98
US says no troops to Haiti as country reels from explosion of gang violence
(www.theguardian.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 06 Mar 2024
98 points (92.2% liked)
World News
39001 readers
1118 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Why isn't the US sending peacekeepers?
Why should they? Why isn't the UN? Why isn't the French?
It sounds like UN and French aid would be welcome, too. The article talks about the US's refusal to send military aid.
The US would be well-suited to send military aid in the near-term, they have military bases with helicopters in range of Haiti. They could secure the capital from the rebelling gangs within a day.
I'm not familiar with the situation in Haiti, but keep in mind that organized crime is inherently fascist. I would like an explanation from the developed countries in the area why they don't think they should prevent an entire country from tumbling into fascism.
Pottery store rules.
Then why is the US involved in Ukraine, hmmmm.
Gangs of Haiti aren't a nuclear super power threatening sovereign states. It's an internal dispute.
Of course, all the Putin bootlickers brains are so twisted at this point they will never understand that.
Gangs are fascist organizations that are murdering civilians. The thugs that Russia sent into Ukraine in 2014 were mostly fascists that murdered civilians, too. If you're not opposed to fascism, then you're supporting it.
I said it earlier but I will repeat it.
Russian propagandists don't understand the difference between an internal struggle and a fascist invasion of another country.
Cause its a chance to hurt russia
The US hasn't sent people without an invitation. Everything the US has done there has been at the request of Ukraine.
PS: this comment is about what the US is doing in Ukraine and not what they are doing(or not doing) for Haiti.
They're literally inviting the US right now.
Well, all the places that I have seen report on it haven't said they specifically asked the US, though the US is a major backer of the task force that has been assembled from other countries. So if you have a reputable source that says the Haitian prime minister has specifically asked for US troops I would like to see it.
Because they're white and look out for white interests.
How does helping the people of Haiti benefit white people?
Spotted the liberal.
Haiti is not strategically important.
Haiti is a failed state. It isn't just a matter of re-establishing peace. The whole society has to be re-built.
The US invested billions and billions and BILLIONS of dollars and a ton of social capital trying to rebuild a failed state in Afghanistan and it didn't work. Not only did it not work, but the US has got nothing but scorn for it. No one thinks it would be any better in Haiti.
The US had a moment of glory when it won WW2 and then rebuilt both Japan and Europe into world class economic powers. Of course, those were highly civilized, sophisticated, and industrialized states and so America's job was easier. Places like Afghanistan, Haiti, and most of Africa...not so much.
Any Western government would be crazy to set foot in countries like that. Maybe send some humanitarian aid, but otherwise stay the fuck out. Let their cultural peers help them out.
Sooo much ewww.
How in the world, I wonder, did a beautiful island become suddenly swarmed and populated with an essentially non-homogeneous group of people from across the ocean? Surely their "uncivilized and unsophisticated" nature wouldn't have allowed them to cross such a vast expanse. Such a mystery!
You're right, it's best that outisders remain totally uninvolved and let nature take its course amoungst this anthropologically typical country and neighbors.... Well, I guess yeah, we can pitch in some goodfeels and be a tiny lifeline for a limited to few, after all, we gotta sleep at night.
Your sarcasm is not appreciated, but yes, Haiti was created by European colonialism. No one is defending that. The answer isn't more European colonialism. Western nations can provide the money to help, but some other nation that is more culturally similar needs to provide the boots on the ground. Do you have a better idea, Captain Sarcastic? Remember that the comment I was responding to asked why the US isn't sending peacekeepers.
I know exactly what you were replying to. I'm saying your idea is not one that I think to be good. But, I disagree with opinions I see all the time without feeling the need to point out why. My sarcasm, and my bothering to reply, come from the same place.
Setting aside the conversation on what the US should or shouldn't do, your comment directly implied that the Hatian people, and their peers, which we'll give the charitable interpretation of neighoring island countries, to be less civilized, less complex, and not as industry heavy as Japan/Europe post-ww2. I don't find that to be the language or implication of an opinion that is on good footing to say the least. Also, that you viewed those to be reasons that would make the task of intervention difficult.
I'm in agreement with you about one thing, doing a good job of stabilizing the hatian future is riddled with difficulty and challenges. Where we differ, is that the idea that the US (and other western governments) aren't already highly involved/responsible for the current situation. The question is not "Should the US get involved now with how much violence there is etc". The question is actually "Should the US continue to shirk its responsibilities to the hatian people for their hand in the hatian government that has all but collapsed?"
We aren't jumping in or staying out, we're either staying silent or a stepping up.
But are we in agreement, also, that the US should NOT be sending peacekeepers?
Probably because Haiti doesn't want them. They just can't send them in, that would be an invasion.
Too many pro Putin bootlickers. It's necessary for their survival that they don't understand why invading a sovereign nation is wrong.
The article implies that the Haitian government is requesting military support.
From WHO though. And the US might not want to go in and make things worse due to how they have interfered in the past.
This is 100% the real explanation.
Really? Nobody in Haiti wants the US to help them?
They'd rather be gangraped and murdered? I'll be sure to let them know you feel that way before they die.
An entire country cannot mobilize an invasion force because civilians ask them to.
Without specific dealings, documents, and official BS, no country would enter another unless they're intending for it to be an invasion instead of assistance.
I have no knowledge of that happening yet, but I also don't keep an eye on the situation. It may have already happened, I have no idea.
But the idea that random people being murdered is enough for a foreign country to barge in guns blazing and declare martial law is kind of crazy to imagine.
I imagine if the US military mobilized a portion of its logistics to assist the government of Haiti, there would be 100 more threads going on about how the US has to stick its nose everywhere it doesn't belong.
Personally I'd love to be able to bitch slap and [REDACTED] some politicians into pulling all support from Israel and redirecting the focus to assisting poorer areas around us. Building your neighbors up gives you a much larger foundation to build on in the future. Unfortunately nobody gives a shit who I am, so here we are, complaining about countries run by people who will never listen to or care about us.
You do know that the US has fucked around and made things worse there, right? And not like once a long time ago, but like it was their hobby.
That means it's impossible for them to make things better.
It's just a law of the universe.
No, it means as it currently stands they aren't the ones that will be trusted by the Haitians to make things better.
When can we trust them again?
I doubt you are Haitian, or speak for their population. Why don't you just sit this one out, yeah?
That's completely irrelevant and you're only pivoting to avoid admitting you're wrong.
I see it all the time.
Go ahead, tell the innocent people being gangraped and murdered the US will just make things worse no matter what. I'm sure they'd agree with you and say Kenya should intervene instead, lol.
Do you speak for them?
Do you?
Are you trying to argue there's not a single Haitian who would prefer the US to intervene?
Are you trying to argue that a country can't look at it's track record and know that it might make things worse, you know learn from it's mistakes.
The US has been and is giving aid, and is backing (financially) the international task force that's is doing the work.
This somehow isn't enough for you.
Do you not understand how the US can do things without having troops in the area? Are you some sort of troll? Or do think the US is the only capable nation?
Why does it have to be the US? Especially when they admit to having a terrible track record in the region.
Sorry, I stopped reading you replies because you move goalposts whenever backed into a corner.
Goodbye.
And you don't answer questions.
Edit: sure moving the goal posts by saying the same thing over and over again.
Please no. Somehow someway we would just make it worse. There are plenty of ways to help without guns.
Let's establish a safe zone and slowly build out with the amenities we've come to expect in America.
Oh wait, that would work but it won't be easy and cost money.
We only do things that are easy unless they make rich people richer faster.
No oil or strategic bases to take.
Because it's not a white nation.