n***@gmail.com
2012-06-30 06:59:28 UTC
Another one of the excelent articles from: http://www.fpri.org/
tells:---
claim that the US 'deliberately kept Haiti back'.
The appearance and behaviour of Haitians and the
new-South-Africa natives is apparently identical.
Which is not surprising. Like if you compare the behavior
of a cat in Paris with a cat in San Francisco: it's the same
because it's genetically determined.
This fpri article gives some insight to the leftist's simplistic
claim that <US just invaded Iraqu to get their oil>.
How long before the 'invasion' was the Iraqui invasion
of Kuwait and the 'no-fly-restrictions' ?
Or that <the US just wants to get hold of the Afghan oil>.
Have they got oil?
Re. the current global economic crisis: has anyone mentioned
how, as a confidence booster after 9/11, Bush advised his
population to, "go out and shop". Get it?
And I have no doubt that Clinton promoted the popularist
idea of home OWNERSHIP for all including unqualified
applicants. And importantly legislated the banning of
market discipline from refusing loans to unqualified
applicants.
tells:---
In July 1915, the President of Haiti, Vilbrun Guillaume Sam,
was cowering in the bathroom at the French legation in Port-
au-Prince when the mob arrived. Led by men dressed in black
funeral frocks, who had just buried their children, murdered
by the regime, the crowd hauled Sam from the bathroom,
dragged him through the streets, and cut him to pieces with
machetes. The grisly spectacle followed seven years of near-
anarchy in Haiti, and prompted the United States to
intervene and try to stabilize the country.
As the Haitian case illustrates, during the early twentieth
century, the U.S. military spent most of its time dealing
with Lilliputians -or Caribbean and Latin American states that
were seen as too weak. In his 1904 corollary to the Monroe
Doctrine, Theodore Roosevelt declared Washington's right to
intervene in chaos-ridden countries in the hemisphere. In
the following decades, there were over two-dozen American
nation-building missions known as the `banana wars.'
.....
These operations followed a similar pattern. Fraudulent
elections and the specter of civil war prompted the United
States to send in the Marines. As Washington saw it, a
stable, secure, and democratic region would promote U.S.
interests and values, protect the Panama Canal, and expunge
foreign -especially European -influence. The aim, as Woodrow
Wilson paternalistically put it, was to 'teach the South
American Republics to elect good men.'[1]
......
Interestingly, Americans dramatically altered their view of
failed states over the last century even when the countries
themselves did not change. Haiti has been beset by problems
since it gained independence in 1804. An ordinary Haitian
might not understand why, during the twentieth century, the
United States became suddenly concerned about the stability
of Haiti, then lost interest, and then became worried again.
Similarly, an ordinary Afghan might not comprehend why
Washington, in turn, destabilized Afghanistan in the 1980s,
ignored the country, began a major nation-building mission
costing billions of dollars -and may soon rethink the value
of Afghan stability based on whether the United States or
China benefits more.
The waxing and waning of great power rivals has always
shaped the American view of failed states. As China rises,
Gulliver will view the Lilliputian threat through the
Brobdingnagian lens.
The leftists, including the well-known linguist Chomskywas cowering in the bathroom at the French legation in Port-
au-Prince when the mob arrived. Led by men dressed in black
funeral frocks, who had just buried their children, murdered
by the regime, the crowd hauled Sam from the bathroom,
dragged him through the streets, and cut him to pieces with
machetes. The grisly spectacle followed seven years of near-
anarchy in Haiti, and prompted the United States to
intervene and try to stabilize the country.
As the Haitian case illustrates, during the early twentieth
century, the U.S. military spent most of its time dealing
with Lilliputians -or Caribbean and Latin American states that
were seen as too weak. In his 1904 corollary to the Monroe
Doctrine, Theodore Roosevelt declared Washington's right to
intervene in chaos-ridden countries in the hemisphere. In
the following decades, there were over two-dozen American
nation-building missions known as the `banana wars.'
.....
These operations followed a similar pattern. Fraudulent
elections and the specter of civil war prompted the United
States to send in the Marines. As Washington saw it, a
stable, secure, and democratic region would promote U.S.
interests and values, protect the Panama Canal, and expunge
foreign -especially European -influence. The aim, as Woodrow
Wilson paternalistically put it, was to 'teach the South
American Republics to elect good men.'[1]
......
Interestingly, Americans dramatically altered their view of
failed states over the last century even when the countries
themselves did not change. Haiti has been beset by problems
since it gained independence in 1804. An ordinary Haitian
might not understand why, during the twentieth century, the
United States became suddenly concerned about the stability
of Haiti, then lost interest, and then became worried again.
Similarly, an ordinary Afghan might not comprehend why
Washington, in turn, destabilized Afghanistan in the 1980s,
ignored the country, began a major nation-building mission
costing billions of dollars -and may soon rethink the value
of Afghan stability based on whether the United States or
China benefits more.
The waxing and waning of great power rivals has always
shaped the American view of failed states. As China rises,
Gulliver will view the Lilliputian threat through the
Brobdingnagian lens.
claim that the US 'deliberately kept Haiti back'.
The appearance and behaviour of Haitians and the
new-South-Africa natives is apparently identical.
Which is not surprising. Like if you compare the behavior
of a cat in Paris with a cat in San Francisco: it's the same
because it's genetically determined.
This fpri article gives some insight to the leftist's simplistic
claim that <US just invaded Iraqu to get their oil>.
How long before the 'invasion' was the Iraqui invasion
of Kuwait and the 'no-fly-restrictions' ?
Or that <the US just wants to get hold of the Afghan oil>.
Have they got oil?
Re. the current global economic crisis: has anyone mentioned
how, as a confidence booster after 9/11, Bush advised his
population to, "go out and shop". Get it?
And I have no doubt that Clinton promoted the popularist
idea of home OWNERSHIP for all including unqualified
applicants. And importantly legislated the banning of
market discipline from refusing loans to unqualified
applicants.