I see another Somalia coming.

Infonick · March 8, 2004, 5:10pm

The difference between our Civil War and what is going on in Haiti is that there were two strong sides. In Haiti, it is only the rebels that have any strength. That is why I say it wouldn’t have been a war if
we joined, it would have been a massacre. Our involvement is mostly complicating things with those who back Aristide thinking that we are with the rebels. However, Aristide wasn’t able to fight the rebels. He would have lost power no matter what. However, then it would just be the rebels in control. Seeing as how they aren’t giving up their weapons after saying they would, I don’t know if that would be a mroe disirable situation.

Curtis, things probably would be worse if we backed Arisitide. If we backed Arisitide, we’d be at war in Haiti right now fighting the rebels. Not only that, but it seems (now I could be wrong), that more people wanted Aristide out of power than want him in. However, there are enough people that want Aristide to complicate this.

One of the problems with them thinking that we are siding with the rebels is that we don’t want anyone involved with the rebellion to lead. We want them to disarm and go back to their normal lives.

Also, you’re right Somalia wasn’t quite genocide, more a war between clans. However, many many many innocent people were dying. It is a bit like Josh Hartnett’s character said in Black Hawk Down, “We can either help or watch the country destroy itself on CNN.”

Merlin · March 8, 2004, 5:14pm

so you think an American or international intermediary force wouldn’t prevent the bloodshed that could very well erupt in Haiti with their absence, SK? Or that this is preferable to foreign intervention? And if so, does the fact that the rebel factions are largely led by a military elite who would likely institute a military dictatorship if they achieved their ambitions have an impact on your opinion?

edit: The reason for the near-genocide of Somalia is that the controlling warlords had seized control of the food and aid supply and were essentially starving the populace as part of their struggle for dominance. It is also important to note that the American presence in Somalia was never terribly involved, and that actually things detiorated further when the UN and Americans largely withdrew; it led to aggression on the part of the warlords against these remaining peacekeepers, whereas when there was a large presence they were not as offensively-minded.

Infonick · March 8, 2004, 5:23pm

One thing I should add that Merlin sparked in my head is that Brtiain joining our civil war and us goign into Haiti are quite differetn. In Haiti, we went to prevent war and death. Britain possibly joining our civil war was to assure Southern victory. Britain would have joined during our civil war, not before. Plus they would have been doing it by themselves, not backed by any other countries and would have done it purely for economic reasons. Granted there was no national organztion at the time, however, Britain had fought with other allies before, why not then if you want to bring up why they would have done it alone instead of an international force.

Merlin · March 8, 2004, 5:27pm

well, it’s possible that American interests in going to Somalia weren’t so beautiful, but I agree that there probably wasn’t a significant economic interest like Britain would’ve had with the Civil War.

Sephiroth_Katana · March 8, 2004, 6:30pm

Originally posted by Merlin
so you think an American or international intermediary force wouldn’t prevent the bloodshed that could very well erupt in Haiti with their absence, SK?
Foreign intervention would fail to “bring order” to Haiti. This statement is based on 100 years of history. There have been numerous attempts in the past century to “fix” Haiti. One even lasted 19 years, which is a hell of a long time to see foreign soldiers patrolling one’s streets. If intervention had any benefit for Haiti, if intervention solved Haiti’s problems and got rid of dictators and set up civil societies, why didn’t that 19-year-long occupation fix things? Why did Duvalier come to power? Why did we have to put Aristide in charge? Why do we have to replace Aristide now, even though he was the good guy ten years ago? Every one of these “problems” was the direct result of intervention in what wasn’t anyone’s business but Haiti’s, intervention that was, every single time, utterly lacking in authority or justification. Why is this time suddenly the magical cure-all? Because Bush is in charge? Because American intervention is good for everyone by definition, just because we do it? Because when we kill people, it’s always for their own good?

Haiti’s history itself is the unshakable proof that intervention, which is by nature arrogant and myopic, doesn’t work.

Originally posted by Merlin
And if so, does the fact that the rebel factions are largely led by a military elite who would likely institute a military dictatorship if they achieved their ambitions have an impact on your opinion?
Not in the least. This reasoning by itself never justifies intervention; it’s an excuse for refusing to take accountability for our own actions.

Originally posted by Infonick
In Haiti, we went to prevent war and death.
That’s the justification for every single war ever fought. Vietnam and Iraq were supposed to be about “preventing war and death,” too. So were all the other times we went to Haiti. But it really doesn’t make any difference whatsoever whether we go there for our own interests (which is probably the case), or to “prevent war and death.” Intervention still won’t work. You said something about how Britain intervening in the Civil War wouldn’t be the same thing (because we all know that it’s only acceptable for us to intervene in other people’s affairs, never the other way around), but just imagine for a moment that Britain were to go in with no ulterior motives and no thought of economic gain. Would that make it okay for Britain to put troops on the streets of American cities? Hell, no, because the civil war arose from problems inside American society, and so it was up to us to resolve them in some way. Britain’s coming for a few years to police America wouldn’t solve those deeper problems, and it would even create new ones. So it is here. Leave Haiti alone, and work on solving our own goddamn problems, of which we have a great many.

Infonick · March 8, 2004, 7:19pm

Originally posted by Sephiroth Katana
Nonsense; that’s the justification for every single war ever fought. Vietnam and Iraq were supposed to be about “preventing war and death,” too. So were all the other times we went to Haiti; we failed to prevent war and death all those times. But it really doesn’t make any difference whatsoever whether we go there for our own interests (which is probably the case), or to “prevent war and death.” Intervention still won’t work. You made up something about how Britain intervening in the Civil War wouldn’t be the same thing (because we all know that it’s only acceptable for us to intervene in other people’s affairs, never the other way around), but just imagine for a moment that Britain were to go in with no ulterior motives and no thought of economic gain. Would that make it okay for Britain to put troops on the streets of American cities? Hell, no, because the civil war arose from problems inside American society, and so it was up to us to resolve them in some way.

Your ignoring that Britain would have acted alone. This is a multinational operation, not single act. Also, I never said it was ok for us to act alone and not others. I said that it is all right for a nations to act to prevent anarchy and chaos, but not alone. Besides, the alternative to our intervention isn’t doesn’t look too bright. The difference with Iraq though is that the conflict wasn’t there until we came. The conflcit had been in Haiti 3 and half weeks before we arrived and we even tried to do it diplomatically. Also, our troops aren’t doing much there except providing security and makign sure the change of power happens successfully. Their mission isn’t to fight like Iraq. Iraq was about getting Saddam, Haiti isn’t. Not only that, but if we didn’t go France and possibly Canada would have gone under the UN, this still would have happened only some other country would have been blamed. It was going to happen without us. Not only that, but Iraq wasn’t approved by the UN, Haiti was and its resolution was drafted by the UN. I suppose you also think that us going into Yugoslavia to remove Milosivich (spelling?) was wrong too? It is similar to this. I suppose WW2 was also wrong, at least for us to go to Europe since Germany wasn’t doign anything to us, just Japan, so why’d we have to fight Germany? That was their war afterall.

You say Haiti proves that intervention doesn’t work. However, jsut ebcause it hasn’t worked a couple of times, doesn’t mean it isn’t worth trying. Our revoultion is a prime example. No one ahd beat Britain in a hundred years. They were the most powerful nation in the world with colonies everywhere. Every nation that stood up to them was conquered. They had a history of beign unbeatable. However, we tried and we did it. It didn’t start off very well. Heck, we were getting our ass kicked for the first half of the war. Does that mean that we should never have tried to get our independence just because there was a history of losing to Britain? Thomas Edison failed a hundred tiems before making a successful working lightbulb. Does that mean that lightbulbs just weren’t meant to be since he had a history of failing making them? You learn from history. Also, you above all people should know that the world is a rapidally changing place and that the world of today isn’t the same as the world of 10 years ago. As much as I hate to think of it, America’s power probably won’t last because of this. Besides, our latest intervention in 1994 lasted for 10 years, maybe this next time it’ll last 20 or more years. Heck, the Articles of Confederation failed after 9 years, but does that mean that America was done for? No, it means that the system had to be refined and improved.

EDIT: Also, the first Guflw ar was sort of an internal conflict, Kuwait was historically part of Iraq. Does that mean that we should have let Saddam take over Kuwait and say it wasn’t our problem?

Sephiroth_Katana · March 8, 2004, 7:41pm

Originally posted by Infonick
Your ignoring that Britain would have acted alone. This is a multinational operation, not single act.
In that case, would it have been good if Britain, France, and Austria all invaded America during our Civil War, if they had no ulterior motives and worked together? I agree that a decision has more legitimacy if more countries are behind it, but that still doesn’t automatically justify it when it infringes on the very sovereignty of a country.

Originally posted by Infonick
I suppose WW2 was also wrong, at least for us to go to Europe since Germany wasn’t doign anything to us, just Japan, so why’d we have to fight Germany? That was their war afterall.
That’s bad history. We declared war against Germany after Germany declared war against us.

Originally posted by Infonick
Besides, our latest intervention in 1994 lasted for 10 years, maybe this next time it’ll last 20 or more years.
So it’s okay to occupy a country just as long as “it’ll last” for a short amount of time? Would you have no problem with going to occupy Haiti again in another few years? Does Haiti have no sovereignty whatsoever in your view? The problem with your reasoning here is that it’s self-defining; it just accepts as a premise that intervention is good, and brushes away all facts to the contrary as flukes, with no grounds for doing so. Suppose we occupy Haiti 100 more times over the next few centuries - under the reasoning you present, that still won’t be cause for saying that intervention doesn’t work. In fact, under your reasoning, intervention doesn’t even have to succeed a single time ever, because even an infinite amount of failures will just mean that we haven’t done it enough times, or something. That’s the opposite of “learning from history.”

In fact, the whole point of everything I’ve been saying here is that we haven’t “learned from history.” A “refinement” or “improvement” of our approach, based on the historical facts, would realize that occupation and direct intervention don’t work, and would decrease our role in Haiti’s affairs instead of continuing to blindly do the same thing.

Originally posted by Infonick
Heck, the Articles of Confederation failed after 9 years, but does that mean that America was done for?
That just proves my point. The Articles of Confederation were something we agreed among ourselves to set up inside our own government. Then, we created another system, again by ourselves. It wasn’t something we imposed on someone else or someone else imposed on us; we did all of this by ourselves, showing that people can decide their own fate, even if they make mistakes in the process, without having a superpower come in and decide it.

Originally posted by Infonick
Does that mean that we should have let Saddam take over Kuwait and say it wasn’t our problem?
If you want to talk about that, for starters, we should never have supported Hussein in the first place, during the Iran-Iraq war, so he wouldn’t have become strong enough to take over Kuwait.

Infonick · March 8, 2004, 8:17pm

Originally posted by Sephiroth Katana
In that case, would it have been all right for Britain, France, and Austria to invade America during our Civil War, if they had no ulterior motives and worked together?

Well we could go into “if” history and that would be a whole other discussion. You also keep ignoring that we are in Haiti before war. Britain would have gone during the war. The rest of it is “if” history and anybody can use that to prove any sort of arguement. What if Bush was never elected? Well, we wouldn’t have lost prestige with Iraq, but what’s done is done.

Originally posted by Sephiroth Katana
Then that country could bear responsibility for the ensuing problems.

Fair enough. However, then shouldn’t the UN be getting the brunt of responsibility and not the US then?

Originally posted by Sephiroth Katana
Yes.

Well, if you feel that way.

Originally posted by Sephiroth Katana
That’s bad history. We declared war against Germany after Germany declared war against us.

Well then, let’s us "if’ history as you did and say, what if Germany hadn’t? Would it have been alright to ignore?

Originally posted by Sephiroth Katana
What the fuck? So it’s okay to occupy a country just as long as “it’ll last” for a short amount of time? So you would have no problem with going to occupy Haiti again in another few years? So in your view, Haiti has no sovereignty whatsoever, and we should just come in whenever we decide to, change what we want, and not have to take accountability for it?

They have sovereignty. The differecne is, the rebels would have got us to this point regardless. We are aiding the country, not taking it over. We are helping them build up since the instituition and governement is unable to.

Originally posted by Sephiroth Katana
Dude, one hundred years of failed intervention is almost half of our own history as a country, and more than half of Haiti’s. It’s not just one or two failed attempts, it’s two or three generations of failed attempts. The problem with your reasoning here is that it’s self-defining; it just accepts as a premise that intervention is good, and brushes away all facts to the contrary as flukes, with no grounds for doing so. Say we occupy Haiti 100 more times over the next few centuries - under your reasoning that still won’t be cause for saying that intervention doesn’t work. In fact, under your reasoning, intervention doesn’t even have to succeed a single time ever, because even an infinite amount of failure will just mean that we haven’t done it enough, or something. That’s exactly the kind of reasoning that perpetuates these same problems that it wants to cure.

Yugoslavia = successful
South American operations (such as Operation Just Cause) = successful
Gulf War 1 = successful
Korea = semi-successful in that we did manage to accomplish our goal in half the country
OIF = constitution finally signed today, we’re getting there

Originally posted by Sephiroth Katana
The whole point of everything I’ve been saying is that we haven’t “learned from history.” In Haiti, we’re still doing the exact same things we did back in the day, expecting them to have drastically different results for some reason. A “refinement” or “improvement” of our approach, based on the historical facts, would realize that occupation and direct intervention didn’t work, and would decrease our role in Haiti’s affairs.

A problem though is that Haiti would be in a bad condition making them suceptible to the rise of poor leadership which would be a problem down the road. Germany was down after WW1 and look what happened to them. They became powerful and ambitious. Despite being ambitious, the country started to kill people in its own country

Originally posted by Sephiroth Katana
Huh? This proves my point, not yours. The Articles of Confederation were something we agreed among ourselves to set up inside our own government. Then, when it didn’t work, we got rid of them and created another system, again by ourselves. It wasn’t something we imposed on someone else or someone else imposed on us; it was something we arrived at by ourselves, and it showed that people can decide their own fate, even if they make mistakes in the process, and not by having a superpower come in and decide it.

The difference is, we didn’t have a group threatening the very existence of our being.

Originally posted by Sephiroth Katana
If you want to talk about that, for starters, we should never have supported Hussein in the first place, during the Iran-Iraq war, so he wouldn’t have become strong enough to take over Kuwait.

Kuwait didn’t have any sort of defense. With or without our support earlier, Saddam still would have been able to conquer Kuwait.

You are obviously anti-war, unless it is defending the country. So countries should never aid other countries? Wow.

Steve · March 8, 2004, 8:40pm

Eh, if I may, I’m pretty sure that alliances/aiding other countries is what started one of the World Wars.
I’m not exactly saying that by helping Haiti we’re gonna start another world war, but that’s how it happened :\

Sephiroth_Katana · March 8, 2004, 8:43pm

Originally posted by Infonick
Fair enough. However, then shouldn’t the UN be getting the brunt of responsibility and not the US then?
Oh, I’m not exonerating anyone who’s going to go occupy Haiti. We just have a longer history of intervening there.

Originally posted by Infonick
Well then, let’s us "if’ history as you did and say, what if Germany hadn’t? Would it have been alright to ignore?
Germany’s alliance with Japan would have led her to declare war on us anyway, especially given Hitler’s paranoia. But, since you asked, I would favour waiting to send troops to Europe (while continuing to fight against Japan) until after that inevitable declaration.

Originally posted by Infonick
They have sovereignty. The differecne is, the rebels would have got us to this point regardless.
The rebels didn’t get “us” anywhere. It’s not like they forced our hand or threatened us or something.

Originally posted by Infonick
We are helping them build up since the instituition and governement is unable to.
By sending troops over? We did that before. It didn’t work. If we’re to “learn from history” as you say, we should think of another plan.

Originally posted by Infonick
Yugoslavia = successful
Only in the sense of not incurring any American casualties. If you’ve been following Milosevic’s trial, you’d know that the case against him isn’t looking so good, and his party recently won a whole bunch of seats in the Serbian legislature. In addition to that, where the Albanians were once being bullied by the Serbs, they are now bullying the Serbs instead. The Serbs themselves are much worse off because of this and the war itself (for instance, parts of the country are poisoned with “depleted uranium”).

Originally posted by Infonick
South American operations
Such as those in El Salvador, Nicaragua, Chile, and Haiti in 1994 and 1915-1934, no doubt.

Originally posted by Infonick
Gulf War 1 = successful
Which arose after we had built Hussein up for a decade.

Originally posted by Infonick
Korea = semi-successful in that we did manage to accomplish our goal in half the country
In Korea, we were attacked first, and when we succeeded in defending ourselves and started going on the offensive, we got beaten back.

Originally posted by Infonick
OIF = constitution finally signed today, we’re getting there
Oh, good grief. Afghanistan, which you forgot (that’s okay, no one remembers it these days) has a constitution now too. It even mentions women’s rights, I hear. Big deal; you can say what you want on paper, but outside of Kabul, the country is lawless. The USSR set up a government too when it occupied Afghanistan; it just didn’t last so long.

Originally posted by Infonick
The difference is, we didn’t have a group threatening the very existence of our being.
Our being as a nation was pretty threatened during the Civil War, though, but I gather that you wouldn’t be in favour of foreign intervention then.

Originally posted by Infonick
You are obviously anti-war, unless it is defending the country.
Wow! What an extreme, unheard-of point of view!

Originally posted by Infonick
So countries should never aid other countries? Wow.
It’s pretty sad if occupation and invasion are the only possible ways for countries to “aid” other countries. If you want to help other countries so much, that’s great. Send them humanitarian aid. Go to Africa and help them get running water set up or fight AIDS or something; for one thing, it’d sure be a hell of a lot cheaper than all that money we’re pissing away in Iraq. If there’s fighting going on somewhere and you really sympathize with one of the sides, then go enlist with that side (like some Americans did in the Spanish Civil War). Don’t make the whole nation follow you unless it absolutely has to.

Infonick · March 8, 2004, 9:23pm

Afgahnistan is different. We were attacked and tried to work it out diplomatically and that failed, so we attacked. We didn’t intervene. Afgahnistan is different from Iraq or any of those.

Korea, we were beaten back, but we also beat them back to where we were before. We forced them to a stalemate.

What I’m saying about the rebels is that they would have removed Arisitide. Arisitide was leaving power regardless, we just aided in removing him without force. No one in Haiti could stand up to the rebels. I use “us” loosely. I mean that they would have put Haiti in the situation, if not a worse one, had we not interviened.

What I mean by success, we stopped his attack and got him out of power. His party winning seats should be successful to you in that they are doing it on their own internally. If the people want them fine, we just had to stop the violence.

As for my anit-war statement. I’m just putting your position out in the open. Me? It depends on the case. War war isn’t something I’m all for, despite wanting to go to Iraq. However, this isn’t a war yet, which is why I support it.

In the Civil War our existence wasn’t threatened. We would have just divided. We’d have the Confederate States and the United States. The US would have continued to exist, but it wouldn’t have the South.

Somalia and Haiti are humanitarian missions. We are helping them in the transition in Haiti. Somalia, was humanitarian, it jsut turned violent like Haiti is starting to do. The whole go enlist in Haiti is bullshit. Don’t be an ass. That is like getting on my case when I joked about Steve leaving the country very the pledge. It isn’t quite possible. Besides, in a way I’m already doing that since I’m in the Marines and Marines are the ones in Haiti. Besides, I’m not on a side, I’m just for us helping Haiti transfer its power (afterall, they are trying to follow the Constitiution, it is just that some really like Arisitide). We aren’t trying to setup a whole new government in Haiti, just make sure they do do the Constitutional thing smoothly and without conflict.

Also, for your AID in Africa. They may not want us there and this same thing could happen. What would your response be there? We are ther for a peaceful reason, but violence breaks out. We have to do something.

On a side note, if I moved to Haiti to support my non-side (since this is completely different from Spain), the US would take my ass out of there and throw me in jail. Believe it or not. I did sign a contract to protect and serve the US and its Constitution and I can’t just leave and abandon that. Heck, I can’t even go vacations more than a month long because I have to go to my “drills” as a reserve.

Steve, with Haiti we aren’t forming alliances with either side in Haiti. Aid and alliance are quite different things.

Curtis · March 8, 2004, 10:09pm

Well, Aristide as a totalitrian dictator might be better than the alternative - which is Haiti reaching African-like levels of political chaos. I mean, we supported him back in the early 90s, we should have been consistent.

Infonick · March 8, 2004, 10:21pm

Originally posted by Curtis
Well, Aristide as a totalitrian dictator might be better than the alternative - which is Haiti reaching African-like levels of political chaos. I mean, we supported him back in the early 90s, we should have been consistent.

Supporting him would put us at war with the rebels. We didn’t ask him to step down and then aid in removing him because we didn’t like him, we did it becuase that is what the rebels who had practically conquered the country demanded. The rebels said that they would then help instate the constitutional successor and stop fighting. Also, we supported Saddam 10 years before Gulf War I and he was a totalitatrian dictator. Saying that we should have supported Arisitde jsut ebcause did in the past means we should also have supported Saddam in his invasion of Kuwait, or at least not of stopped him.

Kaiser · March 8, 2004, 11:09pm

Originally posted by Curtis
Well, Aristide as a totalitrian dictator might be better than the alternative - which is Haiti reaching African-like levels of political chaos…

…as a reasult of having totalitarian dictators who can only be removed from power by a military coup that installs ANOTHER totalitarian dictator… lather rinse repeat.

Sephiroth_Katana · March 9, 2004, 7:31am

Originally posted by Infonick
Korea, we were beaten back, but we also beat them back to where we were before.
Which was defence.

Originally posted by Infonick
What I mean by success, we stopped his attack and got him out of power. His party winning seats should be successful to you in that they are doing it on their own internally. If the people want them fine, we just had to stop the violence.
No, we didn’t “have” to do anything, we chose to presume that we had the authority to intervene. And if the purpose of intervention was to get rid of a violent dictator and promote peace, “order” and freedom, and “the people” rejected that and actually took steps towards getting his buddies back in power, it sure sounds like our intervention didn’t work at achieving our ends. Which is really a shame, seeing as how we poisoned parts of the country with “depleted uranium” and all. But hey, it was done to “stop the violence,” so it was for their own good!

Originally posted by Infonick
Somalia, was humanitarian, it jsut turned violent like Haiti is starting to do.
Then it wasn’t humanitarian. Sending armed forces over isn’t humanitarian, it’s a military intrusion backed up by force, regardless of what it’s sent there to do.

Originally posted by Infonick
The whole go enlist in Haiti is bullshit.
Calm down. When I said “you,” I was speaking about people and countries in general, I wasn’t telling you specifically to go enlist in Haiti. However, in general, if one were so enthusiastic about going to “keep order” somewhere, I fail to see why one shouldn’t just go help do it oneself, and why one’s whole country should be dragged after one.

Originally posted by Infonick
We aren’t trying to setup a whole new government in Haiti, just make sure they do do the Constitutional thing smoothly and without conflict.
We’re helping the transition of power from a democratically-elected leader (whom we actively helped sustain power) to a force comprised, in part, of the remnants of street gangs (whom Aristide himself used earlier but who are unhappy with him now). Not that Aristide is really any better. But regardless of that, you yourself just said that it was inevitable for the rebels to get in power, Constitution or not.

Originally posted by Infonick
I did sign a contract to protect and serve the US and its Constitution and I can’t just leave and abandon that
Great. So let’s have our troops defend the country and the American Constitution, which is what they signed up to do, and keep them out of harm’s way in places where we have no business or authority being.

Originally posted by Infonick
Also, for your AID in Africa. They may not want us there and this same thing could happen.
Uh, I was never advocating sending troops to Africa or putting any sort of military presence in Africa; in fact, I was strongly advocating that we never do this unless African countries declare war on us. There’s a distinction between sending humanitarian workers or funding humanitarian organizations and sending armed forces. It’s quite likely that the people would oppose foreign armed forces (as is natural), but I very much doubt that they’d refuse peaceful (i.e. unarmed) aid. If by some chance they were to refuse even that, then we’d have to respect their wishes and withdraw. And if fighting breaks out, we should declare neutrality and withdraw unless it’s deliberately directed at us somehow.

Infonick · March 9, 2004, 8:26am

I have to go to school now, but I just had to say this and I 'll finish my rebuttle later. You say Korea was for defense. All right, well what were we doing with armed troops there in the first place then? We were interviening. Korea and Vietnam were both civil wars. Our reasons for being in each country were the same. Stop the spread of communism. The differen is that we had more success in Korea. Vietnam wasn’t a place went to just for war.

Sephiroth_Katana · March 9, 2004, 3:20pm

We went to war with Japan during World War II, and at the time Korea was a colony of Japan. We (as well as the USSR) occupied Korea as a direct result of this relation to Japan, similar to how there was an Allied presence in Germany immediately after the war. The anti-communist ideas didn’t cause that initial presence, they came into play only after that, when policy wonks decided that this presence (which came about because of World War II) should be exploited to increase our military dominance. Eventually that deplorable policy led to the Vietnam War, which never should have been fought. Concerning Korea, many of the problems with separation of the two countries do, in fact, originate from armed foreign intervention in Korean affairs, by Japan and the USSR.

More generally, you’re making contradictory statements. For instance, you’re not denying the fact that our other interventions in Haiti failed, but you’re still in favour of this one, and then you offer as proof for your argument that, oh boy, “order” lasted in Haiti for a whole decade thanks to our last venture. That’s blatantly self-contradictory, since each of those failed interventions led to the next one. It’s not just that we tried intervening, failed, then tried again later. It’s that we tried, failed, and then tried again based on the very problems that were directly created by the first time. If you’re for this intervention, then you’re by necessity against the previous one, because it did the exact opposite of what this one is supposed to do, and two mutually exclusive things can’t both be right. And if you’re against the previous one, then you’re against the one before that because it begat the previous one, and the one before that, and the one before that, and so on, and you may as well be against this one too because it was the result of one that you’re against. There is just no argument that gives us the authority to conduct aggressive intervention, unless it presumes divine right or something like that.

Merlin · March 9, 2004, 5:57pm

>Foreign intervention would fail to “bring order” to Haiti. This statement is based on 100 years of history. There have been numerous attempts in the past century to “fix” Haiti. One even lasted 19 years, which is a hell of a long time to see foreign soldiers patrolling one’s streets. If intervention had any benefit for Haiti, if intervention solved Haiti’s problems and got rid of dictators and set up civil societies, why didn’t that 19-year-long occupation fix things? Why did Duvalier come to power? Why did we have to put Aristide in charge? Why do we have to replace Aristide now, even though he was the good guy ten years ago? Every one of these “problems” was the direct result of intervention in what wasn’t anyone’s business but Haiti’s, intervention that was, every single time, utterly lacking in authority or justification. Why is this time suddenly the magical cure-all? Because Bush is in charge? Because American intervention is good for everyone by definition, just because we do it? Because when we kill people, it’s always for their own good?
>Haiti’s history itself is the unshakable proof that intervention, which is by nature arrogant and myopic, doesn’t work.

Ok, but you didn’t really answer my question. Is it acceptable for you of the resultant bloodshed that will occur if there is no foreign presence? It could still happen if there was a foreign intervention, history has shown it has, but it’s almost a certainty that there will be lots of violence and death if there isn’t intervention. Is that a suitable sacrifice for giving Haiti greater self-determination, for you?

Infonick · March 9, 2004, 7:12pm

Originally posted by Sephiroth Katana
We went to war with Japan during World War II, and at the time Korea was a colony of Japan. We (as well as the USSR) occupied Korea as a direct result of this relation to Japan, similar to how there was an Allied presence in Germany immediately after the war. The anti-communist ideas didn’t cause that initial presence, they came into play only after that, when policy wonks decided that this presence (which came about because of World War II) should be exploited to increase our military dominance. Eventually that deplorable policy led to the Vietnam War, which never should have been fought. Concerning Korea, many of the problems with separation of the two countries do, in fact, originate from armed foreign intervention in Korean affairs, by Japan and the USSR.

That still doesn’t justify our presence in Korea from what you’ve said so far. Besides, ti was still a civil war, North Korea vs South Korea. By the reasoning you’ve given so far, we should ahve left Korea alone since it was a colony of Japan and we should have left Korea alone and let them settle their own issues

Originally posted by Sephiroth Katana
More generally, you’re making contradictory statements. For instance, you’re not denying the fact that our other interventions in Haiti failed, but you’re still in favour of this one, and then you offer as proof for your argument that, oh boy, “order” lasted in Haiti for a whole decade thanks to our last venture. That’s blatantly self-contradictory, since each of those failed interventions led to the next one. It’s not just that we tried intervening, failed, then tried again later. It’s that we tried, failed, and then tried again based on the very problems that were directly created by the first time. If you’re for this intervention, then you’re by necessity against the previous one, because it did the exact opposite of what this one is supposed to do, and two mutually exclusive things can’t both be right. And if you’re against the previous one, then you’re against the one before that because it begat the previous one, and the one before that, and the one before that, and so on, and you may as well be against this one too because it was the result of one that you’re against. There is just no argument that gives us the authority to conduct aggressive intervention, unless it presumes divine right or something like that.

I’m inf avor of our being Haiti since it so far has stopped a war from erupting. Had we not been in Haiti, Haiti would be at war right now with no chance of a peaceful resolution. Also, I have said that we have to keep working at it. It failed one time, but it doesn’t mean that you just give up. Besides, this problem wasn’t as much of a result of a failed government. All the rebels want to do so far is to remove Arisitide and get a new leader through their constitution. One of teh problems with your argument abotu why we shouldn’t be in haiti is because you are talking as if we are alreayd in an armed conflict and that that is the reason we are there. We went in since a conflict was about to be elevated, which at this time we have sedated so far. It looks like things are getting worse, but we’re just gong to have to be extra precautious. Also, so far we haven’t really occupied the country really. The legitimate Haitian government is still in place and control. The problem sis that their police and military are not capable of fighting offthe rebels effectively as we saw last month. Also, I NEVER said I was against our previous involvements in Haiti. I admitted they didn’t work as well as we would have liked or planned, but I never said that we shouldn’t have done them.

EDIT: Also, if we hadn’t interviened, we may not be hearing about 5 people killed. We may be hearing about 50 people killed.

Sephiroth_Katana · March 9, 2004, 7:57pm

Originally posted by Merlin
Ok, but you didn’t really answer my question. Is it acceptable for you of the resultant bloodshed that will occur if there is no foreign presence? It could still happen if there was a foreign intervention, history has shown it has, but it’s almost a certainty that there will be lots of violence and death if there isn’t intervention. Is that a suitable sacrifice for giving Haiti greater self-determination, for you?
First of all, if the two sides are so adamant and unwilling to compromise that you know for sure that there will be bloodshed if there is no foreign presence, then there will still be bloodshed the second you leave. If the factions are such die-hard fighters that the country will collapse into total chaos any second if we aren’t in it, then they’ll just fight it out again once we leave, unless we just pick one of them and give it what it wants (in which case Haiti won’t be much better off). Second of all, I wouldn’t call it a “sacrifice” because - and this is really the heart of what I’ve been saying - we do not have the authority to decide whether to “make” or “not make” it in the first place. We’re not in any position to decide whether or not we should “give” Haiti “greater self-determination.” By the premises of the very ideology that we claim to uphold, self-determination is Haiti’s right as a sovereign nation. When Europe was torn by feudal wars in the Middle Ages, that didn’t give some more enlightened civilization the authority to come in and decide whether we deserved to be “given” the right to decide our own fate.

Originally posted by Infonick
By the reasoning you’ve given so far, we should ahve left Korea alone since it was a colony of Japan
Notice how we were legitimately at war with Japan because of World War II. Therefore, while fighting the war, we had a presence in Korea as part of fighting Japan, because Japan was exploiting the Asian mainland for resources and we had to cut them off as part of the fighting.

Originally posted by Infonick
It failed one time, but it doesn’t mean that you just give up.
But it didn’t fail “one time,” dammit! If it did, then you might even have a point, but the fact is that it failed every single time over the past 100 years. You’re trying to downplay the magnitude of this failure, but 100 years is a hell of a long time to fail at intervention. A failed intervention isn’t just something you can fix by putting in another quarter and saying “oh, whoops, we fucked up, so let’s try again.” We might treat it that way because we don’t have to live with the consequences of each failed intervention every day, but that’s an erroneous view.

Originally posted by Infonick
All the rebels want to do so far is to remove Arisitide and get a new leader through their constitution.
If they’re so powerful that they can just crush Aristide like an insect and seize control of the country, what makes you think that they’ll settle for anything less than that control? They want their guy, or some guy sympathetic to them, to be the “new leader.”

Originally posted by Infonick
Also, I NEVER said I was against our previous involvements in Haiti
Yeah, I know, and that’s exactly why your argument makes no sense and is self-contradictory - because you’re simultaneously for going in to oversee the removal of Aristide and for going in to install him. The way you’re making it out, both of these mutually exclusive things are right, and if they didn’t work, well, that’s not because we shouldn’t have done them, that’s because of some vague thing that wasn’t our fault, because the direct consequences of our actions are never our fault.

Originally posted by Infonick
EDIT: Also, if we hadn’t interviened, we may not be hearing about 5 people killed. We may be hearing about 50 people killed.
Maybe.