On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 22:59:28 GMT, "Jim Brewer"
wrote:
>When I was in Haiti in the '70's, the place was peaceful and orderly, it was
>lush, and I never felt in danger or saw anyone who looked ill-fed. Although
>Baby Doc was a despot, there was sufficientl stability for potential
>development, tourism, and a better standard of living.
>
>The problem when Baby Doc was removed was that there was no strong workable
>plan in place to govern the place while it made what needed to be a 25-year
>transition to a stable, liberal constitutional democratic republic.
Yes, true, and we through money at the problem.
>Now, a friend comes back and reports that passers-by and fellow guests were
>being murdered by soldiers outside his hotel. There can be no development in
>such a climate.
Have Doc friend who can no longer go to do free clinics for the same
reason.
>The fact is that the US has no compelling interest in Haiti, except that
>it's a cesspool on our doorstep.
The military would highly, demonstrably and irrefutably disagree with
you.
> I for one am tired of hearing about the
>"unseen hand" of the US behind Haiti's troubles.
Only unseen to those who have no eyes and "unregistered" ears.
> Would that it were so. God
>knows that Haitians would rejoice at being annexed outright by the US.
Because a Haitian does not want to be annexed does not mean they are
either (un)aware, (un)happy or (un)appreciative of US intells
activities there. |