The Frank plots sending troops to America's backyard

Status
Not open for further replies.

SeleucusNicator

Diadoch
Joined
Aug 25, 2002
Messages
6,822
Location
America
Yahoo! News reports.

France Considers Peacekeepers for Haiti
AP
1 hour, 28 minutes ago

By JOHN LEICESTER, Associated Press Writer

PARIS - France is considering sending peacekeepers to calm strife-torn Haiti, a former colony, and already has some means to help in its nearby Caribbean territories, the foreign minister said Tuesday.

"What can France do specifically? First, we want to reflect on what could be done urgently," Dominique de Villepin told France Inter Radio.

"Can we deploy a peacekeeping force? We are in contact with all of our partners in the framework of the United Nations, which has sent a humanitarian mission to Haiti to see what is possible."

He noted that deploying peacekeepers "is very difficult" when a nation is in the throes of violence, but said French officials were meeting Tuesday "to see what immediate contribution we can make."

Already, he said France has overseas territories in the region and expertise in the fields of education, health and humanitarian aid. "We have some very important assets close to Haiti, with our departments in the Antilles and Guiana."

The French Defense Ministry said it has 4,000 military personnel at two bases in the area, in Martinique and Guadeloupe.

Asked whether forces could be deployed quickly to stop a worsening of violence, De Villepin replied: "Absolutely. Many friendly countries are mobilized."

"They are ready to act. We must find ways to do that in liaison with the Haitian parties so that a process of dialogue can resume," he said.

Among France's top concerns is the welfare of about 2,000 French citizens who live in Haiti, mostly the capital, officials in Paris said.

Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide has appealed for international help to quell an uprising that has killed more than 50 people and destabilized the Caribbean country. Rebels have taken control of parts of the north and center of Haiti.

De Villepin said the international community is ready to mobilize but "that supposes a spurt of effort by Haiti's political class, that President Aristide commits himself to a respect of civil peace. That's his first responsibility."

He called for talks.

"This implies that President Aristide, who over the years has let things degenerate, can find the strength to move toward dialogue, and that all Haitian officials think only of one thing: Haiti and the Haitian people who have suffered for too many years," the French minister said.

Discontent has grown in Haiti since Aristide's party swept flawed legislative elections in 2000. Opposition politicians refuse to participate in new elections unless the president steps down — but Aristide insists he will stay until his term ends in February 2006.

"It's a country in a catastrophic situation, with 90 percent of the population that lives on less than $1 a day, life expectancy that is around 52 years," said de Villepin. "It's a country that today is on the edge of chaos."

I'm not quite sure which is more disgusting, this gross violation of the Monroe Doctrine, or the fact that the Bush administration is most likely going to sit idly and allow it.
 
OR the fact that someone would still invoke the Monroe doctrine ? Or that the US would do nothing while Haiti goes down in flames ?

But maybe Bush is afraid to remind the public of what he said about 'nation-building' in general and the earleir American intervention in Haiti - they might apply it to what the US is doing in Iraq...
 
I have an inside tip that Bruce Jenner is actually a woman. Don't tell anyone! It's a secret!
 
Last edited:
Oh no! France will seize Haiti and make it into a communist paradise loaded with nuclear weapons!!

The Monroe Doctrine is dead.
 
Originally posted by cgannon64

The Monroe Doctrine is dead.

Regardless of what term or idea is used, allowing the enemies Moderator Action: try a less inflamitory 'rivals' instead
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889 of the US to intervene in areas it has traditionally had unquestioned "influence" over is generally not desirable.
 
I don't see what's "disgusting" in the idea to help a country at the brink of civil war. I support such an intervention and I feel soothed Paris decided to move forward. However, I must say it's something tricky. Indeed, whatever happens, both rebels and loyalists will consider France is supporting the ennemy side. However, such an intervention should be promoted for the good of the stability of the region... which always means somewhere the stability of the whole world.

About the "Monroe doctrine", is it something decided between US citizens ? Then I don't see for which reason America would have the right to interfere in a bilateral agreement between Haïti and France. Seleucus, you're denying Haïti independance by saying so. Moreover, the stability in Haïti isn't only good for France but it's also good for the US.
 
Originally posted by SeleucusNicator


Regardless of what term or idea is used, allowing the enemies of the US to intervene in areas it has traditionally had unquestioned "influence" over is generally not desirable.

Enemies?

Good to see you're a real internationalist. :rolleyes:

What do you think France will do? What could they POSSIBLY do that could hurt the US - and what makes you think they would?
 
Originally posted by SeleucusNicator
the enemies of the US
I call for the moderation against that explicit libelling text which is, furthermore, a call for hatred.

MESSAGE EDITED : Okay, it's done. I've just reported Seleucus post to the moderation.
 
Originally posted by Marla_Singer

About the "Monroe doctrine", is it something decided between US citizens ?


The Monroe Doctrine is a 1823 proclaimation stating that the US would not tolerate European intervention in the affairs of independent Latin American countries. It was actually a bilateral action, done with the full support of (and at the prodding of) the British.

Along with a later collorary made in the early 1900's, it basically makes the United States the sole international policeman in the New World.


Then I don't see for which reason America would have the right to interfere in a bilateral agreement between Haïti and France. Seleucus, you're denying Haïti independance by saying so. Moreover, the stability in Haïti isn't only good for France but it's also good for the US.

The likes of Haiti have traditionally not been invited to participate in the formulation of US policy.
 
Originally posted by Marla_Singer
I call for the moderation against that explicit libelling text which is, furthermore, a call for hatred.

Had I insulted the French or issued a fatwa against President Chirac, I could understand such a call. However, I did no such thing; 'enemy' in this case simply means that France has been hostile to some US initiatives and have some interests that are divergent with those of the US.
 
Originally posted by rmsharpe
Bush didn't count on 9/11. A lot of things changed after that day.

Actually, I think 9-11 didn't so much change some basic foreign policy facts as highlight them. I don't think one can really argue that nation building in general was a bad idea for the USA before 9/11 and a good one after it - rather, you might say that the necessity for nation-building (or rather, assisting client governments like Pakistan or troubled areas like Afghanistan) became more obvious.

However, unfair though it may be, you're not going to deprive me of the chance to say that Bush promised A and did B, and that that makes him REALLY EVIL ;).
 
To me 'enemy' means someone who is actively plotting the economic or military downfall of a nation.

France trying to solve the problem in Haiti is no such thing.
 
Originally posted by Marla_Singer

MESSAGE EDITED : Okay, it's done. I've just reported Seleucus post to the moderation.

At least you are mature enough to debate the actual points being raised and not resort to accusations or straw men...oh, wait, nevermind...
 
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.
 
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. It was actually a bilateral action, done with the full support of (and at the prodding of) the British.[/B]

And this makes it binding for other nations how ?

Originally posted by SeleucusNicator

The likes of Haiti have traditionally not been invited to participate in the formulation of US policy.

Haitians will however begin to play a role in the formulation of US policy once they come fleeing in great number to the US in dinghy boats and rubber rafts, whether they were invited or not.
 
Originally posted by cgannon64
To me 'enemy' means someone who is actively plotting the economic or military downfall of a nation.

In many ways France is, whether indirectly, unwillingly, or otherwise.

However, had I meant that, I would have likely used "archenemy", "hostile nation", or a far less palatable word. Not the relatively bland "enemy".
 
Originally posted by jack merchant

I don't think one can really argue that nation building in general was a bad idea for the USA before 9/11 and a good one after it - rather, you might say that the necessity for nation-building (or rather, assisting client governments like Pakistan or troubled areas like Afghanistan) became more obvious..

I don't think anyone here is in disagreement with you on that one. Not in this thread, at least.
 
Originally posted by SeleucusNicator
I'm not quite sure which is more disgusting, this gross violation of the Monroe Doctrine, or the fact that the Bush administration is most likely going to sit idly and allow it. [/B]

Seems the Doctrine ignored Canada, Belize, Berumda ,Jamacia, etc. Haiti is french speaking, the French can help them the best.
 
Touchy, Touchy.

14,000 people die because it's to hot in France and they do nothing.

50 people die in Haiti, and they are all up in arms.

Could some one explain this to me please?

Earthpig
 
Originally posted by jack merchant

And this makes it binding for other nations how ?


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


Haitians will however begin to play a role in the formulation of US policy once they come fleeing in great number to the US in dinghy boats and rubber rafts, whether they were invited or not.

They have done so before. They have been turned back and deported before. No hint of that policy changing has become evident.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom