Haiti rocked by devastating 7.0 earthquake

[cecilia]

Robertson bases his comments on these events in Haiti's history.

Robertson bases his comments on his being a {bleep} asshole, inhuman, unfeeling piece of shit

period

he's done it before and he will do it again until his decaying revolting body finally and fortunately expires.

which can't happen soon enough

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

[youtube:37gt8qv3]bj3L5J36NiM[/youtube:37gt8qv3]

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

Like I said in another thread, the US has sent an invasion force of 10,000 troops to "help the Haitians". They've taken control of the airport (yipee) and they would take over the ministry for oil if there was one.

Meanwhile, Iceland got people helping on the ground before the US did and the US is right next door.

Blackwater before drinking water

 

[faethor]

Paul Bunyon is considered a folklore tall tale, but to Hatian's the Voodoo pact with the devil is historical, it's their Declaration of Independence.

Voodoo has nothing to do with the devil. It's white and black magic. Petwo is more associated with black magic. While some might see evil in Petwo it can also do positive things. The devil is not part of Voodoo.

There's little to nothing to prove this story's historical accuracy. To keep the 'religious source' in the discussion here's another version from Baptist Press. LINK This is part 2. Part 1 is a link at the top. I'm not a Hatian expert but knew enough to know that Robertson's version was wrong.

And George Washington cut down a cherry tree and couldn't lie about it.

 

[redrumloa]

Like I said in another thread, the US has sent an invasion force of 10,000 troops to "help the Haitians". They've taken control of the airport (yipee) and they would take over the ministry for oil if there was one.

Come now fluffy, you don't really think the US has any nefarious intentions sending troops to fricken Haiti? Do you? That place has nothing of value to pillage.

 

[faethor]

If you’re trying to divine, the divine will, by tracing a cause-and-effect between certain historical events, how do you know which events to select?

Robertson is of course divinely inspired to the "True word of God"(tm). So this is not a problem. He knows that 1791 a true pack with Satan took place. (Historical fact don't you know.) God waited his time ~217 years to punish the 7th generation Grandchildren. " Gosh, we're all really impressed down here I can tell you"

 

[Glaucus]

Like I said in another thread, the US has sent an invasion force of 10,000 troops to "help the Haitians". They've taken control of the airport (yipee) and they would take over the ministry for oil if there was one.

Meanwhile, Iceland got people helping on the ground before the US did and the US is right next door.

Blackwater before drinking water

To be fair, the US is so far doing a pretty good job of coordinating things in Haiti. Not sure if Iceland beat them to Haiti with a rescue team, but small individual rescue teams can do only so much, and without hospitals even less. We're not talking about a few collapsed buildings here, we're talking about a collapsed nation. The US is mounting a massive relief effort that no other nation could bring to Haiti in the same time frame. And big things don't move fast.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

Come now fluffy, you don't really think the US has any nefarious intentions sending troops to fricken Haiti? Do you? That place has nothing of value to pillage.

If the Chinese sent 10,000 troops to Florida after a hurricane, would you accept their claims that they are just helping out at face value. How about the Russians?

Now, if the only way the US has of responding to a crisis is with the military then maybe they are not spending enough money on non-military solutions. It's as if the US toolkit is full of hammers, and really expensive hitech hammers too, yet when the only tool you have is a hammer then every problem looks like a nail.

As to what they have of value to pillage, it is true that they have already been highly pillaged by the French and by the US but they still have a cheap exploitable labour force and tropical fruit raising ability. The US views Haiti as its own property as if regards all of the Caribbean and South America.

The US had taken its eye off the region under Bush but they are re-militarizing SA and the Caribbean where they have allies and taking this opportunity to land a force on Haiti "peacefully" would be hard for them to pass up.

 

[redrumloa]

If the Chinese sent 10,000 troops to Florida after a hurricane, would you accept their claims that they are just helping out at face value. How about the Russians?

You completely missed or ignored the fact that Haiti is in ruins, the government is left essentially nonexistent and the Haitian President begged the US to help. After natural disasters the US sends troops, it is just the way it is. Is it the perfect solution? Far from it, but who what other organization can mobilize 10s of thousands of people in days? I lived through Hurricane Andrew in 1992, which saw troops in South Florida. We don't need more fruit laborers, that's why the US democratic party looks the other way with illegal immigrants from Mexico. We have an unlimited supply of willing sub-minimum wage laborers. Take the tinfoil hat off for just a little bit.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

If the Chinese sent 10,000 troops to Florida after a hurricane, would you accept their claims that they are just helping out at face value. How about the Russians?

You completely missed or ignored the fact that Haiti is in ruins, the government is left essentially nonexistent and the Haitian President begged the US to help.

The Afghan government begged for the USSR to send troops back in the 80s for much the same reason - no, not disaster - the Afghan government was a Soviet proxy looking after Soviet interests.

The President of Haiti, Aristide, got a one way airplane trip out of the country courtesy of the CIA. That's the sort of thing that happens to the "wrong" governments in the US sphere of influence. If they don't agree to sell out their countries and people then "things" happen.

We don't need more fruit laborers, that's why the US democratic party looks the other way with illegal immigrants from Mexico. We have an unlimited supply of willing sub-minimum wage laborers.

The US has an appetite much larger than the supply. That's why they hang onto places like Samoa where they can have virtually all the benefits of home soil without having to worry about human rights or fair wages or anything else.

Take the tinfoil hat off for just a little bit.

It's not tin foil, it's business. When the Don does you a favour you owe him.

 

[faethor]

We don't need more fruit laborers, that's why the US democratic party looks the other way with illegal immigrants from Mexico

It's not only the Democrats. The greatest Republican ever Ronnie Reagan gave Amnestey to the immigrants.

 

[Glaucus]

Come now fluffy, you don't really think the US has any nefarious intentions sending troops to fricken Haiti? Do you? That place has nothing of value to pillage.

If the Chinese sent 10,000 troops to Florida after a hurricane, would you accept their claims that they are just helping out at face value. How about the Russians?

Poor analogy. Russia - US relations have always been frosty, to put it nicely. Haita and the US never pointed nukes at each other. And although the US and china have decent relations, there are still tensions that go back. US - Haiti relations on the other hand are neutral more or less. If the US had no government and no military and was damaged so badly that they could not manage to the point where millions of people would die, I'm guessing foreign aid would probably be welcome even if it did bruise their ego immensely.

Now, if the only way the US has of responding to a crisis is with the military then maybe they are not spending enough money on non-military solutions. It's as if the US toolkit is full of hammers, and really expensive hitech hammers too, yet when the only tool you have is a hammer then every problem looks like a nail.

You may have a point about non-military emergency aid. However, I really don't expect nations to keep a non-military rescue team big enough to bail out an entire nation. Rescue teams are typically small (small enough to fit in a plane or chopper). As such, the military can be used as they're also trained in similar activities. This is why most nations have sent military units, not just the US. Canada for instance, not an overly militarized nation, is sending it's military to aid in Haiti. In the flood of '97 here in Winnipeg the Canadian military brought troops (complete with armored vehicles) to help with sand bagging. The first field hospital set up in Haiti: An Argentine medical hospital. Should they have held back until a non-military one was found? Or are military units OK so long as they're not sent by the US?

As to what they have of value to pillage, it is true that they have already been highly pillaged by the French and by the US but they still have a cheap exploitable labour force and tropical fruit raising ability. The US views Haiti as its own property as if regards all of the Caribbean and South America.

Perhaps, but I doubt it. I would have said something more along the lines of important strategic value to place pressure on other nations, but even that is doubtful. Overall, the price tag to occupying Haiti with all it's problems is likely to greatly outweigh what ever benefit it brings. I think equally possible is that the US wants to help Haiti so that America can finally feel good about something. It's been a while since they've had a foreign policy success story, Haiti could be it.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

If the Chinese sent 10,000 troops to Florida after a hurricane, would you accept their claims that they are just helping out at face value. How about the Russians?

Poor analogy.

In that one should be suspicious of the intent of foreign armies on your soil, considering what armies are for? No.

In that the US and Haiti are not rivals? Well, of course. The US chooses their governments for them so they are bound to be cooperative. If they fail to cooperate they get replaced.

military units OK so long as they're not sent by the US?

All NATO forces are US forces. NATO is a US power projection alliance.

[quote:3efoappx] The US views Haiti as its own property as if regards all of the Caribbean and South America.

Perhaps, but I doubt it.[/quote:3efoappx]

It's been policy for over a century. I don't think Obama has the power to bring that much "change".

Overall, the price tag to occupying Haiti with all it's problems is likely to greatly outweigh what ever benefit it brings.

Price to whom, benefits to whom? If a junky chucks a sparkplug though my window to rip the radio from my dash and pawn it for ten bucks then he doesn't have to care that I have to pay several hundred for a new window and my insurance company has to pay the rest for the window, radio and dash damage, nor does he have to care that my premiums go up.

While the other parties are out of pocket hundreds of dollars he's got ten bucks for doing almost nothing.

US operations in Panama cost the taxpayer a bunch of money but United Fruit made out like bandits. The oil companies FAILED to make out like bandits in Iraq, but they thought they would. They didn't pay for that war though because the good old taxpayer was there to pony up the trillion bucks (and the peasant blood).

The rich make the wars and profit if they win. Either way, win or lose, the poor pay.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

How it's done.
[youtube:65go26t9]s_gs7f-o2Ec[/youtube:65go26t9]

 

[redrumloa]

So Fluffy, the US government should just let the Hatians die?

 

[faethor]

So Fluffy, the US government should just let the Hatians die?

If the Republicans have taught us anything it's the most frightening words are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help." The government can't possibly provide healthcare due to their incompetence. Haiti needs lots of healthcare. The government messed up Katrina. This is another issue with a large scope. Government just doesn't work. Of course we shouldn't help because it only makes the Haitians dependent on us. They need to pull themselves up by their boot straps. I'll stop with the Republican talking points lest this is a long post. Net the government can't do anything right. They'll only make the problems worse. Clearly less will die is the US is not involved.

 

[faethor]

Satan responds to Robertson

 

[Glaucus]

If the Chinese sent 10,000 troops to Florida after a hurricane, would you accept their claims that they are just helping out at face value. How about the Russians?

Poor analogy.

In that one should be suspicious of the intent of foreign armies on your soil, considering what armies are for? No.

In that the US and Haiti are not rivals? Well, of course. The US chooses their governments for them so they are bound to be cooperative. If they fail to cooperate they get replaced.

I think your undermining your own arguments here. If the US owns Haiti already, why send in an invasion force? However, if they are invading, that means they don't already own Haiti. So which is it?

[quote:h5rxklus]
military units OK so long as they're not sent by the US?

All NATO forces are US forces. NATO is a US power projection alliance.[/quote:h5rxklus]Argentina is part of NATO now? that's news to me.

[quote:h5rxklus] The US views Haiti as its own property as if regards all of the Caribbean and South America.

Perhaps, but I doubt it.[/quote:h5rxklus]

It's been policy for over a century. I don't think Obama has the power to bring that much "change".[/quote]Sure, but my response of "I doubt it" referred mostly to the idea that the US wants Haiti for fruit picking and stuff. And let me elaborate on that: If the US already owns Haiti as you claim, do US companies not already do business there? You telling me DuPont isn't in Haiti and thanks to this horrible earth quake they will weasel their way in? I'm gonna need some convincing on that.

I'll have to reply to the rest later. My girl friend just called me to tell me her car ran out of gas (again) and I need to rush home to pick up the jerry can... :roll:

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

I think your undermining your own arguments here. If the US owns Haiti already, why send in an invasion force? However, if they are invading, that means they don't already own Haiti. So which is it?

To remind them who owns them, of course. You know how these puppets sometimes think that they can do things there own way. Saddam, Noriega, etc.

Plus, it's not just about putting troops in Haiti, it's about putting them in the Caribbean. Just putting 10,000 troops somewhere can meet with resistance no matter what the executive relationship is. You still have to deal with the chattel.

[quote:3pr3ulr9]
All NATO forces are US forces. NATO is a US power projection alliance.

Argentina is part of NATO now? that's news to me.[/quote:3pr3ulr9]

Sorry, read past the fact that the Argentinian medical hospital was a military medical hospital. Nonetheless, the point stands - and while Argentina is not a member of NATO they are what the US terms a major non-NATO ally. (Argentina was even part of the NATO forces in Bosnia).

... but my response of "I doubt it" referred mostly to the idea that the US wants Haiti for fruit picking and stuff. And let me elaborate on that: If the US already owns Haiti as you claim, do US companies not already do business there? You telling me DuPont isn't in Haiti and thanks to this horrible earth quake they will weasel their way in? I'm gonna need some convincing on that.

Haiti was a French plantation. They hated losing the place because they made a good income from it, and while they were not able to take it back, they did manage to harass them into paying compensation to France for the lost income. Haiti had to pay France 90 million Francs (which is apparently worth about 21 billion USD in today's money) which they had to borrow from French banks and pay back with interest. I.e. instead of directly occupying them and ruling as regular slaves, them they ruled them as debt slaves. This way they were able to think of themselves as free without actually being free. America does the same thing today through direct loans and through the IMF. It is why Haiti doesn't have enough income to build proper housing. It's also quite similar to what Britain has recently attempted to do to Iceland except that the people have managed to persuade the president not to guarantee the icesave debt.

Debt slavery eventually makes people grumpy once they realize that they are working hard and making money but keeping none of it. The other thing that makes people grumpy is economic liberalization which allows foreign companies to hire workers for next to nothing in bad conditions until workers realize that they aren't only not keeping their money, they aren't even making any anymore.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

I think your undermining your own arguments here. If the US owns Haiti already, why send in an invasion force? However, if they are invading, that means they don't already own Haiti. So which is it?

To remind them who owns them, of course. You know how these puppets sometimes think that they can do things there own way. Saddam, Noriega, etc.

Plus, it's not just about putting troops in Haiti, it's about putting them in the Caribbean. Just putting 10,000 troops somewhere can meet with resistance no matter what the executive relationship is. You still have to deal with the chattel.

[quote:qtpprjfr]
All NATO forces are US forces. NATO is a US power projection alliance.

Argentina is part of NATO now? that's news to me.[/quote:qtpprjfr]

Sorry, read past the fact that the Argentinian medical hospital was a military medical hospital. Nonetheless, the point stands - and while Argentina is not a member of NATO they are what the US terms a major non-NATO ally. (Argentina was even part of the NATO forces in Bosnia).

... but my response of "I doubt it" referred mostly to the idea that the US wants Haiti for fruit picking and stuff. And let me elaborate on that: If the US already owns Haiti as you claim, do US companies not already do business there? You telling me DuPont isn't in Haiti and thanks to this horrible earth quake they will weasel their way in? I'm gonna need some convincing on that.

Haiti was a French plantation. They hated losing the place because they made a good income from it, and while they were not able to take it back, they did manage to harass them into paying compensation to France for the lost income. Haiti had to pay France 90 million Francs (which is apparently worth about 21 billion USD in today's money and which is more money than the French sold Louisiana to the Americans for) which they had to borrow from French banks and pay back with interest. I.e. instead of directly occupying them and ruling as regular slaves, them they ruled them as debt slaves. This way they were able to think of themselves as free without actually being free. America does the same thing today through direct loans and through the IMF. It is why Haiti doesn't have enough income to build proper housing. It's also quite similar to what Britain has recently attempted to do to Iceland except that the people have managed to persuade the president not to guarantee the icesave debt.

Debt slavery eventually makes people grumpy once they realize that they are working hard and making money but keeping none of it. The other thing that makes people grumpy is economic liberalization which allows foreign companies to hire workers for next to nothing in bad conditions until workers realize that they aren't only not keeping their money, they aren't even making any anymore.