Quote:
Originally posted by Botnst
Is Aristide a "murderous dictator"? I've read that he's accused of corruption, not murder. Also, though the elections had some problems, even the sainted Jimmy Carter said they were good enough, so the dictator description doesn't apply.
What is the strategic interest in Haiti? Until tehy start showing-up in FL in flotillas there is no compelling interest in Haiti. 60 deaths in Haiti, though sad, hardly compares to Rwanda's slaughter.
B
|
The reference to "murderous" is based on news reports that Aristide has had political opponents murdered, although nothing remotely on the scale Saddam used to do. If Aristide is murderous, then I suppose we need a stronger word for what Saddam did, but is that the relevant question? Has the so-called Bush Doctrine (a poor name, IMHO, because it implies that Bush actually gave the matter some thought) evolved into a policy that we only invade other countries if the leader has murdered more than a certain number of his opponents? Or is the Iraq invasion separate from the Bush Doctrine?
Just because Aristide was elected does not mean he hasn't become a dictator. Aristide's opponents claim that he uses the military to perpetuate his non-democratic regime. If so, then he has become a dictator.
As for strategic interest, there are Bush apologists (Hannity being perhaps the most obvious and blatant) who criticize "liberals" for being hypocritical on Iraq. Following in that great Limbaugh tradition, Hannity sets up a straw man, saying that "liberals'" who oppose the Iraq invasion obviously don't care about human rights. My question about the Haiti/Iraq comparison is directed to people who subscribe that viewpoint. If none of you agree with Hannity on that, good.
Finally, I believe that the oppression in Haiti goes beyond 60 deaths.