America's Debate > President Aristide leaving Haiti

Google

Sponsored Links

caroline

Mar 13 2004, 05:25 AM

QUOTE(Titus @ Mar 13 2004, 12:55 AM)

First of all, weren't the Marines fired at?

They must've done something to be fired at. Like, being there, for example? If the UN didn't act, then they should let the Haitians solve their own problems, even if it brings more bloodshed. There's no point in having more dead people, foreigners at that.

Titus

Mar 13 2004, 05:43 AM

QUOTE

They must've done something to be fired at. Like, being there, for example? If the UN didn't act, then they should let the Haitians solve their own problems, even if it brings more bloodshed. There's no point in having more dead people, foreigners at that.

Just being there is poor justification for murdering peacekeepers. We aren't the only nation that has troops there by the way. And according to some reports, remnants of the Chimere, violent pro-Aristide militias, are looked to as those responsible for inciting the bloodshed.

http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20...75212-3982r.htm

So first we're asked, by Aristide mind you, to help stop bloodshed. Getting him out was the only option to do so. We do, and then he claims we abducted him, thus inciting Chimere remnants and provking gun battles.

As for letting the Haitians solve their own problems, I've said it before, if we hadn't of interceded, we would of been blamed. We did, and were blamed for it. This was a no win situation, but a situation that needed resolution to avoid bloodshed.

wanderer

Mar 13 2004, 06:03 AM

QUOTE(caroline @ Mar 13 2004, 04:43 AM)

He should've left before; most of the people didn't want him there (contrary to what Haitians living abroad have been saying.. how would they know what it's like if they don't live there anymore?).

The part about the Marines in Port-au-Prince I still don't understand very well. What's their business killing the so-called "rebels" over there? And then dumping their bodies God knows where. In fact, why are they even there? Let the UN or some other (unarmed) organization deal with it.

Strange...

QUOTE

Her comments were echoed by Texas Democrat Sheila Jackson Lee who said the White House needs to take a more aggressive role. "We must ensure that the people of Haiti have a safe refuge," he said. "So, I think this morning if there ever is a cry, it is for humanitarian aid, political aid in helping with the democratization, being able to ensure that the government can provide for the safety of the ingress and egress of Haiti, that law enforcement does what it is supposed to do, and not abuse the citizens of Haiti. We can only do that if we intervene."

http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?objectI...3DF21F7BAE132AD

First the Democrats want GWB to intervene, but now that he has they changed their minds?

GoAmerica

Mar 13 2004, 04:34 PM

QUOTE(wanderer @ Mar 13 2004, 12:03 AM)

QUOTE

Her comments were echoed by Texas Democrat Sheila Jackson Lee who said the White House needs to take a more aggressive role. "We must ensure that the people of Haiti have a safe refuge," he said. "So, I think this morning if there ever is a cry, it is for humanitarian aid, political aid in helping with the democratization, being able to ensure that the government can provide for the safety of the ingress and egress of Haiti, that law enforcement does what it is supposed to do, and not abuse the citizens of Haiti. We can only do that if we intervene."

http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?objectI...3DF21F7BAE132AD

First the Democrats want GWB to intervene, but now that he has they changed their minds?

Of course they change their minds. They can critisize Bush both ways this way, thinking they can score cheap political points.

Ultimatejoe

Mar 13 2004, 04:50 PM

Lets keep the focus here people. The question for discussion is Officially at 7:24 am on 2-29-2004 President Ariside has left haiti. Was it right? Do not turn this into another left-wing right-wing mudslinging contest or the thread will be closed.