Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Haiti's Lovely Beaches

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Haiti's Lovely Beaches

    This'll be an informal poll / bet...

    I've been following the whole Haitian conflict lately, with the rebels and all, and I was wondering you you guys thought of it. Mainly, who do you think will come out on top.

    I'm putting my money on the rebels.
    Furthermore, they had calculated that if 25,000 of them died for every one of us, they would finish us first, for they were many and we were but few.
    -Hernan Cortez

    The Pacific is our ocean. The power that rules the Pacific, therefore, is the power that rules the world. That power is and will forever be the American Republic.
    -Senator Albert J. Beveridge, 56th Congress

  • #2
    As is usual for Haiti no one will 'come out on top'. The country just gets worse every round of conflict.
    "Have you forgotten the face of your father?"

    Comment


    • #3
      Aristide won't be overthrown bloodlessly, that's for sure. Group 184 have made a mess of Gonaives, and they did the same in Boston in the 1994 coup d'etat, Boston being Port au Prince's equivalent of Hell's Kitchen.
      Now listening too;
      - Russell Robertson, ruining whatever credibility my football team once had.

      Comment


      • #4
        Anyone know what kind of ORBAT that the government of Haiti is using? I'm imagining just a few Armored Personnel Carriers, and those are probably wheeled. Not even that though. My estimation is that it'll look like Somalia in the Carribean by Mid-March.
        Furthermore, they had calculated that if 25,000 of them died for every one of us, they would finish us first, for they were many and we were but few.
        -Hernan Cortez

        The Pacific is our ocean. The power that rules the Pacific, therefore, is the power that rules the world. That power is and will forever be the American Republic.
        -Senator Albert J. Beveridge, 56th Congress

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Cortez
          Anyone know what kind of ORBAT that the government of Haiti is using? I'm imagining just a few Armored Personnel Carriers, and those are probably wheeled. Not even that though. My estimation is that it'll look like Somalia in the Carribean by Mid-March.
          It's military force, if it still has one, is very lightly armed. I recall that just prior to Uphold Democracy, reports indicated Haiti had 7,000 troops, and lest than three dozen artillery pieces, nothing real heavy. They are probably in a worse state now, at least equipment wise.

          There appears to be growing interest in sending somekind of peacekeeping force to Haiti. France said it has about 4,000 troops in neighboring countries prepared to act immediately. There is also a report that Canada and Mexico have been asked to commit troops and encourage the US to support it.

          Personally, I do not believe a peacekeeping force should be deployed to Haiti until all sides have agreed to a ceasefire. Without all factions agreeing to peace, the operation will be peace enforcement, which are risky to say the least. Haiti's problems appears to center around poverty. Economic chaos encourages political strife. Long term peace in Haiti will likely require some kind of solution to improve the local economy. I think this has to be kept in mind.

          On a side note: I think the US should examine the French offer with extreme caution. We don't want the next stage in the US-French interimperalistic rivalry to be so close to our country. Though Haiti holds no economic or real strategic importance, French "controlled stability" could provide some kind of leverage.
          "As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy."-Christopher Dawson - The Judgement of Nations, 1942

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Deltapooh
            Personally, I do not believe a peacekeeping force should be deployed to Haiti until all sides have agreed to a ceasefire.
            I agree, we're already screwing for virginity in Iraq (Good quote), and Haiti would just be another problem which doesn't make any sense. When has Peacekeeping, the modern, non-occupation version ever worked? The Balkans?... Eh.. So-so. I'm still not convinced that putting a force trained to kill in a place that is done with war is the correct idea.

            Originally posted by Deltapooh
            On a side note: I think the US should examine the French offer with extreme caution. We don't want the next stage in the US-French interimperalistic rivalry to be so close to our country. Though Haiti holds no economic or real strategic importance, French "controlled stability" could provide some kind of leverage.
            I also agree with your point. This is in clear violation of the Monroe Doctrine. A European nation to interfere in what is obviously the Western Hemisphere would not help out relations between Us... and Them. Heh. If France commits four-thousand troops it wouldn't be too difficult to see the De Gaulle navigating the Carribean, unwelcomed. I'll be watching that closely, good point.
            Furthermore, they had calculated that if 25,000 of them died for every one of us, they would finish us first, for they were many and we were but few.
            -Hernan Cortez

            The Pacific is our ocean. The power that rules the Pacific, therefore, is the power that rules the world. That power is and will forever be the American Republic.
            -Senator Albert J. Beveridge, 56th Congress

            Comment


            • #7
              The Canadian/Carribean TF that was under discussion seems the best answer, given Canada's experience in Jamaica.

              As for the OB of the Haitians -> Aristide has the Army/Police on his side, both equipped as light paramilitary, like Dudaev in 1994, his main force is a core of armed loyalists who act as his Praetorian guard around the Presidential Palace.

              Group 184 (and the Dominican Republic exiles) are typically equipped wth light arms, though the political opposition has begun to funnel in Cuban support, in terms of light artillery.
              Now listening too;
              - Russell Robertson, ruining whatever credibility my football team once had.

              Comment


              • #8
                I hardly think France would be interfering with anything but the death and destruction that is occuring in Haiti right now. If the US does not want to commit troops then let France commit if it wants to. It already has a prescence in the Carribean and South America and peacekeeping in a craphole country like Haiti isn't going to change much in the way of French influence and control in the area relative to America's. I think it's sad to feel threatened by the thought of French peacekeepers entering Haiti. France is an allie, and by offering to send peacekeepers to Haiti, I think France is trying to mend relations with the US no matter how baby-like America's temper tantrum was when France refused to fight America's illegal war.

                France is trying to be helpfu and to think that France is trying to bring some "US-French interimperealistic rivalry" to the next level over Haiti is paranoid in my opinion.
                "Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."

                George W. Bush

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Lt. Dan
                  I hardly think France would be interfering with anything but the death and destruction that is occuring in Haiti right now. If the US does not want to commit troops then let France commit if it wants to. It already has a prescence in the Carribean and South America and peacekeeping in a craphole country like Haiti isn't going to change much in the way of French influence and control in the area relative to America's. I think it's sad to feel threatened by the thought of French peacekeepers entering Haiti. France is an allie, and by offering to send peacekeepers to Haiti, I think France is trying to mend relations with the US no matter how baby-like America's temper tantrum was when France refused to fight America's illegal war.

                  France is trying to be helpfu and to think that France is trying to bring some "US-French interimperealistic rivalry" to the next level over Haiti is paranoid in my opinion.
                  There are reasons for my alarm. Haiti is a former colony of France. Last year, Haiti demanded the French pay more than $21 billion dollars in restitution for colonialism. He also felt she should pay for the suffering inflicted upon slaves. France, of course, rejected the demand. While it didn't make many headlines internationally, the issue was very publicized in Haiti.

                  It is very difficult to say how the French will be received in Haiti. While the people are eager for assistance, they tend to reject occupation. It took some time for Haitians to believe the US was there help them. Given their history with France, and the animosity created by the debate over it, there is a chance the French troops will be greated with distain, or at least suspicion.

                  The other issue is the kind of peace that can be established and how it effects the US. If French troops (or anyone for that matter) deploys troops without an established peace, the operation will be peace enforcement. This demands an indefinite commitment. If the peacekeepers are removed, violence will erupt, and everyone is back at square one. This is what I meant by "controlled stability." I don't want the French government to be the dominant factor determining when the next exodus from Haiti begins.

                  I'll like to clarify something. I don't see the French people as our enemy. I never have, and likely never will. I denounced the ignorance some Americans expressed by turning to childish name calling and other antic. Their troops are serving in Afghanistan, and France has been very helpful in aiding TF Horn of Africa. They even provided basing for anti-terrorist operations, as well as intelligence.

                  My problem has always been with the governments of our countries. Chirac, like Bush doesn't give half a rat's *ss about the suffering of people. These big governments are only concerned with getting over. France and the US have shown in recent years they would rather see people die for a few bucks than permanently resolve problems.

                  Worse, these governments are all too eager to use the banner of righteous-ness to encourage support for their initiatives. Was France worried about the Iraqi people? Hell no. Chirac feared American dominance in the Middle East.
                  Do you think Clinton or Bush cared about the people in Congo? Hell no. Both were scared French peacekeepers would strengthen Chirac's position in the region.

                  So I'm not concerned about the French people. If they had their way, things would be alot better in the world today. Unfortunately that is not how it works. the major powers are jockeying for better positions and stepping on people in the process.

                  When it comes to Haiti, I would appreciate France wait and better coordinate with the US. The French move seems to flies in the face of statements made by Powell. If there is a peace, then I would be lessed concerned. However, the situation on the ground in Haiti is unstable. Even the French government admits they don't really know what might be lurking in the dark. Chirac screws up, he can go home. We'll take the brunt of the consequences.
                  "As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy."-Christopher Dawson - The Judgement of Nations, 1942

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    bring in the Cannucks now damnit!

                    LAVs running down Rue St Elise in Victoria (upper class PAP suburb) is something that'll sort it out quick enough. The PPCLI can be there in a day or so, followed by the heavies. Hell, the OAS can send in a battalion of troops as a bonus.

                    But send in apolitical Canadians that are there to save people, and not score points in the region.
                    Now listening too;
                    - Russell Robertson, ruining whatever credibility my football team once had.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Ivan Rapkinov
                      bring in the Cannucks now damnit!

                      LAVs running down Rue St Elise in Victoria (upper class PAP suburb) is something that'll sort it out quick enough. The PPCLI can be there in a day or so, followed by the heavies. Hell, the OAS can send in a battalion of troops as a bonus.

                      But send in apolitical Canadians that are there to save people, and not score points in the region.
                      I'm not comfortable with the ideal of sending in peacekeepers at the moment. It is imperative the rival factions agree to seek a peaceful political solution. Such a commitment would establish a peace to keep and make the possibility of an open-ended operation less likely.

                      I also feel the US should not sit on her duff and let the Canadians, the French or whoever do the dirty work in Haiti. It is in our vital interest to avoid another humanitarian crisis as the one we saw in Haiti in the 1990's.

                      Whatever the case, I think it will take a hell of alot more than peacekeepers to solve Haiti's domestic issues. And whether Bush and America like it or not, we have little choice, but to contribute, if not lead, those efforts.
                      "As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy."-Christopher Dawson - The Judgement of Nations, 1942

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Ivan Rapkinov
                        bring in the Cannucks now damnit!

                        LAVs running down Rue St Elise in Victoria (upper class PAP suburb) is something that'll sort it out quick enough. The PPCLI can be there in a day or so, followed by the heavies. Hell, the OAS can send in a battalion of troops as a bonus.

                        But send in apolitical Canadians that are there to save people, and not score points in the region.
                        Our Minister of Defence already said no to troops in Haiti.
                        Scientists have announced they've discovered a cure for apathy. However no one has shown the slightest bit of interest !!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          France shouldn't be in the Western Hemisphere in large numbers with that kind of influence.

                          Frankly, I don't think we should send in anything, and I don't think France should be granted the right to do it either. Haiti is messed up. Just let them fall to the rebels. How is that going to effect America or its people? We need a more selfish foreign policy if we're going to survive. But that definitely does not mean isolation, no-way. And that also doesn't mean invading countries with shotty intelligence.

                          Imperial Might.
                          Furthermore, they had calculated that if 25,000 of them died for every one of us, they would finish us first, for they were many and we were but few.
                          -Hernan Cortez

                          The Pacific is our ocean. The power that rules the Pacific, therefore, is the power that rules the world. That power is and will forever be the American Republic.
                          -Senator Albert J. Beveridge, 56th Congress

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Deltapooh
                            There are reasons for my alarm. Haiti is a former colony of France. Last year, Haiti demanded the French pay more than $21 billion dollars in restitution for colonialism. He also felt she should pay for the suffering inflicted upon slaves. France, of course, rejected the demand. While it didn't make many headlines internationally, the issue was very publicized in Haiti.

                            It is very difficult to say how the French will be received in Haiti. While the people are eager for assistance, they tend to reject occupation. It took some time for Haitians to believe the US was there help them. Given their history with France, and the animosity created by the debate over it, there is a chance the French troops will be greated with distain, or at least suspicion.

                            The other issue is the kind of peace that can be established and how it effects the US. If French troops (or anyone for that matter) deploys troops without an established peace, the operation will be peace enforcement. This demands an indefinite commitment. If the peacekeepers are removed, violence will erupt, and everyone is back at square one. This is what I meant by "controlled stability." I don't want the French government to be the dominant factor determining when the next exodus from Haiti begins.

                            I'll like to clarify something. I don't see the French people as our enemy. I never have, and likely never will. I denounced the ignorance some Americans expressed by turning to childish name calling and other antic. Their troops are serving in Afghanistan, and France has been very helpful in aiding TF Horn of Africa. They even provided basing for anti-terrorist operations, as well as intelligence.

                            My problem has always been with the governments of our countries. Chirac, like Bush doesn't give half a rat's *ss about the suffering of people. These big governments are only concerned with getting over. France and the US have shown in recent years they would rather see people die for a few bucks than permanently resolve problems.

                            Worse, these governments are all too eager to use the banner of righteous-ness to encourage support for their initiatives. Was France worried about the Iraqi people? Hell no. Chirac feared American dominance in the Middle East.
                            Do you think Clinton or Bush cared about the people in Congo? Hell no. Both were scared French peacekeepers would strengthen Chirac's position in the region.

                            So I'm not concerned about the French people. If they had their way, things would be alot better in the world today. Unfortunately that is not how it works. the major powers are jockeying for better positions and stepping on people in the process.

                            When it comes to Haiti, I would appreciate France wait and better coordinate with the US. The French move seems to flies in the face of statements made by Powell. If there is a peace, then I would be lessed concerned. However, the situation on the ground in Haiti is unstable. Even the French government admits they don't really know what might be lurking in the dark. Chirac screws up, he can go home. We'll take the brunt of the consequences.

                            I can agree with that
                            "Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."

                            George W. Bush

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Deltapooh
                              I'm not comfortable with the ideal of sending in peacekeepers at the moment. It is imperative the rival factions agree to seek a peaceful political solution. Such a commitment would establish a peace to keep and make the possibility of an open-ended operation less likely.

                              I also feel the US should not sit on her duff and let the Canadians, the French or whoever do the dirty work in Haiti. It is in our vital interest to avoid another humanitarian crisis as the one we saw in Haiti in the 1990's.

                              Whatever the case, I think it will take a hell of alot more than peacekeepers to solve Haiti's domestic issues. And whether Bush and America like it or not, we have little choice, but to contribute, if not lead, those efforts.
                              unfortunately DP, the US is seen as pro-Aristide, making them the least favourite candidate to restore order. Forget Politics, Aristide has said he's not stepping down, Powell has said he's not going to support any attmepts at an overthrow, and thus we hve a political impasse.

                              Send in troops from apolitical countries to show the flag, peacefully disarm the population, and reconstruct the civilian infrastructure - Australia did it in the Solomon Islands with Operation Anode, we sent in peace-enforcers to disarm the rebels, and we also sent Police and admin types to rebuild the civil strutures on the islands.

                              If Australia, with commitments in East Timor, Iraq and Afghanistan can do something of this nature, then it stands t reason that the OAS/US/Canada could do the same.

                              Tigersqn: I had heard that, but from what I understood, he hadn't precluded them from follow-up type roles - ie, OAS troops secure PAP, CDF comes in to monitor the dsiarmament process.
                              Now listening too;
                              - Russell Robertson, ruining whatever credibility my football team once had.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X