I see another Somalia coming.

[Infonick]

Yes, but it isn’t like Korea happened right after WW2. It happened quite awhile afterward so we plenty of time to leave.

It failed a couple of times then. Each time is different. It’s a changing world.

Actaully, you couldn’t be more wrong on my position and I never said what you are accusng me of saying to be contradictory. I’m saying it was right of us to go in since he was going to be removed regardless. We just helped it to happen peacefully. The problem is that his supporters view us as being on the side of teh rebels which we aren’t. Also, since the rebels aren’t disarming like they said they would, it is making them dangerous too. To be honest, I don’t know the full details of our past engagements in Haiti (partly bacause I was only in teh 4th grade and this stuff didn’t interest me at the time nor did I have as many means to find out). Anyway, however, I don knwo thatw e helped reinstate Arisitide in 1994. 10 years is quite a long time in a persons llife. People can chance dramatically. Bottomline though is that Arisitide was going to be removed regardless of if we went in or not. The difference is that it would have been much more violent had we not interviened. You may ask how I cans ay that so surely. This why, Arisitide clearly wasn’t going to go down without a fight since he is telling various stories about his removal and not trying to calm the situation (meaning he cares more about his position than Haiti itself). That means that when the rebels finally got to the capital, he probably would have had his best fight the rebels. The rebels almost surely would have beat them, and then we’d stand here with no Arisitide and the rebels free to do what they wish. However, as we are seeing, not everyone is happy with Arisitide removed which would create another faction and possibly warring side. This side however is not capable of fighting the rebels without mass casualties. Therefore, thigns would be worse without us being there to at least try to keep the sides from fighting.

[Sephiroth_Katana]

Originally posted by Infonick
It failed a couple of times then. Each time is different. It’s a changing world.
You’re still downplaying it. An occupation that lasts 19 years isn’t just “one time,” it’s a colossal endeavour. And the world might be changing, but people don’t like seeing foreign soldiers on their streets now any more than they did 100 years ago.

Originally posted by Infonick
Actaully, you couldn’t be more wrong on my position and I never said what you are accusng me of saying to be contradictory.
Sure you did. On one hand, you’re saying it’s right for us to go in now. On the other, you’re saying that you don’t think any of the other times were wrong either. At least one of those times did something that was diametrically opposed to what we’re doing now. We can’t do two mutually exclusive things and have them both be right. There’s your contradiction.

Originally posted by Infonick
10 years is quite a long time in a persons llife
But a 19-year-long occupation is nothing to speak of, and can effortlessly be brushed away!

Originally posted by Infonick
People can chance dramatically.
So you’re saying that Aristide was really the great guy we said he was in 1994, and just somehow became the bad guy now? But even if that’s true, which I don’t believe for a second, why was our early intervention so myopic as to not foresee such a problem? Intervention, according to you, is supposed to fix problems in a country and not create them, and it’s supposedly so good at doing this that it’s even safe to ignore 100 years of history. Intervention isn’t supposed to perpetuate itself, it’s supposed to do something that fixes the problems and doesn’t have long-reaching negative consequences. But if we made our first intervention thinking that Aristide was going to be a great guy forever, and it turned out that he went bad in just a few years, then our intervention was hopelessly shortsighted and unrealistic, and thus a complete waste of time because it failed to see or predict the reality of Haitian affairs, which supposedly are what we wanted to improve. Now, you might say something about how there was no way to foresee that he would go bad in ten years. That’s exactly right, and that’s <i>exactly</i> why we shouldn’t intervene - because intervention is always shortsighted, always mismanaged, and always unrealistic, because it’s always done from the perspective of people who won’t have to live with the long-ranging consequences and who can’t foresee any of what will happen as a direct result of their actions.

Originally posted by Infonick
The rebels almost surely would have beat them, and then we’d stand here with no Arisitide and the rebels free to do what they wish.
If the rebels are so powerful as to just seize control of the entire country, and so angry that they’ll massacre their enemies if they don’t get it, why are they going to settle for not getting it? You keep talking about how they want to elect a new leader, but what if the new elected leader turns out to be some kind of Aristide-like guy who isn’t friends with the rebels? There’s not going to be fighting then? Or will we have to intervene again? Or, which is most likely, are we just going to end up letting the rebels take over and supporting their new regime just like we supported Aristide, until some other rebels come along?

[Infonick]

Originally posted by Sephiroth Katana
You’re still downplaying it. An occupation that lasts 19 years isn’t just “one time,” it’s a colossal endeavour. And the world might be changing, but people don’t like seeing foreign soldiers on their streets now any more than they did 100 years ago.

All right, well like I said, I don’t know all the details. I didn’t know it alsted that long. However, not all hate having foreign soldiers. Also, when was this 19 long year occupation?

Originally posted by Sephiroth Katana
Sure you did. On one hand, you’re saying it’s right for us to go in now. On the other, you’re saying that you don’t think any of the other times were wrong either. At least one of those times did something that was diametrically opposed to what we’re doing now. We can’t do two mutually exclusive things and have them both be right. There’s your contradiction.

The circumstances are different. Also, my opinion is based on now, not then. I already explained every detail of why my opinion is my opinion and it isn’t contradictory. I still say it was fine to go to Haiti last time (which wasnt 19 years long). Also, if you think about it, we did learn from 10 years ago. We have realized that Arisitide is not the one to rule Haiti. Lesson learned.

Originally posted by Sephiroth Katana
But a 19-year-long occupation is nothing to speak of, and can effortlessly be brushed away!

More details than when are needed.

Originally posted by Sephiroth Katana
So you’re saying that Aristide was really the great guy we said he was in 1994, and just somehow became the bad guy now? But even if that’s true, which I don’t believe for a second, why was our early intervention so myopic as to not foresee such a problem? Intervention, according to you, is supposed to fix problems in a country and not create them, and it’s supposedly so good at doing this that it’s even safe to ignore 100 years of history. Intervention isn’t supposed to perpetuate itself, it’s supposed to do something that fixes the problems and doesn’t have long-reaching negative consequences. But if we made our first intervention thinking that Aristide was going to be a great guy forever, and it turned out that he went bad in just a few years, then our intervention was hopelessly shortsighted and unrealistic, and thus a complete waste of time because it failed to see or predict the reality of Haitian affairs, which supposedly are what we wanted to improve. Now, you might say something about how there was no way to foresee that he would go bad in ten years. That’s exactly right, and that’s <i>exactly</i> why we shouldn’t intervene - because intervention is always shortsighted, always mismanaged, and always unrealistic, because it’s always done from the perspective of people who won’t have to live with the long-ranging consequences and who can’t foresee any of what will happen as a direct result of their actions.

I’m not saying that Arisitide was good then and bad now. I’m saying he could have possibly changed. I don’t know what he was like then. I’m saying that he could have possibly changed in that time. Also, one thign I would like to know that hasn’t been said (which I don’t know the answer to), is did Haiti ask for our help some of the times in the past 100 years? I do know that Haiti hasn’t been around much more than 100 years and some of those interventions may have been needed. Also, some of this stuff I would look up, however, I don’t have time this weak (3 tests this week, 2 take home essay tests, one in class tomorrow). I’m mostly rebutting in my breaks.

Originally posted by Sephiroth Katana
If the rebels are so powerful as to just seize control of the entire country, and so angry that they’ll massacre their enemies if they don’t get it, why are they going to settle for not getting it? You keep talking about how they want to elect a new leader, but what if the new elected leader turns out to be some kind of Aristide-like guy who isn’t friends with the rebels? There’s not going to be fighting then? Or will we have to intervene again? Or, which is most likely, are we just going to end up letting the rebels take over and supporting their new regime just like we supported Aristide, until some other rebels come along?

It doens’t seem like you’ve followed what is going on in Haiti too much. Here’s the break down. The rebels started on Feb 5. They conquered half the country. We sent Marines to guard OUR embassay. The rebels were prepared to attack the capital and remove Arisitide if he didn’t step down. We used news sources to speak with teh rebels and got them to hold off their attack a couple of days. The rebels demanded that Arisitide step down for the attack to stop. They said that after removign Aristide, they would make it so that the Constitutional successor got into power successfully. Arisitide refused to leave. We saw that there was no real way to keep Arisitide without conflict and encouraged Arisitide to step down. This caused us to do our intervention and go to the UN. The UN gave us a resolution and we escorted Arisitide out of the country. Instead of fighting in the capital, the rebels marched in peacefully and were praised by the citizens. We condinued to provide security to make sure it stays this way and assist in the transfer of power. The rebel leader said that they would turn over their weapons and wouldn’t take any positions in the government. The rebels have not turned over their weaposn like they said they would and then the article happened. This is the problem. The rebels want the Constitutional successor which makes sense. Also, that is partly why we arm trying to help disarm them, so that they won’t rise up again. The rebels obviously have some sort of like for the successor or they would not have worked at this. The leader alreayd had a postioning government. Also, he won’t be elected, he’s already been chosen through their government system. If the Aristide supporters see what we are there for and the rebels disarm, then this can work and our actions of 10 years ago won’t be a complete failure since we will have preserved their system of government and did it peacefully.

[Merlin]

>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.

Do we not though have a right, nay, an obligation, to oppose death and bloodshed where possible? Certainly the US does not do this everywhere, and in some cases they may actually promote it, but do we not have an obligation to simply not turn a blind eye to the torment of others where we can? I understand the principle of self-determination, a US President is the one who most greatly articulated it on a national stage, but I wonder if preventing death and violence is not more important.

In the Middle Ages case, there was no Rome to even possibly step in and organize things.

[Sephiroth_Katana]

Originally posted by Infonick
Also, when was this 19 long year occupation?
I already said this many times: 1915-1934. And no country in the history of the world has ever decided of its own free will to give up its sovereignty to a foreign occupation. Especially not when that same foreign power has failed to fix things for 100 years.

Originally posted by Infonick
The circumstances are different. Also, my opinion is based on now, not then…We have realized that Arisitide is not the one to rule Haiti. Lesson learned.
Read what I said again. If Aristide wasn’t the one to rule Haiti, why didn’t we realize it in 1994? Why was our intervention back then so short-sighted that it couldn’t foresee that our then-friend would become so bad in just ten years? Intervention is supposed to help a country and not create problems with long-range negative effects, right? In that case, our intervention in 1994 failed because it had long-range negative effects (i.e. Aristide going bad), because it just didn’t understand the reality of Haitian affairs. What’s your defence of that? That we couldn’t foresee that Aristide would go bad, so it’s not our fault? But that’s the entire point! If we couldn’t foresee the reality of Haitian affairs, why the hell did we go messing with them? Would you perhaps say that there’s no way we could possibly foresee that Aristide would go bad, so it’s still not our fault? But if we can’t foresee a negative consequence that happens after ten years, much less one that lasts 20 or 50 years, then all our interventions are short-sighted and unrealistic, and thus doomed to failure from the start.

More generally, you keep talking about intervention like it’s some kind of video game where we can just start the level over if we lose a life. Your approach is basically, “Oh, it’s okay that we fucked up then, we’ll just try it again now, and if we fuck up again now we’ll try again later.” We think that way only because we don’t know the reality of Haitian life, and we don’t have to live with the consequences of our actions. But they do have consequences - for us, a failed intervention is just a failed attempt that we can “try again,” but for the people on the receiving end, it’s daily life. And if we don’t know that (which we don’t because Haiti is a different country that is none of our business), then there’s no way in hell that we could ever hope to improve anything in Haiti.

Originally posted by Infonick
The rebel leader said that they would turn over their weapons and wouldn’t take any positions in the government.
Doesn’t look like that’s happening, is it? That’s exactly what I was talking about - if they want a new leader, they definitely want one who will be friendly to them, or else they won’t disarm. Why would they disarm and go home if the new leader isn’t friendly to them, when they can just go seize power themselves? Our role will be just to help them get what they want and prevent the pro-Aristide people from fighting back.

Originally posted by Merlin
Do we not though have a right, nay, an obligation, to oppose death and bloodshed where possible?
You’re once again wildly conflating completely different things. It’s one thing to oppose death and bloodshed by speaking out against it, or encouraging diplomacy between the two sides, or something of that nature. It’s quite another to presume the authority to actually dictate to a country. We have no right to tell anyone that we know what’s good for them more than they do, especially since we don’t. We don’t know jack shit about Haitian affairs; we don’t know about the deeper problems behind these things that we’re supposed to go magically fix; we are completely incapable of foreseeing problems that arise as the <i>direct consequences</i> of our actions in even the <i>short</i> term, like 5 or 10 years. By the very nature of the fact that Haiti is a different country, it will always be the case that we will never have to deal with these negative unintended consequences (because we live in America and not in Haiti), and because of that it will always be the case that our intervention will be short-sighted, unrealistic, and naive, like Infonick’s bit about how it’s okay to fuck up any number of times as long as we try again. Hell, we have enough problems as it is trying to decide on good policy in our own country.

The American people delegated to the American government the authority to speak for them, but the Haitian people never did any such thing. Therefore we have no right to presume any such authority. When we do, as we have done in the past, it only leads to the ultimate in hypocrisy, because no ideology that values the individual will ever even remotely <i>entertain</i> the possibility of anyone having the authority to “give” or “take away” anyone’s right to self-determination by force.

Originally posted by Merlin
I understand the principle of self-determination, a US President is the one who most greatly articulated it on a national stage, but I wonder if preventing death and violence is not more important.
If we’re so concerned about preventing death and violence, that’s great. We can support peaceful humanitarian efforts that are concerned with improving people’s lives on a basic level instead of forcing our decisions on them from a distance. If you personally happen to think that the cause of the rebels or whoever is just so amazingly just, then go do what some Americans did during the Spanish Civil War, and join them. Don’t drag your whole country into your fight.

Originally posted by Merlin
In the Middle Ages case, there was no Rome to even possibly step in and organize things.
Yeah, by then Rome met the ultimate fate of all empires. What if there were some other really enlightened power? Would it be okay for it to go conquer us for our own good, though our unenlightened ancestors would have fought it to the death? Of course not, because if it waged such an aggressive war of conquest, then it wouldn’t really be enlightened.

[Infonick]

Originally posted by Sephiroth Katana
I already said this many times: 1915-1934. And no country in the history of the world has ever decided of its own free will to give up its sovereignty to a foreign occupation. Especially not when that same foreign power has failed to fix things for 100 years.

All right, I missed that part; So sue me. Christ, you don’t be an ass about it.

Originally posted by Sephiroth Katana
Read what I said again. If Aristide wasn’t the one to rule Haiti, why didn’t we realize it in 1994? Why was our intervention back then so short-sighted that it couldn’t foresee that our then-friend would become so bad in just ten years? Intervention is supposed to help a country and not create problems with long-range negative effects, right? In that case, our intervention in 1994 failed because it had long-range negative effects (i.e. Aristide going bad), because it just didn’t understand the reality of Haitian affairs. What’s your defence of that? That we couldn’t foresee that Aristide would go bad, so it’s not our fault? But that’s the entire point! If we couldn’t foresee the reality of Haitian affairs, why the hell did we go messing with them? Would you perhaps say that there’s no way we could possibly foresee that Aristide would go bad, so it’s still not our fault? But if we can’t foresee a negative consequence that happens after ten years, much less one that lasts 20 or 50 years, then all our interventions are short-sighted and unrealistic, and thus doomed to failure from the start.

We reinstated Arisitide, we were keeping their system stable. Also, Aristide ahs been reelected since 1994 so there are some people who wanted to keep him in.Like I said, I don’t know all the details of 1994’s intervention.

Originally posted by Sephiroth Katana
More generally, you keep talking about intervention like it’s some kind of video game where we can just start the level over if we lose a life. Your approach is basically, “Oh, it’s okay that we fucked up then, we’ll just try it again now, and if we fuck up again now we’ll try again later.” We think that way only because we don’t know the reality of Haitian life, and we don’t have to live with the consequences of our actions. But they do have consequences - for us, a failed intervention is just a failed attempt that we can “try again,” but for the people on the receiving end, it’s daily life. And if we don’t know that (which we don’t because Haiti is a different country that is none of our business), then there’s no way in hell that we could ever hope to improve anything in Haiti.

Ah shut the fuck up. At least I’m willing to put my money where my mouth is. I’d go to Haiti and if this turns into Somalia like I suggested it may, it’d be our lives too. Also, I’m looking at the system and country since that has been your primary focus until jus tnow and mentioning Haitian lives. I already said that saving lives is exactly why we SHOULD be there since fighting would surely erupt had we not intervened. I may be downplaying the failed interventions of the past, but you are com[letely ignoring what is happening now and downplaying the fact that we have stopped a war from erupting so far.

Originally posted by Sephiroth Katana
Doesn’t look like that’s happening, is it? That’s exactly what I was talking about - if they want a new leader, they definitely want one who will be friendly to them, or else they won’t disarm. Why would they disarm and go home if the new leader isn’t friendly to them, when they can just go seize power themselves? Our role will be just to help them get what they want and prevent the pro-Aristide people from fighting back.

Our role is to keep both sides from killing each other. Also, there are individuals and there are groups. The rebel leader is following on what he said. He has given us locations of the weapons and the new President is the one that the rebels wanted. We are making sure that he is able to assume power successfully. We aren’t dominating the country like you think. We aren’t rebuilding the country or controlling every aspect of it. You say to send unarmed people to Haiti, I say unarmed people since our definitions of humanitarian aid differ wildly, for to rebuild it. The problem is that if the government isn’t stable and a threatening force, it is dangerous for those people to be there and if the government isn’t stable, all of that can be lost very quickly.

[Sephiroth_Katana]

Originally posted by Infonick
We reinstated Arisitide, we were keeping their system stable.
You’re dodging my question again. If we intervened to “keep their system stable,” why didn’t we foresee that doing so would lead to another stability issue 10 years down the road where we’d have to “stabilize” it again by doing the exact opposite of what we did before?

Originally posted by Infonick
Ah shut the fuck up.
No. Good argument, though.

Originally posted by Infonick
At least I’m willing to put my money where my mouth is.
Well, that’s true.

Originally posted by Infonick
I’d go to Haiti and if this turns into Somalia like I suggested it may, it’d be our lives too.
Yeah, that’s why I’ve been arguing all along that we shouldn’t send troops to risk their lives in places where we have no business being.

Originally posted by Infonick
I may be downplaying the failed interventions of the past, but you are completely ignoring what is happening now and downplaying the fact that we have stopped a war from erupting so far.
I’m not ignoring the present. I’m asking you why we intervened before and created consequences that led to us having to stop a war now in the first place, if our role is to keep order and not create later problems that just end up in more need to keep order.

Originally posted by Infonick
Our role is to keep both sides from killing each other.
If they’re so set on killing each other that they won’t listen to reason and only the threat of force on Haitian streets will stop them, why wouldn’t they start doing it again after we leave?

Originally posted by Infonick
the new President is the one that the rebels wanted. We are making sure that he is able to assume power successfully.
Yeah, that’s exactly what I’ve been talking about. That’s called “helping one side get what it wants.” I thought you were talking earlier about how we’re not helping any one side get what it wants?

Originally posted by Infonick
The problem is that if the government isn’t stable and a threatening force, it is dangerous for those people to be there
I’m not advocating that we send unarmed workers, I’m advocating that we support people who already want to go there. Genuinely helping a country, as humanitarian workers try to do full-time, is a dangerous and very lengthy job. Humanitarian workers know that. They usually don’t go to a country because they got sent by some government, they go because they want to.

[Infonick]

Originally posted by Sephiroth Katana
You’re dodging my question again. If we intervened to “keep their system stable,” why didn’t we foresee that doing so would lead to another stability issue 10 years down the road where we’d have to “stabilize” it again by doing the exact opposite of what we did before?

Players and situations change. Why did we write the Articles of Confederation if we were just going to rewrite our form of government. The Articles of Confederation caused quite a few problems that we didn’t forsee. Also, we aren’t there to run the governmetn like you are acting like.

Originally posted by Sephiroth Katana
No. Good argument, though.

Thanks, rbeakign a thouhgt/argument. I tell you to shut up about how you think I’m thinking this is a game and I’m actually willing to back my words. This is very real, part of the reason I’m following it so much. It could actually be a part of my life in the future. I think our intervention is necessary since the Haitians are killing each other.

Originally posted by Sephiroth Katana
Yeah, that’s why I’ve been arguing all along that we shouldn’t send troops to risk their lives in places where we have no business being.

Our military is pretty good and we can work in Haiti with very few,casualties (casualties include just getting wounded) so it probably won’t be too costly. We are assisting their police since the police can’t do it alone. You’re sayign that America shouldn’t go in because we need to save our own lvies is like saying one American is worth more than all of Haiti.

Originally posted by Sephiroth Katana
I’m not ignoring the present. I’m asking you why we intervened before and created consequences that led to us having to stop a war now in the first place, if our role is to keep order and not create later problems that just end up in more need to keep order.

It is ebcause we aren’t the only ones in Haiti and we are helping maintain order until the actual peace keeping force can arrive and do its job like you want.

Originally posted by Sephiroth Katana
If they’re so set on killing each other that they won’t listen to reason and only the threat of force on Haitian streets will stop them, why wouldn’t they start doing it again after we leave?

Because the peace keeping force won’t leave until it is sure that they won’t start killing each other.

Originally posted by Sephiroth Katana
Yeah, that’s exactly what I’ve been talking about. That’s called “helping one side get what it wants.” I thought you were talking earlier about how we’re not helping any one side get what it wants?

We’re aren’t helping one side. We are helping the Haitian government. Arisitide was going to be removed one no matter what. No we are just helping the government while it is weak.

Originally posted by Sephiroth Katana
I’m not advocating that we send unarmed workers, I’m advocating that we support people who already want to go there. Genuinely helping a country, as humanitarian workers try to do full-time, is a dangerous and very lengthy job. Humanitarian workers know that. They usually don’t go to a country because they got sent by some government, they go because they want to.

That is why we send a variety of troops. If you go to the official branches websites, you’ll see various missions, that don’t get mass media coverage, being conducted. Believe it or not, our troops are capable of more than just kicking ass. Such as we are building homes and shit in Africa. Troops are also helping to build communities in Africa. We have combat engineers capable of building tons of shit and they do that constantly around the world, you just never hear about it.

This article should put you more at rest about our involvement in Haiti.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040310/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/us_haiti_040310213912

[Merlin]

>You’re once again wildly conflating completely different things. It’s one thing to oppose death and bloodshed by speaking out against it, or encouraging diplomacy between the two sides, or something of that nature. It’s quite another to presume the authority to actually dictate to a country. We have no right to tell anyone that we know what’s good for them more than they do, especially since we don’t. We don’t know jack shit about Haitian affairs; we don’t know about the deeper problems behind these things that we’re supposed to go magically fix; we are completely incapable of foreseeing problems that arise as the direct consequences of our actions in even the short term, like 5 or 10 years. By the very nature of the fact that Haiti is a different country, it will always be the case that we will never have to deal with these negative unintended consequences (because we live in America and not in Haiti), and because of that it will always be the case that our intervention will be short-sighted, unrealistic, and naive, like Infonick’s bit about how it’s okay to fuck up any number of times as long as we try again. Hell, we have enough problems as it is trying to decide on good policy in our own country.
>The American people delegated to the American government the authority to speak for them, but the Haitian people never did any such thing. Therefore we have no right to presume any such authority. When we do, as we have done in the past, it only leads to the ultimate in hypocrisy, because no ideology that values the individual will ever even remotely entertain the possibility of anyone having the authority to “give” or “take away” anyone’s right to self-determination by force.

Hm, ok, that makes more sense. But you still seem unwilling to accept that people will die for that position, no matter how right it may be in the long or short-term, or even if foreign intervention may result in blood too. But if that’s acceptable, then I can understand.

[Infonick]

One problem with your argument SK is that you speak as if we are controlling and dictating the country. It is actually quite the contrary in that we are aiding their government while it is weak.

EDIT: Here is a reason according to Yahoo!News for why the rebelllion started:

Aristide fled Feb. 29 amid international pressure to step down and a bloody rebellion that left more than 300 dead. The once popular slum priest, elected on promises to champion the poor, lost support as Haitians accused his government of corruption and attacks against his political opponents.

[Mazrim_Taim]

So, according to that article on YahooNews, the two stated goals are to take weapons away from people, and to “protect life.” The latter is vague enough that it doesn’t deserve notice, but as for the former, do you think that taking weapons away from rebel factions will change their opinions at all? As SK said, if they have weapons, and don’t want to disarm, they have a reason for it. Either they don’t feel safe with the newly elected leader, or they want to take power themselves, in which case we ARE controlling and dictating their country, by saying, you can have power, but you can’t.

Now, you might say, a constitutionally elected president is infinitely better than some military dictator, so we have the right to disarm these people, but I ask you this. Just because you take these people’s guns away, do you think that means they’ll stop feeling unsafe, stop wanting to take power themselves? Do you think that they won’t just do the exact same thing ten, fifteen years down the line, if they manage to get their hands on some weapons? When this happens, as it often does (history in the last hundred years has shown it to be inevitable), there will be another violent rebellion against the party in power, and our intervention will prove to have failed in establishing stability.

That’s why military, forced intervention has never worked in the past. Our government thinks that if nobody causes trouble in an occupied country, it’s because the country is finally stable, and we, as Champions of the World, have done our altruistic duty once again. We fail to take into account that what’s probably going on is, nobody’s causing trouble because they’re simply unable to, or because they’re waiting for a more opportune moment. As SK has been repeatedly saying, we know nothing about internal Haitian motivations or politics, on the specialized, local level - an understanding which is vital if we ever want to truly stabilize a country torn by strife. If we did, we’d know that the situation is far more complicated than we’re treating it. What are we doing, disarming everybody, arresting everybody who does violent things? How on earth does that address the underlying issues which caused this rebellion, which caused the upheaval 10 years ago, which probably stem from the occupation between 1915 and 1934? I don’t understand how this strategy of military occupation is going to change anybody’s minds regarding the desire for weapons or for a new leader.

You say, our military presence negates present casualties, and I agree. Know what would negate even more casualties though? If we sent in humanitarian aid to both provide medical care to the wounded, as well as to get to know the situation (from first-hand experience) well enough to figure out why the rebels don’t want to give up their weapons even if they take power; to get to know Haitian politics to the point where an intelligent plan of action can be made, as opposed to this blind disarmament we’re doing. The United States government has a lot of power and a lot of money at its disposal. With the right knowledge, we could work wonders on the world. We could be its saviors. But the truth is, in all the places in which we’ve directly intervened, we really don’t know shit about their local politics or history or social dynamic, and that’s why all our military interventions have been, ultimately, failures, despite setting out with the best of intentions.

-Mazrim Taim

[Curtis]

You know, many think that the answer to Somalia, and Rwanda, and Haiti, and all the other violent places in Africa, is simply to… .‘let them run their course’. That is, just stay out of it and let the people kill each other until there’s some kind of resolution. That seems to be what SK is indirectly suggesting.

[Merlin]

Originally posted by Curtis
You know, many think that the answer to Somalia, and Rwanda, and Haiti, and all the other violent places in Africa, is simply to… .‘let them run their course’. That is, just stay out of it and let the people kill each other until there’s some kind of resolution. That seems to be what SK is indirectly suggesting.
Which is all I’m try to acknowledge. We have to stare the death in the face and come to grips with that before we stop intervening around the world. You have to reconcile the damage your inactivity will do with the higher ideal.

[Sephiroth_Katana]

Originally posted by Merlin
Which is all I’m try to acknowledge. We have to stare the death in the face and come to grips with that before we stop intervening around the world. You have to reconcile the damage your inactivity will do with the higher ideal.
No, the terms you’re defining this on are wrong. This sentence implies, without even a trace of doubt, that our inactivity will do damage as if it were some immutable fact that American forces will make life better for everyone if they’re forced to go somewhere even though they signed up to do something completely different, which is to defend the United States. That’s not true because historically, our activity has done plenty of damage of its own. In fact, your own qualifiers in your earlier response to me (i.e. “right in the long or short term,” “intervention results in blood too”) deprive that premise of meaning.

Secondly, I wasn’t “indirectly hinting” at anything. I was explicitly saying that it is irrelevant and completely meaningless to talk about whether this foreign violence is “acceptable” or whether we should “let it happen” or “give people self-determination.” Those terms are completely devoid of meaning because, while we can accept or not accept something as we choose, we simply have no right and no authority whatsoever to choose to “give” anyone anything. We have no such authority because our own ideology presumes that no one on earth has any such authority. If you have the authority to “give” someone the right to self-determination, it follows that you are also authorized to “take away” that right. But our own ideology holds that self-determination is already the right of a sovereign country, period. It’s not ours to “give.”

Originally posted by Infonick
Players and situations change. Why did we write the Articles of Confederation if we were just going to rewrite our form of government. The Articles of Confederation caused quite a few problems that we didn’t forsee.
I know situations change. My question to you was <i>why</i> we didn’t foresee that the situation changed, because if our intervention failed to foresee it, then our intervention failed at its ultimate goal and should never have happened. And your analogy to the Articles of Confederation is false, because the Articles were something we decided upon as a sovereign nation and then changed later on our own. Other countries didn’t send troops over to make sure we changed them. It was up to us. If we felt like it, we could have refused to change them at the last possible minute. We could even have set up a kingdom if we wanted to. We rightly chose not to. We didn’t have an occupation there to make sure we didn’t.

Originally posted by Infonick
I tell you to shut up about how you think I’m thinking this is a game and I’m actually willing to back my words.
The reason I said that you think it’s a game is because you apparently either refuse to acknowledge that our intervention has negative consequences (because then you’d have to say that we shouldn’t have done it), or you just don’t care.

Originally posted by Infonick
You’re sayign that America shouldn’t go in because we need to save our own lvies
No, what I’m saying is that the job of the troops is to defend America, and sending them to risk their lives on a job that has nothing to do with that is a breach of trust.

Originally posted by Infonick
It is ebcause we aren’t the only ones in Haiti and we are helping maintain order until the actual peace keeping force can arrive and do its job like you want.
This has nothing to do with my question.

Originally posted by Infonick
Because the peace keeping force won’t leave until it is sure that they won’t start killing each other.
What if that takes 30 years? It’s permissible to occupy a sovereign nation for that length of time? What if the Haitians tell us to leave?

Originally posted by Infonick
Arisitide was going to be removed one no matter what. No we are just helping the government while it is weak.
You just said earlier that we’re helping the rebels get the government they want.

Originally posted by Infonick
One problem with your argument SK is that you speak as if we are controlling and dictating the country.
An occupation is always conducted under the threat of force.

[Merlin]

>No, the terms you’re defining this on are wrong. This sentence implies, without even a trace of doubt, that our inactivity will do damage as if it were some immutable fact that American forces will make life better for everyone if they’re forced to go somewhere even though they signed up to do something completely different, which is to defend the United States. That’s not true because historically, our activity has done plenty of damage of its own. In fact, your own qualifiers in your earlier response to me (i.e. “right in the long or short term,” “intervention results in blood too”) deprive that premise of meaning.

No, as I’ve alluded to things could go to hell whether there is intervention or not. But people will die and will suffer violence if there is no action, definitely in the short-term, perhaps in the long-term. If you’re mandating that there shouldn’t be intervention, you have to accept this consequence as part of it.

>Secondly, I wasn’t “indirectly hinting” at anything. I was explicitly saying that it is irrelevant and completely meaningless to talk about whether this foreign violence is “acceptable” or whether we should “let it happen” or “give people self-determination.” Those terms are completely devoid of meaning because, while we can accept or not accept something as we choose, we simply have no right and no authority whatsoever to choose to “give” anyone anything. We have no such authority because our own ideology presumes that no one on earth has any such authority. If you have the authority to “give” someone the right to self-determination, it follows that you are also authorized to “take away” that right. But our own ideology holds that self-determination is already the right of a sovereign country, period. It’s not ours to “give.”

What a nation has a “right” to do, and what they “can” do are two different things. Can America intervene in Haiti? Yes. Should they? That’s not so clear. Justice is frequently the last reason any nation does anything. We may not even have the authority. But even if I were to agree with you on that, that doesn’t change the fact that America can go into Haiti if it wants to, for whatever its particular interest is, be that economical, fear, whatever. So you can either try to persuade people that there is a higher reason for not intervening, or argue against it in terms of its ineffectiveness at accomplishing whatever our aims are. A stronger argument than shouting “No one gives you that right!” is to say something like “intervening won’t end the cycle of bloodshed in Haiti, and if that’s what you want to stop, then it’s best to not intervene militarily and expect better things in the long-term.”

[Sephiroth_Katana]

Originally posted by Merlin
A stronger argument than shouting “No one gives you that right!” is to say something like “intervening won’t end the cycle of bloodshed in Haiti, and if that’s what you want to stop, then it’s best to not intervene militarily and expect better things in the long-term.”
That is what I’ve been saying. The reason I’m talking about “rights” is because a common claim in support of intervention is that it’s supposedly necessary for the sake of higher aims. You yourself are doing this - for instance, you started out your participation in this thread by talking about some “obligation” to intervene, and Infonick has been saying phrases such as “we might have to intervene.” Obviously we don’t “have” to because we aren’t in danger, so you’re both referring to some higher authority. Furthermore, just in your most recent reply, you’ve said that death will result “if there is no action,” which implies that death is a direct consequence of non-intervention. Yet your remark about death after intervention was far less strong - you said “things could go to hell whether there is intervention or not.” That implies that intervention could <i>fail at preventing</i> death, but it doesn’t allow for the possibility that intervention could <i>directly cause</i> death, or negative consequences that might lead to more death or more intervention to “prevent” it. It doesn’t suggest the possibility that accountability for death might lie with the intervention <i>itself</i>, and thus can claim that intervention is mandated by our higher aims.

But that premise is wrong. This is because of what I’ve been saying all along - if we claim to believe in higher aims like the rights of countries and individuals to self-determination, then a policy of armed intervention is contradictory to them because it presumes authority that those <i>very same aims</i> don’t allow. Therefore, those aims cannot possibly really mandate armed intervention. It is not possible to have a democracy at home and an empire abroad. You can’t credibly claim to have a society based on tolerance, individual rights, and political equality and then justify intervention by saying “Because we can.” From that, it follows simply that if we really want to promote higher aims, we shouldn’t intervene militarily, which is really all I’ve been talking about this whole time.

[Mazrim_Taim]

I believe what Infonick is saying is that, outwardly at least, the single and only reason we’re intervening in Haiti is because we don’t want people to die. He’s saying, and I think there’s at least a bit of truth to it, that we don’t care what sort of government they set up, so long as the violence stops, because I think that our government (parts of it at least, very small parts at present) is genuinely concerned for the well-being and safety of the Haitian people. I also think that such humanitarian concern is a noble thing, only like Merlin said, military intervention won’t stop the cycle of bloodshed. The people who sponsor intervention from a genuinely caring standpoint need to, in addition to the love they have for their fellow man, use their brains and garner the experience needed (i.e. become acquainted with local politics, and with the lives of the people they’re trying to save) so they can actually be effective.

Of course, SK is right too, in that the present White House is actually trying to set up an empire abroad, under the pretenses of spreading the ideals of democracy and freedom - that’s what Afghanistan and Iraq were all about, and I’m sure the people in charge are rubbing their hands with glee over Haiti too. This power in charge is using people’s desire to help others make their lives better (I define better as in, not being afraid they’ll be shot to death at any moment) to put forward their imperialistic doctrine, which I think is absolutely disgusting, because there are truly so many people who care about the lives of those abroad, and their trust and their love is going, not towards making people’s lives stable and secure, but towards the enrichment of a few politicians and corporate giants who will be the only ones to garner lasting benefits from an American Empire.

The average American cares about other people, but he’s clueless, tossed around by greedy sons of bitches who know how to lie through their teeth, and therein lies the tragedy of our nation.

[Curtis]

"Secondly, I wasn’t “indirectly hinting” at anything. I was explicitly saying that it is irrelevant and completely meaningless to talk about whether this foreign violence is “acceptable” or whether we should “let it happen” or “give people self-determination.” Those terms are completely devoid of meaning because, while we can accept or not accept something as we choose, we simply have no right and no authority whatsoever to choose to “give” anyone anything. We have no such authority because our own ideology presumes that no one on earth has any such authority. If you have the authority to “give” someone the right to self-determination, it follows that you are also authorized to “take away” that right. But our own ideology holds that self-determination is already the right of a sovereign country, period. It’s not ours to “give.”

Yes, I said indirectly because you’re not directly ackwoledging that you think we should just let these conflicts play themselves out, but because of what you do think, that’s what will happen.

[Sephiroth_Katana]

First of all, I said that we can genuinely help end conflicts, if that’s really what we want to do, by encouraging diplomacy and supporting unarmed humanitarian aid. However, the decision of whether or not to “give self-determination” is not up to us, according to our own stated beliefs. Presuming that we have this authority “because we can” leads to failing to acknowledge the consequences of our actions, which leads to failing to have any regard for them. As a result, our armed intervention fails to ultimately bring peace to a country, time after time, and only causes us to stop being a country that really upholds freedom in the process.

[Merlin]

>But that premise is wrong. This is because of what I’ve been saying all along - if we claim to believe in higher aims like the rights of countries and individuals to self-determination, then a policy of armed intervention is contradictory to them because it presumes authority that those very same aims don’t allow. Therefore, those aims cannot possibly really mandate armed intervention. It is not possible to have a democracy at home and an empire abroad. You can’t credibly claim to have a society based on tolerance, individual rights, and political equality and then justify intervention by saying “Because we can.” From that, it follows simply that if we really want to promote higher aims, we shouldn’t intervene militarily, which is really all I’ve been talking about this whole time.

Is it possible to justify a policy of intervention from the belief in tolerance, individual rights, and political equality? As being supercedent to notions of self-determination? If it’s demonstrated that these sorts of ideals won’t be developed in Haiti by the current groups embroiled in conflict? It’s nation building, sure, but can the ends justify the means? I’m interested as to what sort of prominence you give to these various ideals. I’m mostly playing devil’s advocate, I’m lukewarm to the prospect of going into Haiti from the beginning.