ANY OTHER COUNTRIES DO ANYTHING??

Jason P

dimitrispearljam wrote:

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

if anyone here thinks the US government gives a shit about the civilians of any other country, they are deluding themselves. the US government doesn't give TWO SHITS about anyone else. All they want is to:

1) make sure they keep rogue nations in check
2) keep the oil flowing
3) more democracy = more potential international allies

if you think they give a shit, why did they go in and capture Saddam and let him be hanged in a back room, but they didn't do that with any other world dictator, ones committing genocide against their own people every day?

RESOURCES. Plain and simple.

yeah..there are countries out there ,which dealing,dictators,or bad goverments,but noone give a shit,cos their product are bananas and oranges..if you dont have oil as country,noone cares about any dictator or civilians get killed....

How much oil does Haite have?

Byrnzie

Jason P wrote:

How much oil does Haite have?

You mean Haiti? (Please don't tell me that you can't even spell the name of one of your countries neighbours?).

http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20040309.htm

US-Haiti
Noam Chomsky
US-Haiti, March 9, 2004

'...Just beginning with the 1990 election of Aristide (far too narrow a time frame), Washington was appalled by the election of a populist candidate with a grass-roots constituency just as it had been appalled by the prospect of the hemisphere's first free country on its doorstep two centuries earlier. Washington 's traditional allies in Haiti naturally agreed. "The fear of democracy exists, by definitional necessity, in elite groups who monopolize economic and political power," Bellegarde-Smith observes in his perceptive history of Haiti ; whether in Haiti or the US or anywhere else.

The threat of democracy in Haiti in 1991 was even more ominous because of the favorable reaction of the international financial institutions (World Bank, IADB) to Aristide's programs, which awakened traditional concerns over the "virus" effect of successful independent development. These are familiar themes in international affairs: American independence aroused similar concerns among European leaders. The dangers are commonly perceived to be particularly grave in a country like Haiti , which had been ravaged by France and then reduced to utter misery by a century of US intervention. If even people in such dire circumstances can take their fate into their own hands, who knows what might happen elsewhere as the "contagion spreads."

...Policy returned to normal when a military junta overthrew the Aristide government after seven months, and state terrorist atrocities rose to new heights. The perpetrators were the army - the inheritors of the National Guard left by Wilson 's invaders to control the population - and its paramilitary forces. The most important of these, FRAPH, was founded by CIA asset Emmanuel Constant, who now lives happily in Queens, Clinton and Bush II having dismissed extradition requests -- because he would reveal US ties to the murderous junta, it is widely assumed. Constant's contributions to state terror were, after all, meager; merely prime responsibility for the murder of 4-5000 poor blacks.

Recall the core element of the Bush doctrine, which has "already become a de facto rule of international relations," Harvard's Graham Allison writes in Foreign Affairs: "those who harbor terrorists are as guilty as the terrorists themselves," in the President's words, and must be treated accordingly, by large-scale bombing and invasion.

When Aristide was overthrown by the 1991 military coup, the Organization of American States declared an embargo. Bush I announced that the US would violate it by exempting US firms. He was thus "fine tuning" the embargo for the benefit of the suffering population, the New York Times reported. Clinton authorized even more extreme violations of the embargo: US trade with the junta and its wealthy supporters sharply increased. The crucial element of the embargo was, of course, oil. While the CIA solemnly testified to Congress that the junta "probably will be out of fuel and power very shortly" and "Our intelligence efforts are focused on detecting attempts to circumvent the embargo and monitoring its impact," Clinton secretly authorized the Texaco Oil Company to ship oil to the junta illegally, in violation of presidential directives. This remarkable revelation was the lead story on the AP wires the day before Clinton sent the Marines to "restore democracy," impossible to miss - I happened to be monitoring AP wires that day and saw it repeated prominently over and over -- and obviously of enormous significance for anyone who wanted to understand what was happening. It was suppressed with truly impressive discipline, though reported in industry journals along with scant mention buried in the business press.

Also efficiently suppressed were the crucial conditions that Clinton imposed for Aristide's return: that he adopt the program of the defeated US candidate in the 1990 elections, a former World Bank official who had received 14% of the vote. We call this "restoring democracy," a prime illustration of how US foreign policy has entered a "noble phase" with a "saintly glow," the national press explained. The harsh neoliberal program that Aristide was compelled to adopt was virtually guaranteed to demolish the remaining shreds of economic sovereignty, extending Wilson 's progressive legislation and similar US-imposed measures since.

As democracy was thereby restored, the World Bank announced that "The renovated state must focus on an economic strategy centered on the energy and initiative of Civil Society, especially the private sector, both national and foreign." That has the merit of honesty: Haitian Civil Society includes the tiny rich elite and US corporations, but not the vast majority of the population, the peasants and slum-dwellers who had committed the grave sin of organizing to elect their own president.

...The punishment of Haiti became much more severe under Bush II -- there are differences within the narrow spectrum of cruelty and greed. Aid was cut and international institutions were pressured to do likewise, under pretexts too outlandish to merit discussion. They are extensively reviewed in Paul Farmer's Uses of Haiti, and in some current press commentary, notably by Jeffrey Sachs (Financial Times) and Tracy Kidder (New York Times).

Putting details aside, what has happened since is eerily similar to the overthrow of Haiti 's first democratic government in 1991. The Aristide government, once again, was undermined by US planners, who understood, under Clinton , that the threat of democracy can be overcome if economic sovereignty is eliminated, and presumably also understood that economic development will also be a faint hope under such conditions, one of the best-confirmed lessons of economic history. Bush II planners are even more dedicated to undermining democracy and independence, and despised Aristide and the popular organizations that swept him to power with perhaps even more passion than their predecessors. The forces that reconquered the country are mostly inheritors of the US-installed army and paramilitary terrorists.

satansbed

Byrnzie wrote:

Jason P wrote:

How much oil does Haite have?

You mean Haiti? (Please don't tell me that you can't even spell the name of one of your countries neighbours?)


http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20040309.htm

US-Haiti
Noam Chomsky
US-Haiti, March 9, 2004

'...Just beginning with the 1990 election of Aristide (far too narrow a time frame), Washington was appalled by the election of a populist candidate with a grass-roots constituency just as it had been appalled by the prospect of the hemisphere's first free country on its doorstep two centuries earlier. Washington 's traditional allies in Haiti naturally agreed. "The fear of democracy exists, by definitional necessity, in elite groups who monopolize economic and political power," Bellegarde-Smith observes in his perceptive history of Haiti ; whether in Haiti or the US or anywhere else.

The threat of democracy in Haiti in 1991 was even more ominous because of the favorable reaction of the international financial institutions (World Bank, IADB) to Aristide's programs, which awakened traditional concerns over the "virus" effect of successful independent development. These are familiar themes in international affairs: American independence aroused similar concerns among European leaders. The dangers are commonly perceived to be particularly grave in a country like Haiti , which had been ravaged by France and then reduced to utter misery by a century of US intervention. If even people in such dire circumstances can take their fate into their own hands, who knows what might happen elsewhere as the "contagion spreads."

...Policy returned to normal when a military junta overthrew the Aristide government after seven months, and state terrorist atrocities rose to new heights. The perpetrators were the army - the inheritors of the National Guard left by Wilson 's invaders to control the population - and its paramilitary forces. The most important of these, FRAPH, was founded by CIA asset Emmanuel Constant, who now lives happily in Queens, Clinton and Bush II having dismissed extradition requests -- because he would reveal US ties to the murderous junta, it is widely assumed. Constant's contributions to state terror were, after all, meager; merely prime responsibility for the murder of 4-5000 poor blacks.

Recall the core element of the Bush doctrine, which has "already become a de facto rule of international relations," Harvard's Graham Allison writes in Foreign Affairs: "those who harbor terrorists are as guilty as the terrorists themselves," in the President's words, and must be treated accordingly, by large-scale bombing and invasion.

When Aristide was overthrown by the 1991 military coup, the Organization of American States declared an embargo. Bush I announced that the US would violate it by exempting US firms. He was thus "fine tuning" the embargo for the benefit of the suffering population, the New York Times reported. Clinton authorized even more extreme violations of the embargo: US trade with the junta and its wealthy supporters sharply increased. The crucial element of the embargo was, of course, oil. While the CIA solemnly testified to Congress that the junta "probably will be out of fuel and power very shortly" and "Our intelligence efforts are focused on detecting attempts to circumvent the embargo and monitoring its impact," Clinton secretly authorized the Texaco Oil Company to ship oil to the junta illegally, in violation of presidential directives. This remarkable revelation was the lead story on the AP wires the day before Clinton sent the Marines to "restore democracy," impossible to miss - I happened to be monitoring AP wires that day and saw it repeated prominently over and over -- and obviously of enormous significance for anyone who wanted to understand what was happening. It was suppressed with truly impressive discipline, though reported in industry journals along with scant mention buried in the business press.

Also efficiently suppressed were the crucial conditions that Clinton imposed for Aristide's return: that he adopt the program of the defeated US candidate in the 1990 elections, a former World Bank official who had received 14% of the vote. We call this "restoring democracy," a prime illustration of how US foreign policy has entered a "noble phase" with a "saintly glow," the national press explained. The harsh neoliberal program that Aristide was compelled to adopt was virtually guaranteed to demolish the remaining shreds of economic sovereignty, extending Wilson 's progressive legislation and similar US-imposed measures since.

As democracy was thereby restored, the World Bank announced that "The renovated state must focus on an economic strategy centered on the energy and initiative of Civil Society, especially the private sector, both national and foreign." That has the merit of honesty: Haitian Civil Society includes the tiny rich elite and US corporations, but not the vast majority of the population, the peasants and slum-dwellers who had committed the grave sin of organizing to elect their own president.

...The punishment of Haiti became much more severe under Bush II -- there are differences within the narrow spectrum of cruelty and greed. Aid was cut and international institutions were pressured to do likewise, under pretexts too outlandish to merit discussion. They are extensively reviewed in Paul Farmer's Uses of Haiti, and in some current press commentary, notably by Jeffrey Sachs (Financial Times) and Tracy Kidder (New York Times).

Putting details aside, what has happened since is eerily similar to the overthrow of Haiti 's first democratic government in 1991. The Aristide government, once again, was undermined by US planners, who understood, under Clinton , that the threat of democracy can be overcome if economic sovereignty is eliminated, and presumably also understood that economic development will also be a faint hope under such conditions, one of the best-confirmed lessons of economic history. Bush II planners are even more dedicated to undermining democracy and independence, and despised Aristide and the popular organizations that swept him to power with perhaps even more passion than their predecessors. The forces that reconquered the country are mostly inheritors of the US-installed army and paramilitary terrorists.

yeah but the point he was making that the american intervention in haiti, right or wrong, had nothing to do with resources

Byrnzie

satansbed wrote:

yeah but the point he was making that the american intervention in haiti, right or wrong, had nothing to do with resources

They didn't have any oil, but they had democracy, which needed to be eliminated, as it posed a major threat to U.S interests, by being an example to others in the region who might also choose to not allow themselves to become U.S sweatshops.

And they do have resources, which is why every U.S intervention in Haiti has been to protect U.S corporations based there. One big resource there being sugar.

Regarding the 1915 U.S invasion:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta ... n_of_Haiti
In February 1915, Jean Vilbrun Guillaume Sam, the son of a former president established a "dictatorship," but in July, facing a new anti-American revolt, he massacred 167 political prisoners. All of them were from elite families, particularly from the better educated and wealthier mulatto population with German affiliations. Sam was then enthusiastically lynched by a mob in Port-au-Prince immediately after word of the executions reached them.[5]

It is alleged[who?] that this anti-American revolt against Sam threatened American business interests in the country (such as the Haitian American Sugar Company HASCO). Because of these competing interests and the possibility of the caco-supported anti-American Rosalvo Bobo emerging as the next President of Haiti, the American government decided to act quickly to preserve their economic dominance over Haiti.[6]

American President Woodrow Wilson sent 330 U.S. Marines to Port-au-Prince on July 28, 1915. The specific order from the Secretary of the Navy to the invasion commander, Admiral William Deville Bundy, was to “protect American and foreign” interests. An additional motivation was to replace the Haitian constitution which prohibited foreign ownership of land.[7] However, to avoid public criticism the occupation was labeled as a mission to “re-establish peace and order… [and] has nothing to do with any diplomatic negotiations of the past or the future” as disclosed by Rear Admiral Caperton

Byrnzie

http://ccrjustice.org/why-us-owes-haiti ... ll-quigley
Though Haiti was the sugar growing capital of the Caribbean, it now imports sugar as well. Why? The US and the US dominated world financial institutions - the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank - forced Haiti to open its markets to the world. Then the US dumped millions of tons of US subsidized rice and sugar into Haiti - undercutting their farmers and ruining Haitian agriculture. By ruining Haitian agriculture, the US has forced Haiti into becoming the third largest world market for US rice. Good for US farmers, bad for Haiti.

Pingfah

I'm so happy that the US is so very generous, especially when they have failed to deal with the rampant poverty, inequality and shitty healthcare in their own country.

Always thinking of others.

Jason P

Byrnzie wrote:

Jason P wrote:

How much oil does Haite have?

You mean Haiti? (Please don't tell me that you can't even spell the name of one of your countries neighbours?).


.

"i" before "e" except after "c", spell cop.

did noame chompski have any articlees aon $500M taxpayer eaarthquack releif and who it waz really just a cei black opp?

Dirtie_Frank

Bosnia?
Kosovo?
Relief during the Tsunami to Sri Lanka and Indonesia?

I guess we only help countries that have oil.

unsung

Intervening in this issue means siding with al-Qaeda.

Lets be clear about what it really is.

Jason P

Byrnzie wrote:

http://ccrjustice.org/why-us-owes-haiti-billions-briefest-history-bill-quigley
Though Haiti was the sugar growing capital of the Caribbean, it now imports sugar as well. Why? The US and the US dominated world financial institutions - the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank - forced Haiti to open its markets to the world. Then the US dumped millions of tons of US subsidized rice and sugar into Haiti - undercutting their farmers and ruining Haitian agriculture. By ruining Haitian agriculture, the US has forced Haiti into becoming the third largest world market for US rice. Good for US farmers, bad for Haiti.

The evil US successfully implemented an evil plan in Haite (w/ an e) where they "forced" them to do what every other country in the world does, have an open trade market??? And it seems markets have changed over time???

:think:

Was Nixon behind this?

and tell bill quickly that the US has given billions to them over the last ten years, so he should be happy and go smoke a cigar to celebrate.

Byrnzie

Dirtie_Frank wrote:

Bosnia?
Kosovo?
Relief during the Tsunami to Sri Lanka and Indonesia?

I guess we only help countries that have oil.

Bosnia? Are you serious? You sat back and watched them get slaughtered, after imposing a ban on weapons sales to the Bosnians so that they couldn't defend themselves.

Next you'll be lauding the great job you did in Rwanda.

Byrnzie

Jason P wrote:

The evil US successfully implemented an evil plan in Haite (w/ an e) where they "forced" them to do what every other country in the world does, have an open trade market??? And it seems markets have changed over time???

Not every country allows itself to be used as a U.S sweatshop, to the detriment of the majority of their populations. Much of Central and South America have kicked the U.S parasites out, which maybe explains your recent obsession with exploiting the Middle East instead.

Dirtie_Frank

Byrnzie wrote:

Dirtie_Frank wrote:

Bosnia?
Kosovo?
Relief during the Tsunami to Sri Lanka and Indonesia?

I guess we only help countries that have oil.

Bosnia? Are you serious? You sat back and watched them get slaughtered, after imposing a ban on weapons sales to the Bosnians so that they couldn't defend themselves.

Next you'll be lauding the great job you did in Rwanda.

What did anyone else do? Isn't that the point of this topic, but as far as I can tell no matter what good the USA does you always try to play to the contrary. I might not post a lot but I do read a lot on here. That seems to be your MO.

Jason P

Byrnzie wrote:

Jason P wrote:

The evil US successfully implemented an evil plan in Haite (w/ an e) where they "forced" them to do what every other country in the world does, have an open trade market??? And it seems markets have changed over time???

Not every country allows itself to be used as a U.S sweatshop, to the detriment of the majority of their populations. Much of Central and South America have kicked the U.S parasites out, which maybe explains your recent obsession with exploiting the Middle East instead.

And those countries in Central and South America that kicked the U.S. out must be thriving as of a result, correct? Which ones are they? I'd be curious on what the poverty rates are in those specific countries? And how they compare to the countries that have allowed the U.S. parasites to infest them.

lukin2006

My guess is most of these countries can just outright say NO we don't want your foreign aid ... and just like most things in life nothings free, somebody does you a favour they expect something in return, its human nature, people have agenda's, country's have agenda, probably why people suck.

even flow - question mark

fear4freedom wrote:

Where is the help from other countries regarding human rights, poverty, aids, terrorism, etc.?

China has the money, power, military and clout to get some things done internationally.....what do they do anywhere other than build their own country and relationships that only help them. They are the greediest rich country i have ever seen.

Russia, has nothing to offer but being obstructionists on every one of our policies

Austrailia, LOL

Canada LOL

England, France and Germany.....sometimes they try....but they dont get shit done either

Anyone on here confirm some great things these countries are doing for others?? Please i want to see some big changes brought forth! If not, then that means the good ol USA is hated and loved for being number one in everything!

Where the fuck is China and Russia in Africa?? And where are the Middle Eastern countries when it comes to speaking out against human atrocities??

Looks to me that the USA is the ONLY hope for this world whether you like it or not! So all you anti-Americans out there.....show me another model country that we should follow!

This reminds of the type of arguement you get into when you tell a Yank that DPU is just the same as using gas on people and they will say "no it isn't". Hell I don't know what will happen to the world when your empire finally breaks down. Especially people who think the world is the U S of Eh!

Pingfah

It might interest the OP to know that the UK actually gives more money per citizen than the US. The US gives more aid overall, but only because it is a much bigger country. The UKs foreign aid budget is much more generous than the USA's.

In fact, as a percentage of GDP (which is the figure that really matters), the USA is actually very stingy, and falls behind a lot of the countries being criticised here, such as Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Netherlands, Belgium, United Kingdom, Ireland, Finland, Spain, Switzerland, Austria, Germany, France, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Portugal, Italy, Greece and Japan.

So I guess the real question is why, when they have so much, does the USA give so little?

Kat

Was closed for review...but some people may be taking a break if they were making personal comments instead of discussing the TOPIC.

Posts have been removed...carry on within the Posting Guidelines, thank you.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Dirtie_Frank wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

Dirtie_Frank wrote:

Bosnia?
Kosovo?
Relief during the Tsunami to Sri Lanka and Indonesia?

I guess we only help countries that have oil.

Bosnia? Are you serious? You sat back and watched them get slaughtered, after imposing a ban on weapons sales to the Bosnians so that they couldn't defend themselves.

Next you'll be lauding the great job you did in Rwanda.

What did anyone else do? Isn't that the point of this topic, but as far as I can tell no matter what good the USA does you always try to play to the contrary. I might not post a lot but I do read a lot on here. That seems to be your MO.

From many accounts... while handcuffed by UN policies that restricted operational procedures... Canada performed admirably. At a very minimum... at least they were there offering support and didn't run when things got dicey (like some European countries) or sit on the sidelines (like the US) twiddling their thumbs.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

Dirtie_Frank wrote:

Bosnia?
Kosovo?
Relief during the Tsunami to Sri Lanka and Indonesia?

I guess we only help countries that have oil.

again, my point was not just about oil, but about interests. many countries give just as much aid as the US, if not more. But they also disguise US-interest war as rescue. Take a look at all the countries that have the same issues as the countries the US "helps". But they only "help" (see: bomb) in the Mid East.

Why do you think that is?