Human Rights Abusers

[sohotrightnow]

Oh I get it now

[Hackalicious]

Wait, liberals complained we shouldn't have liberated the people of Iraq --- But now we should liberate those in the Congo/Dafur? I'm confused.

Do you ever get tired of knocking down straw men?

No one has "complained" that the people of Iraq are unworthy of liberation. There are valid reasons to complain about the conduct, planning, and rationale of the war.

Congo was a multi-faction civil war that sucked in several other nations. Realistically, there's nothing we could have done.

Darfur is different. It is being carried out by Janjaweed militia, backed by Sudanese air support, against unarmed civilians based on their ethnicity. Providing a no fly zone, like we did in Iraq for 12 years, and supporting African Union troops could save thousands of lives.

There are realpolitik motivations as well. Sudan is an oil producer where China is establishing a foothold. They also harbored Osama bin Laden in 1998 after the US embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania.

[Hackalicious]

An example closer to home: Although the U.S. is in close proximity to Haiti, it was the French who laid waste to the country and then abandoned it. Why shouldn't France be held accountable for the current problems?

Haiti revolted and declared independence from the French in 1804. Ever notice that the Haitian flag is a French flag with the white part removed?

They modeled themselves after the US revolution and thought we would naturally support a fellow colony declaring independence.
Of course, since they were black, we didn't recognize them as a country until 1862.

Later, the US invaded Haiti in 1915 and imposed corvee forced labor on the populace. We occupied their country until 1934.

[WaterBoy]

Haiti revolted and declared independence from the French in 1804. Ever notice that the Haitian flag is a French flag with the white part removed?

They modeled themselves after the US revolution and thought we would naturally support a fellow colony declaring independence.
Of course, since they were black, we didn't recognize them as a country until 1862.

Later, the US invaded Haiti in 1915 and imposed corvee forced labor on the populace. We occupied their country until 1934.

Yeah... I mean come on guys. They taught that in every high school history class. Didn't they? Didn't they?

Actually I think that particular skeleton was omitted from my "American Closet Contents 101" class.

Sometimes I wonder what Lee Greenwood was singing about.

[laxfan25]

Wait, liberals complained we shouldn't have liberated the people of Iraq --- But now we should liberate those in the Congo/Dafur? I'm confused.

No, what they're saying is that the US should take more action when there is actual genocide going on. However, our strategic interests in Rwanda and the Sudan/Darfur are murky at best, and after the debacle in Somalia, we're not so sure what the best way to react is, other than to ocassionally raise the flag of international attention.
In Iraq, the liberal complaint is that the original invasion was built around incomplete, inaccurate or knowingly false information. Remember Colin Powell at the UN, showing the pictures of the caches of WMD's, and the uranium being purchased from Niger? The British claiming that they were 45 minutes from being hit by missiles?
If at the time of the rush to war the reason was given as "we want to free the people of Iraq", there would have been no invasion. Now we have totally screwed over that country, and are desperate to declare victory and get the heck out. When we do, we will have left the country as a much worse place. One item that wasn't on the ballot there - do you prefer the new "democracy" or would you rather have Saddam back? Saddam would have won in a landslide, because the #1 concern of all people is for security, and they will gladly give up their freedom to achieve it. "Saddam may have imprisoned tons of people, but they must have deserved it, and the streets are safe."
As a corollary, most Americans will be happy to let the government track all their calls, and I dare say, even listen in on them, since "I'm not a terrorist - what do I have to fear?" I'm sure they would gladly give up many other freedoms as long as we don't have another terrorist attack. A free press reporting on warrantless wiretapping? Gotta be stopped, since it has gravely damaged our national security. The right of assembly to gather and protest actions by the government? Better stop those idiots from giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Just keep me safe.
That slippery slide to a police state is what liberals are concerned about, but security will out-trump liberty every time.

[SLUDoubleDeuce]

An example closer to home: Although the U.S. is in close proximity to Haiti, it was the French who laid waste to the country and then abandoned it. Why shouldn't France be held accountable for the current problems?

Haiti revolted and declared independence from the French in 1804. Ever notice that the Haitian flag is a French flag with the white part removed?

They modeled themselves after the US revolution and thought we would naturally support a fellow colony declaring independence.
Of course, since they were black, we didn't recognize them as a country until 1862.

Later, the US invaded Haiti in 1915 and imposed corvee forced labor on the populace. We occupied their country until 1934.

That is a rather incendiary statement isn't it?

[DanGenck]

The most disappointing aspect of all this current action is that there are no Democratic political members who are willing to grow a spine and stand up to the system. Sure, that person would be black balled for years... but someone has to do it. I commend conservatives for taking hard stands on issues, no matter the popularity. A hard stand and a puffed out chest can go a long way sometimes... Democrats could learn a thing or two in that regard.

[StrykerFSU]

Laxfan, with all due respect and acknowledging that you are entitled to your opinion but your post nearly made me fall out of my chair. Regardless of your opinion of the war, I refuse to believe that any Iraqi would be happier under the torturous regime of Saddam Hussein (except for maybe his sons who raped and killed at will). You don't even need to read real journalism to learn of the atrocities committed by those sadists, even Maxim published an article on the torture of the Iraqi national soccer players.

Saddam was a threat to his people, his neighbors, and the world. He violated 17 UN security resolutions since the last Gulf War. He gassed thousands of Kurds and Iranians. He invaded Kuwait. He murdered political rivals and ruled as an absolute dictator on a platform of fear. People can argue all day about the justification for the US involvement but please do not tell me that the Iraqi people were happier in 2002.

[Hackalicious]

Haiti revolted and declared independence from the French in 1804. Ever notice that the Haitian flag is a French flag with the white part removed?

They modeled themselves after the US revolution and thought we would naturally support a fellow colony declaring independence.
Of course, since they were black, we didn't recognize them as a country until 1862.

Later, the US invaded Haiti in 1915 and imposed corvee forced labor on the populace. We occupied their country until 1934.

That is a rather incendiary statement isn't it?

You like incendiary? How about William Jennings Bryant, our Secretary of State when we invaded in 1915, expressing his views of the Haitians: "Imagine! Niggers speaking French!"

Haiti was formed by a slave revolt in 1804. Seeing the Spanish, British, and finally Napoleon's armies getting trounced by a bunch of so-called "savages" scared the crap out of American slave holders. They feared recognizing Haiti as an independent republic would encourage their own slaves to revolt.

[Hackalicious]

Saddam was a threat to his people, his neighbors, and the world. He violated 17 UN security resolutions since the last Gulf War. He gassed thousands of Kurds and Iranians. He invaded Kuwait. He murdered political rivals and ruled as an absolute dictator on a platform of fear. People can argue all day about the justification for the US involvement but please do not tell me that the Iraqi people were happier in 2002.

"The good news is we removed the tumor.
The bad news is you're dying of blood loss, you've contracted an severe infection, and the tumor metastasized throughout your body anyway.
Buck up, camper! We got that original tumor. My receptionist will send you the bill."

[detlaxhead]

Haiti was formed by a slave revolt in 1804. Seeing the Spanish, British, and finally Napoleon's armies getting trounced by a bunch of so-called "savages" scared the crap out of American slave holders. They feared recognizing Haiti as an independent republic would encourage their own slaves to revolt.

That is not the entirely correct. The Haitian revolt in 1804 was the second one I believe. After Napoleon reconquered her for the Empire. The reinstatement of slavefy in other french colonial outposts led to this second preemptive revolt. It split the country into 2 nations. One of which was a dictatorship run by a black man, the other was a democracy run by a mulatto. Eventually the North overran the South, and Haiti was a craphole until we learned that a more then decade or Marine occupation couldn't fix it either. I bring up the race of the men just to show that Haiti started out slave, but it was actual Haitians putting thier people back on the plantation to crow sugarcane for most of the last 200 years.

On topic for a second. Niger, Sudan, and frankly most of Africa do not hold the strategic importance that would lead to our intervention. Our historical connection to Liberia was the reason we intervened their a few years back. I think America has learned that purely altruistic military missions to not work. See Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia, both times in Haiti in the last 10 years, the aftermath of Iraq 2. Killing people because we don't like them seems to work much better. W1, Korea, Panama, Iraq 1, and the first part of Iraq 2.

My humble opinion is that frankly our job is not to be the world's policeman. We are just damn good at it. The UNFAIR teams need to be able to shoot back. I mean seriously what good is a white armored troop carrier? The AU should assist, as should UNFAIR. They need to go in guns blazing and kill people. Will they ever? No, for one reason, WHITE GUILT!!!

[peterwho]

1862...hmmm...I seem to recall a change in the political winds blowing in the United States. Oh yes, a young member of the Republican Party had just been elected President on a platform to abolish slavery and ensure "that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

As I understand it, the Haitian Constitution of 1867 served as the basis for peaceful and progressive transitions in government that did much to improve the economy and stability of the Haitian nation and the condition of its people.

Unfortunately, the period of relative stability and prosperity ended in 1911 when revolution broke out and the country slid once again into disorder and debt. Much of this debt was held by U.S. financial institutions and President Wilson was convinced to intervene. The effect was that the currency was reformed and the debt stabilized, corruption was reduced (although never eradicated), public health, education and agricultural development were greatly improved. One can argue that the motivation was money, but the positive impact was still broad and control was returned to a stabilized, autonomous government.

So, the question still remains: Should we (the U.S.) simply mind our own business?

Many would argue that we hesitated in our intervention against Hitler.

How can we differentiate, a priori, between WWI/WWII and Vietnam, Korea, Yugoslavia, Somalia, Iraq, Iran, etc.?

[UofMLaxGoalie11]

One of the main arguments for war in Iraq, after the weapons of mass destruction argument fell through, has been that we are in Iraq to free oppressed people who have had personal freedoms violated.

Im getting sick of hearing people say that there werent any WMDs. Its very possible that they are well hidden or he moved them out of the country. That would be one of the first things I would do. I am sure that Saddam is not stupid. Hiding a stockpile of weapons in a desert doesnt seem that hard to me. U.S. troops found somewhere around 30-40 planes in the vacinity near a base that had been established for a while. http://www.snopes.com/photos/military/sandplanes.asp

But then there is also the chance that there arent any.

[detlaxhead]

So, the question still remains: Should we (the U.S.) simply mind our own business?

Many would argue that we hesitated in our intervention against Hitler.

How can we differentiate, a priori, between WWI/WWII and Vietnam, Korea, Yugoslavia, Somalia, Iraq, Iran, etc.?

Oh good questions! I would agree that we did hesitate in joining the fray against Hitler. However it took a while, and a few japanese bombers, to turn the tide of public opinion. FDR to his credit did not try and force the US public into feelings of complete neutrality. A mistake I feel Wilson made.

Well I think you have to rate US national interest in any "going to war" matrix. I do think that the flow of oil from Iraq played a part in both Gulf Wars, and the airstrikes in the past. But there is no shame in it. A stable fuel supply is important to every country. Haiti and Panama can easily be justified as being good neighbors, but I think often we are called to act simply because we can.

Two of our allies are being threatened by neighbors, Taiwan and Israel. I pose the question, are both worth defending? I think we should defend Taiwan, it's just smells too much of Far East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere part 2. But Israel, well frankly I think they can do it themselves and we would actually hamstring them.

[Campbell]

One of the main arguments for war in Iraq, after the weapons of mass destruction argument fell through, has been that we are in Iraq to free oppressed people who have had personal freedoms violated.

Im getting sick of hearing people say that there werent any WMDs. Its very possible that they are well hidden or he moved them out of the country. That would be one of the first things I would do. I am sure that Saddam is not stupid. Hiding a stockpile of weapons in a desert doesnt seem that hard to me. U.S. troops found somewhere around 30-40 planes in the vacinity near a base that had been established for a while. http://www.snopes.com/photos/military/sandplanes.asp

But then there is also the chance that there arent any.

I've never been a proponent of the war. I think the administration misled the country a bit in going to war. However, I think Iraq and the world will be a better place without Saddam. As far as the WMDs, so far they haven't found any, but I agree they could have been hidden or moved. Even more importantly, I believe Saddam was at the very least trying to obtain them, would have obtained them and might have used them. My problem with war now is that things are just so screwy over there. I certainly don't have a solution, but resolving what seems now more like a political crisis in Iraq is a feat that seems impossible. I don't think we will ever "win" in Iraq.