The Frank plots sending troops to America's backyard

[Marla_Singer]

Originally posted by Speedo
Now now Marla, what happened to "Of course my comment is provocative, but don't tell it's wrong simply because it doesn't fit in your way of thinking."? Saying the US is on the same side as Osama isn't libelling or a call to hatred, but saying france is a enemy of the US is? Helllllo, double standard.

Anyway, I don't really care what france does, nor am I extremely concerned with Haiti.

In the post you're referring to, I considered puritans had many common points with islam fundamentalists. It is you, in your post, who's distorting the idea and consider it meant "the US is on the same side of Osama". Thus, your accusation of double standard is flawed.

Moreover, as Cgannon already told. Considering someone as an ennemy is a lot more stronger than simply considering we may have different interests. Moreover, your lecture of the pre-Iraq war crisis is also flawed. The disagreement between France and the US towards Iraq wasn't about opposed interests, it was about the way on how to reach the same mutual interests (which is the stabilization of the region).

 

[SeleucusNicator]

Originally posted by Ozz

Seems the Doctrine ignored Canada, Belize, Berumda ,Jamacia, etc.

If I were the British in 1823 and I was drafting something that I would give to my puppet to keep other European nations out of its local area, I would exempt my colonies too. I don't see how that is surprising.

 

[jack merchant]

Originally posted by SeleucusNicator

It always has been and still is backed up by a substantial amount of force.

You can't use the fact that the Americans could enforce a Monroe doctrine as an argument for its desirability, you know .

Originally posted by SeleucusNicator

They have done so before. They have been turned back and deported before. No hint of that policy changing has become evident.

All it needs is a cute little kid and a slow news day on the telly
(which point isn't limited to the US alone, naturally).

 

[SeleucusNicator]

Originally posted by jack merchant

All it needs is a cute little kid and a slow news day on the telly.

Both of which it has had before, and both of which went largely unnoticed.

 

[Ozz]

Originally posted by SeleucusNicator
If I were the British in 1823 and I was drafting something that I would give to my puppet to keep other European nations out of its local area, I would exempt my colonies too. I don't see how that is surprising.

it's surprising it would be enforced AS IS today. I think the
puppet broke it's strings long ago.

 

[SeleucusNicator]

Originally posted by jack merchant

You can't use the fact that the Americans could enforce a Monroe doctrine as an argument for its desirability, you know .

I never argued it was desirable for anyone other than the United States and (at the time) Great Britain. Certainly it is undesirable for France right now, just as it was over a hundred years ago.

Its level of desirability for Latin America is debatable, but this is not about Latin America or even Haiti. This is about the United States allowing a rival power to operate freely in its backyard, which is usually percieved in international politics as a sign of weakness.

 

[jack merchant]

re the 'cute little kid' comment

You wouldn't think Haiti being ignored had anything to do with the war in Iraq, would you ?

 

[SeleucusNicator]

Originally posted by jack merchant

You wouldn't think Haiti being ignored had anything to do with the war in Iraq, would you ?

Considering that all of examples I can think of of Haitian special interests groups trying to use small children on national television to elicit sympathy occured between 1993 and 2000, I doubt that.

If you meant Haiti being ignored militarily by the US has something to do with th war in Iraq, I'd agree. The reason we are not acting on this is because we are busy elsewhere; we are starting to see the limitations of Rumsfeld's "smaller, more efficent" military, and I certainly hope Rumsfeld sees that before his second term ends. (Preferably before his first one ends)

 

[Speedo]

In the post you're referring to, I considered puritans had many common points with islam fundamentalists. It is you, in your post, who's distorting the idea and consider it meant <i>"the US is on the same side of Osama"</i>. Thus, your accusation of double standard is flawed.

There aren't that many ways to interpret "Ok. Now, I definitly put the United States in the countries controlled by religious fundamentalists. Stop to look for Ben Laden ! You're in the same side !"

First you say the US is controlled by religious fundamentalists. Ingorant statement, granted, but it qualifies that you're talking about the US. This is followed by "you're on the same side." I don't see who "you" could be referring to except the US. It could refer to the religious fundamentalists, I guess, but you've already stated that they control they make up the US, so it's the same thing.

Getting a taste of your own medicine isn't much fun, is it?

 

[jack merchant]

Originally posted by SeleucusNicator

Its level of desirability for Latin America is debatable, but this is not about Latin America or even Haiti. This is about the United States allowing a rival power to operate freely in its backyard, which is usually percieved in international politics as a sign of weakness.

I seem to remember we had a similar discussion before . Anyway, you'll have to do better than that - please explain to me in concrete terms in what way the Americans allowing the French to intervene in Haiti constitutes a sign of weakness and to whom, elaborating a bit more on how this harms America's interests long-term ?

Originally posted by SeleucusNicator

If you meant Haiti being ignored militarily by the US has something to do with th war in Iraq, I'd agree. The reason we are not acting on this is because we are busy elsewhere; we are starting to see the limitations of Rumsfeld's "smaller, more efficent" military, and I certainly hope Rumsfeld sees that before his second term ends. (Preferably before his first one ends)

I seriously doubt the current administration would intervene even if they had the resources.

 

[vonork]

Originally posted by SeleucusNicator
The Monroe Doctrine is a 1823 proclaimation stating that the US would not tolerate European intervention in the affairs of independent Latin American countries.

So it was left to the US to do that?

 

[SeleucusNicator]

Originally posted by vonork

So it was left to the US to do that?

That's actually what Theodore Roosevelt's collorary to the Monroe Doctrine states.

 

[joycem10]

Hoist upon her own petard:

A petard was a bell-shaped metal grenade typically filled with five or six pounds of gunpowder and set off by a fuse. Sappers dug a tunnel or covered trench up to a building and fixed the device to a door, barricade, drawbridge or the like to break it open. The bomb was held in place with a heavy beam called a madrier.

Unfortunately, the devices were unreliable and often went off unexpectedly. Hence the expression, where hoist meant to be lifted up, an understated description of the result of being blown up by your own bomb. The name of the device came from the Latin petar, to break wind, perhaps a sarcastic comment about the thin noise of a muffled explosion at the far end of an excavation.

 

[Marla_Singer]

Originally posted by Speedo
There aren't that many ways to interpret "Ok. Now, I definitly put the United States in the countries controlled by religious fundamentalists. Stop to look for Ben Laden ! You're in the same side !"

This is an obvious joke. The exclamation mark is an evidence of the fact it's a joke. Seleucus' comment was serious. If you want to prove how serious it is, just ask to Seleucus to repeat it, he'll once again say that he see France as an ennemy that must be destroyed.

Getting a taste of your own medicine isn't much fun, is it?

I'm sorry but you aren't honnest here and you know it. You've perfectly got my comment was about puritanism and not about George W. Bush policy. If there was some kind of contradiction, I would assume it, but this is obviously not the case. So get over it.

 

[cgannon64]

The only logical application of the Monroe Doctrine, I think, was teh Cubun Missile Crisis. That was an obvious threat - dangerous weapons extremely close to home.

What France could possibly do with Haiti taht would hurt the US is beyond me. Establish a puppet state? Possibly, but France isn't in the position to run puppet states, nor does it seem to have the urge to. And what would this puppet state do? Boycott the US?

Sorry, this seems like a nonissue. In fact, I find it highly ironic that it seems you oppose France's humanitarian mission on the grounds that it has an ulterior motive - when France did the exact same thing in the Iraqi war and you *****ed about it.

 

[SeleucusNicator]

Originally posted by jack merchant

I seem to remember we had a similar discussion before . Anyway, you'll have to do better than that - please explain to me in concrete terms in what way the Americans allowing the French to intervene in Haiti constitutes a sign of weakness and to whom, elaborating a bit more on how this harms America's interests long-term ?

Each "great power" in the world traditionally has a radius around it in which it wields great authority over smaller independent nations or tribute states. It usually monopolizes that power in its local sphere and attempts to discourage others from attempting to intervene there. Russia had Central Asia, Austria had the balkans and pre-unification Germany, etc.

Since the 1820's, the United States has had Latin America, especially after the Spanish-American war. French intervention in Haiti, while strategically not threatening to the US, is a slap in the face to the US's great-power status.

 

[jack merchant]

.......or it would have been if we were still living in the 19th century

 

[SeleucusNicator]

Originally posted by jack merchant
.......or it would have been if we were still living in the 19th century

Let me put it this way. If there was a struggle over the royal succession in Luxemburg, would you feel comfortable if the US came in and settled it?

 

[jack merchant]

I'm a republican .

Anyhow, Europe has been very happy with the American interventions in its internal conflicts in the past, from WW1 to Kosovo. Whoever is willing and able to do the job is fine.

 

[Speedo]

This is an obvious joke. The exclamation mark is an evidence of the fact it's a joke.

Funny, because when probed about it, instead of saying "it was a joke", you said:

Speedo, you'll be surprized to see how many common points there are between puritanists and islam fundamentalists. Of course my comment is provocative, but don't tell it's wrong simply because it doesn't fit in your way of thinking.