Here is a huge example of human suffering and right in our back yard. So why is it less important than Iraq? Could it be they have no oil? I guess the US will only be a world policeman in affluent neighborhoods.
posted on February 17, 2004 08:00:11 PM new
Bless you, Gravid. I was beginning to think I was the only person following the terrible developments in Haiti.
Probably you're right -- we view Haiti as a poor resourceless country and we don't want to 'liberate' it because we'd have to put its population on the dole 'til a decade of economic development could make much-needed changes. (Why Haiti couldn't be exploited as a more local 'outsourced' labor supply, especially in the area of credit card processing now done in far away India, is beyond me... )
posted on February 22, 2004 06:05:35 PM new
There's a full-blown revolution/coup d' etat underway there right now, Max.
What's that? You don't give a sh!t? Fine. Then don't act so surprised when other people around the world cheer when we Americans are beset by acts of terrorism.
It's the same indifference, the same 'tough sh!t' attitude. And for many it's a 'hey, right on!' attitude.
If you don't see that, and if you can't internalize the strife now going on in Haiti, there's nothing left to say...
posted on February 22, 2004 07:17:21 PM new
ummm lets see if we can't correct the revisonist history taking place here...
Yes we helped Arstide as PART OF THE UN....
Not as a unilateral nation... Oh my are you saying we should go unilateral again and help poor little Haiti; because once again the UN is proving to be a failure?
posted on February 22, 2004 07:31:38 PM new
It's not like we're doing nothing....as has been implied.
Friday's press briefing:
2-20-04
Q -- President about the prospect that Aristide could lose his grip in Haiti. Is that something the United States could abide? And has he been in touch with the Governor of Florida about the possibility of refugees from Haiti?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, in terms of that issue, I think that our policy with respect to boat migrants is very clear, and it remains the same. They will be returned to the country from which they departed, absent any specific indications of protection concerns. And we have a plan in place to stop any boats. So our policy is very clear.
In terms of Haiti, where things are right now, we continue to call for an end to the violence. We continue to be actively engaged in ongoing diplomatic efforts to bring about a peaceful, political solution. We have been working with other countries in CARICOM, the Organization of American States, France, Canada, and others, to come up with a consensus plan.
And in fact, the State Department I think is probably talking about this as we speak. But there will be a group of ambassadors, including Ambassador Foley from the United States, and the ambassadors from France and Canada, and ambassadors representing CARICOM and the European Union, meeting today with President Aristide and the opposition to present a plan to move forward on a peaceful political solution for resolving the crisis in Haiti.
There will also be a mission, arriving tomorrow in Haiti, that will include officials from the United States, Canada, France, the Organization of American States, and CARICOM, to discuss implementing the steps in the plan with the government and the opposition. And I would point out that, obviously, one of our immediate concerns and priorities is the humanitarian side. And we are working with our international partners to make sure that the people of Haiti are getting the humanitarian assistance that they need.
And USAID is providing $50,000 to support the transport and distribution of humanitarian relief supplies. This includes 12 medical kits and 3 surgical kits. Each medical kit is equipped to serve 10,000 individuals for about a three-month period.
Additionally, USAID has approved $400,000 to the Pan American Health Organization to purchase medical supplies and conduct emergency relief activities in Haiti. So that's where things are now.
Again, we remain actively engaged in these diplomatic efforts to bring about a peaceful, political solution to the situation in Haiti.
Q Who is going to represent the White House in the delegation that goes tomorrow?
MR. McCLELLAN: Actually, Assistant Secretary Noriega will be in that delegation.
posted on February 22, 2004 08:03:43 PM new
I think I read in the news today that 75% of this country is Christian? hmmm.
Always wondered why they as a nationality and or group are not given much sympathy from this country. With aids, immigration, everything, it seems. I now wonder if we are (collectively/supposedly 75% Christian)unconsciously repulsed by their voodoo practices, etc?
posted on February 22, 2004 08:26:17 PM new
neroter - repulsed by....not sure what has given you that impression. Clinton, a professed Christian, sent troops over there that were there for 2 years.
Now...we are once again dealing with the issue.
Don't think it has a thing to do with voo-doo.
Re-elect President Bush!!
posted on February 22, 2004 08:36:07 PM new
Incredible how you are able to ASSUME a dont give a sh!t attitude from two little factual sentences.
GO READ THE O.A.S. and the U.N. charters and find out for yourself!
There will be NO ACTIVE HELP from ANY COUNTRY while he is still in power and this is still an INTERNAL AFFAIR.
And yes I DO Give a Sh!t , I, SEE these people and am Against ANY POS "LEADER" That does not want to share or step down from POWER.
The people of haiti DO NOT want HIM or his LEFTIST ALOOFNESS.
A few years back an Argentine friend that use to be the military attache for his embassy in haiti ( he also worked with washington on the invasion planning )told me that they took out the Good guy (Sedras) and put in the Bad guy ( Aristide ). Why? I cant recall his reasoning
But i guess we'll see in the coming days.
Mind you, the Herald is a Left slant Paper.
Exit begins amid Haiti peace talks
Americans -- and some Haitians -- begin leaving Haiti, and foreign emissaries press the president to accept a plan that would keep him in office but trim his powers.
PORT-AU-PRINCE -- Scores of fearful Americans and Haitians stood in long lines at the Port-au-Prince airport to escape a bloody revolt that left another 11 wounded Friday when government supporters and foes clashed in the capital.
U.S., French and Caribbean ambassadors meanwhile met separately with President Jean-Bertrand Aristide and the political opposition to push them to accept a settlement that would leave the president in office but slash his powers.
''I didn't want to go,'' said Maria Tena, a 25-year-old from Spokane, Wash., as she prepared to board a flight out with a group of Spanish nuns in northwest Haiti one day after a U.S. Embassy warning that it was not safe to stay. ``But we called [the Spanish] ambassador and he told us to get out as soon as we could.''
Arriving at Miami International Airport, Gerome Berteau said he fled Haiti, leaving behind his wife and five children and the rice farm he runs near the port of St. Marc, after ''the Artistide people'' burned down his house Wednesday.
''I lost everything,'' said Berteau, still visibly shaken by the ordeal although no one was injured. ``All my important papers. All my children's clothes. I don't have anything left.''
Berteau insisted he does not belong to any political party but said he is convinced he cannot return to his homeland. ''Next time, they'll probably come back and kill me,'' he said.
It's that kind of violence that the foreign ambassadors were trying to stop with their talks Friday. Today, more senior-ranking envoys including Washington's top diplomat on Latin America, Deputy Secretary of State Roger Noriega, are expected to add to the pressure.
CEDING POWERS
A The diplomats are pushing a settlement under which Aristide would surrender much of his powers to a new prime minister who would have direct control of an internationally supervised police force, two diplomatic sources close to the negotiations said.
The prime minister would be selected by a new panel made up of one representative each from Aristide's government, the opposition and the international community. Aristide would remain in power until his term expires in 2006, but the new government would be committed to disarming both the pro- and antigovernment gangs behind much of the violence.
Government spokesman Mario Dupuy said Aristide is open to negotiations and has long been willing to accept an opposition member in his government.
But the opposition stood by its demand for Aristide's resignation.
TOO MUCH TO ASK
''How can they ask us to negotiate with a man who has sent people to attack student and the opposition's peaceful marches?'' said opposition spokesman Charles Baker.
Haiti's political crisis, which began over the country's flawed legislative vote in May 2000, erupted into an armed revolt two weeks ago when an anti-Aristide gang began to take over towns in central and northern Haiti in an effort to oust Aristide.
The violence hit Port-au-Prince Friday when pro-Aristide militants attacked a student protest and wounded 11 people, including a Haitian journalist who was shot.
Dupuy condemned the violence but said the students did not have a police permit and were marching illegally. He added that police didn't try to stop the attacks because officers have been under their own threats recently.
One of those making threats was Guy Philippe, leader of one of the armed factions in the anti-Aristide revolt, who told radio interviewers Friday that his forces would soon attack Cap Haitien in the north, Haiti's second largest city.
The former Cap Haitien police chief also said he was glad to hear Aristide say this week that he was willing to die to defend his country.
''We would like to grant his wish,'' Philippe said.
posted on February 22, 2004 09:38:46 PM new
Linda, I cant remember Clinton ever professing to be a Christian? Did he ever talk about God or Christianity like Bush? I cant say I ever remember him doing so.
As far as voodoo goes, I dont think we are consciously repulsed by it as much as metaphysically. Just me little ole opinion.
posted on February 23, 2004 07:12:12 AM new
neroter - I think you're trying to pull my leg, right? lol
With as much Bush bashing as goes on here about Bush's public religious statements, many over look clinton did the exact same thing.
It was just as I'm always saying...okay then..but not with this president.
He often about his religion and our citizens 'rights' to practice their beliefs...and he even mentions in one speech about how our Founding Fathers gave us this base. Again, something so many argue isn't true.
If you go to the clinton presidential library and read just a few of his speeches, address to the nation etc., you will see for yourself.
posted on February 23, 2004 12:44:55 PM new
You're right there linda, the subject of your link is "school prayer", but not "prayer in school". There is an enormous difference as far as I'm concerned. To many, "school prayer", means starting the classroom day with a prayer. To others, it means voluntary, private prayer. That's what Clinton was talking about. Here's a salient clip from your link above.
These guidelines represent a very broad consensus of many religious groups. Here is what is at their core: students have the right to pray privately and individually in school. They have the right to say grace at lunchtime. They have the right to meet in religious groups on school grounds and to use school facilities, just like any other club. They have the right to read the Bible or any religious text during study hall or free class time. They also have the right to be free from coercion to participate in any kind of religious activity in school.
I don't have anything against what President Clinton spoke of above. I pray privately in school fairly often.
When you say something like Clinton supported school prayer, you oversimplify and confuse the issue.
___________________________________
posted on February 23, 2004 03:28:37 PM new
Linda I wasnt pulling your leg. Maybe I wasnt paying much attention at the time, but other than when he got busted with "that woman" and going to a church/minister to ask forgiveness, I really dont recall him throwing around religiousness too much.
posted on February 23, 2004 04:17:06 PM new
LOL profe - You just forgot to copy all the religious practices THAT ARE ALLOWED in our schools that many here have argued shouldn't be allowed. And clinton saying THEY ARE COVERED IN OUR CONSTITUTION. Like Bush is the only President that believes our children "don't leave their religion at the school door".
---------
neroter12 - Whether YOU'VE seen his Bible quotes, listen to his religious statements/speeches or not...doesn't mean he hasn't said them.
What you see going on here is the continual bashing of the same religious beliefs clinton had....only against Bush. Imo, it wasn't an issue during the clinton administration because those who were opposed to clinton, politically, held the same beliefs. So why bring it up, mention it, no reason to. But now it's a fun game.
posted on February 23, 2004 05:48:23 PM newLOL profe - You just forgot to copy all the religious practices THAT ARE ALLOWED in our schools that many here have argued shouldn't be allowed. And clinton saying THEY ARE COVERED IN OUR CONSTITUTION. Like Bush is the only President that believes our children "don't leave their religion at the school door".
I read your link twice linda, please tell me what practices it is I forgot to copy. While you're at it, please tell me which practices it is that "many here" don't want allowed, and that "Clinton says" are COVERED IN OUR CONSTITUTION. For the life of me, I can't find anything beyond the cut/paste I included, taken from your link above.
I suppose now you'll just tell me to go look it up myself. Well, I did, based on the link you gave, and it's not there...up to you to prove otherwise, I'd say.
___________________________________
posted on February 23, 2004 05:51:00 PM new
Maybe you meant a teacher led "prayer time", or some such. You won't find president Clinton saying THAT'S protected by the constitution, at least not in your own link. Maybe you meant the 10 commandments posted in classrooms. I doubt you'll find him supporting that one either. What exactly did you mean?
___________________________________
posted on February 23, 2004 06:50:48 PM new
profe - All I said was that clinton supported students 'Constitutional rights' to practice their religion in school. That their freedom of religion did not stop at the school door/gate. And that he felt it was a positive thing for them to do so.
Many of the issues, in his statement, I have debated with people here and was told I was wrong.
I have been told those [same mentioned rights] were not to be allowed....because if we did, we would not be honoring the 'separation of church and state' clause. "Since a school is government owned...yada yada yada." "No prayer allowed....if they want to pray they can pray at home." "If they want to meet, they can meet off government property." etc. etc. etc.
I'm pointing out that even clinton didn't see it that way.
posted on February 23, 2004 07:30:15 PM newPrivate student prayer OK; but no official school prayer or prayer time.
"I believe the Supreme Court was right a generation ago to prohibit any public authority from creating an official school prayer and making students recite it. But there is absolutely nothing improper about students wanting to reflect upon their faith. Students can pray privately and individually whenever they want. They can express their beliefs in homework, through artwork, and during class presentations, as long as its relevant to the assignment. They can form religious clubs in high school."
Source: Between Hope and History, by Bill Clinton, p.139 Jan 1, 1996
Clinton also showed immense political sympathy for religion, but he didn't nominate a slate of right-wing judges who could give the law a decidedly majoritarian, pro-Christian bent. And Bush has gone further than that. From school-prayer guidelines issued by the Department of Education to faith-based initiatives to directives from virtually every federal agency, there's hardly a place where Bush hasn't increased both the presence and the potency of religion in American government. In the process, the Bush administration lavishly caters to the very religious-right groups that gave us the dubious Christian-nation concept to begin with.
When it comes to church and state, "The Clinton people reached out to all segments, and really did attempt to work on consensus issues," says People for the American Way's Mincberg, who was involved in drafting the consensus statement that led to the Clinton prayer guidelines. "The Bush people are reaching out to their political allies only."
posted on February 23, 2004 08:03:42 PM new
Clinton said, "I believe the Supreme Court was right a generation ago to prohibit any public authority from creating an official school prayer and making students recite it." But there is absolutely nothing improper about students wanting to reflect upon their faith. Students can pray privately and individually whenever they want."
Have you ever known a child who wanted to go to school to pray? I haven't -- and I've been around children all my life.
posted on February 23, 2004 08:48:25 PM new
Your side has wanted, and continued to call for ALL reference to any form of religion being allowed in the schools....that's the issue here, helen. And my position is clinton saw that differently. PERIOD....end of discussion.
[From my link -clinton's statement]
"Helping communities to find common ground about religious expression is the right way to protect religious freedom. There's also a wrong way, amending the Constitution. Some people say there should be a constitutional amendment to allow voluntary prayer in our public schools. But there already is one -- it's the First Amendment.
For more than 200 years, the First Amendment has protected our religious freedom and allowed many faiths to flourish, in our homes, in our work places and in our schools. Clearly understood and sensibly applied, it works. It does not need to be rewritten."
Your first sentence needs to be edited linda. Right now, it reads, " Your side has wanted, and continued to call for ALL reference to any form of religion being allowed in the schools" That is false and probably an unintended error.
You are misguided on this issue and I know that any further discussion will lead nowhere. I'll copy paste the article. Maybe if you will read that, you may understand how unfair it is to expect all children to participate in a ritual in which they may not believe. My neighbors are all of differing religions...Jewish, Muslim, Catholic, Buddhist and in my case, Atheist. As I mentioned, none of the kids go to school looking forward to prayer of any kind. It seems to be the right wing neocons who are so determined to eliminate separation of church and state. That's unconstitutional Linda.
