a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
aerocontrols said:
That's the impression I get. Drug gangs battling drug gangs. A familiar scenario around the world.
US kidnapped Aristide
- Thread starter a_unique_person
- Start date
That's the impression I get. Drug gangs battling drug gangs. A familiar scenario around the world.
US denials mean f*ck all. I mean COME ON! The "but the US said it wasn't true!" crowd really alarms me. *You are not people* You're dictation robots! You record what the govt tells you and spit it out on this forum in text format. How sad.
I'm not saying that they did depose him.. only that if they did and didn't want it to be public knowledge they'd readily lie about it. Using them as your source of information saying it didnt happen is mind numbing. The US govt may be many things, but it should have a very low credibility rating for anyone with an ounce of brain.
I think a more important and interesting set of questions than "what did the us tell me to believe?" is this. Let's just suppose, for arguments sake, that Aristide was deposed by the US. Why? What's the point? What could they possibly hope to gain from it? I don't see that Haiti represents any strategic or economic value. So why meddle? Am I wrong about Haiti? Is there some serious advantage for the US having control of it that I'm unaware of? What would be the purpose?
I'm not saying that they did depose him.. only that if they did and didn't want it to be public knowledge they'd readily lie about it. Using them as your source of information saying it didnt happen is mind numbing. The US govt may be many things, but it should have a very low credibility rating for anyone with an ounce of brain.
I think a more important and interesting set of questions than "what did the us tell me to believe?" is this. Let's just suppose, for arguments sake, that Aristide was deposed by the US. Why? What's the point? What could they possibly hope to gain from it? I don't see that Haiti represents any strategic or economic value. So why meddle? Am I wrong about Haiti? Is there some serious advantage for the US having control of it that I'm unaware of? What would be the purpose?
corplinx
JREF Kid
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2002
- Messages
- 8,952
svero said:
Thats really funny since government members were the most predominant conveyors of the kidnapping message. Charles Rangal (partisan shill) was the perhaps the most outspoken on it today.
Let's remember that we are skeptics and the fantastic claims require fantastic evidence. What evidence is there of a kidnapping? We have borderline schizo leader ousted in shame who was pressured by _state department officials_ to leave his country and did so on a non-military plane.
Then he gets to the armpit of africa and calls his friends in the US congress and says he was kidnapped.
Pardon me for not taking him seriously seeing as how he is full of two barrels of sour grapes.
Now you ask us to give ear to Aristide instead of using occam's razor? Then when we do use occam's razor you claim we are robots repeating what the adminsitration's line on it is.
I like your point of view.
peptoabysmal
Illuminator
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2002
- Messages
- 3,466
Oh sh!t, is it too late to put him back where we found him?
a_unique_person said:
Yes. He is here with me and Osma and Saddam. We are all happy. Please send much Spoon Size Ravioli by Chef Boy-r-Dee. The meat substance ones, not the cheese. Also, nice copy of Sports Illustrated Swim Suit Issue. Thank you.
Actually the US put him back in power in 1993, when he was overthrown by a right wing juanta.
Now the US and French troops are not going to save him.
(Of course, mind you had the US stepped in like 1993, we would be hearing cries of "impearilism" and how awful these neo-conservatives are for trying to interfere in a country that is not threat to us from Zero and others...)
Now the US and French troops are not going to save him.
(Of course, mind you had the US stepped in like 1993, we would be hearing cries of "impearilism" and how awful these neo-conservatives are for trying to interfere in a country that is not threat to us from Zero and others...)
Shut your hole. You have no idea what I would say, because I actually use my brain and look at each situation on its own terms.Mike B. said:Actually the US put him back in power in 1993, when he was overthrown by a right wing juanta.
Now the US and French troops are not going to save him.
(Of course, mind you had the US stepped in like 1993, we would be hearing cries of "impearilism" and how awful these neo-conservatives are for trying to interfere in a country that is not threat to us from Zero and others...)
We know that he wasn't kidnapped because there is no reason to kidnap him. All the U.S. would have needed to do is say to Aristide: "We are not going to protect you. The rebels are poised to attack and they have assured us they will not if you leave. You can get on the plane right now or you are on your own. Our best guess is that within one week you will have a burning tire around you neck as you so gleefully did to those who opposed you."
As to whether leftists would have been upset with our stepping in in 1993, no they would not have. It would have been Clinton stepping in and, of course, liberals are incapable of imperialism and/or illegal uniliateral actions because they keep telling us so.
As to whether leftists would have been upset with our stepping in in 1993, no they would not have. It would have been Clinton stepping in and, of course, liberals are incapable of imperialism and/or illegal uniliateral actions because they keep telling us so.
rikzilla
Ninja wave: Atomic fire-breath ninja
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2001
- Messages
- 5,009
svero said:
Well then, why don't you find out the TRUTH?
Here's what actual Haitians are saying
Wall of blood (CAUTION...nasty photos of alleged victims of Aristide's own secret police.)
There's many, many pages and lots of different sites. Apparently since hardly anyone seems to care about what has been happening in Haiti, Aristide's been quietly turning into a brutal dictator.What AI says
However, true to usual form, some lefties here are ready to hate America and stick up for another brutal leftist dictator. This kind of stuff used to piss me off, but now it's just....expected.
I do wonder how leftists can keep a straight face when they decry the "shredding of the constitution" by GWB,...or show their hatred for "American military criminals", since they unabashedly support the repression and military criminals of leftist dictatorships? Go figure!
-z
The funniest thing about this silly accusation of "kidnapping" (an obvious canard invented on the flight out to embarras the US by Aristide due to his bitterness of the US not saving his rule), is the sudden turnaround in the evaluation of Aristide.
Last week, when the Haiti debacle was reaching its height, the usual "experts on American Imperialism" on this forum claimed it is all the US's fault--for "forcing" on Haiti this evil thug, Aristide, no doubt for its own nefarious imperialistic purposes. Now that the nut claims he was "kidnapped", all of a sudden he is the "democratically elected leader", who was "forced out" by the CIA kidnapping appartus, no doubt for its own nefarious imperialistic purposes.
So if the US supports Aristide, it's a nefarious imperialistic plan, but if it doesn't, it's also a nefarious imperialistic plan. As long as Aristide sides with the US, he is a thug, but the moment he lashed out at the US with loony accusations, he is the "legitimate democratically elected leader".
Ah well.
Last week, when the Haiti debacle was reaching its height, the usual "experts on American Imperialism" on this forum claimed it is all the US's fault--for "forcing" on Haiti this evil thug, Aristide, no doubt for its own nefarious imperialistic purposes. Now that the nut claims he was "kidnapped", all of a sudden he is the "democratically elected leader", who was "forced out" by the CIA kidnapping appartus, no doubt for its own nefarious imperialistic purposes.
So if the US supports Aristide, it's a nefarious imperialistic plan, but if it doesn't, it's also a nefarious imperialistic plan. As long as Aristide sides with the US, he is a thug, but the moment he lashed out at the US with loony accusations, he is the "legitimate democratically elected leader".
Ah well.
Actually, it is perfectly possible that all those statements are true, you know. Aristide may very well have been a democratically elected US-supported drug-dealing thug, and now he is a kidnapped illegally deposed US-opposed drug-dealing thug.Skeptic said:
US denials mean f*ck all.
Yes, loony conspiracy theorists and bitter ex-dictators are SO much more reliable.
I'm not saying that they did depose him.. only that if they did and didn't want it to be public knowledge they'd readily lie about it.
Or, perhaps, they would not let the "kidnapped" Atistide phone everybody and his brother--including his buddies in the US congress--the moment he got off the plane. Call my a cynical CIA stooge, but you'd think that "kidnapping 101" would strees the "do not let the kidnapee use the phone" bit.
(You'd also think that if the US was so itching to "depose" Aristide, they could have simply waited another day until the rebels stormed his residence and hacked him to pieces.)
Is there some serious advantage for the US having control of it that I'm unaware of? What would be the purpose?
OF COURSE there is a purpose. Don't you know that whatever the US does--or is accused of doing--is due to evil, imperialistic purposes?
Here's the list:
1). When the US intervenes in a country with oil, then the "real reason" for the war is oil.
2). If the US intervenes in a country without oil in the western hemisphere, the "real reason" is to "strenghten US hegamony in the western hemisphere."
3). If the US intervenes in a country without oil in the eastern hemisphere, the "real reason" for the war is the "Strategic air bases" in that country. Or that could be build in that country. Or that might have once existed in that country. Or that were in the Soviet's possession in that country. (It has something to do with airbases, I'm sure about THAT...)
Haiti fits type (2). That is the "evil truth the US government does not want you to know". Please act accordingly.
Yes, loony conspiracy theorists and bitter ex-dictators are SO much more reliable.
I'm not saying that they did depose him.. only that if they did and didn't want it to be public knowledge they'd readily lie about it.
Or, perhaps, they would not let the "kidnapped" Atistide phone everybody and his brother--including his buddies in the US congress--the moment he got off the plane. Call my a cynical CIA stooge, but you'd think that "kidnapping 101" would strees the "do not let the kidnapee use the phone" bit.
(You'd also think that if the US was so itching to "depose" Aristide, they could have simply waited another day until the rebels stormed his residence and hacked him to pieces.)
Is there some serious advantage for the US having control of it that I'm unaware of? What would be the purpose?
OF COURSE there is a purpose. Don't you know that whatever the US does--or is accused of doing--is due to evil, imperialistic purposes?
Here's the list:
1). When the US intervenes in a country with oil, then the "real reason" for the war is oil.
2). If the US intervenes in a country without oil in the western hemisphere, the "real reason" is to "strenghten US hegamony in the western hemisphere."
3). If the US intervenes in a country without oil in the eastern hemisphere, the "real reason" for the war is the "Strategic air bases" in that country. Or that could be build in that country. Or that might have once existed in that country. Or that were in the Soviet's possession in that country. (It has something to do with airbases, I'm sure about THAT...)
Haiti fits type (2). That is the "evil truth the US government does not want you to know". Please act accordingly.
I already said, I don't now what to think of this,
Didn't stop you from posting it, though: evidence, schmevidence, it's too deliciously anti-US for you to pass on.
Yeah yeah yeah, don't tell me: you're not actually SAYING that he was kidnapped, you're just "passing the information" so that we can "judge for ourselves". And I'm not actually SAYING you molest children, it's just that somebody said you do, so I'm "passing this information along" to let people "judge for themselves".
Didn't stop you from posting it, though: evidence, schmevidence, it's too deliciously anti-US for you to pass on.
Yeah yeah yeah, don't tell me: you're not actually SAYING that he was kidnapped, you're just "passing the information" so that we can "judge for ourselves". And I'm not actually SAYING you molest children, it's just that somebody said you do, so I'm "passing this information along" to let people "judge for themselves".