Did the US remove Aristide from Haiti? - Darkforum.com - Dark Stories, Dark Art, Poetry, Photography, Debates and Discussions

Corporate Pig · **Did the US remove Aristide from Haiti? -** 03-06-04

while not forgeting Colin Powell's now infamous quote...

Quote:

"We will accept no outcome that is not consistent with the constitution. We will accept no outcome that in any way illegally attempts to remove the elected president of Haiti"

13 Feb, 2004
Refer: http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...toryID=4358232

stories are beginning to emerge, of an interesting tale...
'that the US forcibly removed Aristide from Power'..

Quote:

US faces mounting international fury over Aristide's 'forced' exit

By Andrew Gumbel
05 March 2004
Independant News.co.uk
Refer: http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...p?story=498045

South Africa added its voice last night to a growing international chorus questioning the circumstances surrounding Jean-Bertrand Aristide's departure from Haiti and demanded an investigation into allegations that the US forcibly removed a democratically elected president from office.

In a thinly veiled attack on the Bush administration, South Africa's Foreign Affairs Minister, Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma, said that if Mr Aristide had been prised from power against his will, it would have "serious consequences and ramifications for the respect of the rule of law and democracy the world over".

The issue, fuelled by direct accusations by Mr Aristide that he was, in effect, kidnapped and hustled into exile in the Central African Republic under conditions that he likened to imprisonment, has once again thrust a spotlight on the Bush administration's conduct of foreign policy and risks becoming a liability for President Bush as he begins his re-election campaign.

The Bush administration has denied kidnapping or forcing Mr Aristide from office at gunpoint, claiming he sought safe passage out of the country under US escort. But the appearance of at least some degree of coercion, has prompted angry responses from President Bush's domestic critics and some international bodies.

The 15-nation Caribbean Community, Caricom, has refused to contribute troops to the peace-keeping force taking up positions in Haiti. It called for an investigation into Mr Aristide's removal from power to be conducted by the United Nations or other similar international body.

Ms Zuma stood full-square behind the Caricom position. In a statement issued from Pretoria, she said: "South Africa stands ready to support all efforts by Caricom to help bring stability and security to Haiti."

South Africa was one of Mr Aristide's closest allies while he was in power, drawing criticism because of the Haitian government's deteriorating record on human rights, economic development and democracy.

The South African President, Thabo Mbeki, was one of the few world leaders to attend celebrations in Haiti on New Year's Day, to mark the 200th anniversary of its independence. And according to South African news reports, the country recently sent weapons, ammunition and bulletproof vests to help Mr Aristide defend himself against an armed rebellion led by former army commanders and paramilitary death squad leaders from the 1980s and early 1990s. But the shipment did not arrive before Mr Aristide's departure last weekend and its exact whereabouts are unknown.

South Africa has said it would offer Mr Aristide asylum if it was asked. The Central African Republic made a similar offer yesterday, but said it was in no position to pay for his upkeep in the long term.

Meanwhile, the Haitian consul general in New York has taken the position that Mr Aristide is still the country's legitimate president.

lazaruscorporat · 03-06-04

Quote:

Originally Posted by JLB

No, he resigned to avoid getting murdered by his own people. The US allowed him to escape.

Ah - it's always good to be reassured by the authoritative voice of someone who has access to the inner secrets of the Pentagon.

JLB - I hadn't realised you worked for the US military and were officially permitted to act as their mouthpiece.

RedHawk · 03-07-04

Quote:

Originally Posted by lazaruscorporat

Ah - it's always good to be reassured by the authoritative voice of someone who has access to the inner secrets of the Pentagon.

JLB - I hadn't realised you worked for the US military and were officially permitted to act as their mouthpiece.

Let me ask you this:

If we had just kept our nose out of it, calling it an internal affair-which it was/is, do you think Aristide would be alive today?

lazaruscorporat · 03-07-04

Quote:

Originally Posted by RedHawk

Let me ask you this:

If we had just kept our nose out of it, calling it an internal affair-which it was/is, do you think Aristide would be alive today?

But that completely avoids the issue of whether Aristide - a democractically elected leader of his country - was forcibly removed by US forces, which is what this thread is about. Please keep on topic.

RedHawk · 03-07-04

Quote:

Originally Posted by lazaruscorporat

But that completely avoids the issue of whether Aristide - a democractically elected leader of his country - was forcibly removed by US forces, which is what this thread is about. Please keep on topic.

Well I don't think there is any question about that--he wasn't.

He was told that we would escort him to a safe place in the world, and we did.

Besides that, who are to tell me what comments to make on tis, or any other subject? :asshole:

lazaruscorporat · 03-07-04

First you say he wasn't forcibly removed, then you admit that Aristide was simply told by the US that he was going to be "escorted" out of Haiti - he had no choice in the matter. That counts as his forcible removal, and shows Colin powell to be a liar when he said:

"We will accept no outcome that in any way illegally attempts to remove the elected president of Haiti"

So, should Colin Powell now resign since you and I both agree that he's lied, and that Aristide was forcibly removed?

BTW, I suggested you stay on topic because it's the rules of the board - threads that go off topic get closed by the mods. And I'd suggest you drop your name-calling smilies - we've already had 2 regulars here temporarily banned - I'm sure no one wants to make it 3.

RedHawk · 03-07-04

Quote:

Originally Posted by lazaruscorporat

First you say he wasn't forcibly removed, then you admit that Aristide was simply told by the US that he was going to be "escorted" out of Haiti - he had no choice in the matter. That counts as his forcible removal, and shows Colin powell to be a liar when he said:

"We will accept no outcome that in any way illegally attempts to remove the elected president of Haiti"

So, should Colin Powell now resign since you and I both agree that he's lied, and that Aristide was forcibly removed?

BTW, I suggested you stay on topic because it's the rules of the board - threads that go off topic get closed by the mods. And I'd suggest you drop your name-calling smilies - we've already had 2 regulars here temporarily banned - I'm sure no one wants to make it 3.

I don't know what you are using for logic, but it doesn't measure up.

If Aristide wanted to stay, he could have, he admitted to that. They told him that if he elected to stay, we were going to have to start shooting people to protect his rotten ass. He elected to go and now he wants to say "they forced me."

He sounds like a pregnant whore.

What we should have done is wait about 2 more days. By that time he would be dead and the next guy in line could have taken over--if HE was still alive. :mofo:

lazaruscorporat · 03-07-04

Quote:

Originally Posted by RedHawk

He was told that we would escort him to a safe place in the world...

But you clearly state in your post that "he was told" that the US were going to take him out of Haiti - not that he asked the US to take him out of Haiti. make your mind up.

RedHawk · 03-07-04

Quote:

Originally Posted by lazaruscorporat

But you clearly state in your post that "he was told" that the US were going to take him out of Haiti - not that he asked the US to take him out of Haiti. make your mind up.

Only an ashole would try to use bullshit like this in an argument.

He was TOLD that they were there to escort him out of harms way. He could have stayed--if he wanted to die.

It wasn't the US forces that would have killed his rotten ass, but the people he was supposed to be "governing."

We try to do this asshole a favor and then he tries to make it look like we performed a coup d'etat.

As I said before, he sounds like a pregnant whore.

lazaruscorporat · 03-07-04

Quote:

Originally Posted by RedHawk

Only an ashole would try to use bullshit like this in an argument.

*shrugs* it was your argument I was quoting.

Corporate Pig · 03-07-04

Quote:

Originally Posted by RedHawk

I don't know what you are using for logic, but it doesn't measure up.

Unfortunately though, you seem to be devoid of logic...

Quote:

Originally Posted by RedHawk

If Aristide wanted to stay, he could have, he admitted to that. They told him that if he elected to stay, we were going to have to start shooting people to protect his rotten ass. He elected to go and now he wants to say "they forced me."

RedHawk, it might actually HELP, if you read the article we're discussing...
otherwise, could u point to where u derived the "idea", that Aristide admitted 'he could have stayed in power'?

Quote:

..The issue, fuelled by direct accusations by Mr Aristide that he was, in effect, kidnapped and hustled into exile in the Central African Republic under conditions that he likened to imprisonment, has once again thrust a spotlight on the Bush administration's conduct of foreign policy and risks becoming a liability for President Bush as he begins his re-election campaign.

The Bush administration has denied kidnapping or forcing Mr Aristide from office at gunpoint, claiming he sought safe passage out of the country under US escort.

Refer: http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...p?story=498045

How is it not SELF EVIDENT, that Aristide is claiming he was effectively kidnapped, while the Bush Administration is claiming he sought [u]safe passage[u].

So its quite SIMPLY - 2 DIFFERENT STORIES...
And personally, I'm more likely to believe Aristide, given the performance of the Bush Administration in relation to Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RedHawk

He sounds like a pregnant whore.

I'll take your word on that...
Can't actually say I know what a 'Pregnant whore' sounds like...
I'm glad u do.

but I suspect it might be somewhat similar to a 'Lesbian Truck-Driving Priest'.

Corporate Pig · 03-07-04

Quote:

Originally Posted by RedHawk

It wasn't the US forces that would have killed his rotten ass, but the people he was supposed to be "governing."

Okay so maybe it wasn't/won't be the US Marines will kill Aristide...
It will be the rebels, which originally removed Aristide from power in '91, all the while the rebels were receiving training from the US Military...

Quote:

Lending Haiti the back of our hand

Ottawa XPress News
By Stuart Trew
March 4th, 2004
Refer: http://www.ottawaxpress.ca/news/news...iIDArticle=894

What's more important: democracy or order? It's the political question of the century and the world's supercops - the U.S., France, and sometimes Canada - continue to reply "neither." On the weekend, U.S. officials moved Haitian president Jean-Bertrand Aristide to the Central African Republic leaving behind marines to make sure Haiti doesn't go to hell. As it happens, it has, so Frontline scrutinizes the kind of help being offered the Caribbean's most needy country.

America: U.S. marines rolled into Haiti's capital Monday alongside the rebels amid rumours they had abducted Aristide. It's not the first time he's had to flee. The U.S. helped train rebels who removed Aristide from power in 1991, but then president Bill Clinton reinstated the popular leader in '94 because too many Haitians tried to get into America any way they could. This year, the U.S. is preparing space for 50,000 such escapees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where 10 years ago they imprisoned 276 Haitians simply for being HIV-positive.

Canada: Toeing the U.S. line, Foreign Minister Bill Graham said last week that Aristide had to go. The Council on Hemispheric Affairs reacted on February 25 by calling his approach to the Haitian conflict "surprisingly one-sided and prejudicial." The council added, "Graham is in danger of rendering Canada irrelevant to any eventual solution on the crisis-ridden island." At least we found troops for the UN peacekeeping force now in Haiti.

France: In 1804, France demanded $90 million gold francs from Haiti as ransom for recognition as a sovereign state. Last year, Aristide asked France for the equivalent - over $21 billion U.S. - back as a means of paying for needed health and social programs. But France seems more interested in mending fences with the U.S. "The decisions taken by France on Haiti go hand in hand with other decisions taken recently which show a desire to turn the page," said Jean-Jacques Kourliandsky of the Institute of International and Strategic relations in Paris. French troops are patrolling the country and Chirac is even considering involvement in Iraq.

NGOs: A coalition of non-governmental organizations in Haiti, including OXFAM, is demanding that the current mess "must in no way serve as a pretext for the international community to intervene once again, militarily, in the country, particularly at the time when the Haitian people celebrate the bicentenary of its independence dearly acquired through struggle and self-denial." The coalition is also calling for an end to the export to Haiti of guns like the ones used by a handful of thugs, with supercop approval, to dismantle a democratically elected, and mostly orderly government.

What else can one really expect in Haiti...
another recipent of the [hipocritical] US Foreign Policy, which it never asked to receive.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RedHawk

We try to do this asshole a favor and then he tries to make it look like we performed a coup d'etat.

Quote:

COUP D'ETAT:
a sudden and decisive act in politics, usually bringing about a change in government unlawfully and by force

Refer: http://www.imuna.org/manual/app_a.html#C

I think a 'Coup D'etat' is an accurate description for US Involvement back in '91 in Haiti

RedHawk · 03-08-04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Corporate Pig

Okay so maybe it wasn't/won't be the US Marines will kill Aristide...
It will be the rebels, which originally removed Aristide from power in '91, all the while the rebels were receiving training from the US Military...

What else can one really expect in Haiti...
another recipent of the [hipocritical] US Foreign Policy, which it never asked to receive.

I think a 'Coup D'etat' is an accurate description for US Involvement back in '91 in Haiti

The article that you ar quoting here is just that--an article--printed by a "journalist, for money. The actual people involved in Aristides resque tell a different story. I saw some of them interviewed on c-span last week by a house investigating committee and their version was markedly different than Aristides.

If Aristide wants to come back, and if he thinks he can stay alive at the same time, why doesn't he just do that?

If the government that he is currently a guest of thinks that he should be back in powerm why don't they bring him back and provide the protection for his return?

The man is a gangster who robbed and cheated his people, He got less that he had comming to him. He shuold be hanging from a lamp post in Haiti. :mofo:

Corporate Pig · 03-08-04

Quote:

Originally Posted by RedHawk

The article that you ar quoting here is just that--an article--printed by a "journalist, for money. The actual people involved in Aristides resque tell a different story. I saw some of them interviewed on c-span last week by a house investigating committee and their version was markedly different than Aristides.

Perhaps reading the dictionary can help you too...

Quote:

ar·ti·cle
n.

1) A particular section or item of a series in a written document, as in a contract, constitution, or treaty.
2) A nonfictional literary composition that forms an independent part of a publication, as of a newspaper or magazine.

Refer: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=article

You were the one that called it an "article";... a nonfictional literary composition.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RedHawk

If Aristide wants to come back, and if he thinks he can stay alive at the same time, why doesn't he just do that?

If the government that he is currently a guest of thinks that he should be back in powerm why don't they bring him back and provide the protection for his return?

The man is a gangster who robbed and cheated his people, He got less that he had comming to him. He shuold be hanging from a lamp post in Haiti. :mofo:

So do you have any links to these 'stories'?... but I'm guessing not..

Corporate Pig · 03-08-04

Quote:

Originally Posted by RedHawk

The article that you ar quoting here is just that--an article--printed by a "journalist, for money. The actual people involved in Aristides resque tell a different story. I saw some of them interviewed on c-span last week by a house investigating committee and their version was markedly different than Aristides.

Perhaps reading the dictionary can help you too...

Quote:

ar·ti·cle
n.

1) A particular section or item of a series in a written document, as in a contract, constitution, or treaty.
2) A nonfictional literary composition that forms an independent part of a publication, as of a newspaper or magazine.

Refer: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=article

You were the one that called it an "article";... a nonfictional literary composition.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RedHawk

If Aristide wants to come back, and if he thinks he can stay alive at the same time, why doesn't he just do that?

If the government that he is currently a guest of thinks that he should be back in powerm why don't they bring him back and provide the protection for his return?

The man is a gangster who robbed and cheated his people, He got less that he had comming to him. He shuold be hanging from a lamp post in Haiti. :mofo:

So do you have any links to these 'stories'?... but I'm guessing not..

its also hardly suprising your accussations of him being a 'gangster', given his response's to the IMF and WTO..

Quote:

Operation Sweatshop -
Jean-Bertrand Aristide's move to raise Haiti's minimum wage was the last straw for American corporations and elitist U.S. factions.

The Moscow Times
March 5-11, 2004
By Chris Floyd
Refer: http://www.tmtmetropolis.ru/stories/2004/03/05/120.html

This week, the Bush administration added another violent "regime change" notch to its gunbelt, toppling the democratically elected president of Haiti and replacing him with an unelected gang of convicted killers, death squad leaders, militarists, narcoterrorists, CIA operatives, hereditary elitists and corporate predators -- a bit like Team Bush itself, in other words.

Although the Haiti coup was widely portrayed as an irresistible upsurge of popular discontent, it was of course the result of years of hard work by Bush's dedicated corrupters of democracy, as William Bowles reports in Information Clearinghouse. Bushist bagmen funded the political opposition to President Jean-Bertrand Aristide, smuggled guns to exiled Haitian warlords and carried out a relentless strangulation of the county, cutting off long-promised financial and structural aid to one of the poorest nations on earth until food prices were soaring, unemployment spiked to 70 percent and the broken-backed government lost control of society to armed gangs of criminals, fanatics and the merely desperate. Meanwhile, Haiti was forced to pay $2 million per month on debts run up by the murderous U.S.-backed dictatorships that ruled the island for decades after the American military occupation of 1915-1934.

The ostensible reason for Bush's deadly squeeze-play was Haiti's disputed elections in 2000. That vote, only the nation's third free election in 200 years, was indeed marred by reports of irregularities -- although these were not nearly as egregious as the well-documented hijinks which saw a certain runner-up candidate appointed to the White House that same year. There was no question that Aristide and his party received an overwhelming majority of legitimate votes; however, out of the 7,500 offices up for grabs, election observers did find that seven senate results seemed of dodgy provenance.

So what happened? The seven disputed senators resigned. New elections for the seats were called, but the opposition -- two elitist factions financed by Washington's favorite engines of subversion, the Orwellian-monikered "National Endowment for Democracy" and "International Republican Institute" -- refused to take part. The government broke down because the legislature couldn't convene. When Bush came in, he tightened the screws of the international blockade of the island, insisting that $500 million in desperately needed aid could not be released unless the opposition participated in new elections -- while he was simultaneously paying the opposition not to participate.

The ultimate aim of this brutal pretzel logic was to grind Haiti's destitute people further into the ground and destroy Aristide's ability to govern. His real crime, of course, was not the Florida-style election follies or the reported "tyranny." Bush loves that stuff -- witness his eager embrace of the nuke-peddling dictatorship of Pakistan, the human-boiling hardman of Uzbekistan, the torture-happy tyrant of Kazakhstan, the drug-running warlords of Afghanistan and so forth.

No, Aristide did something far worse than stuffing ballots or killing people -- he tried to raise the minimum wage to the princely sum of two dollars a day. This move outraged the American corporations -- and their local lackeys -- who have for generations used Haiti as a pool of dirt-cheap labor and sky-high profits. It was the last straw for the elitist factions, one of which is actually led by an American citizen and former Reagan-Bush appointee, manufacturing tycoon Andy Apaid.

Apaid was the point man for the Reagan-Bush "market reform" drive in Haiti. Of course, "reform," in the degraded jargon of the privateers, means exposing even the very means of survival and sustenance to the ravages of powerful corporate interests. For example, the Reagan-Bush plan forced Haiti to lift import tariffs on rice, which had long been a locally grown staple. Then they flooded Haiti with heavily subsidized American rice, destroying the local market and throwing thousands of self-sufficient farmers out of work. With a now-captive market, the American companies jacked up their prices, spreading ruin and hunger throughout Haitian society.

The jobless farmers provided new fodder for the factories of Apaid and his cronies. Reagan and Bush chipped in by abolishing taxes for American corporations who set up Haitian sweatshops. The result was a precipitous drop in wages -- and life expectancy. Aristide's first election in 1990 threatened these cozy arrangements, so he was duly ejected by a military coup, with Bush I's not-so-tacit connivance.

Bill Clinton restored Aristide to office in 1994 -- but only after forcing him to agree to, yes, "market reforms." In fact, it was Clinton, the privateers' pal, who instigated the post-election aid embargo that Bush II used to such devastating effect. Aristide's chief failing as a leader was his attempt to live up to this bipartisan blackmail. As in every other nation that's come under the IMF whip, Haiti's already-fragile economy collapsed. Bush family retainers like Apaid then shoved the country into total chaos, making it easy prey for the warlords whom Bush operatives -- many of them old Iran-Contra hands -- supplied with arms through the Dominican Republic, the Boston Globe reports.

When the terrorist warlords attacked last month, Bush flatly refused Aristide's plea for an international force to preserve Haiti's democracy. Instead, he sent armed men to "persuade" Aristide to resign. Within hours, the Bush-backed terrorists were marching through Port-au-Prince, executing Aristide's supporters, the NY Times reports.

Guess they won't be asking for two dollars a day now, eh? Mission accomplished!

Thus, just like his father, Bush has overthrown Aristide, and for the same reason: He represented a threat to their "natural order" -- unchecked rule by pampered, protected elites. Terrorism, despotism, torture, WMD trafficking: All of this can countenanced, even embraced. But Aristide's alternative -- democratic, capitalist, but with "a prejudice for the poor," as enjoined by the Gospels -- this evil can never be tolerated.