Colonize Haiti

[Blse]

Let me just trow a controverial idea at you guys. Now, I'm not saying that this is what I beleive, I'd just like to see some arguments and opinion on the idea. Here it goes:

Puerto Rico is among the most affluent nations in the Caribbean because it is a U.S. colony (defacto), ditto for other colonies like Aruba. These countries receive support and governmental guidance from developed nations. Furthermore, developing countries that work closely with the IMF, U.S. State Dept., etc... tend have higher living standards (as measured by GDP per capita and HDI) than those who don't.

Haiti would be therefore be better off if we colonized it. New buildings would have to meet U.S. buildings codes, American officials would run the country and corruption would drop dramatically (b/c higher paid public servants are harder to bribe) while comptence would increase (American technocrats and professionals are better trained). The country would be safer and more affluent if it became a U.S. territory run by American officials.

[khadi]

We have no right to do so.

This is dangerous thinking.

[Shauru]

Haitis crap. What's the point of colonizing a place without buildings to destroy or oil to be had. Plus their all poor what's the point of putting in a mcdonalds if they aren't going to buy our big macs.


Clearly the colonization real estate market is seeing much more of a boom in the middle east. And its a lot easier to spin PR on a place that doesn't actually want help and hates our freedom. Where the hell are you going to even pretend haiti has WMDs?

[Amphorian]

Isn't this what gets us in silly wars to begin with? Oh wait, we already have a large hand in upping governments in Central and South America, and making the lives of the natives even more of a living hell. FOR OUR OWN BENEFIT. Yeah, go USA! Whoooo!

[Blse]

We have no right to do so.

This is dangerous thinking.

How do we have no right to do so? Are you talking in regards to international law or ethics? If you're talking about ethics, why would it be unethical? I'm interested in seeings peoples' reasoning.

Uuuuugh. Noob.

Haitis crap. What's the point of colonizing a place without buildings to destroy or oil to be had. Plus their all poor what's the point of putting in a mcdonalds if they aren't going to buy our big macs.


Clearly the colonization real estate market is seeing much more of a boom in the middle east. And its a lot easier to spin PR on a place that doesn't actually want help and hates our freedom. Where the hell are you going to even pretend haiti has WMDs?

Wouldn't Haitians be better off under U.S. rule? If not, explain your reasoning. Don't just brush an extreme stance off because it is extreme. Explain your reasoning.

Isn't this what gets us in silly wars to begin with? Oh wait, we already have a large hand in upping governments in Central and South America, and making the lives of the natives even more of a living hell. FOR OUR OWN BENEFIT. Yeah, go USA! Whoooo!

Chile was heavily influenced by us and the IMF. That's one of the reasons why Chile is much more prosperous and the earthquake there did less damage than in Haiti.

[Amphorian]

But lets forget all the other countries with civil or drug wars going on that were influenced by us. Great idea there for sure.

Cherry picking to make us look great for the win. -waves a flag-

[zibber]

Let me just trow a controverial idea at you guys. Now, I'm not saying that this is what I beleive, I'd just like to see some arguments and opinion on the idea. Here it goes:

Puerto Rico is among the most affluent nations in the Caribbean because it is a U.S. colony (defacto), ditto for other colonies like Aruba. These countries receive support and governmental guidance from developed nations. Furthermore, developing countries that work closely with the IMF, U.S. State Dept., etc... tend have higher living standards (as measured by GDP per capita and HDI) than those who don't.

Haiti would be therefore be better off if we colonized it. New buildings would have to meet U.S. buildings codes, American officials would run the country and corruption would drop dramatically (b/c higher paid public servants are harder to bribe) while comptence would increase (American technocrats and professionals are better trained). The country would be safer and more affluent if it became a U.S. territory run by American officials.

The entire reason why it is in such deplorable state is because of centuries of western manipulation and ("colonial") exploitation.

Haiti was on the right track when it wrested itself from French domination, but for the last 100 years or so, it has actually been the USA who has continually meddled in Haitian affairs (to a detrimental effect), working together with local dictators (the most infamous being Papa Doc and Baby Doc) and initially even directly occupying it between 1915 and 1934. For the past twenty-something years, the USA (through "USAID") has changed Haiti from self-sufficient to almost completely dependent on US grain imports. Every social movement is violently oppressed with US help. Your country has assisted TWO coups in the last twenty years.

In short, your "proposal" is infuriating.

[thod]

What is the point? The US gains a totally useless spec of land. However it gains lots of (black, non christian) people that will move to the US taking the few jobs. The island will drain federal funds in aid grants to try to raise it up and it will never stop. It will be a perpetual drain. The idea is take over resources you need. Canada would be a good target since they are culturally a sub-type of American, there are few of them, the resources gained would be vast. Pakistan would be a terrible idea, they are many, they are not culturally similar, they have nothing the US wants.

[zibber]

What is the point? The US gains a totally useless spec of land. However it gains lots of (black, non christian) people that will move to the US taking the few jobs. The island will drain federal funds in aid grants to try to raise it up and it will never stop. It will be a perpetual drain. The idea is take over resources you need. Canada would be a good target since they are culturally a sub-type of American, there are few of them, the resources gained would be vast. Pakistan would be a terrible idea, they are many, they are not culturally similar, they have nothing the US wants.

How does one gain something one has already had for over 100 years?


Wouldn't Haitians be better off under U.S. rule? If not, explain your reasoning. Don't just brush an extreme stance off because it is extreme. Explain your reasoning.

It isn't an extreme stance. It is very conventional in the way it overlooks basically every aspect of history, like 99% of media coverage of the recent disaster.

[Shauru]

Wouldn't Haitians be better off under U.S. rule? If not, explain your reasoning. Don't just brush an extreme stance off because it is extreme. Explain your reasoning.

Firstly. My statement was mean to be humerous/ironic, not serious. However....


Your assumption is just that an assumption. And it goes to the heart of recent US foreign policy. When weapons of mass destruction were not found in Iraq, the focus was quickly shifted to the noble efforts of spreading democracy because it is a superior system in our eyes. However that's the problem, in our eyes.

You're making a rather vain and foolish supposition that everyone in a country we would call third world would be much better off under US rule. Haiti would be better you say? How? Do you include the people in Haiti or just the land mass? If they would be so much better off why don't they petition the US government to annex them?

I'm tired of this arrogant notion held by people in the US that the whole world would be better if they were just like us.

I for one think the US would be better under Canadian or Northern European rule. However. I having never have lived in either of those places, or having even visited, could or would come out here and make the proposition. It's a matter of opinion. I may like it better, but what about the conservatives of this country? Some of the Haitian people may like the US better, but some of them may not. What if during the US revolution, Spain or France took direct control of us?

If people who go about spouting off that, other countries would be better off with American style freedom, actually believed in freedom. They would know that freedom is allowing those countries to choose their course.

How many people specifically in this forum would appreciate your neighbor coming over and force redecorating and reorganizing your house?

[ArtistTyrant]

oh, yes, Haiti

A land that was economically sound under French rule, and when the Africans revolted, they committed genocide and murdered over 40,000 French, to become the first "republic" ruled by Africans...well, they haven't accomplished much have they? They are entirely dependent on European nations for help, and a commercial business class made up of Europeans used to keep their economy working. The US occupation from 1915 to 1934 helped Haiti quite a bit, infrastructure was built, agriculture programs were started, and Haiti gained land. Haiti has suffered at least 32 coups in its history. They can do nothing on their own. Committing genocide is something that they were capable of, but building a country is something impossible for them. So i say, they deserve nothing from Europeans, no aid, no colonization, nothing.

[Lucid]

Yeah, that's just what we need. Another third world nation to rebuild with tax payer money. I'm happy to provide them with what aid we can, but I don't think they'd like the idea of being colonized by us and, more importantly, I think it'd be a huge waste of money for us.

[Causa Mortis]

The entire reason why it is in such deplorable state is because of centuries of western manipulation and ("colonial") exploitation.

Haiti was on the right track when it wrested itself from French domination, but for the last 100 years or so, it has actually been the USA who has continually meddled in Haitian affairs (to a detrimental effect), working together with local dictators (the most infamous being Papa Doc and Baby Doc) and initially even directly occupying it between 1915 and 1934. For the past twenty-something years, the USA (through "USAID") has changed Haiti from self-sufficient to almost completely dependent on US grain imports. Every social movement is violently oppressed with US help. Your country has assisted TWO coups in the last twenty years.

In one respect, I agree with you. Foreign aid is generally destructive in almost every form.

Social movements aren't what will cause Haiti to become a decent place - integrated technology, human capital, and physical capital are. The easiest way to do that is the Indian/Chinese model of steadily opening to trade while securing property rights - in which case big corporations will do most of the heavy lifting in terms of integrating technology and physical capital. But of course corporations are evil because they respond to incentives.

Beyond that I don't know the details of Haitian politics so won't comment, but if the Chinese can do it, so can the Haitians.

In short, your "proposal" is infuriating.

I think that was rather his point, other than to kind of gently assert that US colonialism was (very) benign and typically involved fairly generous investments in infrastructure and human capital.

The Philippines and Puerto Rico are doing quite well compared to former many British, French, and especially Spanish colonies. The only former US colony that is struggling is Cuba, which is, well, a special case.

Of course this does not justify colonialism, but its not something to dismiss either. We're not the total assholes whiney-brand leftists like to make us out to be.

[Wien1938]

This doesn't strike me as a very rational discussion...

As much as I disagree with Zibber elsewhere, he is (for once) right about Haiti. The US history of relations with Haiti is not a happy one.
That said, the US could have a much more constructive relationship with Haiti. The major problem seems to be found in the corrupt and violent politics of the island. Security and law are the major priorities together with the development of a democratic political regime, which is respected by all those involved.

The priorities for the US in the role of co-ordinating international aid and development should be to restore the economic health and infrastructure of the island, restore law and order and help Haitians rebuild their political infrastructure. Too often, even on a cursory reading of Haitian history, dictatorial tendencies have been allowed to develop, which have done far more harm to the islanders than any other cause.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

China and India have strong political regimes. Political and legal security create the basis for economic and social progress.

[Causa Mortis]

Isn't this what gets us in silly wars to begin with? Oh wait, we already have a large hand in upping governments in Central and South America, and making the lives of the natives even more of a living hell. FOR OUR OWN BENEFIT. Yeah, go USA! Whoooo!

BLSE mentioned Chile but didn't qualify the answer enough.

Chile (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) adopted a host of Milton Friedman's economic reforms under Pinochet after decades of stagnation and inflation under socialist regimes. The results have been, as promised, uneven, difficult, and tumultuous but, over long horizions, steady growth. Friedman is by far the most conservative of credible modern economists.

Contrast the 30 year economic performance of Chile with the economic performance of Venezuela and come back and argue against trade, property rights, and a stable currency.

Its looking like Chicago blew the call on regulation in a host of ways, and their histrionics over spending get goofy at times, but arguing against free trade, property rights, a reasonably stable currency, and the rule of law - the essential elements of the US model of government and production - is an argument that you're going to lose on anecdote and logic alone.

That Pinochet was an asshole remains unfortunate but that doesn't change the credibility of the economics. Chile, China, and India appear much, much better off to me than Cuba or the sub-Saharan African states. Am I missing a successful planned-socialist development state or a state that's derived a great deal of benefit from aid?

I won't argue that Friedman is the whole story behind Chile's comparative ease in dealing with the earthquakes, but dismissing it with the wave of a hand is bullshit.

[SirJac]

What the OP is suggesting would most definately cross the line into apartheid. All we need to do is look at South Africa to see how that plays out. Also note that apartheid is listed as a crime against humanity by the UN.

[Wien1938]

SirJac, that is a nonsensical statement.
Noting that the OP was laying out a discussion topic as a hypothetical, what is contained in the OP does not match apartheid in any recognisable sense. I would suggest reading up on Apartheid.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
What Blse lays out is a colonial relationship. Please note that at no point, explicitly or implicitly does his hypothesis or the notion of a colonial relationship actually advocate racial segregation (which is the motive of Apartheid). How could it be racial segregation if the administrators of the colonial government were US officials? They could black, white, hispanic, Chinese, Uzbek - anything so long as they were US citizens employed by the colonial administration.

It is important to be linguistically precise in a debate.

[SirJac]

The logic of the OP is the same logic used by the white South Africans I have known that came here at the end of the aparthied. "They can't do it on their own so we do it for them". Taking control of all the positions of power and excluding the people of that nation is the same thing, even if you throw in a couple token black Americans so it doesn't look like segregation based on race. Your still segregating Haitians from non-Haitians and concentrating all of the power in the hands of foreigners. The essense of apartheid is still there by creating and maintaining a new regime through domination of outsider control of all positions of power.

You can argue that it's different, but I doubt that the Haitians will see any difference.

[void]

I think it's a fine idea, although I suggest a different colonizer. It would be better for everyone involved if one of the Nordic countries set up shop. Sweden, Denmark and Norway have heretofore demonstrated governance and civilization far superior to those of Haiti and the USA. So why not have these two countries colonized by Scandinavia? America's HDI lags behind many other Western nations. Clearly their government is staffed by the corrupt, incompetent and malicious.

I for one welcome our new Scandinavian overlords.

[Causa Mortis]

I think it's a fine idea, although I suggest a different colonizer. It would be better for everyone involved if one of the Nordic countries set up shop. Sweden, Denmark and Norway have heretofore demonstrated governance and civilization far superior to those of Haiti and the USA. So why not have these two countries colonized by Scandinavia? America's HDI lags behind many other Western nations. Clearly their government is staffed by the corrupt, incompetent and malicious.

I for one welcome our new Scandinavian overlords.

Haha great post.

The problem is that because of public choice issues there appear to be large diseconomies of scale in democratic government, and the US does quite well in HDI up until you include health care. Although I (rather strongly) prefer a German, Taiwanese, or Swedish style system, you have to grant some credence to the conservative American macro claim - that the enormous profits in the system are generating drugs that benefit everyone. The US is certainly the leader in pharmaceutical research - whether or not they are in general medicine innovation as well is not something I can answer.

---------- Post added 03-07-2010 at 05:21 PM ----------


China and India have strong political regimes. Political and legal security create the basis for economic and social progress.

Political and legal security took them nowhere until they opened large portions of their economies to trade. You need the rule of law, property rights, and trade. Trade probably wouldn't get you very far without the rule of law either though.

[Miryr]

Why do Americans always have this "moral obligation" to try to make everyone like them?

[ArtistTyrant]

Why do Americans always have this "moral obligation" to try to make everyone like them?

My theory is that they have way too many resources and too much time on their hands because they are workaholics who don't focus on their families enough. :)

[Angel1]

Haiti's biggest problem over the years have been the Haitian people themselves. That being said, Zibber (for once) is not entirely incorrect in asserting the United States (and the rest of the Western World) have caused some problems for Haiti. The US occupation of Haiti from 1915-1934 did not really help Haiti.

Haiti has been imposed upon so frequently (for better or worse) that they really need to simply be allowed to develop. Let's get some basic farming going. Let's get some fishing going in the carribean. Haiti needs to get back to the basics. Go back to being at the agricultural stage in development. Clean water to drink, Haitian grown/caught food to eat, Haitian built homes to live in. As I understand it, Haiti already has high ways and roads and that kind of infrastructure. With that in place, the only asset that the US could forcibly confer upon Haiti by taking them over as a colony would be the English language. Learning to speak English is in my opinion less valuable than learning to stand on your own two feet. English will come quickly enough as they start to trade and become active in the wider North, South, Carribean American community.

The best thing that the US could do to further Haitian development is to put our engineers on the case of how Haitians could build Earthquake and Hurricane resistent homes with the resources available to them. Figure that out, then teach the Haitians. Teach them about good agricultural practises (think organic, because that's what they have by and large). Teach them how to keep drinking water clean and to get access to drinking water. Oh and here's a shocker for some people, listen to their ideas. Think their ideas through. Test the ideas and come back to them with some answers like, "Well, we thought your idea through and we tested it. This part here needs to be adjusted to make it work, but this is a good idea," and, "We thought your idea through and we just don't think it quite fits as a solution for this situation," and sometimes, "While x, y, and z were good, the idea just really doesn't work. Do you have any other ideas that might work because were thinking about..."

The best resources we can give Haiti are knowledge and time to work things out for themselves.

[sage33]

oh, yes, Haiti

A land that was economically sound under French rule, and when the Africans revolted, they committed genocide and murdered over 40,000 French, to become the first "republic" ruled by Africans...well, they haven't accomplished much have they? They are entirely dependent on European nations for help, and a commercial business class made up of Europeans used to keep their economy working. The US occupation from 1915 to 1934 helped Haiti quite a bit, infrastructure was built, agriculture programs were started, and Haiti gained land. Haiti has suffered at least 32 coups in its history. They can do nothing on their own. Committing genocide is something that they were capable of, but building a country is something impossible for them. So i say, they deserve nothing from Europeans, no aid, no colonization, nothing.


I wonder why? Are you saying that the Africans had no right to fight for their freedom? Are there not more African's who've died than the French? Was it not the French and Spaniards who took over a land that was already occupied by the Natives?

No nation can survive on its own.

---------- Post added 03-08-2010 at 09:35 AM ----------

Haiti's biggest problem over the years have been the Haitian people themselves. That being said, Zibber (for once) is not entirely incorrect in asserting the United States (and the rest of the Western World) have caused some problems for Haiti. The US occupation of Haiti from 1915-1934 did not really help Haiti.

Haiti has been imposed upon so frequently (for better or worse) that they really need to simply be allowed to develop. Let's get some basic farming going. Let's get some fishing going in the carribean. Haiti needs to get back to the basics. Go back to being at the agricultural stage in development. Clean water to drink, Haitian grown/caught food to eat, Haitian built homes to live in. As I understand it, Haiti already has high ways and roads and that kind of infrastructure. With that in place, the only asset that the US could forcibly confer upon Haiti by taking them over as a colony would be the English language. Learning to speak English is in my opinion less valuable than learning to stand on your own two feet. English will come quickly enough as they start to trade and become active in the wider North, South, Carribean American community.

The best thing that the US could do to further Haitian development is to put our engineers on the case of how Haitians could build Earthquake and Hurricane resistent homes with the resources available to them. Figure that out, then teach the Haitians. Teach them about good agricultural practises (think organic, because that's what they have by and large). Teach them how to keep drinking water clean and to get access to drinking water. Oh and here's a shocker for some people, listen to their ideas. Think their ideas through. Test the ideas and come back to them with some answers like, "Well, we thought your idea through and we tested it. This part here needs to be adjusted to make it work, but this is a good idea," and, "We thought your idea through and we just don't think it quite fits as a solution for this situation," and sometimes, "While x, y, and z were good, the idea just really doesn't work. Do you have any other ideas that might work because were thinking about..."

The best resources we can give Haiti are knowledge and time to work things out for themselves.


I completely agree with this post. That is the best gift anyone could give this country.

---------- Post added 03-08-2010 at 09:36 AM ----------

Why do Americans always have this "moral obligation" to try to make everyone like them?

Moral obligation or not, it's always good to help the fallen.

[plotthickens]

If we're looking for 'better off' for Haiti according to

higher living standards
better building codes
less corruption
more competence
safer
more affluent

... the US would NOT be the best model.

[El Cas]

If we're looking for 'better off' for Haiti according to

higher living standards
better building codes
less corruption
more competence
safer
more affluent

... the US would NOT be the best model.

I agree.

To think that the US model is the one to apply in Haiti would have catastrophic outcome. I would say, use a hybrid model where you take what worked from European nations and the US and use them as guidelines to develop the model. This would be the best approach.

If I were planning on colonizing Haiti, I would propose this model and ensure that whatever resources are need to achieve it came from me or through me. It would take a while but I would eventually have a big enough footprint on the nation to just say "Well since you are pretty much part of my nation, sign here to be annexed in." That way I would be colonize something worth colonizing. (But knowing my luck, it would probably backfire on me :p)

[Causa Mortis]

If we're looking for 'better off' for Haiti according to

higher living standards
better building codes
less corruption
more competence
safer
more affluent

... the US would NOT be the best model.

Because conditions in the US aren't rising at a faster rate and aren't better than Haiti? Or, wait, its because we're on the downswing of a generally rising business/income cycle?

To think that the US model is the one to apply in Haiti would have catastrophic outcome. I would say, use a hybrid model where you take what worked from European nations and the US and use them as guidelines to develop the model. This would be the best approach.

The EU model is the US model with nationalized health care and coddling of bad industries. The former makes people better off, the latter benefits a tiny special interest at the expense of everyone else.

[plotthickens]

Because conditions in the US aren't rising at a faster rate and aren't better than Haiti? Or, wait, its because we're on the downswing of a generally rising business/income cycle?

Because there are better models for those criterium.

[ArtistTyrant]

i think that to have a successful Haiti you'd have to get rid of all of the Haitians, maybe give them to SA?

[plotthickens]

i think that to have a successful Haiti you'd have to get rid of all of the Haitians, maybe give them to SA?


:stunned: That's so intolerant and ignorant of a statement as to leave me in aghast awe. Is that really how you feel? :disappointed:

[ArtistTyrant]

yep, they've had over 200 years to try to make a successful nation, and they (along with other Africans) have all failed to create good governments for themselves, i say we (US) should pay them generously to go back to Africa, and stop trying to meddle with them...if they want to live a subsistence farming way of life, Europeans have no right to try to intervene with that, same goes for trying to meddle with other non-European groups

[Lonpone]

yep, they've had over 200 years to try to make a successful nation, and they (along with other Africans) have all failed to create good governments for themselves, i say we (US) should pay them generously to go back to Africa, and stop trying to meddle with them...if they want to live a subsistence farming way of life, Europeans have no right to try to intervene with that, same goes for trying to meddle with other non-European groups

And why should the U.S. pay to move an entire country to mass migrate to another country that would not be eager to see them? Haiti does not belong to the U.S. or any other European power. It currently belongs to the Haitians. Live and let be.

[LaoTzu]

Now I know who not to take seriously. Thanks A.T. ;)


How 'bout... debt forgiveness first. Haiti has paid interest on loans they weren't even allowed access to (due to sanctions). Forbid the IMF/WTO from anything to do with Haiti.


#2. Allow them a democracy. They've had their share of dictatorship. Are the US corps really reaping enough profit for this kind of oppression to be worthwhile? :/


#3. Forbid foreign ownership of Haitian resources.


#4. Provide them with resources and expertise they may need to build the country they want to live in.


Problem solved.


Food..... don't forget the food. lost of food .... mmmmm foood....

[sunlover]

Let me just trow a controverial idea at you guys. Now, I'm not saying that this is what I beleive, I'd just like to see some arguments and opinion on the idea. Here it goes:

Puerto Rico is among the most affluent nations in the Caribbean because it is a U.S. colony (defacto), ditto for other colonies like Aruba. These countries receive support and governmental guidance from developed nations. Furthermore, developing countries that work closely with the IMF, U.S. State Dept., etc... tend have higher living standards (as measured by GDP per capita and HDI) than those who don't.

Haiti would be therefore be better off if we colonized it. New buildings would have to meet U.S. buildings codes, American officials would run the country and corruption would drop dramatically (b/c higher paid public servants are harder to bribe) while comptence would increase (American technocrats and professionals are better trained). The country would be safer and more affluent if it became a U.S. territory run by American officials.

Personally I agree with your post. I'd take it further and say all third world nations were better off when American/European colonial powers were in control. It's so "politically incorrect to state that in modern times but it's nevertheless the truth. India, the continent of Africa, micronesia, Haiti, etc.

[Wien1938]

That is as silly a statement as some made opposing the hypothesis.

India is far better off than it was when ruled by the British.
The problem arose because some states were simply not capable of self-governance or had a succession of megalomaniacal rulers who wrought harm writ large to their nations. But this does not apply to all.

[Night Runner]

i say we (US) should pay them generously to go back to Africa, and stop trying to meddle with them...
We tried that ~190 years ago with Liberia. Didn't work out too well.

As for the idea of moving a bunch of people into some random region, I strongly suggest you look up Israel.

[tooboku]

At first, I thought this thread was satire. I lolled.

Now there seems to be a "serious" discussion. The fact that this is still being discussed makes me angry.

Sorry, this isn't general hatred towards the US from your neighbour to the North. Your nation violates our nation's sovreignty on a daily basis without so much as even a warning. American F-16s are constantly flying over the Canadian Arctic. IE. You guys are f***in' us up the a** and you don't even have the G** d*** courtesy to give us a reach around. You know what though? I guess we like it. Make it hurt so good, baby.

The US has a nasty habbit of NOT GIVING A DAMN about other countries and still expecting to be liked. Seriously, spending more on military than the next ten countries combined is overrated. You wouldn't need that much if you were nicer.

Wait.. what was I saying? Oh yeah... The food shortage in recent years down there was influenced in part by some more US incompetence. Last year, people were forced to eat mud and that never made the news until the calamity. Suddenly Obama (although I do respect the guy), sends in the troops closes off the airfields so only the US can help? Why couldn't people show that much interest before? Why? Because Earthquakes and other natural disasters are so much sexier.

Dammit. If you want to help Haiti, find a reputable NGO and see how you can assist. I've been donating to an orphanage there for the past three years. You don't need to change the world, just make life better for some other people if you can.


Oh yeah... I love America.

</incoherent ranting>

[Causa Mortis]

Because there are better models for those criterium.

Really? What model has been show to consistently and reliably produce sustained economic growth other than the one built on property rights, the rule of law, at least a degree of openness to international trade, and - at least until you reach a critical mass of capital - a limited government?

That the US model is imperfect and ugly is granted. That other models are better is something that requires clarification.

---------- Post added 03-08-2010 at 10:13 PM ----------


Sorry, this isn't general hatred towards the US from your neighbour to the North. Your nation violates our nation's sovreignty on a daily basis without so much as even a warning. American F-16s are constantly flying over the Canadian Arctic. IE. You guys are f***in' us up the a** and you don't even have the G** d*** courtesy to give us a reach around. You know what though? I guess we like it. Make it hurt so good, baby.

Wow, well I guess Canada should arm up and invade the US then?

[tooboku]

Wow, well I guess Canada should arm up and invade the US then?

I think so. You guys are no match for our what... 115 or so F-18s... most of which the main guns were removed in favour of search lights. Yeah. That's right. Our pilots are so bomb, they'll whup your F22s in dogfights and they don't even need guns! Also, our handful of second hand British submarines will totally own all of your 27 aircraft carriers and their excessively large escort detail.

That's what I mean though. This attitude of "Yeah? So? What you gonna do about it?"
You can only keep it up for so long. When you fight the war, the war always wins.

Anyway, that's enough ISFJ behaviour from me...

Please keep up the fascist conversation about invading Haiti. I've decided it no longer infuriates me and I wish to laugh at some more of people's totally asinine remarks regarding the subject.

[Causa Mortis]

Please keep up the fascist conversation about invading Haiti. I've decided it no longer infuriates me and I wish to laugh at some more of people's totally asinine remarks regarding the subject.

Not my position. My position is that trade, property rights, and stable government appear to be the only reliable path to going from a 3rd to 1st world status.

I've also made a historical reference to the fact that US colonialism was generally quite humane compared to British colonialism, and that British colonialism was quite humane compared to Spanish colonialism. This is a subjective claim, but well, contrast the general posture of the US towards the Phillippenes and Puerto Rico to the posture of Spain towards the Caribbean and I think you'll see the discintion.

[gecko]

The US has a nasty habbit of NOT GIVING A DAMN about other countries and still expecting to be liked. Seriously, spending more on military than the next ten countries combined is overrated. You wouldn't need that much if you were nicer.


LOL, yea - countries that get by on diplomacy and 'kindness'...which countries are those again...? Europe during the rise of Hitler? That worked out great! Not to mention kindness had nothing to do with Hitler's appeasement, more like Europe was war-weary from WW1...had strong motive to avoid war.

Or maybe you're talking about the Native Americans and that story of Thanksgiving. How they helped the white man hunt and gave furs as gifts and all that good stuff? Their kindness really paid off, no?

Diplomacy is simply part of a larger national strategy. Kindness has nothing to do with it...

[tooboku]

Occupation is occupation no matter what you call it.

As for the Philippines, the US may have stopped the Spanish occupation but they stripped that little country for it's gold and then ran off. What the h***.

---------- Post added 03-09-2010 at 02:19 AM ----------

Or maybe you're talking about the Native Americans and that story of Thanksgiving. How they helped the white man hunt and gave furs as gifts and all that good stuff? Their kindness really paid off, no?

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

[gecko]

Haiti's biggest problem over the years have been the Haitian people themselves. That being said, Zibber (for once) is not entirely incorrect in asserting the United States (and the rest of the Western World) have caused some problems for Haiti. The US occupation of Haiti from 1915-1934 did not really help Haiti.

Haiti has been imposed upon so frequently (for better or worse) that they really need to simply be allowed to develop. Let's get some basic farming going. Let's get some fishing going in the carribean. Haiti needs to get back to the basics. Go back to being at the agricultural stage in development. Clean water to drink, Haitian grown/caught food to eat, Haitian built homes to live in. As I understand it, Haiti already has high ways and roads and that kind of infrastructure. With that in place, the only asset that the US could forcibly confer upon Haiti by taking them over as a colony would be the English language. Learning to speak English is in my opinion less valuable than learning to stand on your own two feet. English will come quickly enough as they start to trade and become active in the wider North, South, Carribean American community.

The best thing that the US could do to further Haitian development is to put our engineers on the case of how Haitians could build Earthquake and Hurricane resistent homes with the resources available to them. Figure that out, then teach the Haitians. Teach them about good agricultural practises (think organic, because that's what they have by and large). Teach them how to keep drinking water clean and to get access to drinking water. Oh and here's a shocker for some people, listen to their ideas. Think their ideas through. Test the ideas and come back to them with some answers like, "Well, we thought your idea through and we tested it. This part here needs to be adjusted to make it work, but this is a good idea," and, "We thought your idea through and we just don't think it quite fits as a solution for this situation," and sometimes, "While x, y, and z were good, the idea just really doesn't work. Do you have any other ideas that might work because were thinking about..."

The best resources we can give Haiti are knowledge and time to work things out for themselves.

Wow, you make it all sound so easy! If I worked for the government I'd be damn sure to sign you up to help the Haitians - you're just plain awesome!

I mean not only are you neglecting the general poverty of the population, where many simply cannot afford to pay for those developments you are proposing - you are actually supposing their government will miraculously start focusing on the right things(see: developing Haiti's agriculture) instead of trying to stay in power while avoiding coups! Not to mention general corruption - oh the wonders that does for a nation's coffers!

How do you 'allow' them to develop when they are constantly being overthrown from within? Hm, maybe...this instability is caused by majority of poor people? If so...the solution is better living conditions...but how can an unstable government focus on these things? Or maybe you are insinuating that foreign powers have facilitated these coups, and if they are left alone they will prosper. Not so! The stronger nations have historically exploited the weaker ones! As long as they can get away with it, they will continue to do so!

Your idealism is only outshone by the utter unreality of any of your proposals happening. Unless a large oil deposit pops up in their territory.

---------- Post added 03-09-2010 at 02:39 AM ----------

Occupation is occupation no matter what you call it.

As for the Philippines, the US may have stopped the Spanish occupation but they stripped that little country for it's gold and then ran off. What the h***.

---------- Post added 03-09-2010 at 02:19 AM ----------



:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

My point being: Whether it was the Romans, the Greeks, the Persians, the British, the Americans, the French, or the Russians...all have done in their best interests - I simply believe that power will be exploited by nations. No country will let their strength sit unused, for not using their power now lets other countries gain advantages later. As long as none of the world leaders is crazy enough to induce nuclear war, all nations are free to play the game.

---------- Post added 03-09-2010 at 03:01 AM ----------

Furthermore, OP wanted to discuss whether or not US colonization would be beneficial. Choices are: either we delve into intricacies that are simply above our heads - is it beneficial for the US to seriously devote help to Haiti(better foreign 'karma', relations, future economic benefits, etc.)? Basically unanswerable with limited information - so now you have the skeptics who disbelieve in the US system yet believe other systems are better, and those who cite the success of the US and westernized colonization as beneficial. There again, these two camps will never see eye to eye, and government action will depend on public opinion by majority.

Then it comes down to a choice of belief - is the US essentially a positive force, or will it simply act as all nations have in the history of mankind - by exploitation of the weak?

The former is naive, and while evidence points favorable at times there is often a tangible reward FOR the US as a nation to justify their 'charitable' actions. The latter is much more likely.

Then factor in the small percentage of people who are willing to go out of their way in(providing for their own) order to help others(and public opinion as factored in national diplomacy), and we are basically just running our wheels here pending major social overhaul, or technological breakthroughs.

[Causa Mortis]

Occupation is occupation no matter what you call it.

As for the Philippines, the US may have stopped the Spanish occupation but they stripped that little country for it's gold and then ran off. What the h***.:

Sure braugh, cause there's no difference between British occupation during WW2 and Nazi occupation.

[thod]

Why is it the old British colonies, such as the US, Canada and Australia have done so well? Even the more impoverished ones such as India and South Africa are ok by regional standards. If we are to dismiss the racial theory, blacks cannot rule themselves, then we are left with cultural and language factors. Take South America for example, Spanish language and culture. What we see constantly is the rise of strong men, generalismo's. Perhaps the culture itself is giving rise to the political system. If Haiti has an African culture, then it can be expected to, and does, follow the African model. We can all see for ourselves what a mess Africa is.

[gecko]

Why is it the old British colonies, such as the US, Canada and Australia have done so well? Even the more impoverished ones such as India and South Africa are ok by regional standards. If we are to dismiss the racial theory, blacks cannot rule themselves, then we are left with cultural and language factors. Take South America for example, Spanish language and culture. What we see constantly is the rise of strong men, generalismo's. Perhaps the culture itself is giving rise to the political system. If Haiti has an African culture, then it can be expected to, and does, follow the African model. We can all see for ourselves what a mess Africa is.

What about Spanish culture/language? Spain seems fine...
Futhermore: Chile, Brazil, Mexico, Argentina, and Peru were all Spanish colonies, and are fairly stable and prosperous

[Antares]

yep, they've had over 200 years to try to make a successful nation, and they (along with other Africans) have all failed to create good governments for themselves, i say we (US) should pay them generously to go back to Africa, and stop trying to meddle with them...if they want to live a subsistence farming way of life, Europeans have no right to try to intervene with that, same goes for trying to meddle with other non-European groups

Oh, but of course. Take up the "white man's burden". :rolleyes:

They don't have to prove anything; to you, the US or anyone else, nor is the US responsible for them. You have got to stop viewing them as inferior or subordinate, as if your country has any right to do anything to other countries. Haiti is not America's backyard, and certainly isn't the fifty first state.

And Africans? Really? How long gone do their ancestors have to be from Africa for you to stop considering them "Africans", and to start calling them by their proper name: Haitians? And even if you're right.

Even if you're doing this for all the right reasons, what makes you think they can fit in? What makes you think any African country will take a group of bribed immigrants? What gives them any more claim to land in Africa aside from the fact that their ancestors arrived from Africa as slaves hundreds of years ago?

Why should taxpayers from your country join the government in its hypothetical quest to send them "back home"? What do they gain from it?

[thod]

They don't have to prove anything; to you, the US or anyone else, nor is the US responsible for them.

Isn't that the problem though? The US does feel it has a responsibility to help them after the earth quake. The alternative of saying "let them all die, its their own fault" is not acceptable in the US. Thus to prevent such calls, they want to make it so that Haiti is strong enough to stand alone. With such a parental attitude comes the desire to direct to prevent harm in future. Some people seem to be born with the desire to do good, or at least what they perceive as good. The same with nations.

China is quite exceptional in its non-interference except in its own economic interests. But such a policy also means it has few friends, only temporary allies who will turn on it, equally quickly, when interests dictate.

[Angel1]

Wow, you make it all sound so easy! If I worked for the government I'd be damn sure to sign you up to help the Haitians - you're just plain awesome!

I mean not only are you neglecting the general poverty of the population, where many simply cannot afford to pay for those developments you are proposing - you are actually supposing their government will miraculously start focusing on the right things(see: developing Haiti's agriculture) instead of trying to stay in power while avoiding coups! Not to mention general corruption - oh the wonders that does for a nation's coffers!

How do you 'allow' them to develop when they are constantly being overthrown from within? Hm, maybe...this instability is caused by majority of poor people? If so...the solution is better living conditions...but how can an unstable government focus on these things? Or maybe you are insinuating that foreign powers have facilitated these coups, and if they are left alone they will prosper. Not so! The stronger nations have historically exploited the weaker ones! As long as they can get away with it, they will continue to do so!

Your idealism is only outshone by the utter unreality of any of your proposals happening. Unless a large oil deposit pops up in their territory.
At this point in time, Haiti is for once moving in the right direction. Even dirt poor people have an asset...themselves. I don't talk about idealistic things. Idealistic would be to say that they could do all that I said all over their country. I am not that stupid. I said that they need TIME and knowledge. The US did not become an internally great country overnight and neither will Haiti, but the US found the right direction and started heading that way. Haiti needs to start this journey. It is unrealistic to think that people will not become sick and tired of being poor if they have another option. I want to teach them to fish; yes teaching them will work. No, it won't work all at once and no it won't work quickly, but nation-fixing isn't a quick endeavor. Afghanistan and Haiti will spend a long time recovering from their respective hells, but given enough time they can achieve success.

As to stronger nations exploiting Haiti, they will only do it if they can get away with it. What makes you think that the US won't decide that a stabile and healthy Haiti is in our best interests? What makes you think that the US wouldn't step in to prevent exploitation? What makes you think that Haiti and the US couldn't use each other for mutual exploitation? Haiti exploits US protection and the US exploits Haiti as an opportunity to earn prestige within the Americas.

[Wien1938]

What about Spanish culture/language? Spain seems fine...
Futhermore: Chile, Brazil, Mexico, Argentina, and Peru were all Spanish colonies, and are fairly stable and prosperous

Yes, Spain is fine apart from the history of the country - authoritarian, incompentant and occasionally tyrannical monarchy, followed by a violent, corrupt republic which in turn collapsed into the Spanish Civil War in which Spain tore itself apart (eagerly helped by Germany, Italy and the Soviet Union), followed by thirty years of fascist rule. The experience of tyranny, civil war and bloodshed led to a decision to embrace Parliamentary democracy (led incidently by the king) and backed up with lots of European Union diplomatic and financial support.
Chile has only been democratic and prosperous since the end of the Pinochet regime, which actually built the economy that makes Chile work today. Chile's democracy is rather conservative, which may be why it is not disaster-prone like...
Argentina, which has had a succession of populist politicians who behaved like dictators (look up Peron) and a series of military regimes, notorious for mass murder. Argentina has attacked its neighbours, gone bankrupt (twice) through its own economic profligacy (not the IMF, which bailed them out the second time) and launched under its' last military government a disastrous war against Britain by invading the Falkland Islands.
Mexico, which has only had a functioning democracy in any real sense since 1929 (if you count holding votes) or 1988 (if you count allowing the other parties to win elections). Mexico did not have a functioning economy in the sense of growth (apart from population) until the NAFTA agreement of 1994, since when the Mexican economy has grown and grown until in 2006 it became a billion dollar economy. Good old democracy and markets working together, I see...
Now Peru, which has only had a functioning democracy since 1975 (if you count being allowed to vote) or 1990 if you count stable government (even as Maoist revolutionaries were attempting to overthrow the government). The market economy which has made Peru relatively prosperous (compared to its past) has only been in place since 1990 and was built on the IMF/US model of capitalism.
Brazil has only had a democracy since 1985 and a stable one (which could actually create economic growth and keep inflation under control) since 1992. Before that it was a succession of military governments and populist strongmen.

Columbia is an interesting case study.


Might I add that one of the lessons of 9/11 was that unstable or failed states are a long term threat to the prosperity and security the wealthier nations? These can become breeding grounds for terrorism or organised crime. It remains in the interest of the US and other nations to intervene (how ever they choose to do so) in Haiti's affairs because a functioning, stable Haiti would benefit both its citizens and the interests of the rest of the world. How that happens is a matter for discussion, but I would not advocate a laisse faire approach here.

[gecko]

It is unrealistic to think that people will not become sick and tired of being poor if they have another option.

What makes you think people who are sick and poor choose to be this way?

I want to teach them to fish; yes teaching them will work. No, it won't work all at once and no it won't work quickly, but nation-fixing isn't a quick endeavor. Afghanistan and Haiti will spend a long time recovering from their respective hells, but given enough time they can achieve success.

It is not a matter of whether or not they can achieve success, but how? You speak of time, and knowledge - great. They still have a corrupt regime that is also unstable - should we induce martial law? What about countries in Africa - shouldn't we send aid there as well? Shouldn't we stabilize that region?

As to stronger nations exploiting Haiti, they will only do it if they can get away with it. What makes you think that the US won't decide that a stabile and healthy Haiti is in our best interests? What makes you think that the US wouldn't step in to prevent exploitation? What makes you think that Haiti and the US couldn't use each other for mutual exploitation? Haiti exploits US protection and the US exploits Haiti as an opportunity to earn prestige within the Americas.

My opinion on whether or not the US decides one way or the other is irrelevant. But if you are asking whether or not it is likely, I would say that it is complicated. It is easy to talk about teaching/spreading knowledge, those are obvious precursors to progress - or do you think Haitians are so primitive and uneducated as to be completely beyond such concepts? There are reasons that they are as they are -countries are not charitable institutions. Haitians do not choose to be uneducated, nor do they choose to drink unclean water, nor do they choose to be poor, nor do they choose to build earthquake-unfriendly structures. Most simply cannot afford to increase their quality of life.

Whether or not it is beneficial to help Haiti is a matter of risk/reward for foreign governments. I'll ask again - why help Haiti, and not the Congo, Liberia, Zimbabwe, or Somalia?

[ArtistTyrant]

Oh, but of course. Take up the "white man's burden". :rolleyes:

They don't have to prove anything; to you, the US or anyone else, nor is the US responsible for them. You have got to stop viewing them as inferior or subordinate, as if your country has any right to do anything to other countries. Haiti is not America's backyard, and certainly isn't the fifty first state.

And Africans? Really? How long gone do their ancestors have to be from Africa for you to stop considering them "Africans", and to start calling them by their proper name: Haitians? And even if you're right.

Even if you're doing this for all the right reasons, what makes you think they can fit in? What makes you think any African country will take a group of bribed immigrants? What gives them any more claim to land in Africa aside from the fact that their ancestors arrived from Africa as slaves hundreds of years ago?

Why should taxpayers from your country join the government in its hypothetical quest to send them "back home"? What do they gain from it?

They are inferior though, at least at building civilizations. They are Africans because they are from Africa, their genes are from Africa. As I am European because my genes are from Europe. They don't belong where they are, and thus should be sent back. Give them $150 billion to send them back, and buy their land. Seems like a good idea to me :) the US would have more fertile land, and new space for a military base so Guantanamo Bay (which is leased from the Cubans) can be closed. BTW, you don't see the Chinese and Japanese meddling in inferior people/societies for the most part, which is one reason i respect North-East Asians. They are realists for the most part, and have no strange egalitarian ideas.

[gecko]

Yes, Spain is fine apart from the history of the country - authoritarian, incompentant and occasionally tyrannical monarchy, followed by a violent, corrupt republic which in turn collapsed into the Spanish Civil War in which Spain tore itself apart (eagerly helped by Germany, Italy and the Soviet Union), followed by thirty years of fascist rule. The experience of tyranny, civil war and bloodshed led to a decision to embrace Parliamentary democracy (led incidently by the king) and backed up with lots of European Union diplomatic and financial support.

I stand enlightened! However, and I am probably wrong - does Spain's history not echo other European countries?

My post was in response to the previous poster's assertion that Spanish language and culture are the reason for unstable governments, and I was simply asking for the reasoning behind it. Germany had a period of fascism, would German colonies be fascist? Italy and Russia and the Middle Eastern countries, China, all have(or had) less than humane governments within the past century. Should we assume that their language and culture are responsible? I am catching a faint whiff of...ge..no...cide?


Might I add that one of the lessons of 9/11 was that unstable or failed states are a long term threat to the prosperity and security the wealthier nations? These can become breeding grounds for terrorism or organised crime. It remains in the interest of the US and other nations to intervene (how ever they choose to do so) in Haiti's affairs because a functioning, stable Haiti would benefit both its citizens and the interests of the rest of the world. How that happens is a matter for discussion, but I would not advocate a laisse faire approach here.

I have no argument here - I believe Africa, and many other countries(see: Iran, much of the middle east) could benefit from an honest attempt from the United Nations(?) to basically do a 'pimp my country' deal. Bring stability/peace, education, opportunity...and yet no country wants to bear the cost of what is essentially a drain of resources and money, unless there is something in it 'for them'. Governments serve its own citizens, not those of other countries. I think, optimally - a one world government should exist, but I doubt I will see such a thing occur in my lifetime. Nations compete against one another, and cultures are significantly similar except among war-torn, unstable, poor, third-world countries. What is wrong with America, Canada, EU, Austrailia - merging? Are the people so different as to warrant a separation of government because those lazy Europeans will take advantage of welfare...something? Because Americans are too proud, too adherent to the Constitution that those pesky people across the ocean could not possibly understand free speech, religion, etc? Are people really that retarded? Wait, the answer is obvious: hell yes.

---------- Post added 03-09-2010 at 02:49 PM ----------

They are inferior though, at least at building civilizations. They are Africans because they are from Africa, their genes are from Africa. As I am European because my genes are from Europe. They don't belong where they are, and thus should be sent back. Give them $150 billion to send them back, and buy their land. Seems like a good idea to me :) the US would have more fertile land, and new space for a military base so Guantanamo Bay (which is leased from the Cubans) can be closed. BTW, you don't see the Chinese and Japanese meddling in inferior people/societies for the most part, which is one reason i respect North-East Asians. They are realists for the most part, and have no strange egalitarian ideas.

So your policy is simply to ignore that these people exist? Why not just kill them all and divide their land among the superior nations?

Every nation that ever led the world by terms of power and influence has meddled in other people's affairs. China and Japan have traditionally isolationist cultures - that sure went out the window when they realized how backwards they had become. I guess Japan trying to conquer China was different, since they focused on an equal society?

Like it or not, in the future these inferior people as you say, will have to be dealt with in one way or another. Either kill them and steal their resources, or help them prosper. Pretending they don't exist sounds ..uh...lalalalalalaalalalalaalalalalalaalalalalala alalalalalalalalaalalalalalaalalalalala (I'm not listening)

---------- Post added 03-09-2010 at 02:53 PM ----------

This reminds me of that joke about the genie, the desert, the white man, and a can of coca-cola...

[Angel1]

What about countries in Africa - shouldn't we send aid there as well? Shouldn't we stabilize that region?

Whether or not it is beneficial to help Haiti is a matter of risk/reward for foreign governments. I'll ask again - why help Haiti, and not the Congo, Liberia, Zimbabwe, or Somalia?
Why help Haiti? First of all, they are close to us. Second of all, I never said that we should stabilize Haiti. They have to stabilize their own country. They have to take their country back for themselves. They must do what they can to help themselves. The person who doubts the ability of the Haitian people is you. Yes, I want to teach them...technical skills. Frankly, they have the knowledge of clean water.

Oh and FYI on Africa: We spend a lot of money and we have helped those people a lot. We can't fix things as quickly as we can snap our fingers, nor can we fix all problems at the same. That doesn't mean we shouldn't start somewhere. I really hate those arguments that if you can't help everyone you shouldn't help anyone; that is completely, totally and utterly nonsense. Do what you can to help your fellow man or woman out when and where you can. Another argument that is really annoying is to suggest that we shouldn't pick to help one country over another simply because of our own interests; it is NOT wrong to suit your interests and help a country out at the same time. Sometimes the best interests of a wealthy country and poor country line up together and go in the same direction.

[ArtistTyrant]

I stand enlightened! However, and I am probably wrong - does Spain's history not echo other European countries?

My post was in response to the previous poster's assertion that Spanish language and culture are the reason for unstable governments, and I was simply asking for the reasoning behind it. Germany had a period of fascism, would German colonies be fascist? Italy and Russia and the Middle Eastern countries, China, all have(or had) less than humane governments within the past century. Should we assume that their language and culture are responsible? I am catching a faint whiff of...ge..no...cide?




I have no argument here - I believe Africa, and many other countries(see: Iran, much of the middle east) could benefit from an honest attempt from the United Nations(?) to basically do a 'pimp my country' deal. Bring stability/peace, education, opportunity...and yet no country wants to bear the cost of what is essentially a drain of resources and money, unless there is something in it 'for them'. Governments serve its own citizens, not those of other countries. I think, optimally - a one world government should exist, but I doubt I will see such a thing occur in my lifetime. Nations compete against one another, and cultures are significantly similar except among war-torn, unstable, poor, third-world countries. What is wrong with America, Canada, EU, Austrailia - merging? Are the people so different as to warrant a separation of government because those lazy Europeans will take advantage of welfare...something? Because Americans are too proud, too adherent to the Constitution that those pesky people across the ocean could not possibly understand free speech, religion, etc? Are people really that retarded? Wait, the answer is obvious: hell yes.

---------- Post added 03-09-2010 at 02:49 PM ----------



So your policy is simply to ignore that these people exist? Why not just kill them all and divide their land among the superior nations?

Every nation that ever led the world by terms of power and influence has meddled in other people's affairs. China and Japan have traditionally isolationist cultures - that sure went out the window when they realized how backwards they had become. I guess Japan trying to conquer China was different, since they focused on an equal society?

Like it or not, in the future these inferior people as you say, will have to be dealt with in one way or another. Either kill them and steal their resources, or help them prosper. Pretending they don't exist sounds ..uh...lalalalalalaalalalalaalalalalalaalalalalala alalalalalalalalaalalalalalaalalalalala (I'm not listening)

---------- Post added 03-09-2010 at 02:53 PM ----------

This reminds me of that joke about the genie, the desert, the white man, and a can of coca-cola...

well i don't think Europeans should be meddling in the affairs of others when there are many issues to be dealt with...it makes no sense to focus on other races/groups/nations to our own detriment...we're way too nice to people that have done nothing to deserve it, it's sort of a moral chain aha...Europeans are taught to be so conscientious and humble that we prostrate ourselves, our culture, and our technology, to peoples who have no need, and could not create it themselves...this trend is essentially racial suicide, and just shows that modern liberalism-egalitarianism-multiculturalism is the new Catholic Church for the West...my point is that China and Japan don't mess with Africans or have anything to do with them, because they are realists about differences between races/groups/nations...the only interaction China has with Africa is to buy natural resources and set up armed camps ahaha

[Still Standing]

Would this colonization imply that the Haitians have the English language and the American culture forced down their throat? Not sure they would be too keen about being subjected to cultural genocide.

[gecko]

Why help Haiti? First of all, they are close to us. Second of all, I never said that we should stabilize Haiti. They have to stabilize their own country. They have to take their country back for themselves. They must do what they can to help themselves. The person who doubts the ability of the Haitian people is you. Yes, I want to teach them...technical skills. Frankly, they have the knowledge of clean water.

I hate to burst your bubble, they can do nothing to help themselves. They need a miracle leader, maybe you can push a bill to lend them Obama for a couple of months. I thought this is why you are advocating that the United States step in...to help them? Because they need our help? Technical skills? You are assuming that they cannot simply do what Saudi Arabia or Kuwait has done and simply hire teachers...I know why - THEY CAN'T AFFORD IT!!!!! You can go teach a Haitian man to build an earthquake-safe building, are you going to buy the materials for him too? Don't put words in my mouth lady, I really do not like that.

Oh and FYI on Africa: We spend a lot of money and we have helped those people a lot. We can't fix things as quickly as we can snap our fingers, nor can we fix all problems at the same. That doesn't mean we shouldn't start somewhere. I really hate those arguments that if you can't help everyone you shouldn't help anyone; that is completely, totally and utterly nonsense. Do what you can to help your fellow man or woman out when and where you can. Another argument that is really annoying is to suggest that we shouldn't pick to help one country over another simply because of our own interests; it is NOT wrong to suit your interests and help a country out at the same time. Sometimes the best interests of a wealthy country and poor country line up together and go in the same direction.

Who is 'we'? Bill Gates? You realize that these are PRIVATE donations, with SOME governmental assistance. My point is, we can be doing far more to help these people - yet it simply isn't done because it is not worth it. Some sinister-looking mathematician in Obama's employ is telling him that it is better that they die off, the faster the better, because we are currently dealing with something of an energy crisis, as well as over-population!

No, it isn't wrong to suit your interests and help a country out - but what are our interests? The only semi-reasonable one is to prevent terrorist outposts among the poorest countries. That same mathematician is saying that to eradicate poverty worldwide(or just in Haiti, right?) is more expensive than the possible civilian deaths related to keeping possible terrorist breeding grounds fertile(they seem to like forming in the Middle East anyway?).

Or maybe you are thinking that these countries will miraculously start producing some valuable service/commodity to interest us within the next 2 decades(India has the telecommunications and programming outsourcing LOCKED DOWN)...maybe...but that fucking mathematician again...he thinks that money would be better invested in energy incentives and subsidies so on the off chance that we fail to find new sources of energy or face some kind of food shortage, we don't have to worry about these developing countries spamming the earth with their babies as a result of our generosity.

Don't tell me to 'help my fellow man' and talk about useless and short-sighted(or is it just ultra-far sight you have?) things like 'teaching the Haitian man to farm better' while spewing some crap about how Obama and his cronies want or will somehow(how, again?) benefit significantly from helping those poor Haitians. Bill and Melinda Gates might have it on their to-do list, but don't count on the US treasury to hop on board...

If you want to teach them technical skills they have no ability to use while their leaders are busy stealing food from the poor to give to their right and left hand men, go right ahead! While you're at it, try not to get kidnapped and ransomed, k? Because I'll bet once the Haitians are introduced to the wonders of Mathematics, Philosophy, and Western governments, they'll all look at each other in amazement, do a little dance, and sing Kumbaya while mending ALL their problems...

And all of this to confront one small issue - their instability. Martial law via the US or supported equivalents are necessary unless you want to play craps with the people of Haiti. But, baby steps, right? You will make a Haitian baby smile while his dad is off somewhere getting his head chopped off for talking to a white man..or woman

[Angel1]

Would this colonization imply that the Haitians have the English language and the American culture forced down their throat? Not sure they would be too keen about being subjected to cultural genocide.

The English language is historically one of the things that American conquerings involve. We forced it down the throats of the Philippines, Guam, Puerto Rico, etc.

[ArtistTyrant]

The English language is historically one of the things that American conquerings involve. We forced it down the throats of the Philippines, Guam, Puerto Rico, etc.

and that has turned out to be a good thing for them, as English is the world business language

[gecko]

well i don't think Europeans should be meddling in the affairs of others when there are many issues to be dealt with...

In a sense, I agree - same with the US. Why are people still homeless? Why are people still ignorant? Why is crime so high? Why are there still people without health care?

It would appear intuitive to suggest that focusing our efforts internally would be most beneficial in the long run, and probably result in quicker changes for the better. However, I doubt the amount of government aid(for other countries) is really hurting us significantly in the first place...but that is purely speculative.

[ArtistTyrant]

In a sense, I agree - same with the US. Why are people still homeless? Why are people still ignorant? Why is crime so high? Why are there still people without health care?

It would appear intuitive to suggest that focusing our efforts internally would be most beneficial in the long run, and probably result in quicker changes for the better. However, I doubt the amount of government aid(for other countries) is really hurting us significantly in the first place...but that is purely speculative.

well i would argue that focusing so much on the people of other nations shows that the US government doesn't have the interests of the US at heart...that goes into the problem of internationalists that have been controlling things since the end of WWII

[Tristan]

People living in the area known as Haiti were subject to brutal misuse during the colonial era (1500-1800). The last straw was Napoleon trying to reconquer Hispaniola and reinstate slavery to bring back the sugar empire. This seems very bad, but honestly after repelling Napoleon, Haiti has done no better as a free state. Its run of terrible leadership has extended from 1800 to now. It is always unappeasably corrupt. As if to mock its lack of a happy, productive society, it is ranked #1 on the UN's ranking of low carbon footprints. As if they fucking care.

If we had to say something conclusive, Haiti is like a child abuser who himself was abused as a child. Someone who had no chance, and is just playing the role as perfectly as he was taught. If we designed a program to rehabilitate the abused and neglected, we will have found something to export to Haiti.

[Antares]

They are inferior though, at least at building civilizations. They are Africans because they are from Africa, their genes are from Africa. As I am European because my genes are from Europe. They don't belong where they are, and thus should be sent back. Give them $150 billion to send them back, and buy their land. Seems like a good idea to me :) the US would have more fertile land, and new space for a military base so Guantanamo Bay (which is leased from the Cubans) can be closed. BTW, you don't see the Chinese and Japanese meddling in inferior people/societies for the most part, which is one reason i respect North-East Asians. They are realists for the most part, and have no strange egalitarian ideas.

"African genes". Can I scoff? I mean, are you even aware that there are hundreds of different ethnic groups in Africa? There is no "back" for them. They are Haitians. They don't speak African languages, they no longer know African customs. They are as good as any foreigner in Africa. Sure, they might blend in because of skin color to people like you and I, because we all know that when we perceive another race, they all look the same to us, but don't let that bias throw you. If I were to plop you in the middle of Latvia, you wouldn't have a clue what to do. Human geography and history are more responsible for the state of the Third World more than genetics can ever claim. Get off your pedestal.

Your statement about China and Japan shows how ignorant you are. Good job conflating entire races and nations, because believe it or not, I am Chinese. If we all think alike, then we wouldn't fight among ourselves, would we? Obviously we don't. It's another example of an outsider thinking another group is all the same. Do you have a clue of how different Cantonese are to Shanghainese, even if they are only two hours apart by plane? Can you imagine a Shanghainese wouldn't even be able to understand Hong Kong's dialect? Did you know Europeans enslaved each other because of ethnicity? Slavs? Remember them? Are they inferior to their slave owners? (on second thoughts, don't answer that) Have you ever compared an Egyptian with a Kenyan? A Spaniard with a Scandinavian? A Northern Italian with a Southern Italian? No? Think again.

[ArtistTyrant]

So if the populations of Berlin and Beijing were swapped, the Germans would become Chinese and the Chinese would become German? Queen Elizabeth was the monarch of Hong Kong, but you don't see anyone trying to claim that she is or was Chinese. There is much more to race than skin colour, Africans aren't Europeans with more melanin and physical differences. Your primary identity is genetic, because wherever you go, your genes will remain the same. Also, you make assumptions that i'm making assumptions, which is quite humourous if you take the time to ponder it. My statement on China and Japan is true, compare their both historically isolationist policies with their current focus on themselves, as opposed to European nations (including the US), that takes a hugely interventionist approach to everything. If i were in Latvia, i would feel much safer than if i were in some non-European nation :) and not just Europeans enslaved each other, pretty much everyone who has developed any social structure at all has practiced slavery. And Slavs were taken as slaves by the Turks, you know, the Muslims that were kept out of Europe time and time again (Battle of Tours (732) through Battle of Vienna (1683)). Of course i have compared people of different genetic pools, i don't understand the point of asking such a ludicrous question. I can tell the difference between Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Malaysian. The difference between French, Swede, Finn, German, and Englishman. Your point?

[Fenrir]

Colonization could turn out 2 ways, in an ideal situation, the colony uses the newfound resources to build up, kick the colonial masters out, and proceed from there - Singapore, or they could just sit around doing nothing and use the same railroad tracks built 50 years ago by their colonial masters - India.

If you look around, most former colonies aren't exactly doing too well, I'm against this whole colonization thing, end of story.

[Causa Mortis]

If you look around, most former colonies aren't exactly doing too well

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Empirically, its almost irrelevant to have been a British, French or Dutch colony. The only statistically significant negative relationship is having been colonized by the Spanish, who were assholes even among asshole colonizers.

Conclusions? Let's ask Jack, see if he gives us some useful information: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

No one is doing Haiti or any other former colonies any favors by telling them that they're victims, regardless of whether or not that's true.

[Antares]

So if the populations of Berlin and Beijing were swapped, the Germans would become Chinese and the Chinese would become German? Queen Elizabeth was the monarch of Hong Kong, but you don't see anyone trying to claim that she is or was Chinese.

Thanks for missing my point entirely. Elizabeth wasn't born and raised in Hong Kong. She has probably been there once or twice, but I am no more British simply because I've been to Britain. She has no Cantonese culture in her whatsoever. The Haitians have ancestors that came over 200 years ago, from hundreds of different ethnicities. They couldn't communicate with each other in their native language, because there were so many. They speak French now, and their culture is probably a blend of the many flavors of African cultures and the indigenous culture, becoming a uniquely Haitian culture. Your Haitian has more in common with the next Haitian than any African. Your average Chinese American is more American than she is Chinese, provided that she was born and raised in America, and generally have the American culture as her cultural identity.

There is much more to race than skin colour, Africans aren't Europeans with more melanin and physical differences. Your primary identity is genetic, because wherever you go, your genes will remain the same.

Of course, of course. :rolleyes: If I didn't tell you I was Chinese, you wouldn't even be able to tell. I don't tell most people I meet online that I'm Asian. Even when I tell them that I live in China, they assume I'm a Caucasian expatriate. It's funny how racial prejudice goes sometimes. Have you ever heard of nurture? Depending on location, environment, caregiver and nutrition, identical twins differ in height, intelligence and demeanor. Genetics is a blueprint that does not need to be followed.

Also, you make assumptions that i'm making assumptions, which is quite humourous if you take the time to ponder it. My statement on China and Japan is true, compare their both historically isolationist policies with their current focus on themselves, as opposed to European nations (including the US), that takes a hugely interventionist approach to everything.

Does your historical scope really begin at the 19th century? I guess you either don't remember or never knew that China was once one of the most influential (and I daresay, interventionist) countries in the world. For example, Japan adapted China's kanji, and China kept Korea as a protectorate. Ottoman Turks? What about Aztecs and Incas? They have all been interventionist and expansionist in their own right, as far as technology would allow them. Your average European imperialists certainly weren't alone in their chauvinism and racism. China considered Europe "barbaric" for many, many centuries, as did Japan. Stop looking at our time as "Rome", or the peak of anything, because not all roads lead to us. We might see the time from the fall of the Roman Empire to the Renaissance as the "Middle Ages", but centuries from now, we'll be the middle ages. People from the so-called middle ages thought they were the apex of civilization too. We're merely a transition, like any other era. The Chinese and Japanese era has passed, so will European dominance. In fact, in many ways, Europe is already declining in status and influence.

If i were in Latvia, i would feel much safer than if i were in some non-European nation :)

Oh. Excuse me. I forgot that we non-Europeans are vicious and barbaric by nature, and we'll mug you as soon as we get the chance.

and not just Europeans enslaved each other, pretty much everyone who has developed any social structure at all has practiced slavery. And Slavs were taken as slaves by the Turks, you know, the Muslims that were kept out of Europe time and time again (Battle of Tours (732) through Battle of Vienna (1683)). Of course i have compared people of different genetic pools, i don't understand the point of asking such a ludicrous question. I can tell the difference between Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Malaysian. The difference between French, Swede, Finn, German, and Englishman. Your point?

Bravo. Now you recognize there are differences. Now tell me again those Haitians belong in Africa, because there's no way they can easily assimilate into whatever culture you plop them in. It's totally responsible, you know, to enslave them and force them to come to America when you needed them. And then you kick their descendants back to Africa when they've become a nuisance to you, where you'd have taken away everything the Haitians have ever known. Haitians don't exist for European benefit.

well i don't think Europeans should be meddling in the affairs of others when there are many issues to be dealt with...it makes no sense to focus on other races/groups/nations to our own detriment...we're way too nice to people that have done nothing to deserve it, it's sort of a moral chain aha...Europeans are taught to be so conscientious and humble that we prostrate ourselves, our culture, and our technology, to peoples who have no need, and could not create it themselves...this trend is essentially racial suicide, and just shows that modern liberalism-egalitarianism-multiculturalism is the new Catholic Church for the West...my point is that China and Japan don't mess with Africans or have anything to do with them, because they are realists about differences between races/groups/nations...the only interaction China has with Africa is to buy natural resources and set up armed camps ahaha

Way too nice? No. It's not nice at all. "Your culture" isn't some gem that everyone wants. One could argue that hardly anyone wanted it forced upon them. To paraphrase Pat Condell, "then we forcibly imposed "freedom" on them". Of course, over the previous decades, America wanted a hand in everything, from the Korean War to plotting coups in other countries.

European imperialists wanted three things: God, Gold and Glory. No imperialist, except perhaps for chauvinist romantics like Rudyard Kipling sincerely believed that they should colonize "inferior races" for their own good. Then imperialists exploit, exploit and exploit them. When Britain would be in an economic rut, it would export to colonies because colonies were forbidden to erect tariffs.

As a result, local industries were not developed; mines and natural resources owned by multinational corporations. Nigeria is the state it is today despite being a nation rich in natural resources because of the pile of shit the British government left them; it's a nation where most people live in a state of poverty with little to no social mobility, where arbitrary borders drawn by Britain heightened ethnic tensions and created an extremely unstable regime that has gone through four total republics and intermittent military dictatorships.

But I see you're determined to view every other race as inferior to your own, and there's really no reasoning with that kind of determination. But then there's no reasoning with my determination that Caucasians are not genetically superior, because you've never provided any hard evidence to the contrary. All you did was cite historical events to prove your point, and those are circumstantial at best.

[ArtistTyrant]

Thanks for missing my point entirely. Elizabeth wasn't born and raised in Hong Kong. She has probably been there once or twice, but I am no more British simply because I've been to Britain. She has no Cantonese culture in her whatsoever. The Haitians have ancestors that came over 200 years ago, from hundreds of different ethnicities. They couldn't communicate with each other in their native language, because there were so many. They speak French now, and their culture is probably a blend of the many flavors of African cultures and the indigenous culture, becoming a uniquely Haitian culture. Your Haitian has more in common with the next Haitian than any African. Your average Chinese American is more American than she is Chinese, provided that she was born and raised in America, and generally have the American culture as her cultural identity.



Of course, of course. :rolleyes: If I didn't tell you I was Chinese, you wouldn't even be able to tell. I don't tell most people I meet online that I'm Asian. Even when I tell them that I live in China, they assume I'm a Caucasian expatriate. It's funny how racial prejudice goes sometimes. Have you ever heard of nurture? Depending on location, environment, caregiver and nutrition, identical twins differ in height, intelligence and demeanor. Genetics is a blueprint that does not need to be followed.



Does your historical scope really begin at the 19th century? I guess you either don't remember or never knew that China was once one of the most influential (and I daresay, interventionist) countries in the world. For example, Japan adapted China's kanji, and China kept Korea as a protectorate. Ottoman Turks? What about Aztecs and Incas? They have all been interventionist and expansionist in their own right, as far as technology would allow them. Your average European imperialists certainly weren't alone in their chauvinism and racism. China considered Europe "barbaric" for many, many centuries, as did Japan. Stop looking at our time as "Rome", or the peak of anything, because not all roads lead to us. We might see the time from the fall of the Roman Empire to the Renaissance as the "Middle Ages", but centuries from now, we'll be the middle ages. People from the so-called middle ages thought they were the apex of civilization too. We're merely a transition, like any other era. The Chinese and Japanese era has passed, so will European dominance. In fact, in many ways, Europe is already declining in status and influence.



Oh. Excuse me. I forgot that we non-Europeans are vicious and barbaric by nature, and we'll mug you as soon as we get the chance.



Bravo. Now you recognize there are differences. Now tell me again those Haitians belong in Africa, because there's no way they can easily assimilate into whatever culture you plop them in. It's totally responsible, you know, to enslave them and force them to come to America when you needed them. And then you kick their descendants back to Africa when they've become a nuisance to you, where you'd have taken away everything the Haitians have ever known. Haitians don't exist for European benefit.



Way too nice? No. It's not nice at all. "Your culture" isn't some gem that everyone wants. One could argue that hardly anyone wanted it forced upon them. To paraphrase Pat Condell, "then we forcibly imposed "freedom" on them". Of course, over the previous decades, America wanted a hand in everything, from the Korean War to plotting coups in other countries.

European imperialists wanted three things: God, Gold and Glory. No imperialist, except perhaps for chauvinist romantics like Rudyard Kipling sincerely believed that they should colonize "inferior races" for their own good. Then imperialists exploit, exploit and exploit them. When Britain would be in an economic rut, it would export to colonies because colonies were forbidden to erect tariffs.

As a result, local industries were not developed; mines and natural resources owned by multinational corporations. Nigeria is the state it is today despite being a nation rich in natural resources because of the pile of shit the British government left them; it's a nation where most people live in a state of poverty with little to no social mobility, where arbitrary borders drawn by Britain heightened ethnic tensions and created an extremely unstable regime that has gone through four total republics and intermittent military dictatorships.

But I see you're determined to view every other race as inferior to your own, and there's really no reasoning with that kind of determination. But then there's no reasoning with my determination that Caucasians are not genetically superior, because you've never provided any hard evidence to the contrary. All you did was cite historical events to prove your point, and those are circumstantial at best.

they are still Africans

genetics=raw material, environment shapes that raw material

my historical scope is huge actually, its one of my strongest fields :) China has historically been the number one culture/gene pool outside of Europe...who is "we" exactly?

if European dominance ends, the current possibilities for the future will become muted or dissipate entirely

stop taking such insult to my natural and rational preference to be around people that are genetically and culturally similar to myself

who is "you"? are you calling me Europe? what an honour! :) i have issues with slavery, and don't consider it morally sound, why can't they have a bit of their own land? in Africa? instead of wishing to come into the civilizations built by Europeans? oh, because Europeans create value? so they can't create value themselves huh?

colonies were conquered so easily because we Europeans had superior technology, as a result of our genetic mutations that have given us so many geniuses that have contributed so much, it is not morally reprehensible for a superior group to take what it can, conflict is what everything comes down to in the end...will to power

this is always the excuse for "downtrodden" peoples, to point the finger and blame someone else for shortcomings and failures, sounds like an issue of slave morality to me: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. The truth is that no Africans south of the Sahara had the wheel, written language, or any structure of law, their societies were (and some still are) dominated by belief in magic and curses.

[Synamon]

The tangent discussing ArtistTyrant's theories of European superiority has been moved to the Modern Civilization is European (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)thread.

[ErikNikolai]

I'd rather see the United States use the economic and military resources in order to liberate the people of Cuba and Venezuela from the evil and totalitarian regimes which are oppressing them.

[Acrogamnon]

Let's suppose you annex Haiti (and the locals even support it). Then you need to build the entire infrastructure there, largely from scratch. You'll have to invest tens or hundreds of billions there, and also ship technical personnel from mainland. You will find that a lot of natives are not qualified to work in modern infractructure, and there can be only so many janitors and woodcutters - in the end a large proportion of the Haitans will be unemployed (they are as it is, but right now it's only their problem).

To avoid facing hell in international relations and from domestic left you'll have to pay enough in welfare for them to lead reasonably comfortable lives without working, eventually creating entire districts of people who haven't worked for generations, but feel entitled to recieve all the money they need and be treated with respect, and who also are very sensitive to any percieved wrongs from the outsiders (e.g. the Arab districts in France).

Over time the drain from this place on the budget will increase, and the low level of education and motivation of local workforce will discourage mainland companies from creating outlets here. At some point the federal government will try to curb local welfare a bit, which will lead to rioting and violence against the Americans and educated locals (collaborators!) who are actually running the local infrastructure. Then (if you are lucky) some local leader will sprout up and tell people that they would be better off following him than living on US money. Again if you are lucky, he's going to convince enough people that rioting turns into a full-scale revolution, with looting and random destruction of whatever shops, factories and cultural facilities do exist for good measure. After this US will finally dump the place (losing all investments in the process but that would seem a minor price to pay). The country will probably end up in the same place as an average African colony post-secession.

After this you'll keep hearing for decades if not centuries, how the locals have been living in perfect harmony and in tune with nature, but the evil US came, forced their money on the locals and oppressed them with civilization, until they courageously rebelled and heroically liberated themselves.

[INTroJect]

Let me just trow a controverial idea at you guys. Now, I'm not saying that this is what I beleive, I'd just like to see some arguments and opinion on the idea. Here it goes:

Puerto Rico is among the most affluent nations in the Caribbean because it is a U.S. colony (defacto), ditto for other colonies like Aruba. These countries receive support and governmental guidance from developed nations. Furthermore, developing countries that work closely with the IMF, U.S. State Dept., etc... tend have higher living standards (as measured by GDP per capita and HDI) than those who don't.

Haiti would be therefore be better off if we colonized it. New buildings would have to meet U.S. buildings codes, American officials would run the country and corruption would drop dramatically (b/c higher paid public servants are harder to bribe) while comptence would increase (American technocrats and professionals are better trained). The country would be safer and more affluent if it became a U.S. territory run by American officials.

What? Are you serious? If we expand the borders to include them as the same status as Puerto Rico, that would effectively make them Americans. That would be extremely unfair to all of the other poverty stricken countries because, after such stringent efforts to keep such people out, we would be effectively handing them access to every right and privledge that comes with such citizenship.

Not to say that they are all bad people over there, in fact, there are plenty of good people that could benefit from such a thing. However, I spent a total of about a year in poor-poverty-stricken-and-exploited-northern-africa and DO YOU KNOW HOW MANY TIMES I WAS ROBBED, BOTHERED, HARASSED, CAJOLED, ANNOYED, MANIPULATED, BEDEVILED, STRAINED, TORMENTED, HASSLED, PESTERED, etc for any dime or anything of value whatsoever that those fine strapping labor-able young fellows could squeeze out of me? Not to mention the number of times that I was asked to just cough up a Visa. With a normal wage of about 200 dollars a month, it was a constant barrage, anything that they could get out of me was worth something.

I'm not sure what came first: the poverty-stricken lifestyle creates the mentality or the mentality creates the poverty-stricken lifestyle. The people from such places that we meet in America are not the same as the ones who are actually IN the country. Once they realize that they dont have to claw their neighbors eyes out for the next meal they tend to calm down a little and become complacent and whiney like the rest of us. The life of need and desperation creates a mentality that takes time to filter away. If you stretch our borders to encompass that island it would be a fast-track download of such mentality right into the mainland. I feel for them, I really do, we need to help them but the Hatians need to stay over there and fix Haiti. And that maybe includes just about any country with a per capita GDP below 25k.

Im probably sounding like a ranting conservative at this moment, which I should let it be known that I am actually a raging Lıberal, once a full believer in a world without borders. I still wish that such a thing were a possibility. It is just that my Liberal naıevte has been bludgeoned by reality and has caused me to rethink such policies. If we were to take on such a thing as expanding our borders we should start with somethıng easy and beneficial, like Canada. :) After that, the rest of the world, but veeerrrryyy slowly.

[Night Runner]

I'd rather see the United States use the economic and military resources in order to liberate the people of Cuba and Venezuela from the evil and totalitarian regimes which are oppressing them.
They are "evil and totalitarian" from your perspective. I'm sure there are some Chinese who think that the United States is "evil and totalitarian" as well. How would you react to Chinese storm troopers taking over our country and "liberating" us? This odd urge to invade and overthrow regimes in countries that don't agree with your particular ideology is quite disturbing...