…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.
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!
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.
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.
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?