.
I will say that the main thrust of the US Foreign Policy since the end of WWII has been ANTI-BULLYISM by a nation or coalition of nations. The US hasn't always had the support of the international community in that endeavor, but has remained steadfast, never-the-less.
Now, if you don't agree, then you must disagree with the concept of clipping the wings of bullies and terriorists by whatever means present themselves.
end of quote
------------------------------------------------- So was the American invasion of DR, Haiti, and Grenada anti-bullism? I am a pro-American Canadian but it would be a stretch to call any of those actions anything but what they were, and it certainly wasn't anti-bullyism or anti-terrorism.
Except for the Haiti incident, the invasion of Grenada in the 80's and theDr in the 60's were synonimous with Frontier Protection against the enchroachment of the Communism movement beyond the Cuban sphere of influence. It's just that simple. Of course you can read almost anything into those two movements that you wish, but the facts remain the same. The Dominican intrusion was to nip in the bud a serious Communist threat which the US wanted to keep contained to the Cuban Islands where they could be better controled. the same philosophy applies to the Grenada intrusion.
I use the term "intrusion" to differentiate any intent on the part of the US to establish permanance to the act engaged in. Many people today deal in semantics so I just thought I'd add my two-cents worth into the equation.
Essentially, the US was saying, What you area doing is a No-No andwe aren'tgoing to stand idly by and allow you to establish a Communist government anyplace else in the Caribbean. That's it in a nutshell. If you interpret History any differently, that's your prerogative, but you'll be WRONG.
As to the Haitian intrusion, the country was in severe internal turmoil and virtually in a civil war when the US stepped in and escorted Aristides out of the Country to a place of personal safety.
At the time the excuse was to protect his physical person. The true reasons have yet to be determined by History, but I would imagine there was more to the act than meets the eye at first glance. In retrospect, it was the best thing to happen, regardless of the reasons. The country still hasn't regained it's equalibrium, financially or politically, so whose fault is it really. I don't think that shoe fits the foot of the USA, since there were plenty of other countries in the UN mix of forces present.The Haitians are still where they were, a failed state, before Aristides was toppled by the opposition in country. The fact that there were nefarious elements who moved in to fill the political void was a common occurance as always in similar circumstances.
In a nutshell, you have your opinions regarding the real intentions of the US by the actions they took and I have mine which are based on historical fact and understanding of the forces which drive nation interests in the international arena. These forces are far more complicated than the average citizen has the background to interpret qualitatively, thus they are led to make the determinations based purely on emotions and news reports which ate frequently misleading depending on the agency doing the reporting.
Take it all with a grain of salt and don't jump to conclusions without checking the sources VERY CAREFULLY.
Texas Bill
