It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Haiti has considerable gold reserves, or there is gold to be found in the country.
Laskowski says his biggest concerns in Haiti are venal officials and angry local residents. Haiti was recently ranked the world's most corrupt country by Transparency International, although Préval is widely seen as honest.
Laskowski has asked the locals to be patient. In the best of scenarios, he says, it will take from four to six years before any actual mining could begin. By that time, Haiti will have a new government and gold will likely be selling at a different price.
Laskowski. "I don't think there's a question of whether there's a good deposit here. It's a question of whether we can develop it here in Haiti." In late May, Eurasian Minerals announced the gold content found in several trenches cut into the hillsides here, driving its stock price up 40 per cent on the Toronto Stock Exchange. Laskowski says the company hopes to find billions of dollars worth of gold in the hills above La Miel, which is just a few kilometres from the border with the Dominican Republic.
Originally posted by aaa2500
Do some research on Haiti, particularly on why Aristide was ousted by the US. Hint... He wanted to stop US companies running sweat shops in Haiti. No, it is disaster capitalism all right. Those who benefit from disaster capitalism are privately owned US corporations. They are talking about using this crisis to benefit privately owned US corporations. If the IMF get's involved, Haiti will be paying for this for decades, and all resources will be owned by foreign corporations. Capitalism is an economic system, not a political system. Any government loans will be made to benefit privately owned corporations. You are ideologically conditioned to think that all capitalism is good, always and all the time, and all communism is bad always and all the time.
Haha, That's like hearing every other zealot out there... Communism has never existed, the USSR was a deformed state capitalist society. Islam is generous and benevolent, those terrorists are not real muslims etc. etc.
Originally posted by truthquest
All wrong.
The real international loan shark out there is the IMF, a totally fascist organization. You claim the IMF is capitalism? Well, look at the facts then. The big supporters of the IMF are government agencies, therefore the big loan sharking going on is more attributable to communism (government ownership of banking) than it is attributable to capitalism (private ownership of banking).
But its also part communism since the IMF is actually owned in part by government.
You label corporate violent abuse and corporate violent crimes as capitalism. It is absolutely wrong to say that is condoned or allowed under capitalism! Violence against a person has nothing to do with capitalism and everything to do with simple criminal abuse! So when you talk about crimes committed under what you falsely label "capitalism" you are just making a blatantly false statement. No, as it turns out, crime is still illegal under capitalism contrary to what you seem to claim.
Was it Exxon invading Iraq? I seem to recall it was the US military? As it turns out, under capitalism, violent abuse of any and all humans is still a crime, and anyone participating still goes to jail.
And again, Bush wanted Iraq's oil whether or not Exxon was pressuring them into stealing it.
You pretend otherwise because you have been conditioned to believe capitalism is bad.
The proper term for someone who has a well developed philosophy is not "zealot" you silly troll.
You may laugh at fact-based philosophies...
but just know I have a right to laugh back even harder at your ridiculous hypocrisy. After all, I've based my entire belief system around the ideas that what is wrong for one is wrong for all and I can show you how it is exactly that.
Get it troll? The facts are on my side. All of them.
And if that makes me a zealot then anybody who isn't a zealot is simply an ignorant fool.
I'm sorry you are incapable of intelligent discussion, and I hope some day you learn to speak with others you disagree with without calling to name-calling.
You claim communism has never existed.
The only elements at work in today's society are fascism, socialism, and communism. Capitalism is something that quite frankly may have never even existed because it would meant those in power can't micromanage the destruction of our economy for their benefit. Today we have plenty of disaster socialism, disaster communism, and especially disaster fascism. There is no such a thing as disaster capitalism, sorry haters. Corporatism and fascism are the pervading factors that have nothing to do with capitalism. In fact, in a pure capitalist society corporations very well may not exist since corporations are government creations.
I'm just curious about how much of a zealot you are, smart guy.
All wrong. The real international loan shark out there is the IMF, a totally fascist organization. You claim the IMF is capitalism? Well, look at the facts then. The big supporters of the IMF are government agencies, therefore the big loan sharking going on is more attributable to communism (government ownership of banking) than it is attributable to capitalism (private ownership of banking). But again, its fascism... an elite few control the IMF. But its also part communism since the IMF is actually owned in part by government.
You label corporate violent abuse and corporate violent crimes as capitalism. It is absolutely wrong to say that is condoned or allowed under capitalism! Violence against a person has nothing to do with capitalism and everything to do with simple criminal abuse! So when you talk about crimes committed under what you falsely label "capitalism" you are just making a blatantly false statement. No, as it turns out, crime is still illegal under capitalism contrary to what you seem to claim.
Was it Exxon invading Iraq? I seem to recall it was the US military? As it turns out, under capitalism, violent abuse of any and all humans is still a crime, and anyone participating still goes to jail. And again, Bush wanted Iraq's oil whether or not Exxon was pressuring them into stealing it.
If you don't think all communism (government ownership of production) is always bad all the time, a totally true statement, you go ahead and tell me where government take-overs of a private industry have worked out well for the people who are in poverty. Then, I'll go ahead and search for the statistics and data and see who is right and who is wrong. That is something that would clear these misconceptions about capitalism up really quick.
Originally posted by plumranch How could any country, corporation, or entity take advantage of the Haitians? There is no profit to be had anywhere in the country.
” The idea that some areas of life are too precious, vulnerable, sacred or important for the public interest to be subject to commercial exploitation seems to be losing its influence. Indeed, the very notion that there is a public interest, a common good that transcends our individual self-interest, is slipping away. Increasingly, we are told, commercial potential is the measure of all value, corporations should be free to exploit anything and anyone for profit, and human beings are creatures of pure self-interest and materialistic desire. These are the elements of an emerging order that may prove to be as dangerous as any fundamentalism that history has produced. For in a world where anything or anyone can be owned, manipulated, and exploited for profit, everything and everyone will eventually be.”
Originally posted by aaa2500
...the Bush family have lived, breathed and drunk oil for 70 years. There was never any need for pressure, just the right amounts of campaign donations.
Originally posted by aaa2500
So you are claiming that:
1) Aristide wasn't ousted by the US
2) Aristide wasn't trying to stop US manufacturing sweatshops
3) US corporations are not benefitting from disasters
4) The IMF involvement will not create a long term problem for Haiti
6)The IMF involvement will not cause Haiti to be paying off debt for decades
7)The IMF involvement will not cause Haitis resources to be owned by forign corporations.
The difference is that in the real world, 'capitalism' is defined by having a decentralised marketplace where buyers and sellers meet and agree on a price, whereas 'communism' is defined by it's centralised pricesetting, regardless of supply and demand.
Originally posted by pthena
Haiti seems a nice spot for US Military bases. US military already in control of airport. US is building up in Caribbean for a future "stabilization" mission into Venezuela. If IMF lends money to Haiti, US can supply with lease money to pay back. The lease will be for military air base and sea port. Almost guaranteed.
Originally posted by pthena
reply to post by lpowell0627
Granted. US military got the airport functional. That's part of shock doctrine. It was necessary, had to be done. Once in, we better stay, help rebuild Haiti. Good position to put down Caribean and Central American defiers of US hegemony, especially Venezuela. Nine years in Afghanistan, expand into Northwest Pakistan, boom, US bases on China's border. All necessary! All good! Shock doctrine.
[edit on 19-1-2010 by pthena]
The Two Faces of Interventionism
Dr. Jekyll, Mr. Hyde, and public relations in the service of empire
by Justin Raimondo, January 20, 2010
original.antiwar.com...
Margolis informs us that "a French aircraft carrying a full operating theater was not allowed to land so that US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton could fly in and make a speech." Can’t miss that photo op!
But of course this is all about photo ops, and revamping Washington’s image in the eyes of Americans as much if not more than those of foreigners. We may be dropping bombs on Pakistan and Afghanistan, but we’re also dropping food aid and millions of dollars on Haiti – as if the latter makes up for or obscures the former. These are the two faces of interventionism, and yet there is a crucial link between Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, who are, after all, the same entity,
. . .
This conception of the American military as an institution capable of performing any task, no matter how far removed from its legitimate functions, is a delusion shared by liberals and conservatives alike. It is a specifically American conceit, born of post-cold war hubris and an older tradition that can be traced all the way back to Presidents Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. "Send in the Marines!" is an almost magical invocation, a panacea capable of solving most if not all the world’s problems. Like all magical incantations, however, it is not based on reality – as we will learn in due course if our Haitian mission of mercy turns into a long-term or even medium-term project.