[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
6468: Re: 6456: Re: Re: Simplification of history, etc. (fwd)
From: Greg and Susan Bryant <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Mark, I wish I'd written more carefully, and I wish you'd read more carefully:
>you say that the US is opposed to Aristide, even to
>using the CIA to control FRAPH, and in this paragraph, you say the US is
>"opposes any and all alternatives to JBA"........this is completely
Of course it is. That was a typo. Sorry! I meant "supports any and all
alternatives to JBA." Even so, I would have thought there was plenty of
context to anchor that.
>> I want to know if it's safe to say that the U.S., while certainly not
>> monolithic, is hostile to JBA in its foreign policy? *************what IS
>his foreign policy?
"Its," not "his." I'm talking US policy, not JBA's. Read again.
>are you saying that US
>policy is, in any way, determined by how it will effect Haiti? could you
>please explain this to me? you are implying that US policy is somehow
>related to either helping or hurting Haiti............where did you get this
I didn't, you did. I said "Can we validly observe, at least, that the U.S.
pursues a consistent and deliberate foreign policy in favor of whatever
factions will support the interests of American-based corporations, with
less regard to what benefits the economic well-being of the vast majority
of Haitians, and with no regard to which leaders the Haitians themselves
have democratically chosen?"
I think that means the US seems to me to look out for its own interests,
and Haiti and its democracy be danged. Well, *sure* I'm naive. I grew up in
the sticks. Get used to it. Besides, I wasn't agruing with you
specifically. I was responding to some guy who said it was a ridiculous
leap of faith to believe the US could have helped overthrow Aristide. Do
you, or do you not, have a problem with that assumption? What I was trying
to do was ground myself in a few fairly reliable provisional premises.
>********the CIA gets its political direction
>from "above"........in that it is supposed to be an "independent agency",
>which means it is not responsible to a Secretary of a Department, such as
>State or Defense.........there has been an on-going battle as to how the CIA
>can be held accountable............the idea that US policy was to have the
>CIA used to "provide" an alternative to Aristide thru FRAPH is the talk of
>silly journalists (this includes almost all that we hear of).
You know, I'm sorry, but this doesn't really clear things up for me as much
as you probably hope it does.
>you have had 8 years of Clinton, who is a
>Leftist.........i mean, what do you want?
Irony doesn't always survive in print very well. This *is* irony, isn't it?
>********gosh and gosh and gee
>whiz..............you want all things to change just because Aristide was
>chosen "freely and in democratic fashion"? you want the windmill of Don
>Quixote to slow down a tad? hmmmm.........US policy should suddenly
>change, and move away from "US strategic interests", and somehow, this will
>change the plight of the life of the "average Haitian"..........?? are you
>My God........all things depend on the US?
Mark, you're angry about something, but I'm danged if I can tell exactly
what. I get the feeling you disagree with me, but I'm not even persuaded
you understood what I wrote. Certainly could be my fault. Try going back
and reading it again.
And how about cutting the sarcasm about 50%? That would still give you
plenty of room to vent.