US kidnapped Aristide
- Thread starter a_unique_person
- Start date
First of all, we didn't depose Aristide. Aristide deposed himself by not coming through on his promises for democracy. I was there in 1994 when we restored Aristide to power. He is just upset now because we won't continue to help him stay in power.
Secondly, we are there now to prevent the thugs and drug lords from taking over, and giving Haiti a chance to hold new elections.
Secondly, we are there now to prevent the thugs and drug lords from taking over, and giving Haiti a chance to hold new elections.
corplinx said:
Except that, unlike the people saying for sure he wasnt kidnapped because the govt told me so, I never said he was. I merely said it was stupid to use the US govt official line as the ultimate truth. That one should look elsewhere for the answer.
Skeptic said:
Yeah but that's the difference between you and me. I never said they were. They both lack credibility. So that's why one has to ask questions like "what might the possible motive be" and look for information elsewhere. To simply tow the state dept. line is no better than simply towing the bitter ex-dictator's line.
And to Riz... As for Aristide becoming a brutal dictator etc... Lets just suppose the US removed him to try and do good. That might be a possible motive. But then why do it secretly and why support the people taking over? From what I've read they're as bad if not worse. I donno.. maybe they have to approach these things secretly for reasons I don't fully understand, but I'd have a lot more respect if they just came out and said, "our policy is that Aristide is bad for Haiti and stability in the region and we support his ouster" -- they do that with many other leaders so why not in Aristide's case as well?
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
Luke T. said:
Let's you and I do it, Luke...less fuel for conspiracy theorists; and if either of us ever visit Haiti again afterwards, we will be so loved by everyone that we'll get free room and board and stuff.
aerocontrols
Illuminator
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2001
- Messages
- 3,444
aerocontrols
Illuminator
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2001
- Messages
- 3,444
Zero said:Is this Haiti or Florida?
I well remember the grenade attacks on children and the burning down of the Republican Party headquarters in Florida in 2000.
LukeT:
"First of all, we didn't depose Aristide. Aristide deposed himself by not coming through on his promises for democracy. I was there in 1994 when we restored Aristide to power. He is just upset now because we won't continue to help him stay in power.
Secondly, we are there now to prevent the thugs and drug lords from taking over, and giving Haiti a chance to hold new elections."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, this certainly has us on the back foot!
"...we didn't depose Aristide. Aristide deposed himself " How I-Ching of you. No, he was elected president and he didn't depose himself - the US did through arms, finance and fuel deliveries. That's what you did. That's it. Your statement is idiotic.
You assert that Aristide did not come through on democracy but the evidence, where it is counter, is only counter in the sense that he ceded to the anti-democratic neo-liberal agenda imposed from Washington - which will now be imposed in full by death-squad creators and supporters accurately reckoned to have only 14% support maximum of the population.
What is your idea of a standard of discourse? That "leftists" must supply you with detail, while you have fiat to assert without any evidence at all? Where is yours?
Okay here is some.
UN Human Rights Report, 1996, FRAPH (the organisation of Emmanuel Constant responsible for some of the worst massacres) was supported and sponsored by the CIA. Go here for a summary:
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/43a/201.html
and go here for the report in full:
http://heiwww.unige.ch/humanrts/commission/country52/94-hti.htm
"The Nation",October 1994, US journalist Allan Nairn quotes
paramilitary leader Emmanuel Constant who says he approached by Colonel Patrick Collins, (US Military), defence attaché at the United States Embassy in the Haitian capital, Port-au-Prince.
Collins pressed Constant to set up a group to "balance the
Aristide movement" and to do "intelligence" work against
it. Constant admitted that, at the time, he was working with CIA operatives in Haiti. Constant and other paramilitary leaders were trained in Ecuador by US Special Forces between 1991-1994.
And the day before US troops landed, the Associated Press reported that American oil companies had been supplying oil directly to the Haitian coup leaders in violation of the embargo with the authorisation of the Clinton and Bush administrations at the highest level.
Here are the facts:
Aristide was elected on a popular mandate.
Aristide was deposed by US supported putschists and thugs.
Aristide was sat down in Washington and told to accept his opponents agenda (who had only won 14% of the vote).
Aristide, on that promise, was placed in power by Washington.
Aristide, without his own radical agenda, had to force an unpopular agenda on a devasted country with the atoms of death squads still lurking in the corners.
To do this, Aristide resorted to corruption and authoritarianism.
Aristide's old death-squad opponents smelled blood when his own constituency began to rise up against him, so they put themselves at the forefront of opposition (largely because they had most of the guns).
The US will now assist the death squad leaders and merchants of terror, and make sure they are properly integrated into a new reign of butchery that will stop any more peasants and workers coming on with their socialistic demands for this and that.
The politest possible answer to this benign view of US intervention here and all this "we" stuff is that it is poppycock (which translates into contemporary English as "Bollocks"). If you are ex-military or not, you certainly didn't fly in personally and accompany the first-ever democratically-elected Haitian leader onto that plane unless you are scribbling these posts from a window overlooking the Presidential Palace in Port-au-Prince.
I have to break some news to you. Your unqualified identification with the (unelected) leaders of your country is nothing more than a hallucination that allows you to feel superior to the "◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊" you are talking about. All you actually did was to watch your President, his army and his intelligence services handling the job, and now you're applauding obsequiously after the fact.
The bottom line here is: can you point to a past or present Haitian leader who is within light years of Aristide in terms of democracy? You need to do this to make your case - and you won't be able to.
If he has been better at democracy by a factor than previous leaders, then he has taken Haiti forward. If the people who are to replace him are an ancien regime of murderous thugs, then Haiti will be destined to plunge into the sort of bloodbaths that have been CONSPICUOUSLY AND UNIQUELY ABSENT during Aristides reign.
Not so for the people who have just taken control under US tutelage and have a history so dark it should shame you.
"First of all, we didn't depose Aristide. Aristide deposed himself by not coming through on his promises for democracy. I was there in 1994 when we restored Aristide to power. He is just upset now because we won't continue to help him stay in power.
Secondly, we are there now to prevent the thugs and drug lords from taking over, and giving Haiti a chance to hold new elections."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, this certainly has us on the back foot!
"...we didn't depose Aristide. Aristide deposed himself " How I-Ching of you. No, he was elected president and he didn't depose himself - the US did through arms, finance and fuel deliveries. That's what you did. That's it. Your statement is idiotic.
You assert that Aristide did not come through on democracy but the evidence, where it is counter, is only counter in the sense that he ceded to the anti-democratic neo-liberal agenda imposed from Washington - which will now be imposed in full by death-squad creators and supporters accurately reckoned to have only 14% support maximum of the population.
What is your idea of a standard of discourse? That "leftists" must supply you with detail, while you have fiat to assert without any evidence at all? Where is yours?
Okay here is some.
UN Human Rights Report, 1996, FRAPH (the organisation of Emmanuel Constant responsible for some of the worst massacres) was supported and sponsored by the CIA. Go here for a summary:
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/43a/201.html
and go here for the report in full:
http://heiwww.unige.ch/humanrts/commission/country52/94-hti.htm
"The Nation",October 1994, US journalist Allan Nairn quotes
paramilitary leader Emmanuel Constant who says he approached by Colonel Patrick Collins, (US Military), defence attaché at the United States Embassy in the Haitian capital, Port-au-Prince.
Collins pressed Constant to set up a group to "balance the
Aristide movement" and to do "intelligence" work against
it. Constant admitted that, at the time, he was working with CIA operatives in Haiti. Constant and other paramilitary leaders were trained in Ecuador by US Special Forces between 1991-1994.
And the day before US troops landed, the Associated Press reported that American oil companies had been supplying oil directly to the Haitian coup leaders in violation of the embargo with the authorisation of the Clinton and Bush administrations at the highest level.
Here are the facts:
Aristide was elected on a popular mandate.
Aristide was deposed by US supported putschists and thugs.
Aristide was sat down in Washington and told to accept his opponents agenda (who had only won 14% of the vote).
Aristide, on that promise, was placed in power by Washington.
Aristide, without his own radical agenda, had to force an unpopular agenda on a devasted country with the atoms of death squads still lurking in the corners.
To do this, Aristide resorted to corruption and authoritarianism.
Aristide's old death-squad opponents smelled blood when his own constituency began to rise up against him, so they put themselves at the forefront of opposition (largely because they had most of the guns).
The US will now assist the death squad leaders and merchants of terror, and make sure they are properly integrated into a new reign of butchery that will stop any more peasants and workers coming on with their socialistic demands for this and that.
The politest possible answer to this benign view of US intervention here and all this "we" stuff is that it is poppycock (which translates into contemporary English as "Bollocks"). If you are ex-military or not, you certainly didn't fly in personally and accompany the first-ever democratically-elected Haitian leader onto that plane unless you are scribbling these posts from a window overlooking the Presidential Palace in Port-au-Prince.
I have to break some news to you. Your unqualified identification with the (unelected) leaders of your country is nothing more than a hallucination that allows you to feel superior to the "◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊" you are talking about. All you actually did was to watch your President, his army and his intelligence services handling the job, and now you're applauding obsequiously after the fact.
The bottom line here is: can you point to a past or present Haitian leader who is within light years of Aristide in terms of democracy? You need to do this to make your case - and you won't be able to.
If he has been better at democracy by a factor than previous leaders, then he has taken Haiti forward. If the people who are to replace him are an ancien regime of murderous thugs, then Haiti will be destined to plunge into the sort of bloodbaths that have been CONSPICUOUSLY AND UNIQUELY ABSENT during Aristides reign.
Not so for the people who have just taken control under US tutelage and have a history so dark it should shame you.
demon said:
Interesting sources. World History Archives and The Nation. You tipped your hand.
Let's take a look at what your first source, World History Archives, says, and compare it to the second source, the original U.N. document.
WHA:
The U.N. document:
Some interesting differences.
