posted on Feb, 19 2004 @ 09:17 PM
Well, this whole Haiti issue is starting alot like the Iraq issue. First off, it is becoming more and more frequent to view in the evening news and
such. Second, the Haiti president is begging for our support, and some other allied countries are pushing us to do it. (That is unlike the Iraq issue)
Now, as far as I can see, it looks like Bush may end up sending some troops for support. He has already sent an "assessment team" to check out
"security" around the Embassy there. He did the same in Iraq. Depending on what they determine, even though I don't think the rebels there would be
stupid enough to attack a U.S. embassy - though they might. If the security team, which consists no more than 10 I think, determines that the U.S.
officials there, along with Haiti officials on U.S. property are in danger, then the U.S. would end up sending troops to "defend" itself at the
embassy. Of course, if things get too hot at the embassy itself, and some major battle occurs, then yes, I think the U.S. should definately put those
rebels in their place. Other than that, the rebels haven't become "too" violent yet, though they have taken command of some cities, they haven't
struck any major government places - yet. If this happens, the U.S., may too put U.S. troops to defend those places. When this happens, the rebels
will come to take command, the troops will fight, and it becomes not just a Haiti civil war - but the U.S.'s problem as well.
(Though, if nothing happens before the next election, assuming Bush loses, which I don't think he will, though if he does, and a Democrat gets in the
white house, we could be looking at a whole different situation. I don't think Kerry or Edwards would want to risk another global fight by going into
EDIT: The Haiti situation is entirely different than the Iraqi situation, and, if we (the U.S.) did go into Haiti, I believe we could redeem ourselves
in the world, this would be a straight forward liberation..no conspiracy here.
(BTW: Who said Rome was the best ever? Personally, I think the Huns, while led under Attila, was the best roaming empire - they were undefeated, and
controlled most if not all of the Asian continent, and some of Europe, which lasted, I believe, a couple or few hundred years. BTW: They defeated the
Romans in combat multiples times Most of the time, the Roman strategy of stacking shielded men didn't work - the ruthless Huns ran right through
them on horseback, while the skilled archers took out officers and leaders.
[Edited on 19-2-2004 by WeBDeviL]