Stand with the people of Haiti! What the U.S. government isn't telling you

[Agnapostate]

http://answer.pephost.org/site/News2?news_iv_ctrl=1&abbr=ANS_&page=NewsArticle&id=9277


At such a moment, it is also important to put this catastrophe into a political and social context. Without this context, it is impossible to understand both the monumental problems facing Haiti and, most importantly, the solutions that can allow Haiti to survive and thrive. Hillary Clinton said today, "It is biblical, the tragedy that continues to daunt Haiti and the Haitian people." This hypocritical statement that blames Haiti's suffering exclusively on an "act of God" masks the role of U.S. and French imperialism in the region.

[...]

As CNN, ABC and every other major corporate media outlet will be quick to point out, Haiti is the poorest country in the entire Western hemisphere. But not a single word is uttered as to why Haiti is poor. Poverty, unlike earthquakes, is no natural disaster.

The answer lies in more than two centuries of U.S. hostility to the island nation, whose hard-won independence from the French was only the beginning of its struggle for liberation.

In 1804, what had begun as a slave uprising more than a decade earlier culminated in freedom from the grips of French colonialism, making Haiti the first Latin American colony to win its independence and the world's first Black republic. Prior to the victory of the Haitian people, George Washington and then-Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson had supported France out of fear that Haiti would inspire uprisings among the U.S. slave population. The U.S. slave-owning aristocracy was horrified at Haiti’s newly earned freedom.

[...]

In a televised speech earlier today, President Obama has announced that USAID and the Departments of State and Defense will be working to support the rescue and relief efforts in Haiti in the coming days. Ironically, these are the same government entities responsible for the implementation of the economic and military policies that reduced Haiti to ruins even before the earthquake hit.

This is a sorely needed progressive analysis of the cause of inefficient resource allocation in the country; I encourage people to read it in its entirety.

[CSM]

http://answer.pephost.org/site/News2?news_iv_ctrl=1&abbr=ANS_&page=NewsArticle&id=9277



This is a sorely needed progressive analysis of the cause of inefficient resource allocation in the country; I encourage people to read it in its entirety.

Haiti is a demostration of near-anarchy in action. Doesn't seem to be working out too well for them.

[Agnapostate]

Haiti is a demostration of near-anarchy in action. Doesn't seem to be working out too well for them.

Try to stay on topic, especially if you're going to just regurgitate the popular misconception that "anarchy" as used in the political sense is related to advocacy of chaos or disorder.

[CSM]

Try to stay on topic, especially if you're going to just regurgitate the popular misconception that "anarchy" as used in the political sense is related to advocacy of chaos or disorder.

Haiti is not the topic? damn.

By the way, I refer to anarchy as lack of an effective centralized government.

Also, it will be a very very cold day in hell when you get to tell me what to do.

[Agnapostate]

Haiti is not the topic? damn.

Aside from the usage of the word "Haiti," your comment didn't pertain to the OP at all.


By the way, I refer to anarchy as lack of an effective centralized government.

That's a necessary criterion of anarchy, but not a sufficient one. Anarchy effectively requires stateless socialism; please do not comment on the topic until you've read some introductory Proudhon, Bakunin, and Kropotkin. Here, I'll help you (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/index.html).


Also, it will be a very very cold day in hell when you get to tell me what to do.

I've already told you what to do. Your kneejerk reaction to my comment is evidence enough that even my posts are enough to influence your actions.

[CSM]

Aside from the usage of the word "Haiti," your comment didn't pertain to the OP at all.

The lack of an effective centralized government is exactly why they have no emergency preparedness, had crap for infrastructure in the first place etc. That is a major contributing factor to Haiti's current plight. Your historical whimsy is far less pertinent.


That's a necessary criterion of anarchy, but not a sufficient one. Anarchy effectively requires stateless socialism; please do not comment on the topic until you've read some introductory Proudhon, Bakunin, and Kropotkin. Here, I'll help you (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/index.html).

I'll comment on any darned thing I like. Please quit posting bullshit.

I've already told you what to do. Your kneejerk reaction to my comment is evidence enough that even my posts are enough to influence your actions.

Believe me, my "knee jerk reaction" was well thought out. Yes, your posts influence my actions, I dont tolerate arrogant, willful stupidity. That is not the same as DIRECTING my actions. Of course you are too self-absorbed to see the difference.

[Agnapostate]

The lack of an effective centralized government is exactly why they have no emergency preparedness, had crap for infrastructure in the first place etc. That is a major contributing factor to Haiti's current plight. Your historical whimsy is far less pertinent.

I'm glad you agree with ANSWER, then.


Natural disasters are inevitable, but resource allocation and planning can play a decisive role in mitigating their impact and dealing with the aftermath. Haiti and neighboring Cuba, who are no strangers to violent tropical storms, were both hit hard in 2008 by a series of hurricanes—which, unlike earthquakes, are predictable. While more than 800 lives were lost in Haiti, less than 10 people died in Cuba. Unlike Haiti, Cuba had a coordinated evacuation plan and post-hurricane rescue efforts that were centrally planned by the Cuban government. This was only possible because Cuban society is not organized according to the needs of foreign capital, but rather according to the needs of the Cuban people.

At the heart of anarchism is socialist organization, so suggesting that there's some conflict with effective coordination is absurd.


I'll comment on any darned thing I like. Please quit posting bullshit.

I don't have much of a choice; I'm quoting your posts, after all.


I dont tolerate arrogant, willful stupidity.

I'm guessing you're a cutter, then.

[Gaffer]

Aside from the usage of the word "Haiti," your comment didn't pertain to the OP at all.



That's a necessary criterion of anarchy, but not a sufficient one. Anarchy effectively requires stateless socialism; please do not comment on the topic until you've read some introductory Proudhon, Bakunin, and Kropotkin. Here, I'll help you (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/index.html).



I've already told you what to do. Your kneejerk reaction to my comment is evidence enough that even my posts are enough to influence your actions.

In my book that earned you neg rep.

CMS hit it on the head. Haiti is everything you want a country to be. No infrastructure, no banks, no money, no property, and the strongest thug is the boss. Your dream land awaits you.

[chloe]

In my book that earned you neg rep.

CMS hit it on the head. Haiti is everything you want a country to be. No infrastructure, no banks, no money, no property, and the strongest thug is the boss. Your dream land awaits you.

:laugh2:

[Agnapostate]

In my book that earned you neg rep.

And in my book, that earned you reciprocation.


CMS hit it on the head. Haiti is everything you want a country to be. No infrastructure, no banks, no money, no property, and the strongest thug is the boss. Your dream land awaits you.

Only in your asinine fallacies, typical of common misconceptions but not of any knowledge of political theory. Since you know absolutely nothing about the topic, brush up on some introductory material (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secAcon.html), at least.

[CSM]

I'm glad you agree with ANSWER, then.



At the heart of anarchism is socialist organization, so suggesting that there's some conflict with effective coordination is absurd.



I don't have much of a choice; I'm quoting your posts, after all.



I'm guessing you're a cutter, then.

What a stupid, twisted, illogical bunch of tripe!

"Unlike Haiti, Cuba had a coordinated evacuation plan and post-hurricane rescue efforts that were centrally planned by the Cuban government. This was only possible because Cuban society is not organized according to the needs of foreign capital, but rather according to the needs of the Cuban people."

Cuban society didn't plan a damned thing ... the Cuban government did. Foreign capital had squat to do with it. "social organization" as you call it didn't have squat to do with it either. Social organization isn't helping Haiti either; it is those nations who have centralized, hierarchal governments (democratic or otherwise) who are rushing to their aid. Ther ar NO anarchistic, "socially organised" countries flying in aid because they do not exist and NEVER will!

[Agnapostate]

What a stupid, twisted, illogical bunch of tripe!

Cuban society didn't plan a damned thing ... the Cuban government did. Foreign capital had squat to do with it. "social organization" as you call it didn't have squat to do with it either. Social organization isn't helping Haiti either; it is those nations who have centralized, hierarchal governments (democratic or otherwise) who are rushing to their aid. Ther ar NO anarchistic, "socially organised" countries flying in aid because they do not exist and NEVER will!

You don't listen, do you, PMS? Since you were too stupid to realize that it was fallacious to imply that anarchism involves an absence of social organization, I rectified your error. As for your assertion about the nonexistence of anarchism, that's simply more evidence of your ignorance about the topic; any beginner knows of the Spanish Revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Revolution). This is the last off-topic post of yours that I'll be replying to.

[CSM]

You don't listen, do you, PMS? Since you were too stupid to realize that it was fallacious to imply that anarchism involves an absence of social organization, I rectified your error. As for your assertion about the nonexistence of anarchism, that's simply more evidence of your ignorance about the topic; any beginner knows of the Spanish Revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Revolution). This is the last off-topic post of yours that I'll be replying to.

LOL. Good, I was getting tired of your idiocy anyway. You insist on others reading your nonsensical crap that supposedly supports your twisted logic and in return I submit that you have no clue what life is REALLY like until you support yourself in the REAL world and are not depending on some one else to take care of you. When that happens, then your posts will have far more relevance to anything at all.

[Agnapostate]

LOL. Good, I was getting tired of your idiocy anyway. You insist on others reading your nonsensical crap that supposedly supports your twisted logic and in return I submit that you have no clue what life is REALLY like until you support yourself in the REAL world and are not depending on some one else to take care of you. When that happens, then your posts will have far more relevance to anything at all.

That won't happen for anyone so long as capitalism exists.

I guess you thought that false assertions would goad me into some kind of angry rant, imbecile? :laugh:

[CSM]

By the way, for those of you who don't know, the Spanish Revolution resulted in partial implementation of some of the ideals Anusprostate spouts on this board. What folks like him will not tell you is that MOST individuals had to be FORCED or COERCED to comply with the envisioned Utopia. The "non-leaders" of this "non-revolution" considered such force and coercion "unavoidable". But hey, they were all happy!

[CSM]

That won't happen for anyone so long as capitalism exists.

I guess you thought that false assertions would goad me into some kind of angry rant, imbecile? :laugh:

It is really funny how you are no different than many of the other posters on this board who resort to name calling (PMS! REALLY???) when they can't present effective, reasoned and logical debate. I suppose your are just not all that and a bag of chips either, are you, dirtbag.

[bullypulpit]

Sorry Aggie...Your ideal of anarchy, like the ideal of unfettered free markets on the right, presupposes a rational society. Something which has yet to manifest itself upon the face of this earth.

[CSM]

Sorry Aggie...Your ideal of anarchy, like the ideal of unfettered free markets on the right, presupposes a rational society. Something which has yet to manifest itself upon the face of this earth.

I cannot belioeve I actually agree with BP on something!

[bullypulpit]

I cannot belioeve I actually agree with BP on something!

Apparently hell froze over... :laugh2:

[SassyLady]

Apparently hell froze over... :laugh2:

Yep, it's pretty cold here too cause I agree with BP on this as well. :eek:

[Agnapostate]

By the way, for those of you who don't know, the Spanish Revolution resulted in partial implementation of some of the ideals Anusprostate spouts on this board. What folks like him will not tell you is that MOST individuals had to be FORCED or COERCED to comply with the envisioned Utopia. The "non-leaders" of this "non-revolution" considered such force and coercion "unavoidable". But hey, they were all happy!

Actually, you don't know either, slappy. You've simply ripped off the "criticism" section of the article. The problem with doing that is that I wrote that. :laugh:


It is really funny how you are no different than many of the other posters on this board who resort to name calling (PMS! REALLY???) when they can't present effective, reasoned and logical debate. I suppose your are just not all that and a bag of chips either, are you, dirtbag.

I'm just sick of your deviations from the topic, particularly when your posts have absolutely no valuable content or anything that indicates knowledge of the political theory that you attempt to attack.


Sorry Aggie...Your ideal of anarchy, like the ideal of unfettered free markets on the right, presupposes a rational society. Something which has yet to manifest itself upon the face of this earth.

I'm not interested in the repetition of cliche, particularly when it has no bearing to the topic.

[Agnapostate]

Hence, what of the fact that previous U.S. administrations have had a hand in destabilization of internal conditions in Haiti?

[bullypulpit]

Hence, what of the fact that previous U.S. administrations have had a hand in destabilization of internal conditions in Haiti?

Aggie, administrations, both democratic and republican have, since the earliest days of the Cold war, played a role in destabilizing democratically elected governments throughout this hemisphere in support of US corporate interests...All in the name of fighting "communism".

I was not, however repeating a "cliche". I was simply pointing out that idealism, at either extreme...left or right...fails utterly, because it does not accept certain realities. And, as William James once put so well, "In the pinch between the real and the ideal, some part of the ideal must be left behind."

Put another way, the world will never be as we wish it to be...Only as it has come to be.

[Agnapostate]

Aggie, administrations, both democratic and republican have, since the earliest days of the Cold war, played a role in destabilizing democratically elected governments throughout this hemisphere in support of US corporate interests...All in the name of fighting "communism".

Yes, that would be correct. U.S. ruling administrations have traditionally been and continue to be among the foremost of political regimes directly or indirectly responsible for anti-democratic coups and support of dictatorial political conditions throughout the world. This pattern has been particularly stark in Latin America, with the CIA-backed removals of democratically elected leftists Jacobo Arbenz in Guatemala and Salvador Allende in Chile (who was to be replaced by the brutal military dictator Augusto Pinochet), and support of the Contras and the Somoza family of Nicaragua, Manuel Noriega of Panama, Rafael Trujillo of the Dominican Republic, the Duvalier father and son pair of Haiti, Fulgencio Batista of Cuba, etc. And the brilliant social scientist who has conducted perhaps the most insightful analysis of these trends? An anarchist.


I was not, however repeating a "cliche".

You were. The Internet anti-socialist, usually ignorant of the nature of remuneration in the socialist economy and of the failings of the capitalist labor market, always remembers to refer to the platitudinous talking point of "human nature." The more clever ones will at least refer to the economic calculation problem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem), though most don't understand its nature.

[bullypulpit]

"We are communists. But our communism is not that of the authoritarian school: it is anarchist communism, communism without government, free communism. It is a synthesis of the two chief aims pursued by humanity since the dawn of its history--economic freedom and political freedom. -Peter Kropotkin"

Idealism untouched by realism, Aggie. Just like Milton Friedman's rabidly militant laissez faire capitalism.

[Agnapostate]

Idealism untouched by realism, Aggie. Just like Milton Friedman's rabidly militant laissez faire capitalism.

Milton Friedman was nothing near a militant inasmuch as he maintained his Chicago School roots...it's the Austrians in the mold of Rothbard that you truly have to cast a wary eye on. That said, you've still done nothing other than regurgitate common cliche. You've not substantiated what you've said, or explained in any significant detail why it is true, and for that reason, I cannot take it very seriously...even if it were related to this thread, which it is not.

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,





What a stupid, twisted, illogical bunch of tripe!

"Unlike Haiti, Cuba had a coordinated evacuation plan and post-hurricane rescue efforts that were centrally planned by the Cuban government. This was only possible because Cuban society is not organized according to the needs of foreign capital, but rather according to the needs of the Cuban people."

Cuban society didn't plan a damned thing ... the Cuban government did. Foreign capital had squat to do with it. "social organization" as you call it didn't have squat to do with it either. Social organization isn't helping Haiti either; it is those nations who have centralized, hierarchal governments (democratic or otherwise) who are rushing to their aid. Ther ar NO anarchistic, "socially organised" countries flying in aid because they do not exist and NEVER will!




1. This is a master piece.:lol::lol::lol:
2. To the reasonable poster, it would be the death nail.
3. But we all know you just can't pound anything in Agnus' head, their to much crap in it already.
4. CSM has got your number, so does Gaffer, I don't know why you don't just go down to Haiti, its a paradise for you!!!
5. This wins the CWN *Post Award Of The Month!*


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,



1. Hey I found some more of Manila Ryce's crap online.
2. Aka~ Agnus.
3. He doesn't use his real muslim name to protect himself from the Feds.
4. Heres a link and sample:http://www.jwharrison.com/blog/2009/02/27/answer-coalition-responds-to-president-obamas-iraq-speech/


"With his speech today, President Obama has essentially agreed to continue the criminal occupation of Iraq indefinitely. He announced that there will be an occupation force of 50,000 U.S. troops in Iraq for at least three more years. President Obama used carefully chosen words to avoid a firm commitment to remove the 50,000 occupation troops, even after 2011.

The war in Iraq was illegal. It was aggression. It was based on lies and false rationales. President Obama’s speech today made Bush’s invasion sound like a liberating act and congratulated the troops for “getting the job done.” More than a million Iraqis died and a cruel civil war was set into motion because of the foreign invasion. President Obama did not once criticize the invasion itself.

He has also requested an increase in war spending for Iraq and Afghanistan, and plans to double the number of U.S. troops sent to fight in Afghanistan.

President Obama has asked Congress to provide more than $200 billion for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars over the next two years, in addition to increasing the Pentagon budget by four percent.

Based on President Obama’s new budget, the Pentagon would rank as the world’s 17th largest economy—if it were a country. This new budget increases war spending. Total spending in 2010 would roughly equate to an average of $21,000 a second.

This is not the end of the occupation of Iraq, but rather the continuation of the occupation.

There is only one reason that tens of thousands of troops will remain in Iraq: It is because this is a colonial-type occupation of a strategically important and oil-rich country located in the Middle East where two-thirds of the world’s oil reserve can be found.

Obama’s speech was a major disappointment for anyone who was hoping that Obama would renounce the illegal occupation of Iraq. Today, the U.S. government spends $480 million per day to fund the occupation of Iraq. Even if 100,000 troops are drawn out by August 2010, that means the indefinite occupation of Iraq will cost more than $100 million each day. The continued occupation of Iraq for two years or three years or more makes a complete mockery out of the idea that the Iraqi people control their own destiny. It is a violation of Iraq’s sovereignty and independence.

It is no wonder that John McCain came out to support President Obama’s announced plan on Iraq. McCain was an supporter of former President Bush’s and Vice President Cheney’s war and occupation in Iraq.

Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld—the architects of regime change in Iraq—never had the goal of indefinitely keeping 150,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. They wanted to subdue the Iraqi people and exercise control with a smaller force. The Iraqi armed resistance prolonged the stationing of 150,000 U.S. troops.

Bush’s goal was domination over Iraq and its oil supplies, and domination over the region. This continues to be the goal of the U.S. political and economic establishment, including that of the new administration.

President Obama decided not to challenge the fundamental strategic orientation. That explains why he kept the Bush team—Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, and Generals Petraeus and Odierno—on the job to oversee and manage the Iraq occupation. They will also manage the widening U.S. war in Afghanistan and the aerial assaults on Pakistan. There have been over 30 U.S. bombing attacks in Pakistan in the last two months.

We are marching on Saturday, March 21 because the people of this country are fed up with the status quo. They want decent-paying jobs, and affordable health care and housing for all. Students want to study rather than be driven out by soaring tuition rates. The majority of people want a complete—not partial—withdrawal of ALL troops from Iraq. They want the war in Afghanistan to end rather than escalate. They are increasingly opposed to sending $2.6 billion each year to Israel and want an end to the colonial occupation of Palestine."


5. Written like a true muzzy.
6. Manila Ryce!:laugh2::laugh2:



Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[Agnapostate]

Son, they really need to up your dosage.