- Thread starter ltsnyder
- Start date
US training of Haitian Rebels in Dominican Republic
- Status
and the "True Picture" is, at times, even more elusive
Please take care . . .
My take on the Anatomy of a ragtag rebellion article is, it could be a plant, just a little spin job* to cover up what really happened. . .
*(the connection to a Republican operative)
. . .CES
Chiri, I'll be waitinng on pins & needles for your report,Chirimoya said:
Please take care . . .
My take on the Anatomy of a ragtag rebellion article is, it could be a plant, just a little spin job* to cover up what really happened. . .
*(the connection to a Republican operative)
. . .CES
OK if you can handle the truth:
Yes, the US was actively involve in the removal of Aristides from his post in the Haitian picture not in little part to his continuos use of armed thugs and total rampant criminal enterprise of the Haitian's economy. He was given a huge chance when the US got him back into power following the Cedras incident a few years back followed by the exponentially fraudulent elections he presided over to secure his reign of power over Haiti.
Haiti became a major headache to manage, no nation wanted to invest in a country with not a single day of social insecurity and unrest within all of it's provinces. When a country's president becomes the principal political agitator it becomes clear that no foreign capital would find a niche to plant some much needed infrastructure in Haiti, let alone provide funds for social noncommercial projects.
Haiti needs the intervention of the UN to become a viable and working society. Before they gain social stability no commercial work frame can even begin to be explored, you need a secured and liable environment for a stable economy to grow and find potential marketable options for foreign investors to pump millions into.
Will it be something we'll see in the new emerging Haiti? I doubt it since the aim of the US in their quest to remove Aristedes from power was to quell the flood of Haitian's refugees from their east coast.
Haiti needs major investment in all areas, but mostly it's in the social area that the bulk of this undertaking should be more aggressively pushed.
If the DR can offset the current trend of it's stalled economy and manages to kick the gears in motion, Haiti will be a major trade partner and a backyard to DR's emerging global industrialization. You have the two major and most important elements of any successful industry base: Cheap Labor and a Vast untapped tourism paradise to the west of a major attraction in the DR.
It's possible? Yes, indeed it is...
Will it happen? I doubt it will happen fast track but it's slowly moving in that direction one step at a time...
Will the US be have anything to do with it? A big I doubted!
Yes, the US was actively involve in the removal of Aristides from his post in the Haitian picture not in little part to his continuos use of armed thugs and total rampant criminal enterprise of the Haitian's economy. He was given a huge chance when the US got him back into power following the Cedras incident a few years back followed by the exponentially fraudulent elections he presided over to secure his reign of power over Haiti.
Haiti became a major headache to manage, no nation wanted to invest in a country with not a single day of social insecurity and unrest within all of it's provinces. When a country's president becomes the principal political agitator it becomes clear that no foreign capital would find a niche to plant some much needed infrastructure in Haiti, let alone provide funds for social noncommercial projects.
Haiti needs the intervention of the UN to become a viable and working society. Before they gain social stability no commercial work frame can even begin to be explored, you need a secured and liable environment for a stable economy to grow and find potential marketable options for foreign investors to pump millions into.
Will it be something we'll see in the new emerging Haiti? I doubt it since the aim of the US in their quest to remove Aristedes from power was to quell the flood of Haitian's refugees from their east coast.
Haiti needs major investment in all areas, but mostly it's in the social area that the bulk of this undertaking should be more aggressively pushed.
If the DR can offset the current trend of it's stalled economy and manages to kick the gears in motion, Haiti will be a major trade partner and a backyard to DR's emerging global industrialization. You have the two major and most important elements of any successful industry base: Cheap Labor and a Vast untapped tourism paradise to the west of a major attraction in the DR.
It's possible? Yes, indeed it is...
Will it happen? I doubt it will happen fast track but it's slowly moving in that direction one step at a time...
Will the US be have anything to do with it? A big I doubted!
Last edited:
PICHARDO, I agree with what you are saying, but there is more
Not only did Aristide preside over a country that was generally bad for investment, it was bad for investment for a second reason, Aristide did not honor debits incurred by the administration, this was the last nail in the coffin for Aristide as far as France was concerned, and for the most part as far as the US is concerned.
ok here is the Librial Conspiricy theory:
Bush will prepare an invasion of Cuba in the near future. And the DR and a stable Haiti will be a jump off point and a critical piece of the puzzle. The US will pass it off as the invasion of a Rouge state and that this will make the world safer. If anything is going to stall this plan it would be the delay in the free up of US troops from Iraq (which seems like it is happening now).
The "Rally behind the president" in times of war mentality will ensure that President Bush gets re-elected.
Ok, actually forget that theory, that could only happen if the US sponsered an invader, since Bush won't get the war powers act for this at this time, it's a garbage theory. But I'm sure the stabalization / control of Haiti has a part in an encirclement plan against Cuba.
-Leland
Not only did Aristide preside over a country that was generally bad for investment, it was bad for investment for a second reason, Aristide did not honor debits incurred by the administration, this was the last nail in the coffin for Aristide as far as France was concerned, and for the most part as far as the US is concerned.
ok here is the Librial Conspiricy theory:
Bush will prepare an invasion of Cuba in the near future. And the DR and a stable Haiti will be a jump off point and a critical piece of the puzzle. The US will pass it off as the invasion of a Rouge state and that this will make the world safer. If anything is going to stall this plan it would be the delay in the free up of US troops from Iraq (which seems like it is happening now).
The "Rally behind the president" in times of war mentality will ensure that President Bush gets re-elected.
Ok, actually forget that theory, that could only happen if the US sponsered an invader, since Bush won't get the war powers act for this at this time, it's a garbage theory. But I'm sure the stabalization / control of Haiti has a part in an encirclement plan against Cuba.
-Leland
The Topic
LT,
Unlike some of the other moderators, Pib and Hillbilly are allowing us to make a case about the link between events and policy directed at Haiti and those that will impact the DR. Of course, the DR is not in a vacuum, so reference to Venezuela and Cuba can also be made. But I think all posts really need to at least have as a focus the DR or threads will likely be cut down in the future.
LT,
Unlike some of the other moderators, Pib and Hillbilly are allowing us to make a case about the link between events and policy directed at Haiti and those that will impact the DR. Of course, the DR is not in a vacuum, so reference to Venezuela and Cuba can also be made. But I think all posts really need to at least have as a focus the DR or threads will likely be cut down in the future.
I was out of town on business for a few days so you guys had a chance to produce some proof. Of course I am not surprised that none has been found. All that has been displayed is conjecture and Liberal Fantasy.
Do you really think that those Haitian rebels are so diciplined that they would be able to maintain all the supposed evidence secret?
BTW The Idea that the US did all this to be able to launch a invasion of Cuba is silly at best and illogical in its basis. Setting aside all of the left-wing conspiracy ideals and looking at it from a military stand point. why would the US need Hispaniola for a base? Key West, with its naval air-station is 90 miles away! Homestead SFRB is 140 miles away and the Southern Command in Miami is 160 Miles away. Mcdill, Tindall, Eglin, Patrick AFBs are all in close proximity also. Using Haiti or the DR serves no purpose.
As much as I would love to see the US remove Castro and Free the cuban people I realize it will never happen. JFK saw to that.
Do you really think that those Haitian rebels are so diciplined that they would be able to maintain all the supposed evidence secret?
BTW The Idea that the US did all this to be able to launch a invasion of Cuba is silly at best and illogical in its basis. Setting aside all of the left-wing conspiracy ideals and looking at it from a military stand point. why would the US need Hispaniola for a base? Key West, with its naval air-station is 90 miles away! Homestead SFRB is 140 miles away and the Southern Command in Miami is 160 Miles away. Mcdill, Tindall, Eglin, Patrick AFBs are all in close proximity also. Using Haiti or the DR serves no purpose.
As much as I would love to see the US remove Castro and Free the cuban people I realize it will never happen. JFK saw to that.
Tony I agree the US has no plans of removing Castro. It is my opinion status-quo in Cuba is of US's best interests.
IMHO the US will avoid turning the Florida Straights into another Mona Passage, which is avoided under Castro repression and serves US interests on that matter. This leads into the Haitian subject as well.
No one wants to assume responsibility for Haiti thus why no efforts are made to avoid reaching crisis situations there.
It is well documented that countries like France and Spain want the Haitian problems to be solved by a Dominican-Haitian front which includes accepting thousands of Dominicans in exchange for the DR to absorb Haitian nationals here, being that Dominicans are a lesser evil for them to absorb culturally.
IMHO the US will avoid turning the Florida Straights into another Mona Passage, which is avoided under Castro repression and serves US interests on that matter. This leads into the Haitian subject as well.
No one wants to assume responsibility for Haiti thus why no efforts are made to avoid reaching crisis situations there.
It is well documented that countries like France and Spain want the Haitian problems to be solved by a Dominican-Haitian front which includes accepting thousands of Dominicans in exchange for the DR to absorb Haitian nationals here, being that Dominicans are a lesser evil for them to absorb culturally.
Porfio
Pena Gomez was the ring-leader for this movement and had socialist buddies Mitterand and Felipe Gonzalez as proponents to a "unified" island.
Continous campaigns were waged in France againts Balaguer and many propaganda documentaries were shown on French television claiming slavery was alive and well in the DR and accusing the DR for Haiti's plight.
What more evidence do we need than the fact these leaders recognized Pena Gomez as a possible president of the Dominican Republic, uncovers they had no respect for our constitution and that Pena Gomez was in fact Haitian and would be the first step to making the unification a reality.
We currenty see the PRD openly issuing cedulas to Haitian nationals this is also very well documented.
Maybe you need the actual plan given to the United Nations on this subject..Sorry I can't get that to you.
Pena Gomez was the ring-leader for this movement and had socialist buddies Mitterand and Felipe Gonzalez as proponents to a "unified" island.
Continous campaigns were waged in France againts Balaguer and many propaganda documentaries were shown on French television claiming slavery was alive and well in the DR and accusing the DR for Haiti's plight.
What more evidence do we need than the fact these leaders recognized Pena Gomez as a possible president of the Dominican Republic, uncovers they had no respect for our constitution and that Pena Gomez was in fact Haitian and would be the first step to making the unification a reality.
We currenty see the PRD openly issuing cedulas to Haitian nationals this is also very well documented.
Maybe you need the actual plan given to the United Nations on this subject..Sorry I can't get that to you.
Actually, if you can give me the title of the plan and/or the author, I can probably track it down on my own. I'd really be curious to read it. It would erase from my mind forever the concept that Dominican-Haitian unification plots are the historic anti-black, pro-military, boogeyman for Dominicans.Narcosis said:
I'm not sure this proves much. My pet iguana got one after he promised to vote for Hippo (and title to a future Seteinta also!).Narcosis said:
Last edited:
I'm very sorry you find humor in the fact the PRD pigs are basically trading votes in exchange for our sovereignty.
Why is the unification of the island such a far fetched idea to some people? There are many countries that have been merged and seperated througout history, wake-up.
I don't want to derail this debate so my point is that the international community has "dropped the ball" continuosly in Haiti and this has caused problems for the DR.
Cover-ups in the past have included the DR as a scapegoat so I feel this time I would not be surprised history repeating it'self.
Why is the unification of the island such a far fetched idea to some people? There are many countries that have been merged and seperated througout history, wake-up.
I don't want to derail this debate so my point is that the international community has "dropped the ball" continuosly in Haiti and this has caused problems for the DR.
Cover-ups in the past have included the DR as a scapegoat so I feel this time I would not be surprised history repeating it'self.
Chris said:
Chris;
Thank you VERY MUCH!
My Grandfather AND my Father hammered into my very dense Texas skull the fact that one is not ALWAYS completely correct in their individual interpretations of events. Later in life I came to that same conclusion.
While we may hold fast to a set of values, it doesn't mean that those values are viewed in the same light by others who may march to a different drummer. That is what makes life so interesting.
Many accuse me of meandering, Perhaps I do to a degree, but that's the way my mind works. When we view ALL the facts, we are often led to conclude that perhaps we have been mistaken in our interpretations and must, in all honesty, correct that occurrance in our minds.
I don't like "fence-sitting", but sometimes it's the best way until ALL the facts are present and real logic can be applied. Unfortunately, my "Irish/Texan" stubbornness gets in the way of my logic. Then it becomes difficult for me to change my mind; especially in light of an attack. I tend to defend with counter-attack.
Texas Bill
ltsnyder said:
Lee, that is a slur that I heartily resent! How dare you infer that I don't care what the truth is! If you were in sight I'd attack you physically! In future don't get in my road else you'll suffer the consequencies.
Texas Bill
Porfio_Rubirosa said:
Porfi, you can throw it back at me all you wish. I have never said that I am UNWILLING to OPENLY discuss anything about US Foreign Policy, nor would I take umbrage because I am an ex-soldier. Those are your inferences, not mine. You have a habit of quoting out of context to prove your point. That is a good debate tool until it backfires, which it has here. I truly try to maintain an open mind, but sometimes I just can't stomach the inferences you make. It's just that simple. You make statements that are born of your own mind and expect me to accept them. I'll have to use one of Tony's phrases and say "Prove it" to many of your spewings of late.
I don't deny that the US has fostered some very strong discontent about it's intentions in the "South of the Border" countries. I must add that such has been brought about by the circumstances within those countries however. The US has reacted to what it considers a threat and rightfully so. Any country has that right of self-defence. The machinations of two-bit political figures bent on total power within a country, not-withstanding. And don't deny you know the circumstances I'm refering to, past and present.
You claim to be a surporter of "Democracy" in your comments, yet you support (or evidently so) just the opposite when light is shown on the underlying meaning of your statements.
Now, I don't support ALL my country's policies. Neither do you, so where do you come from by denegrating the efforts of another. It seems like you are the pot calling the kettle black and that's hipocritical to say the least.
Viewing the manner in which the DR conducts it's business (the Senate doing what it does in light of the already insurmountable public debt) I really don't think you can describe the DR as being a true democracy. No democratic government would so completely ignore the strife imposed by your Senate upon their constituancy.
So, my friend, mend your own house before you start to tear down your neighbor's.
Texas Bill
Texas Bill you can't mix physical attacks with any disscussion
If you can't take a tounge and cheek jab at you, again you should really step out of the argument. I'll only be a matter of time till that person on the internet is near you physically and then only you can lose in a situation like that.
-Lee
NOTE: Bill when you get upset quickly you are only depriving yourself of an open discussion, did you bother to review my links? Also when you hear others batting about the term Liberal maybe you should intervein and clear state that is also wrong and you will physically attack them also. But of course this isn't about moral justice is it? At this point I can see there is no real search for the truth here.
-Lee
Texas Bill said:
If you can't take a tounge and cheek jab at you, again you should really step out of the argument. I'll only be a matter of time till that person on the internet is near you physically and then only you can lose in a situation like that.
-Lee
NOTE: Bill when you get upset quickly you are only depriving yourself of an open discussion, did you bother to review my links? Also when you hear others batting about the term Liberal maybe you should intervein and clear state that is also wrong and you will physically attack them also. But of course this isn't about moral justice is it? At this point I can see there is no real search for the truth here.
-Lee
ltsnyder said:
Lee;
What I resented was your remark that i don't care what the truth is!
And I don't believe you when you say it was a tounge in cheek remark. It sounded like a direct insult. Review that remark you made in the context it was made in and I think you'll see the cause of my anger and response.
If you don't want people to fly in your face, don't be so free with apparent insulting/denegrating remarks in your responses.
How would you feel if I started responding to you in kind. I'll bet you would take umbrage also.
Keep the responses clean and to the point and we will have no problem discussing things on an intellectual level.
Issue forth with snide, derrogatory and insulting inferences and I'll come back the same way. There is no future in those kind of exchanges.
That we don't agree on many subjects is self evident, but I haven't issued a response yet which justifies your inferences as to my character or integrity.
If you don't fully understand some of my responses, don't try to second guess me; ask me to be more definitive and/or give a clearer explanation and I'll be happy to do so.
I'll leave it at that and see what develops in the future.
In the meantime, let's get this thread back on track and confine future direct communications to either email and/or PM's. I'm sure the others here aren't interested in our personal problems with each other.
Texas Bill
Texas Bill said:
Look, there are two ways to enter discourse. One is to take a side, defend that side, and attack any challenges to it. Truth is irrelevant. The job is to win. This, I think, is what Tony C. and LT do when they enter a thread.
The other is to seek truth - to welcome challenges, learn from them, and revise your view of the truth as you see it.
Texas Bill said:
1. Please explain where I was inconsistent or anti-democracy?
2. The statement that you don't support all of your country's policies is contradicted by the first quote above. Do you care to correct same?
Porfi;
I see no need to correct my statement of "right or wrong"!
While I may not agree, while I may find fault with policy, while I may not completely support a political stance, I will nevertheless support my country BECAUSE IT IS MY COUNTRY and I'll defend it against all who would attempt to tear it down or overthrow it. You infer patriotism, but fall short of recognizing it in others, so don't denigrate ME for being so.
If I don't like what I see in MY government, I'll work within the system to change it. That I might want a change doesn't mean that I won't support my country in time of need and.or conflict.
That's what "My country, right or wrong, My country" really means and I see NO inconsistency existing unless you take it out of context and refuse to see it as intended.
And I really prefer your solution of seeking the "truth" in a debate, rather than using a shotgun method to garner reactions which are later attacked out of context and are irrelevant. One should, in a true debate, always strive to be accurate in references and quotes. Not directed at you fully, but I see a lot of bad(meaning not fully acceptable and/or reliable/controvercial) references in these debates.
If you can't understand that, then I really feel sorry for you.
Texas Bill
I see no need to correct my statement of "right or wrong"!
While I may not agree, while I may find fault with policy, while I may not completely support a political stance, I will nevertheless support my country BECAUSE IT IS MY COUNTRY and I'll defend it against all who would attempt to tear it down or overthrow it. You infer patriotism, but fall short of recognizing it in others, so don't denigrate ME for being so.
If I don't like what I see in MY government, I'll work within the system to change it. That I might want a change doesn't mean that I won't support my country in time of need and.or conflict.
That's what "My country, right or wrong, My country" really means and I see NO inconsistency existing unless you take it out of context and refuse to see it as intended.
And I really prefer your solution of seeking the "truth" in a debate, rather than using a shotgun method to garner reactions which are later attacked out of context and are irrelevant. One should, in a true debate, always strive to be accurate in references and quotes. Not directed at you fully, but I see a lot of bad(meaning not fully acceptable and/or reliable/controvercial) references in these debates.
If you can't understand that, then I really feel sorry for you.
Texas Bill
Last edited:
Porfio_Rubirosa said:
It is you who has avoided the truth. ALl you have done is spouted of conspriacy theories and baseless allegations. Again I ask:
SHOW ME PROOF!!!!
- Status