Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by diamond geezer, Mar 8, 2004.
Good link. Says it all, really. What a crock of s**t.
all right the us didnt take over the conty rebels did the president fleed aand if you honestly think we would purposely topple the goverment of haiti you must live in one crazy fantasy world
Yup. Unfortunately it's a world being redefined by the fantastically crazy Bush administration.
"If you honestly think we would purposely topple the government of Haiti/Iraq/Chile/Cuba/Venezuela....."
Just you wait.
I still like the kidnapping charge.
Whereby we kidnapped him and let his country be overrun by rebels.
I still think we should have sent him back on the next plane and asked the rebels to pick him up and drop him off at his house.
your long reign of fact-based terror is over. and when i say "long," i mean "non-existent"
The article strangely reads like Lenin's "Imperialism, The Highest Stage of Capitalism" (using the export of capitol in order to create puppet governments which in turn supply an external proletariat for a country of bourgeoisie, with near starving conditions being a necessary component for the external proletariat in order to hold down wages and thus increase profits). When I followed the link I realized why, The Moscow Times. I'm liberal and I personally hate bush but I feel the article, especially with its sociopolitical slant, is not complete, but almost complete, crap.
Why I hate bush or why I think the article is mostly crap?
The latter. I have no argument with the former.
#1 it appears in the Arts and Ideas section
#2 I believe the poverty in Haiti is due more to there being little arable land and lack of foreign investment and not the result of abuse by foreign investors.
"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."
This statement, in light of what I have read in both the CIA fact book and at tiscali.reference, seems to be untrue. Haiti's primary import is food so the importation of American rice is not dumping of American agricultural products it is normal and needed to avoid starvation. Also, with only 9% of the country being involved in manufacturing, all of which cannot be for U.S. companies, I find it unlikely that Haiti has for decades been "a pool of dirt-cheap labor and sky-high profits", if it were there would be much more american investment and Haiti wouldn't be nearly as poor as it is, it would be much more like Mexico where 27% of the population is involved in manufacturing and U.S. companies have been able to keep the wages amazingly low. I don't doubt that we helped to oust Aristide but I don't think we did it to further our economic imperialism over Haiti.
According to Lenin we need to keep the people near starvation but not actually starving, a decrease in the #'s of the proletariat equals a decrease in production and efficiency plus actual starvation breaks people out of the apathy of near starvation and moves them towards revolution which is never good for production, think Cuba.
According to the CIA factbook, arable land in Haiti is over 20%. In the USA it's less than 20%.
This does not follow from your argument any more than from that in the article. If local rice production has been wiped out, of course they'll need to import US rice....
this article is badly written, doesn't even pretend to be objective, and appears in a publication about which i know nothing. so take it for what it's worth.
still, some of the points may turn out to be true. i think we have a couple weeks until more reputable papers are able to make a better assessment of what actually happened.
"According to the CIA factbook, arable land in Haiti is over 20%. In the USA it's less than 20%."
correct, but when you compare this amount as total area of arable land as compared to the U.S. population and add in the fact that the U.S. uses intensive farming practices, the agricultural production per capita in the U.S. greatly exceeds that of Haiti. Percent of arable land in a 3rd world country does not compare hectare to hectare with the percent of arable land in a rich first-world nation especially if the third world country primarily relies on subsistence farming which does not by its nature focus on the production of a surplus in an attempt to build capitol.
from the CIA factbook
Nearly 70% of all Haitians depend on the agriculture sector, which consists mainly of small-scale subsistence farming and employs about two-thirds of the economically active work force.
if the majority of the economy relies on subsistence agriculture then the importation of rice cannot drop the value of native subsistence rice production, i.e. if I produce agricultural staples for subsistence (basic survival, not to sell) then I pay only in my labor not in currency. If the majority of Haitians truly are subsistence farmers then the importation of rice even at reduced prices would be unlikely to "wipe out" rice production.
We should really get a poll set up
Who supports US forigen policy.
Who Doesn't support US Forigen policy.
Who like Bush
Who doen't like Bush.
But 20% of the US is a whole helluva lot of land.
It'd be interesting to see the arable land/pop density comparison between the US and Haiti.
As for the article, it was certainly very slanted, which is okay for an opinion piece despite the fact that such a stance devalues any facts you may be using.
I was hoping the French would come to the aid of Haiti in its hour of need. I still hope they can muster something for their old colony (if the Haitians will have them, that is).