[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

#1794: U.S. plot theory : Knowles questions Driver (fwd)

From: Phil Knowles <Phildk@prodigy.net>

from Tom Driver's post:

  "....And the reason is that the U.S. Government has, in the century just
past, spent an enormous amount of
time, energy, and money attending to Haiti.  That includes two military
invasions and occupations, just for starters.  Repeatedly, the U.S. has
to thwart the aims of popular movements, none of which could be regarded
as Communistic....."

Is Tom suggesting that the 1994 military intervention was made "to thwart a
popular movement"?

Since Cedras was in power (coup) and Aristede (elected) was in Washington,
since thousands were being raped and murdered in Haiti by the (Haitian)
army, since hundreds, no thousands of Haitians were fleeing by
boat and raft, what "popular movement" were we thwarting by
intervening?  Was it wrong to  expel Cedras, restore order and bring
Aristede back to the Presidency?

We can debate how much of the US intervention was altruistic and how much
was to staunch the flow of Haitians, and we can talk about the US dough it
apparently took to get Cedras to move out.  We can talk about "the guns",
that big issue as to whether the troops did enough to root out the guns held
by the thugs.......but if we should have stayed away and left Cedras in
power, I need an education.

Phil Knowles