The Frank plots sending troops to America's backyard

[Toasty]

The Monroe doctrine died with World War I--in it, the United States was expected to stay out of the affairs of the Eastern hemisphere. Not to mention World War II, the Marshall Act, the Cold war, Vietnam, China and Japan, etc., etc., etc...

Not only was it a bloated piece of imperialist art (no wonder SN is such a fan ), but it is ridiculous to assume that it has any place in a globalized political society and economy. Dictating to Europe that "this is our sandbox" simply will not fly anymore, and to act as though the world is completely at the whim of the United States is nothing short of naïve, not to mention counterproductive.

If you think the French acting in a humanitarian manner is going to hurt the United States any more than us sitting on our hands is in terms of our Latin American relationships, you're simply wrong. It's not as though the French are about to go marching through New Orleans and Miami to the tune of La Marseillaise because they settled a political crisis the United States was unwilling to solve.

If you don't want the French there, take action. If you aren't going to take action, quit your *****ing and sit down.

 

[Free Enterprise]

This is an odd discussion.......

If a navy, army (substantial combat army), air force, or missiles of any kind were deployed to Hati then there would be a problem or if it were fortified in anyway. If it is humanitarian well, may it work as there is no problem. The troops shouldn't stay there permanently or then it will seem like it is for strategic reasons they are there.

@Elden: Indirectly helping a regime stay on power is not that far from changing a regime though. The Iraq war too, had large humanitarian effects.

 

[Dr. Dr. Doktor]

What would the US say if for instance Cuba decided to send some troops. Cuba is a neighbour, and thus the supply lines would be short and inexpensive. Also Cuba has no history of Imperialism so resentment would be minimal. The only problem is that they would probably back the rebels. In fact I think Cuba should conquer all the Caribean islands. Quality of life would skyrocket.

 

[amadeus]

I think someone should launch some kind of a tube where you can post videos.

Nah, it'd never have any commercial appeal.

 

[amadeus]

What's next, someone accusing Kevin Spacey of untoward behavior? Unthinkable!

 

[Dr. Dr. Doktor]

Originally posted by rmsharpe
Angola, Mozambique, and Nicaragua.

And Bolivia.

I fail to see how they were imperialistic interventions though.

 

[Marla_Singer]

Originally posted by Dr. Dr. Doktor
And Bolivia.
I fail to see how they were imperialistic interventions though.

It's obvious Cuba used to have imperialistic ambitions. As much Castro than Che Guevara wanted to export the Revolution in the third world and especially in Latin America. After all, Guevara was originally from Argentina.

They wanted to be imperialist, they simply couldn't. And that is so simply because Cuba is only a poor and small country of 10 million people.

 

[Goober]

I somehow think that it might be better to let the Haitians fight it out themselves, and solve their own problems, then to intervene. We have seen several crystal clear examples of the failures of intervention. I know this may be controversial, but at least this way they can try to come to peace by themselves, and truly settle to conflict, rather then having the UN or somebody barge in, and make the conflict go underground, at large expense to the country that intervened. We have all seen the various failures around the world with intervening, most notably the current situation in Iraq, with the US invading to first "take out threatening WMD", then to "remove a dictator", as the story seems to be.

And please, the US and the French are not enemies. If they were, the US would have invaded long ago (j/k). Seriously, the US and French are allies, just going through a rough patch in their relationship.

 

[Archer 007]

We should have stepped in ourselves. We can't though, because of Iraq.

 

[Elden]

Originally posted by rmsharpe
Not by much.

France is sending troops to protect French citizens.

The U.S. sent troops to protect U.S. citizens.

How many American citizens were there in Iraq? Maybe a few of diplomats who could have left anyway.

How many French citizens are there in Haiti? 2,000.

As I said not the same thing.

Originally posted by archer_007
We should have stepped in ourselves. We can though, because of Iraq.

I think you mean can't but its more of a case of won't. The USA would gain nothing (except perhaps the support of Haiti, a small third world country) by helping therefor they decide to ignore the problems.

 

[luiz]

Originally posted by Dr. Dr. Doktor
What would the US say if for instance Cuba decided to send some troops. Cuba is a neighbour, and thus the supply lines would be short and inexpensive. Also Cuba has no history of Imperialism so resentment would be minimal. The only problem is that they would probably back the rebels. In fact I think Cuba should conquer all the Caribean islands. Quality of life would skyrocket.

1-The quality of life in Cuba is worse then in the Caribbean leading nations

2-Using your argument, the US should conquer Cuba and make it a state, since quality of life would skyrockett.

 

[10Seven]

THIS WAS SAID
"France - Haiti: Haiti has requested help from France, France has agreed.

USA - Iraq: America attacked Iraq without legitimate justification, certainly not at Iraq's request"

RMSHARPE REPLIED
"France is sending troops to protect French citizens
The U.S. sent troops to protect U.S. citizens"

OMG this is the most twisted piece of reasoning I have seen outside of the abortion/homosexual flamewars. Does this go on the list of excuses for invading Iraq? Next it will be to protect the freedom for cocao pops to be sold to muslim nomads


THE ARGUMENT COMES DOWN TO THIS
It's ok for the US, butnot for everyone else, and it belongs to us, so hands off. At least that appears to be the theme being pur forward by a few people here USA NO.1!

 

[Marla_Singer]

To RealGoober : Of course France and America are not ennemies. This is totally obvious. 80% of world countries didn't back Washington in Iraq, including Canada, New Zealand, Germany or India. America has not 80% of countries against them !

To everyone : If you want to compare the situation in Haïti with something else, please don't compare it with Iraq. If France intervenes, it would be under a bilateral agreement between Haiti and France. Even if Washington naively, but sincerly, thought it was a smart move, what happened in Iraq was still an invasion. Anyway, my point is simply there's no way to compare both.

Haiti's situation is a lot closer to the one in Ivory Coast. And that would be a good comparison. Ivory Coast has proven how tricky was such an intervention. Southern Ivorians never hated France that much ever before. They considered France is in the side of rebels since rebels reached several posts in the government because of France. However, I still consider that intervention was wise since it has stopped a war which could have lead the whole Western Africa into war. Indeed, many countries in the region had been destabilized like Burkina, Mali or Guinea. And that's why I consider such an intervention would still be good in Haïti.

 

[amadeus]

Also Russia just signed a border agreement with Ukraine. Oddly, it's due to expire in 17 more years. Well, I'm sure they'll have hammered things out by then.

 

[Free Enterprise]

Originally posted by 10Seven
THE ARGUMENT COMES DOWN TO THIS
It's ok for the US, butnot for everyone else, and it belongs to us, so hands off. At least that appears to be the theme being pur forward by a few people here USA NO.1!

However, very often it sounds like it is ok for everyone except the U.S. It is fairly certain large criticism would occur if the U.S. sent forces into a country almost regardless of the reason.

It sounds like you are equating the French involvement in Haiti to the Iraq conflict, if so are you condemning both?

 

[Evie]

Oh, yes, the so-called threat to the US that Iraq reportedly paused with its (inexistant) contacts with Al Qaeda and its (mysteriously vanishing) weapons of mass destruction that had (no) long-range ballistic missiles to get them to the US.

Yes, of course, that threat from a (survivalist) dictator who had every reason to (not) directly attack the US given that he had nothing to gain and everything to lose in such an attack.

 

[Archer 007]

I feel bad about the situation in Haiti, and would support the use of US, personally.

 

[10Seven]

Yessss, the USA invaded Iraq because it attacked, or provided aid to those who attacked the World Trade Buildings...

SHARPE, are you working your way down the list

"However, very often it sounds like it is ok for everyone except the U.S"

I don't think reality is even close to that point - there's probably fewer than a handful of instances where another nation has invaded or provided aid at request - without UN backing - possibly only two - Iraq, and Chechenya. That doesn't leave much room to establish 'poor USA, bullied by everyone else'...

 

[Free Enterprise]

Originally posted by 10Seven
I don't think reality is even close to that point - there's probably fewer than a handful of instances where another nation has invaded or provided aid at request - without UN backing - possibly only two - Iraq, and Chechenya. That doesn't leave much room to establish 'poor USA, bullied by everyone else'...

Ok to be more specific there are many individual countries which some people do the same thing with (obsessive adamant defense) although it is still wrong in each of those cases. I've seen people who will do the same thing about the Soviet Union. Note: This doesn't mean that all intervention is pathological.

 

[amadeus]

I think a movie about a mall security guard would be an Oscar-winning vehicle for comedic actor Kevin James.