Why "regime change" is no excuse

[KennyR]

Haiti (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3484573.stm) is politically very like Iraq. It's ruled by a dictator the US put into power. He's rigged democratic elections to make him "legal" ruler, and he's not in control of parts of his country.

These are all excuses the Bush administration has since used to justify the invasion of Iraq. But there will be no similar invasion of Haiti. I wonder why? It wouldn't have 3 letters and begin with "o" would it?

[Cyberus]

MMr Powell said the US was not happy with Mr Aristide's behaviour since US forces restored him to power following a coup a decade ago.

But, he said, Mr Aristide was the democratically elected leader, and that the policy of the administration was not to seek his overthrow.

Well, Mr Aristide is the 'democratically elected leader', that'll be why...

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3484573.stm

[KennyR]

Cyberus wrote:
Well, Mr Aristide is the 'democratically elected leader', that'll be why...

So, technically, was Saddam. Of course both Aristide's and Hussein's elections were rigged, as I said. That is why these two situations are eerily similar, and why it strips Bush of yet another excuse for his war.

[Speelgoedmannetje]

I thought there were fair amounts of oil found in the Caribbean?

[blobrana]

:lol:
<oh, you wasn`t talking about that>

Most Caribbean islands only claim 3 - 12 miles offshore resorces...
Caribbean coast is (nearly) permanently protected from oil development to save the environment, and the tourist industry...


http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/news/ntl32626.htm

[T_Bone]

Did Haiti try to make a move on the world's oil supply, like Iraq did when it invaded Kuwait?

[FluffyMcDeath]

T_Bone wrote:
Did Haiti try to make a move on the world's oil supply, like Iraq did when it invaded Kuwait?
Or like the US did when it invaded Iraq?

[T_Bone]

in response to it?

[FluffyMcDeath]

T_Bone wrote:
in response to it?
No. I'm not talking about 1991.

[T_Bone]

FluffyMcDeath wrote:

T_Bone wrote:
in response to it?
No. I'm not talking about 1991.

So Haiti didn't have a 1991 prequel then, right? :-D

[FluffyMcDeath]

T_Bone wrote:

FluffyMcDeath wrote:

T_Bone wrote:
in response to it?
No. I'm not talking about 1991.

So Haiti didn't have a 1991 prequel then, right? :-D
I'm not really sure what you're talking about, so that makes us even.

[T_Bone]

FluffyMcDeath wrote:

T_Bone wrote:

FluffyMcDeath wrote:

T_Bone wrote:
in response to it?
No. I'm not talking about 1991.

So Haiti didn't have a 1991 prequel then, right? :-D
I'm not really sure what you're talking about, so that makes us even.

Neither did Saddam at that time apparently :roflmao:

"He decided to invade Kuwait because he was probably not in his normal state. He was on drugs and drugs made him lose his mind." (http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_865320.html?menu=news.latestheadlines)

[Wilse]

Wasn't Kuwait drilling into Iraqi oil fields, diagonally?

[whabang]

Wilse wrote:
Wasn't Kuwait drilling into Iraqi oil fields, diagonally?
Naah, not really. That was about some big pocket'o oil that could be accessed from both sides of the border. Naturally, both couuntries claimed to be the rightful owner of the oil.

[FluffyMcDeath]

whabang wrote:

Wilse wrote:
Wasn't Kuwait drilling into Iraqi oil fields, diagonally?
Naah, not really. That was about some big pocket'o oil that could be accessed from both sides of the border. Naturally, both couuntries claimed to be the rightful owner of the oil.
But because they couldn't agree, both parties decided that neither would produce from that field, at least until they could get stuff settled. Kuwait went ahead anyway. It was very provokative.

[T_Bone]

FluffyMcDeath wrote:

whabang wrote:

Wilse wrote:
Wasn't Kuwait drilling into Iraqi oil fields, diagonally?
Naah, not really. That was about some big pocket'o oil that could be accessed from both sides of the border. Naturally, both couuntries claimed to be the rightful owner of the oil.
But because they couldn't agree, both parties decided that neither would produce from that field, at least until they could get stuff settled. Kuwait went ahead anyway. It was very provokative.

Let me see if I follow you so far...

Drilling your own land is provocative.
Occupying another country because they drilled their own land isn't.

Now, I understand the Antiwar view, but I don't understand the Iraq apologism when it comes to Kuwait.

[Wilse]

I agree that Kuwait should never have been invaded (even though one
could be forgiven for thinking the US gave Saddam the nod to go ahead)
and fully supported the first Gulf war.

The second one?
Well my views are well known on that.

We in the Uk and you in the US will be hated all the more, for
generations to come due to the irresponsible actions of our
leaders.
Even if we do the right thing and vote both of the lying scumbags out
next time, history will highlight the countries that committed the
crime more than the leaders of the time.

It would be a start though. :-)

[FluffyMcDeath]

T_Bone wrote:

Let me see if I follow you so far...

Drilling your own land is provocative.
Occupying another country because they drilled their own land isn't.



D'oh! Sometimes you say the dumbest stuff. Do you even read my posts before you reply or do you think you have a better idea of what I'm saying that what I say does?

Now, as to drilling your own land. Let's try this with another fluid like ... how about water. I have a stream that runs through my property. After it runs through mine, it runs through yours. I damn it, drink it, fill it with sewage and then put it back on the other side of the damn for you to drink. Provocative?

[T_Bone]

FluffyMcDeath wrote:

T_Bone wrote:

Let me see if I follow you so far...

Drilling your own land is provocative.
Occupying another country because they drilled their own land isn't.



D'oh! Sometimes you say the dumbest stuff. Do you even read my posts before you reply or do you think you have a better idea of what I'm saying that what I say does?

Now, as to drilling your own land. Let's try this with another fluid like ... how about water. I have a stream that runs through my property. After it runs through mine, it runs through yours. I damn it, drink it, fill it with sewage and then put it back on the other side of the damn for you to drink. Provocative?

You mean like the river in Washington State that Canada ruined? Would we be justified in annexation of Canada? :-P

That's an unrealistic analogy, a better one would be to imagine a lake, such as Lake Ontario, that resides in two countries, where both have access to the water and wish to use it. Canada uses the lake, then the US annexes Canada.

[Speelgoedmannetje]

T_Bone wrote:
You mean like the river in Washington State that Canada ruined? Would we be justified in annexation of Canada? :-P


I'm with T-Bone on this one. But how to handle provocative handling on a civilized manner? That's a question I am asking myself since I was very very young.

[T_Bone]

I can't find a reference to an agreement from Kuwait to not drill these fields. The closest complaint I can find from Iraq is that Kuwait was pumping more than OPEC wanted them too. In that sense, Russia and Canada both equally ignore OPECs wishes as well. Would they be equally provocative?

[FluffyMcDeath]

T_Bone wrote:
I can't find a reference to an agreement from Kuwait to not drill these fields. The closest complaint I can find from Iraq is that Kuwait was pumping more than OPEC wanted them too. In that sense, Russia and Canada both equally ignore OPECs wishes as well. Would they be equally provocative?




Would cvhanging to selling oil in Euros instead of USD be provocative?

[whabang]

It was very provokative.
No, just very rotten. Not enough to justify an invasion, though...

[whabang]

Would cvhanging to selling oil in Euros instead of USD be provocative?
Only to the French! :-P

[Fade]

@ KennyR
"Haiti is politically very like Iraq. It's ruled by a dictator the US put into power."
------------------

You know Kenny, I could have sworn it was Canada who put Aristide in power.
Well, it looks like Canada (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20040217/wl_canada_afp/haiti_unrest_canada_040217212324) is the country that wants to keep him in power.

[KennyR]

Fade wrote:
You know Kenny, I could have sworn it was Canada who put Aristide in power.

Well then you are wrong. Aristide was put in power in 1994 with the aid of the US Army. (Rather strange also that both Duvaliers were allowed to continue such brutal regimes for so long before, when Castro's much less brutal regime still gets worse punishment...)

As for Canada wanting to keep him in power, what do you base that on? The article you linked doesn't say it anywhere. They said they were willing to send police if the "political system improved".

[Fade]

@ KennyR
"As for Canada wanting to keep him in power, what do you base that on?"
------------------

You see Kenny, I've learned a lesson from you. I have learned that I can read anything into an article that suits my purpose.

It's not really that hard, but I will try to keep mine from looking so obvious.

And besides that, the article is there for everyone to read and make up their own mind if Canada is still trying to keep him in power.

[KennyR]

Uh, come on - taking different messages from a news item is what we all do, but taking one that's totally out of context is a bit too far.

If you really look hard (and I mean, really squint your eyes), the article also says Canada support Al-Queda, and that they were responsible for the whole American Civil War, and that actually Eve was Canadian so the whole plight of the human race is because of them.

Or not.

[Speelgoedmannetje]

Fade wrote:
You see Kenny, I've learned a lesson from you. I have learned that I can read anything into an article that suits my purpose.
Ahem, Posting guidelines: Blatant personal attacks are not permitted.

[Fade]

@ Speelgoedmannetje
"Ahem, Posting guidelines: Blatant personal attacks are not permitted."
--------------------

You know that was exactly my point!
From recent posts:

"Bush and his azz-wipe Texass friends"

"what a lying bastard he is"

"lying scumbags"

"you say the dumbest stuff"
"

You know, some here might take these as personal attacks.

[Speelgoedmannetje]

Ahem, more specific:
Users who verbally assault the character or person of other posters on a regular basis will be banned

never seen Bush posting here on Aorg.

[Fade]

No, but some of his azz-wipe Texass friends do.

[Speelgoedmannetje]

Well, why doesn't this Bush person posts here personally instead of relying on one of his 'azz-wipe' (whatever that means) friends?

[that_punk_guy]

Fade wrote:
No, but some of his azz-wipe Texass friends do.

Um, who? I wasn't aware we had personal friends of Dubya on Amiga.org! :-D

[Fade]

azz-wipe Texass friend:

That would be anyone who did not vote for Al Gore.

[Speelgoedmannetje]

Or Ralphie

[T_Bone]

Speelgoedmannetje wrote:

Fade wrote:
You see Kenny, I've learned a lesson from you. I have learned that I can read anything into an article that suits my purpose.
Ahem, Posting guidelines: Blatant personal attacks are not permitted.



I doubt Kenny was offended by that :lol:

[Glaucus]

Fade wrote:
You know Kenny, I could have sworn it was Canada who put Aristide in power.
Well, it looks like Canada (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20040217/wl_canada_afp/haiti_unrest_canada_040217212324) is the country that wants to keep him in power.

:roll:

Explain to me how this article supports your ridiculous assertion that Canada placed Aristide in power!

- Mike

[Fade]

@ Glaucus
"Explain to me how this article supports your ridiculous assertion that Canada placed Aristide in power!"
--------------

Well Glaucus it doesn't, and that statement was just to see if KennyR would come clean with the facts.
This thread was started on a fallacy when KennyR got his "FACTS" wrong. He wants you to believe that Aristide was put in power in Haiti in 1994 by the US Army. It's a lie by sin of omission and half truths. And Kenny knows that, but won't admit it.
The fact:
Haiti was a slave state run by France until it declared it's independence in 1804, and still has a few thousand French citizens living there. From that time until 1990 it was run by dictators and the military.

Aristide was elected President in 1990. (not 1994) Later there was a coup d'etat and the country was again run by the military until the US under the Clinton administration helped him regain power in 1994, at which point the military was disbanded and now has only a police force. Also during the Clinton administration, Aristide won another election (in 2000) by close to 90 percent of the vote, but he is now again in fear of another attempt by rebels to take over the country, and this time probably no one will come to his defense.

KennyR, in his zest to ridicule anything US, stumbled over his own facts, so I was poking a little fun at him for it. He also tried to make out that Haiti's problems were all caused by the US, as he does for the rest of the world's problems.