Bozo Erectus
Master Baker
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2003
- Messages
- 22,389
It would be a mistake for the U.S. to get involved in that mess and an even bigger mistake for France. This is a perfect example of a job best left to the U.N.
The Frank plots sending troops to America's backyard
- Thread starter SeleucusNicator
- Start date
- Status
Dr. Dr. Doktor
Emperor
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2002
- Messages
- 1,354
If the Monroe Doctrine is in effect why has the United States allowed the EU to make numerous bilateral trade agreements with latin American countries. Such intervention by the Europeans will undoubtedly threaten the monopoly enjoyed by United Fruit Company and others, and strengthen Latin American resolve when it comes to rejecting US corporate and mercenary encroachment on the sovereignty of their nations. In short the Monroe doctrine was only in effect because the Latin American regimes thought it useful when it came to combating European imperialism.
Also the US were the ones who deposed the French backed bloody dictator Baby Doc and installed the US puppet Aristide. Now they are totally uninterested in propping up the regime. What will future leaders installed by the US not think? If Aristide falls he will run the danger of execution by a burning tyre around his neck. That is the way issues are usually settled there. It is certainly not setting a good example.
Also if the French do regain control I see nothing illegal by deploying Nuclear weapons on the Island. After all the US has several nuclear weapons pointing at France from bases in the UK.
However this will probably hurt the Haitians since the US will probably release Mosqutous infected with dengue fever over Haiti. Experiments by the CIA done on Floridan citizens in the US has shown this to be a reletively cheap way of waging germ warfare. But then of course the Haitians could simply buy anti-dote from the Cubans.
Also the US were the ones who deposed the French backed bloody dictator Baby Doc and installed the US puppet Aristide. Now they are totally uninterested in propping up the regime. What will future leaders installed by the US not think? If Aristide falls he will run the danger of execution by a burning tyre around his neck. That is the way issues are usually settled there. It is certainly not setting a good example.
Also if the French do regain control I see nothing illegal by deploying Nuclear weapons on the Island. After all the US has several nuclear weapons pointing at France from bases in the UK.
However this will probably hurt the Haitians since the US will probably release Mosqutous infected with dengue fever over Haiti. Experiments by the CIA done on Floridan citizens in the US has shown this to be a reletively cheap way of waging germ warfare. But then of course the Haitians could simply buy anti-dote from the Cubans.
Dr. Dr. Doktor
Emperor
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2002
- Messages
- 1,354
Agreed. Except both France and the US both have the veto, and they currently hate eachother.
If the French want to use their resources to intervene, I see absolutely no reason our government should not let them. We are obviously doing nothing, so let them try.
Double Barrel
Deity
Dr. Dr. Doktor, what are you smoking and why are you bogarting it!
Seriously, where do you get this stuff? We have nuclear missiles aimed at France? 
FRANCE???Taking your word for it, if the U.S. government really has nukes aimed at France, then for whatever reason(s), the U.S. military believes France to be a threat in some capacity. And threats only come from "enemies", not allies. If this is true, then perhaps Speedo and SeleucusNicator are correct in their assessment. Seems strange to me, though.
Should France decide to intervene with military police in Haiti, I would urge the U.S. government to have a backup plan. Not because we should feel threatened by France, but because we'll probably need to bail them out after the Haitians kick their boodies!
cgannon64
BOB DYLAN'S ROCKIN OUT!
The way I see it, we have nuclear weapons pointed at everyone.
Little Raven
On Walkabout
Facts:
Given the above, it makes sense to allow France to attempt to stabilize Haiti, and possibly even encourage the process. In recognition of the fact that she is operating in our backyard, France should keep our government well informed of her plans before the fact. Assuming this occurs, I see little potential for harm and large potential benefits from letting France play policeman. We have bigger fish to fry.
- It is in our best interests to have Haiti stable. We do not wish to deal with hordes of Haitian refugees closing on our borders, nor do we want to see the Haiti situation contribute to instability in Latin America as a whole.
- We have neither the will or the force reserves to stabilize the situation ourselves. Our troops and budget are occupied in Iraq and likely to remain that way for some time.
- France does have the will and forces to deal with Haiti, or at least she appears to. France also has significant historical and cultural ties to Haiti.
- Occasional differences in policy aside, France is not our enemy. France has never been our enemy. In fact, France is one of our longest standing allies.
Given the above, it makes sense to allow France to attempt to stabilize Haiti, and possibly even encourage the process. In recognition of the fact that she is operating in our backyard, France should keep our government well informed of her plans before the fact. Assuming this occurs, I see little potential for harm and large potential benefits from letting France play policeman. We have bigger fish to fry.
Marla_Singer
United in diversity
You and Seleucus Nicator are of the same kind obviously. If you were both born in the same country, you would be the best pals in your discussion on how to "conqueer the world".
There's no hate between America and France. This is BS. Only few jerks in both side hate each other. I seriously dislike that kind of stupid generalization. And by the way, France has certainly no interest in installing nuclear missiles in Haïti. We are not in the 60's and France is not the Soviet Union. And the worse is that even if it was the case, which is not, there are today ICBM's and nuclear submarines ready to target anyone on earth.
I'm sick of those speeches. It's not based on the real world but on complete fantasies. And it's extremely harmful.
Karl Lenin
Prince
Viva la France!!77
Dr. Dr. Doktor
Emperor
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2002
- Messages
- 1,354
From various, perhaps unreliable, sources on the internet,and my own memory, I have synthesized the following.
The French nuclear deterrent was largely developed by the French themselves, unlike Britain which recieved substantial American technological aid. The Suez Crisis and later the Kennedy administrations backing of the Algerian independence movement made it clear to France that she had to develop her own nuclear force and that it should be placed outside the NATO chain of command. During the Cold War France's nuclear deterent rejected the use of a first strike. Indeed Nuclear Weapons were never to be deployed in a military role - they were basicly a political weapon, and were not targeted at any nation in particular. In the 80s the Reagan administrations Strategic Defense initiative meant the development of a new class of nuclear weapons, the M-45 Submarine Launched Ballistic Missile (SLBM). The first batch was deployed in 1996. The design (MIRV) is specifically meant to be able counter any Anti-Ballistic-Missiles (ABM). France, as the only nation still carry naval-based, non-SLBM nuclear weapons. The land based deterrent, the socalled Force de Frappe, has been dismantled.
In 2003 France's nuclear doctrine changed. Now it was possible for nuclear weapons to be targeted against specific threats, mainly socalled 'rogue states'. Also the option of a first strike was included, should France feel threatened. Some sources have indicated that this was in reaction to the possible spread of WMD among Muslim states, others have suggested that it is a reaction to the new Bush Doctrine. who knows?
The Bush Nuclear Doctrine declared the concept of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) was a "dead relic" of the Cold War. The shelved SDI project was restarted so that US ABM capabilites could be upgraded. Furthermore the Nuclear Use Theorists (NUTs), attached to rightwing thinktanks, have called for the development of "first-strike" miniature nuclear weapons, intended to attack command bunkers in 'dangerous states'. In other words, a lowering of the nuclear treshold. Already the Clinton Nuclear Doctrine declared that in case of nuclear exchange with China, the US would 'broaden' its target list, whatever that means.
All in all the opportunity for meaningful nuclear reduction by the NATO nuclear powers in wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union has been squandered. While there has been a minor reduction, the forces have been remodelled, and new more battleprone forces deployed. Furthermore the diplomatic tension between Europe and the US has meant that NATO is no longer the tightknitted group it once was. This is especially evident by the difference between the Chirac Doctrine which calls for 'roge states' to accept peaceful change, and the Bush doctrine which calls for 'rogue states' to be hit pre-emptively, to ensure regime change.
If anyone thinks there are some errors in this assesment please correct them.
The French nuclear deterrent was largely developed by the French themselves, unlike Britain which recieved substantial American technological aid. The Suez Crisis and later the Kennedy administrations backing of the Algerian independence movement made it clear to France that she had to develop her own nuclear force and that it should be placed outside the NATO chain of command. During the Cold War France's nuclear deterent rejected the use of a first strike. Indeed Nuclear Weapons were never to be deployed in a military role - they were basicly a political weapon, and were not targeted at any nation in particular. In the 80s the Reagan administrations Strategic Defense initiative meant the development of a new class of nuclear weapons, the M-45 Submarine Launched Ballistic Missile (SLBM). The first batch was deployed in 1996. The design (MIRV) is specifically meant to be able counter any Anti-Ballistic-Missiles (ABM). France, as the only nation still carry naval-based, non-SLBM nuclear weapons. The land based deterrent, the socalled Force de Frappe, has been dismantled.
In 2003 France's nuclear doctrine changed. Now it was possible for nuclear weapons to be targeted against specific threats, mainly socalled 'rogue states'. Also the option of a first strike was included, should France feel threatened. Some sources have indicated that this was in reaction to the possible spread of WMD among Muslim states, others have suggested that it is a reaction to the new Bush Doctrine. who knows?
The Bush Nuclear Doctrine declared the concept of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) was a "dead relic" of the Cold War. The shelved SDI project was restarted so that US ABM capabilites could be upgraded. Furthermore the Nuclear Use Theorists (NUTs), attached to rightwing thinktanks, have called for the development of "first-strike" miniature nuclear weapons, intended to attack command bunkers in 'dangerous states'. In other words, a lowering of the nuclear treshold. Already the Clinton Nuclear Doctrine declared that in case of nuclear exchange with China, the US would 'broaden' its target list, whatever that means.
All in all the opportunity for meaningful nuclear reduction by the NATO nuclear powers in wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union has been squandered. While there has been a minor reduction, the forces have been remodelled, and new more battleprone forces deployed. Furthermore the diplomatic tension between Europe and the US has meant that NATO is no longer the tightknitted group it once was. This is especially evident by the difference between the Chirac Doctrine which calls for 'roge states' to accept peaceful change, and the Bush doctrine which calls for 'rogue states' to be hit pre-emptively, to ensure regime change.
If anyone thinks there are some errors in this assesment please correct them.
amadeus
Bishop of Bio-Dome
Good thing I got this lifetime warranty from Sears.
Last edited:
Dr. Dr. Doktor
Emperor
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2002
- Messages
- 1,354
Also, as Rmshape reminded, the Bush doctrine is specifically aimed at leaders of nations, since it apparently believes that the interest of the leaders are seperable from the interests of the nations they lead. This seems to some extent to be 'mirror imaging'.
downwithgravity
Zen Rocker
people in europe have no concept of the monroe doctrine, or what it means to americans. personally and politically, it offends me to think that another country would invade our sphere of influence with the intention of stabilizing a government that our administration doesn't even *officially* consider worthy of our assistance(for whatever reason.)
it's not that i have no sympathy for the people of haiti, but from the recent policy crises between france and america, i feel this would be a horrible move to make if the french government truly wants to make things OK with america again.
it's not that i have no sympathy for the people of haiti, but from the recent policy crises between france and america, i feel this would be a horrible move to make if the french government truly wants to make things OK with america again.
cgannon64
BOB DYLAN'S ROCKIN OUT!
My God! They're going to stabilize a government...the bastards!
Like I said before, I find this very funny, because we told the French "Shut up and let us stabilize the Iraqi government, so **** off" and now we get offended when they do the same to us!
EDIT: Changed 'bugger' to '****'. You Brits are driving me crazy...stealing my vocabulary.
downwithgravity
Zen Rocker
edit: bah, arguing online is stupid.
cgannon64
BOB DYLAN'S ROCKIN OUT!
Sorry. But it still doesn't make much sense to me. Just because the US doesn't care about a humanitarian crisis and its in our hemisphere means that the French shouldn't do anything about it?
jack merchant
Internationalist
Yes.
One can see why people wouldn't want to stick around and defend that position
.
One can see why people wouldn't want to stick around and defend that position
.
Shadylookin
master debater
the monroe doctrine is dead. It was made because we didn't want the europeans to recapture their former colonies because we had established trading with them and didn't want to lose it(hopefully nobody thought that the US has ever done anything good for humanity unless it benifited itself) also the british supported this decision(apparently they had trade established too) although we made our statement seperate to look tough. Nowadays the fear is gone so it's pointless to follow this rule. I mean for heaven's sake their sending 4000 troups to help the people of hati, we have no troops to spare and we shouldn't say no simply just to anger the french.
btw i don't think our missles are set to aim anywhere. there not cannons or artillery pieces, we don't simply point them in the general direction and light a fuse. If i'm not mistaken their launched and aimed by codes and i would imagine we have codes to hit just about anywhere.
btw i don't think our missles are set to aim anywhere. there not cannons or artillery pieces, we don't simply point them in the general direction and light a fuse. If i'm not mistaken their launched and aimed by codes and i would imagine we have codes to hit just about anywhere.
- Status
Similar threads
