14481: Sanba: Re:14460: Vishnusurf: Re: 14451: Sanba: Re:14443: Anonymous: Re: 14438: Vishnusurf: Re: 14434... (fwd)

[Bob Corbett <corbetre@webster.edu>]

From: sanba@juno.com

Allow me not to understand that you assert what I said is conjectural, and at the same time you are asking me for solid or material proof of it, even before you say whether or not you disagree with my initial statement over the situation I was qualifying as conjectural, viz: because it (bribing demonstrators) happened in France then, does not mean by any measure, that it is happening today in Port-au-Prince. I suggest that you clarify your opinion on that first, before you can go and see whether or not I am myself guilty of inconsistency.
By the way, speaking of Convergence I am not talking about the individuals, some of them I cannot forget they have put their life on line for the good cause, as you mention. However the more they did, the more confusing their new alliances, they formed willingly, whithout being pressured by any external forces.
IRI has at best lured them into such dangerous type of alliance. They know or should know whose political arm is IRI. We are talking of more than ties, here. Had Convergence willingly associate its future with IRI, it was looking for getting badly splashed and being hostage. IRI would not fail to put its mark on the whole Convergence.
Wasn't that IRI very active in this opposition formation in Haiti? Right in the face of Lavalas being though accused of dictatorship by some extension or torsion of sense? Are we going to believe then that IRI did all that for the sake of real democracy, meaning in Haiti, the will of the majority pro-Lavalas that IRI simply hates? Believing that is calling in question the very existence and meaning of globalization along with the low intensity warfare similar to the one taking place in Venezuela where IRI has been very active, by the way.
The Convergentists may resent the observation, but in all respect, the most they can count on is some mitigating circumstances, or even some reasonable doubt due to their record, and the clear-mindedness of people of my ilk (whatever that means) who adore peace, progress and fairness.
The bottom line is that we are yet to answer Dessalines’ question:
“What about our brothers whose ancestors are in Africa? Should they go without land?” Who else than the lecturers in Convergence can conduct a better research on that, we are yet to get? Why?