent]

enough blame to go all around and come right back when it comes to Haiti.

From what i keep hearing things were pretty good until the coup on BabyDoc. eversince then the country actually went backwards. went to haiti last summer and i swear it looked like the movie MadMax but overpopulated. But i still love haiti.

 

[QueEx]

The best possible solution would be a smart tough economically savvy dictator. The biggest source of instability is the factional shit and poverty.

On the contrary, I think a dictator is the last thing any country needs. Why can't the people decide their leader?

You know, I may have agreed with you aaa, at one time; but I'm not so sure that you're right or that Makkonnen is wrong (actually I think you have to look at each situation separately and weigh the pros and cons).

• Look at Palestinian situation. Bush went on his Creation of Democracies Crusade with what result? - the people chose Hamas. Depending on where you stand and your personal beliefs, Hamas is good or bad. Whichever, Hamas seems farther away from wanting to negotiate peace than Fatah. In other words, peace appeared easier at one time to make with the un-elected Fatah, than the democratic Hamas.

Which situation is better ??? The Dicatorship of Fatah; or the Democracy of Hamas ???

• Look at Iraq. Without question, before the invasion upset the applecart, Saddam had shit on lock. Of course, there was oppression of the Shia; and a lot of people lost their lives if they crossed the good dictator, Hussein. Now look at it. We can't leave for fear of utter chaos breaking out and the Shia majority killing off the Sunnis.

So, which was better? Iraq under the Great Dictator; or Iraq as it presently exists and may exists, for some time ??? (And please; don't gimme that we saved em from Saddam, etc., yada, yada. They had relative security before, but now, . . .).

Now, I want to know and believe that "it would be best for ALL THE PEOPLE OF THE WORLD EVERYWHERE to select their leaders." But in some places, is that really whats best, right now ???

Do we really want to upset the Dictatorial rule of the Royal Family in the House of Saud ???


QueEx

 

[actinanass]

You know, I may have agreed with you aaa, at one time; but I'm not so sure that you're right or that Makkonnen is wrong (actually I think you have to look at each situation separately and weigh the pros and cons).

• Look at Palestinian situation. Bush went on his Creation of Democracies Crusade with what result? - the people chose Hamas. Depending on where you stand and your personal beliefs, Hamas is good or bad. Whichever, Hamas seems farther away from wanting to negotiate peace than Fatah. In other words, peace appeared easier at one time to make with the un-elected Fatah, than the democratic Hamas.

Which situation is better ??? The Dicatorship of Fatah; or the Democracy of Hamas ???

• Look at Iraq. Without question, before the invasion upset the applecart, Saddam had shit on lock. Of course, there was oppression of the Shia; and a lot of people lost their lives if they crossed the good dictator, Hussein. Now look at it. We can't leave for fear of utter chaos breaking out and the Shia majority killing off the Sunnis.

So, which was better? Iraq under the Great Dictator; or Iraq as it presently exists and may exists, for some time ??? (And please; don't gimme that we saved em from Saddam, etc., yada, yada. They had relative security before, but now, . . .).

Now, I want to know and believe that "it would be best for ALL THE PEOPLE OF THE WORLD EVERYWHERE to select their leaders." But in some places, is that really whats best, right now ???

Do we really want to upset the Dictatorial rule of the Royal Family in the House of Saud ???


QueEx

Everyone knows that American foreign policy goes like this, if you threaten the U.S., or it's allies with aggression, whatever government it is will be the bad guys. Dictatorships tend to go the aggressive route nine times out of ten.

The jury is still out on Iraq, but the Palestinian situation is due to how they educate their people. Democracies are the voice of the people, and if the people aren't educated on politics. They will go the route of emotion..

 

[sean69]

pike asked why and I showed him a reason and some historical background on the US fucking with Haiti as well as some present reports. There is other shit the US has done recently which directly contradicts their supposed official policies also, which you could easily see or already know if you cared to, not to say that you don't know already. I reposted info that was included in links and added more since you chose to call wikipedia wacky.
I couldnt care less what you read or comprehend or find to be unsupported. None of what was posted was posted to convince you of anything.
If you want what you perceive to be an unbiased view of what is going on in Haiti, post your criteria for determining something as unbiased and maybe someone will provide it for you or you can always take a trip to Haiti and find out yourself .

Makk, in my experiences having these kinds of discussions I've come to realize that historical revisionism or down-right denial is a pathology that culminates in an unconscious self-perpetuation and sustaining cycle.

I quote this from another thread in this forum titled "The Myth of America":

Historical revisionism and amnesia are critical for nation-building, opines Paul Woodward, the writer and author of the blog "War In Context". He elaborates, "Every nation is subject to its own particular form of historical amnesia. Likewise, imperial powers have their own grandiose revisionist tendencies. Yet there is another form of historical denial particular to recently invented nations whose myth-making efforts are inextricably bound together with the process of the nation's birth ...

By the way, well put Makk.

I actually see what Que is saying *as weird as that might seem*.

Honestly, Pike actually have NO evidence whatsoever to say that the US is keeping Haiti destabilized. The United States have no reason to keep Haiti the way it is. Think about it, what motivates US policy the most? MONEY!!!!!!!! Would it make more since if they had Haiti stabilized so they will have another TRADE partner in the Caribbean? Perhaps its the Haitian's fault that their country is fucked up. Is anyone saying we are making Cuba the way it is? Cuba decided to stay communist. Thus, it is stuck in the late 1950's economically. It's easy for everyone to blame "Amerikkka", but why is it hard to blame the Government of Haiti for NOT trying to make things better for their people?

It's like getting mad at the dude YOUR woman cheated with... The shit makes no sense....

Dicto Simpliciter: This is a generalization that is too general and as such useless until qualified.

Actin, It appears that your knowledge of the United States historical involvement in Haiti and well as the Caribbeans is very limited.

And that last analogy ... what the hell does that even mean? So Haiti cheated with The United States and now ... you know what, you're right. The hit makes no sense.

Bruh I think you are questioning current motive while past motive and actions and current actions are there to be seen as evidence of their destabilization of Haiti. I question the motive currently as well but facts are facts. And yes people do blame the US for what goes on in Cuba economically.
Haiti is all fucked up. Many Haitians are to blame. Many non-hatians are to blame. It isn't necessarily easy for a nation like Haiti to pull itself up by its own bootstraps. Haiti needs real help no different than a Liberia. Its a fuckin wasteland. The economic problems around the globe makes any outside help far away. The best possible solution would be a smart tough economically savvy dictator. The biggest source of instability is the factional shit and poverty.

Makk, either you are reasoning on a higher level than most of these folks or your reasoning is out-of-phase with their's due to differences in values / world view. I'd guess a bit of both but mostly the former.

Again, one has to understand the dynamics and mechanisms that relate covert (neo) and overt imperialism in a complete present and HISTORICAL context.

Communication = effective exchange of CONTEXT and CONTENT

Without full contextual understanding by both parties involved in this exchange most if not all content exchange is useless and a waste of time

On the contrary, I think a dictator is the last thing any country needs. Why can't the people decide their leader?

Dude, dude, dude I hate to burst your bubble but here's the reality.

Unfortunately, nation states everywhere are built on the abuse of the rights of humans (including their own citizens).

Just name it, every society that has any prosperity today can trace that back to a time when the rights of the individual - some individuals - were secondary to the rights and goals of the state.

Name one stable, 'prosperous' culture on earth...in the past or present that cannot trace its 'prosperity' to a history of human rights violation.

I DARE AND CHALLENGE YOU OR ANYONE IN THIS FORUM TO PRESENT ME WITH AN EXCEPTION TO THIS RULE.

(Of course it doesn't mean that every violation of human rights leads to prosperity otherwise post-Khmer Rouge Cambodia would be a world power today)

In Europe it was first feudalism (a.k.a bonded labour or slavery) and later colonialism; in the US it was genocide of first nations (a.k.a western movies) and later slavery; in Japan it was totalitarian rule under the emperors and then under USA; in Australia, it was genocide of Aboriginal peoples and exporting of a European ideology refined under feudalism. In South Korea, it was successive totalitarian regimes since the 1950's; in China, it is the totalitarianism of the Communist Party; in South Africa, it was apartheid.

Same is true for the most 'successful' religious empires (not to be confused with religions that never became empires): the Vatican's influence was built through centuries of totalitarian and repressive abuse of dissenting viewpoints (and Vatican was made independent by the fascist Mussolini).

I am not aware of any stable society today whose roots are not anchored in a legacy of the abuse of human rights. And when the nation emerges, it would then be charged with the duty of protecting the same rights for those still alive - and if they choose to make nice, they would apologise for those historical abuses...but won't give up the good life it gave them.

When pioneers build a society, they may have an ideology, but that ideology is subject to practical realities. When an ideology fails to adapt to a reality on the ground, it will fail, like free market fundamentalism is failing, like the evangelical zeal of invading Iraq is failing, like communist Russia failed, like Islamic fundamentalism is bound to fail as well. At its foundation, every 'successful' nation focused on practicality, and later crafted an ideology.

Africa is one of the large-scale experiments where we want to first inject someone else's manufactured ideology and then try to make it work (call it a specific brand of democracy in the face of widespread illiteracy and poverty; or unfettered market liberalisation with no social security or government regulation; or trade liberalisation without robust local industry).

These are all ideologies I personally have witnessed first-hand being experimented on my nation at the time I was growing up (albeit for short stints of time) - Austerity measures, SAP, 'free and fair' elections - although my grandmother who could vote could not even understand the language of political debates etc. There's demo-crazy for you ...

Democracies are the voice of the people, and if the people aren't educated on politics. They will go the route of emotion..

"...But because of the stupidity of the average man, he follows not reason, but faith. And this naive faith requires necessary illusion, and emotionally potent oversimplifications, which are provided by the myth-maker to keep the ordinary person on course. It's not the case, as the naive might think, that indoctrination is inconsistent with democracy. Rather, as this whole line of thinkers observes, it is the essence of democracy. The point is that in a military state or a feudal state or what we would now call a totalitarian state, it doesn't much matter because you've got a bludgeon over their heads and you can control what they do. But when the state loses the bludgeon, when you can't control people by force, and when the voice of the people can be heard you have this problem -- it may make people so curious and so arrogant that they don't have the humility to submit to a civil rule [Clement Walker, 1661], and therefore you have to control what people think. And the standard way to do this is to resort to what in more honest days used to be called propaganda, manufacture of consent, creation of necessary illusion. Various ways of either marginalizing the public or reducing them to apathy in some fashion...."

Source: In Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media, 1992

 

[Makkonnen]

Makk, in my experiences having these kinds of discussions I've come to realize that historical revisionism or down-right denial is a pathology that culminates in an unconscious self-perpetuation and sustaining cycle.

I quote this from another thread in this forum titled "The Myth of America":

Historical revisionism and amnesia are critical for nation-building, opines Paul Woodward, the writer and author of the blog "War In Context". He elaborates, "Every nation is subject to its own particular form of historical amnesia. Likewise, imperial powers have their own grandiose revisionist tendencies. Yet there is another form of historical denial particular to recently invented nations whose myth-making efforts are inextricably bound together with the process of the nation's birth ...

By the way, well put Makk.

This thread is a perfect microcosm of our society in regard to the unconscious versus conscious aspect you brought up. Actinanass is clearly the unconscious agent who fits facts into the mold of his world view so as to preserve the frame he already is content with. Que is the conscious agent -aware of the truth and chooses to do what he does out of some conscious self-interest.
What really would anger me in the past was the way those who know history, even those claiming to be "liberals", would refuse to discuss things in proper context so as to play into the illusion they wish to protect. I always knew why people were motivated to do this but I could never get past my initial anger and disgust at manipulating truth where the blood of innocents - my own people - was concerned.

Dicto Simpliciter: This is a generalization that is too general and as such useless until qualified.

Actin, It appears that your knowledge of the United States historical involvement in Haiti and well as the Caribbeans is very limited.

And that last analogy ... what the hell does that even mean? So Haiti cheated with The United States and now ... you know what, you're right. The hit makes no sense.




Makk, either you are reasoning on a higher level than most of these folks or your reasoning is out-of-phase with their's due to differences in values / world view. I'd guess a bit of both but mostly the former.

Again, one has to understand the dynamics and mechanisms that relate covert (neo) and overt imperialism in a complete present and HISTORICAL context.

Communication = effective exchange of CONTEXT and CONTENT

Without full contextual understanding by both parties involved in this exchange most if not all content exchange is useless and a waste of time

I respect Actinganass for his willingness to discuss these types of things without any animosity. He lacks some fundamentals but I can appreciate the attempt. The waste of time factor is why I stopped posting on the politics board here and elsewhere. Those who should be most concerned with these things couldn't care less to know about them or discuss them so why should I? Apathy has taken a seat at my table

Dude, dude, dude I hate to burst your bubble but here's the reality.

Unfortunately, nation states everywhere are built on the abuse of the rights of humans (including their own citizens).

Just name it, every society that has any prosperity today can trace that back to a time when the rights of the individual - some individuals - were secondary to the rights and goals of the state.

Name one stable, 'prosperous' culture on earth...in the past or present that cannot trace its 'prosperity' to a history of human rights violation.

I DARE AND CHALLENGE YOU OR ANYONE IN THIS FORUM TO PRESENT ME WITH AN EXCEPTION TO THIS RULE.

(Of course it doesn't mean that every violation of human rights leads to prosperity otherwise post-Khmer Rouge Cambodia would be a world power today)

In Europe it was first feudalism (a.k.a bonded labour or slavery) and later colonialism; in the US it was genocide of first nations (a.k.a western movies) and later slavery; in Japan it was totalitarian rule under the emperors and then under USA; in Australia, it was genocide of Aboriginal peoples and exporting of a European ideology refined under feudalism. In South Korea, it was successive totalitarian regimes since the 1950's; in China, it is the totalitarianism of the Communist Party; in South Africa, it was apartheid.

Same is true for the most 'successful' religious empires (not to be confused with religions that never became empires): the Vatican's influence was built through centuries of totalitarian and repressive abuse of dissenting viewpoints (and Vatican was made independent by the fascist Mussolini).

I am not aware of any stable society today whose roots are not anchored in a legacy of the abuse of human rights. And when the nation emerges, it would then be charged with the duty of protecting the same rights for those still alive - and if they choose to make nice, they would apologise for those historical abuses...but won't give up the good life it gave them.

When pioneers build a society, they may have an ideology, but that ideology is subject to practical realities. When an ideology fails to adapt to a reality on the ground, it will fail, like free market fundamentalism is failing, like the evangelical zeal of invading Iraq is failing, like communist Russia failed, like Islamic fundamentalism is bound to fail as well. At its foundation, every 'successful' nation focused on practicality, and later crafted an ideology.

Africa is one of the large-scale experiments where we want to first inject someone else's manufactured ideology and then try to make it work (call it a specific brand of democracy in the face of widespread illiteracy and poverty; or unfettered market liberalisation with no social security or government regulation; or trade liberalisation without robust local industry).

These are all ideologies I personally have witnessed first-hand being experimented on my nation at the time I was growing up (albeit for short stints of time) - Austerity measures, SAP, 'free and fair' elections - although my grandmother who could vote could not even understand the language of political debates etc. There's demo-crazy for you ...








"...But because of the stupidity of the average man, he follows not reason, but faith. And this naive faith requires necessary illusion, and emotionally potent oversimplifications, which are provided by the myth-maker to keep the ordinary person on course. It's not the case, as the naive might think, that indoctrination is inconsistent with democracy. Rather, as this whole line of thinkers observes, it is the essence of democracy. The point is that in a military state or a feudal state or what we would now call a totalitarian state, it doesn't much matter because you've got a bludgeon over their heads and you can control what they do. But when the state loses the bludgeon, when you can't control people by force, and when the voice of the people can be heard you have this problem -- it may make people so curious and so arrogant that they don't have the humility to submit to a civil rule [Clement Walker, 1661], and therefore you have to control what people think. And the standard way to do this is to resort to what in more honest days used to be called propaganda, manufacture of consent, creation of necessary illusion. Various ways of either marginalizing the public or reducing them to apathy in some fashion...."

Source: In Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media, 1992

Chomsky's observations always are on point. I've been trying to put people on to these things in election threads on the main board but I think it's pretty pointless ("apathy in some fashion"? ).

 

[penetrator]

It's the way the game is played. The U.S. stays strong by keeping others weak! Haiti presents a particular challenge because it is a nation of more than 8 million Negroes that must be kept under control; especially after these Negroes defeated the most powerful army at the time in 1804 to gain their independence. By creating an atmosphere of constant crisis, Haiti had to start over, and over, and over every other year; therefore the country has never manage to build on anything.

2. Popular democracy in places like Haiti, Venezuela, Bolivia present a special treat to the U.S. because when the will of the mass population dictates courses of events, the ruling class favored by the U.S. lose control and that disturbs the order of the establishment.

3. Haiti has managed to gain a small amount of normalcy in the last two years prior to the earthquake thanks in part to the UN stabilization mission there. The Latin American Countries (Brazil, Argentina, Ven. etc.) have taken the lead in this mission while the U.S. mostly play the role of observer. Small amount of progress were made when the U.S. under George Bush did not play the main role in Haitian affairs. Most of these small progresses were crushed as a result the event on January 12th which also killed the head of the UN Mission and many other UN staffers.

Some U.S. politician (Clinton) has been a little more simphatatic to the plight of the Haitian people; but the more powerful machine that constantly portrait Haiti as the worse place on earth: the media, white supremacist, religious extremist, and many others groups aim to put in peoples' mind that Haiti or anything of African background just can't do anything right, go to great links to embed that image in people consciousness. Even blacks in the U.S. and the Caribbean have adopted this image or jump on that bandwagon.

Only 30 or so years ago, most Haitian kids in South Florida could not freely walk from their residence to a nearby school without getting harassed by other black kids because they are Haitian. Most islanders, particularly the uneducated, still believe that Haiti is in constant crisis only as a result of internal mismanagement, without considering the external factors that contribute to the constant crisis.

The U.S. is doing what she believes she has to do, but then again, nothing last forever. Even the powerful Romains came to an end.

 

[penetrator]

The evidence was overwhelming of the U.S. involvement in the events which lead to overthrow of the 1st democratically elected government of Haiti in 1991, facilitate by George Bush Sr. Bush underestimated because the flood of Haitian refugees that poured on U.S. shores as a result of the situation he helped create was not part of the planning equation. He wanted democratic election, but when the people overwhelmingly elected a popular priest they admire, the U.S. undermined the elected government and fund rebels groups to overthrow the government.

Same thing with G.W. Bush Jr…. He used the same method as his father to once again undermined Haiti government, fund rebels groups with money and weapons, and literary facilitate the kidnapping of a Haiti head of state and sent Haitian President Aristide in Exile from the country.

U.S. determination to make sure Haiti never amount to anything is strong and there is nothing Haiti can do about it. They tried the same thing with Cuba, they resisted!

 

[QueEx]

that was a long time ago and both of us being assholes at the time

I had to go back and read this entire thread again; and you were right, we were. LOL

I made a comment in another thread, which lie is worse, Christianity about Jesus or Bush about WMD" that I think is appropriate and something I should have said here:

Interesting thread, but (not that anyone has to give a shit) I find it difficult to respond to because it started out with premises just assumed to be true: Christianity's lie about Jesus and Bush's lie about WMD's. Both may be true (frankly, I don't know), but both were just presumed to be true, ab initio, with the question then being which was worse.

The premises in this thread are for me much like the one in the "Why is the US continuing to destabilize Haiti" thread. It started out with the premise being presumed: that there was in fact destabilization. The U.S. may have been doing it then and it may be doing so now. If a statement is made, I'm just one of those who would like to know what one relies upon for the conclusion -- not because I disagree with the conclusion, but I just like knowing how we got here. Hell, I'm often intrigued by what I might be about to learn.

Of course, no one is compelled to establish their premises (we're all free to just state opinions) in order to state their opinions, I just find it helpful so that we know what it is we're discussing/debating. I know, there may be those that disagree with my approach, my apologies; my way of seeing things tends to come from my business, by training and practice -- which tends to make ask, why.

QueEx

 

[GET YOU HOT]

bump

 

[blancasa]

http://www.nextgov.com/nextgov/ng_20100115_9940.php?oref=search.

..reading is fundamental. lets c the mod spin this.

 

[QueEx]

http://www.nextgov.com/nextgov/ng_20100115_9940.php?oref=search.

..reading is fundamental. lets c the mod spin this.

Ahem.

You want me to read an article; guess which part you found inspiring; and then respond ? ? ?

Please.

QueEx