14910: Dorce: Re: 14817: Knowles: Re: 14793: Haitians Living Abroad (fwd)

[Bob Corbett <corbetre@webster.edu>]

From: LAKAT47@aol.com

In a message dated 2/14/03 6:31:02 AM Pacific Standard Time, Phil Knowles
<Phildk@prodigy.net> writes:

<< If "embargo" means withholding $500 million in international loans, then a
 word other than "embargo" might be better. It is true that the US
 government, right or wrong, fears that money turned over to the present
 Haitian government tends to buy more fancy (gas-guzzling) SUV's and
 disappear into unknown pockets rather than combat the "further deterioration
 of already fragile social services and infrastructure." >>
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Merrriam-Webster Dictionary has the following definition of embargo as the
3rd usage: 3 : <A HREF="aol://4344:1708.D0067786.40175823.672606057">STOPPAGE
</A>, <A HREF="aol://4344:1708.D0034418.40142452.672503128">IMPEDIMENT</A>;
especially : <A HREF="aol://4344:1708.D0054676.40162710.672503632">PROHIBITION
</A> embargo on anybody's words —Jane Austen>

So I think the word embargo is proper in the context in which it was used.
And it is a red herring that the US government believes any monies given to
the GOH will disappear in pockets or gas guzzlers.  If that were true, why
would they have funded Duvalier without reservation when they knew the money
wouldn't go to the country but his private account?  This embargo is to take
down a president.  These people have an agenda and will use any means
necessary to get the job done.  It's immoral and unethical.  They have no
problem with this.  I wish the American people would.

Kathy Dorce~