Haiti Question

[Frodo]

Given that Haiti is practically at its knees without a functioning government, if their president requests that the United States occupy and run the country (at least temporarily) until it gets back on its feet, should we do so? 

[Bo]

Yes. Where's the poll?

[Hash]

Given that Haiti is practically at its knees without a functioning government, if their president requests that the United States occupy and run the country (at least temporarily) until it gets back on its feet, should we do so? 

No. The last time the US occupied Haiti you indirectly encouraged the rise of Duvalier just like you indirectly encouraged the rise of Pol Pot in Cambodia by bombing the sh**t out of the country and supporting a corrupt, venal puppet.

Foreign occupation is a bad idea. Anywhere. You cause more sh**t than any incompetent local loser can.

[The Mikado]

It's a very bad idea, but it isn't likely to come up for the reasons Hashemite laid out.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

It's a very bad idea, but it isn't likely to come up for the reasons Hashemite laid out.

Yes (Good post Hashemite).

Also could the United States even afford it? Especially now. Nation building is expensive you know.

Given that Haiti's economy is highly dependant on remittances from the United States one of the best things to do would be to encourage greater emigration. 

[Хahar 🤔]

Wouldn't happen.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Yes. The country needs to be reconstructed, and Americans are the only ones who can do that

[Hash]

Yes. The country needs to be reconstructed, and Americans are the only ones who can do that

Read my post. Any foreign occupation, whatever its original motive, is always bad in the long run.

[Magic 8-Ball]

Bad idea.  Bad, bad idea.

[dead0man]

Yes. The country needs to be reconstructed, and Americans are the only ones who can do that

Read my post. Any foreign occupation, whatever its original motive, is always bad in the long run.

Like the Allies in West Germany?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Yes. The country needs to be reconstructed, and Americans are the only ones who can do that

Read my post. Any foreign occupation, whatever its original motive, is always bad in the long run.

No, I disagree. When you invade a country, depose its government and then establish a new one but are unable to ensure peace, the occupation will be "bad in the long run". But when instead you come in a destroyed country to ensure the functions that the civil State is unable to provide, there is no reason that the population will reject you. Haiti needs USA.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Aren't we doing that now in a defacto way?

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Aren't we doing that now in a defacto way?

Before the earthquake, according to what I heard, it was a kind of UN state there, the govt was already kind of inexistant in practice. Now with so much military you, yes, de facto, take position there.

Amusingly I thought to a same kind of proposition, but, why the hell my mind directly go on 'should the UN...' other than 'should the US...'??

As I said in an other thread, the fact that a country alone can do that should make wonder the UN concerning the means they have. US taking strong positions there will of course act in US way interests on the long run, and here we are with domination. On the other hand it could be interesting to see what could an international organization, then that would be cut from any national interests, could do in the future in such cases.

Anyway, once all people are physically saved, and that there is no more the urge of the beginning, but that the govt is still in dust, do we impose a govt to Haitians or do we ask them? And if so, how?

It, at least, poses interesting questions.

[Free Palestine]

No.  Occupying a foreign country is a bad idea, even if it is for "humanitarian" purposes.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

The French think we are occupying Haiti:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/centralamericaandthecaribbean/haiti/7020908/US-accused-of-occupying-Haiti-as-troops-flood-in.html

They're right but we won't admit it

[Bo]

You know that the Dominican Republic asked the U.S. to annex it in 1869 or 1870, and President Grant agreed, but the U.S. Senate said no.

[Mint]

No.  Occupying a foreign country is a bad idea, even if it is for "humanitarian" purposes.

If we don't do something now we'll just wind up with a refugee situation or worse anyway. It makes sense for America to intervene when one of its neighbors is in trouble like this. Hell, even Ron Paul said he didn't have a problem with it.

[WillK]

We have occupied Haiti before, for extended periods of time.

[Bo]

Didn't Clinton prevent Haitian refugees from settling in the U.S.?

[CatoMinor]

according to President Chavez we already are occupying them

[Franzl]

Mark my words, I've said it in another thread, these same critics of the US aid would be the very same people who would be the first to complain that the "richest country in the world" doesn't care about helping it's neighboring country.

We can't win here, people. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

The French think we are occupying Haiti:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/centralamericaandthecaribbean/haiti/7020908/US-accused-of-occupying-Haiti-as-troops-flood-in.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/centralamericaandthecaribbean/haiti/7020908/US-accused-of-occupying-Haiti-as-troops-flood-in.html

"France accused the US of "occupying" Haiti on Monday as thousands of American troops flooded into the country to take charge of aid efforts and security. "

Ok, and now if UN had the means to do something by itself, we would avoid these kinds of stupid stuffs which provokes suspicion and disorganization, that makes lose time and energy when some people are just in need.

And one more time I'm glad US helped here, and they have to be thanked for, but for the future, it should make wonder.

[Franzl]

Personally, I'm a good deal more comfortable with our military helping with their own supplies and forces than submitting ourselves to UN command...but that's just me.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Personally, I'm a good deal more comfortable with our military helping with their own supplies and forces than submitting ourselves to UN command...but that's just me.

If you refer to the present form of the UN, sure, undiscutable, and it is my point, they have to improve themselves in order to be able to manage such cases. If you speak in terms of principle, that you prefer US to do something than UN, well, .k, why not, I personally prefer that an international organization manage it than a country, always submitted to its own interests, on the short and/or long term.

[Franzl]

Personally, I'm a good deal more comfortable with our military helping with their own supplies and forces than submitting ourselves to UN command...but that's just me.

If you refer to the present form of the UN, sure, undiscutable, and it is my point, they have to improve themselves in order to be able to manage such cases. If you speak in terms of principle, that you prefer US to do something than UN, well, .k, why not, I personally prefer that an international organization manage it than a country, always submitted to its own interests, on the short and/or long term.

Well yeah, if the UN became a good deal more competent, I wouldn't have as much of a problem with them.