• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What should the future of the US in Haiti be?

What should the US do?

  • Feed them for a while, but leave if they don't step up soon

    Votes: 10 58.8%
  • Expand relief operations to include rebuilding and upgrading

    Votes: 6 35.3%
  • Option 2, then hold a plebiscite afterwards to determine their future

    Votes: 1 5.9%

  • Total voters
    17

Wiseone

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
12,177
Reaction score
7,551
Location
Ft. Campbell, KY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Its becoming increasing apartment that simply keep the Haitians from starving is not going to be a permanent or ideal solution. As most of their capital was destroyed they also need to engage in things such as rebuilding and reforming their government. The problem is they do not have the capacity to do either, neither the machines, resources, or technical know-how is present within the country. Also their government is for all practical purposes destroyed, the President was sleeping in the airport on waiting benches, their government builds are destroyed, many staff and officials are dead, there's no way to communicate with other aspects of the government such as police or military, and there's no way to stage an election.

In the face of all this many Haitians are calling for the US to take over the country, permanently. Thoughts?

washingtonpost.com
 
Its becoming increasing apartment that simply keep the Haitians from starving is not going to be a permanent or ideal solution. As most of their capital was destroyed they also need to engage in things such as rebuilding and reforming their government. The problem is they do not have the capacity to do either, neither the machines, resources, or technical know-how is present within the country. Also their government is for all practical purposes destroyed, the President was sleeping in the airport on waiting benches, their government builds are destroyed, many staff and officials are dead, there's no way to communicate with other aspects of the government such as police or military, and there's no way to stage an election.

In the face of all this many Haitians are calling for the US to take over the country, permanently. Thoughts?

washingtonpost.com

How does some area of land become a territory of the US?

Can they ask to be accepted as such?

I don't no ANYTHING about this.

And your spell-check needs updating.
 
Its becoming increasing apartment that simply keep the Haitians from starving is not going to be a permanent or ideal solution. As most of their capital was destroyed they also need to engage in things such as rebuilding and reforming their government. The problem is they do not have the capacity to do either, neither the machines, resources, or technical know-how is present within the country. Also their government is for all practical purposes destroyed, the President was sleeping in the airport on waiting benches, their government builds are destroyed, many staff and officials are dead, there's no way to communicate with other aspects of the government such as police or military, and there's no way to stage an election.

In the face of all this many Haitians are calling for the US to take over the country, permanently. Thoughts?

washingtonpost.com

Not only NO, but HELL NO.

If private persons wish to continue to help Haiti, that is their perogative, and more power to them. We (USA) have no obligation and should not go into Haiti and "take over" by ANY stretch of the imagination.

Thing that galls me about this whole situation... how many people actually CARED enough about Haiti before this earthquake? It's always been destitute and in need of severe help.

Where were all the donations then?

It's like people who only feel compelled to donate around the holidays by donating time/money to the homeless. Newsflash: There are homeless out there all year 'round.. not only on the holidays.

Same with the Haitians. Those people have needed the basics for so very long... yet now that an earthquake has totally devastated the area, only now are people donating?

*sigh*

Sorry for my tangent there...
 
How does some area of land become a territory of the US?

Can they ask to be accepted as such?

I don't no ANYTHING about this.

And your spell-check needs updating.

Sorry, everything is spelled write I just need to type slower and look at spell check suggestions closer haha.

Anyway traditionally territories were just pieces of land which were not part of any state, but each territory in US history has been governed differently. For example Arizona and New Mexico territories had governments exactly like a state government, except they had no representation in the Federal government. This status continues with many islands in the Pacific and Puerto Rico, with varying degrees of autonomy. A territory could ask Congress for statehood, which normally dependent on several factors such as population, infrastructure, organization, etc but there's no standard. The only requirement is that Congress vote 2/3 in favor for annexation of another nation or creation of a new state from a territory. In fact in the early 1800s the Dominican Republic asked to join the United States but the vote failed to pass the Senate. http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=9905E3D6123BE63BBC4953DFB4678382679FDE

In only one case in history, that of the Republic of Texas, has another country asked and been accepted into the Union, again by decision of Congress.
 
I think we should help them for awhile and leave more long term solutions to the many charitable organizations and relief operations.
 
Who colonized Haiti, destroyed their national resources, and brought hundreds of thousands of Africans there to work as agricultural and household slaves?

That's who should pay to fix Haiti.

In my opinion, we should start holding the European powers responsible for the destruction their colonialism caused in the 1700s-1900s around the world. This mess in Haiti was not caused by the U.S., and we are not ethically or morally responsible to solve it.

France and Spain are. France and Spain should ante up, financially, to rebuild Haiti's infrastructure and teach the leaders of Haiti to govern democratically.

If you look at UK colonialism, at least the brits left their former colonies with the ability to self-govern. The French and Spanish, almost never. They raped, pillaged, stole, and destroyed, and when they were done leeching away a land's resources, they gave it back to the natives who'd been kept illiterate and in bondage for generations.
 
Last edited:
In my opinion, we should start holding the European powers responsible for the destruction their colonialism caused in the 1700s-1900s around the world. This mess in Haiti was not caused by the U.S., and we are not ethically or morally responsible to solve it.

With our international institutions the way they are, I don't think this is feasible. Right now we have nations with terrible human rights records serving in the United Nations. I don't see how any other agency or UN commission will be any better.
 
Who colonized Haiti, destroyed their national resources, and brought hundreds of thousands of Africans there to work as agricultural and household slaves?

That's who should pay to fix Haiti.

In my opinion, we should start holding the European powers responsible for the destruction their colonialism caused in the 1700s-1900s around the world. This mess in Haiti was not caused by the U.S., and we are not ethically or morally responsible to solve it.

France and Spain are. France and Spain should ante up, financially, to rebuild Haiti's infrastructure and teach the leaders of Haiti to govern democratically.

If you look at UK colonialism, at least the brits left their former colonies with the ability to self-govern. The French and Spanish, almost never. They raped, pillaged, stole, and destroyed, and when they were done leeching away a land's resources, they gave it back to the natives who'd been kept illiterate and in bondage for generations.

my god, you want the french to do it?

how could you wish that upon the haitians after everything they've been through, you must be heartless indeed :mrgreen:
 
With our international institutions the way they are, I don't think this is feasible. Right now we have nations with terrible human rights records serving in the United Nations. I don't see how any other agency or UN commission will be any better.

I don't believe it should be an international institution. I think that the governments of France and Spain are individually culpable in Haiti.

This whole "sharing the blame" game doesn't work for me. France and Spain buggered up Haiti, and France and Spain should be held financially responsible to fix it.
 
my god, you want the french to do it?

I believe the French should be responsible to pay for the bulk of Haiti's rebuilding. After all, they are the ones who "broke" Haiti. They are financially and morally obligated to fix Haiti.

For the record, we did not break Haiti, and thus, our culpability in Haiti's woes is minimal. I think that we ought to help, certainly, because it is the duty of all humans to relieve suffering when they can. However, I don't believe that we are responsible to take the lead in Haiti.

America has, for far too long, taken on the burden of fixing problems created by other nations.
 
Let them sort out their own mess....
Although, if they haven't been able to do it in 200 years, I doubt they ever will......
Let nature take it's course & return the population to a sustainable level....;)
 
This is supposed to be humanitarian aid, we can help the people, but ultimately, it needs to be the people who step up and fix their country. We can do things to help them but we should not do it for them. Low-interest loans, private industry loans, etc. are all options. Going in and doing it for them is not.
 
This is supposed to be humanitarian aid, we can help the people, but ultimately, it needs to be the people who step up and fix their country. We can do things to help them but we should not do it for them. Low-interest loans, private industry loans, etc. are all options. Going in and doing it for them is not.

The problem with this equation is that in order for people to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, they require bootstraps.

Haiti was so decimated of all resources, and the former slaves who put themselves into leadership were so ill-prepared for that role (thanks to their French owners), that the likelihood of Haiti salvaging itself is minimal.

This is like requiring an illiterate woman who got pregnant at 12 and has zero skills to get off of welfare and take care of her kids. She may get off welfare, but she's always going to struggle with the limitations of her situation. In the case of families like this, literacy skills, financial skills, hell--even cooking and cleaning and childcare skills--have to be taught.

Haiti was so impoverished, corrupt, and hopeless BEFORE the quake that to presume that they have the capacity to rebuild, even if we wrote them a blank check, is ridiculous. It's not just money they need, but EVERYTHING.

Haiti literally needs to be dismantled and reconstructed from the ground up. I look at Haiti the way I look at dismal failing schools that have to be taken over by a state agency and reformed.
 
Who colonized Haiti, destroyed their national resources, and brought hundreds of thousands of Africans there to work as agricultural and household slaves?

That's who should pay to fix Haiti.

In my opinion, we should start holding the European powers responsible for the destruction their colonialism caused in the 1700s-1900s around the world. This mess in Haiti was not caused by the U.S., and we are not ethically or morally responsible to solve it.

France and Spain are. France and Spain should ante up, financially, to rebuild Haiti's infrastructure and teach the leaders of Haiti to govern democratically.

If you look at UK colonialism, at least the brits left their former colonies with the ability to self-govern. The French and Spanish, almost never. They raped, pillaged, stole, and destroyed, and when they were done leeching away a land's resources, they gave it back to the natives who'd been kept illiterate and in bondage for generations.

I dont know where your getting this idea from. We left Cyprus India Palestine and Zimbabwe in one hell of a mess (not that we didn't try to redeem ourselves in the case of the last one). I agree about France and Spain but America also shares some of the responsibility for backing the Duvalier dictatorships (sometimes by sending in troops).The first thing they could do is cancel some of the debt acquired under Duvalier. Why should the Haitians pay debts built up by a government installed and sustained by foreigners?

That said they were still paying money to France for the money it lost from the abolition of slavery until 1946 so again you make a fair point.
 
Last edited:
The problem with this equation is that in order for people to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, they require bootstraps.

Haiti was so decimated of all resources, and the former slaves who put themselves into leadership were so ill-prepared for that role (thanks to their French owners), that the likelihood of Haiti salvaging itself is minimal.

This is like requiring an illiterate woman who got pregnant at 12 and has zero skills to get off of welfare and take care of her kids. She may get off welfare, but she's always going to struggle with the limitations of her situation. In the case of families like this, literacy skills, financial skills, hell--even cooking and cleaning and childcare skills--have to be taught.

Haiti was so impoverished, corrupt, and hopeless BEFORE the quake that to presume that they have the capacity to rebuild, even if we wrote them a blank check, is ridiculous. It's not just money they need, but EVERYTHING.

Haiti literally needs to be dismantled and reconstructed from the ground up. I look at Haiti the way I look at dismal failing schools that have to be taken over by a state agency and reformed.

I hate to sound callous, but if that's the case, maybe they don't DESERVE to survive as an independent nation. The whole point of becoming independent is to actually act independently. If you need constant help to get anything done, then you obviously cannot handle your independence. If not for the worldwide economic meltdown, I'm sure someone would have been happy to make them a colony. Maybe that's what they need.
 
I dont know where your getting this idea from. We left Cyprus India Palestine and Zimbabwe in one hell of a mess (not that we didn't try to redeem ourselves in the case of the last one).

India and most of the British colonies have remained fairly stable in comparison to those that were literally destroyed by the French and Spanish. The French, in particular, were really bad about raping countries and then abandoning them.

I agree about France and Spain but America also shares some of the responsibility for backing the Duvalier dictatorships (sometimes by sending in troops).

I agree. However, the U.S. was responding to an unstable situation right on our doorstep, the instability was created by the French/Spanish. They bear the bulk of the responsibility, morally and financially.

The first thing they could do is cancel some of the debt acquired under Duvalier. Why should the Haitians pay debts built up by a government installed and sustained by foreigners?

I have zero problems with this. In fact, I think Haiti needs a blank slate.
 
Last edited:
I hate to sound callous, but if that's the case, maybe they don't DESERVE to survive as an independent nation. The whole point of becoming independent is to actually act independently. If you need constant help to get anything done, then you obviously cannot handle your independence. If not for the worldwide economic meltdown, I'm sure someone would have been happy to make them a colony. Maybe that's what they need.

Have you actually read ANYTHING about the history of Haiti? The French killed off the natives, brought in millions of African slaves, and pillaged the natural resources. When the Haitian slave revolution ended, the French left, and the former slaves ended up running things. Never mind that these former slaves were completely illiterate, had almost zero family structure thanks to the way the plantations functioned, and were completely out of their league.

It would be like putting a 6-year-old into office as president and then blaming him when he f'ed up.
 
Have you actually read ANYTHING about the history of Haiti? The French killed off the natives, brought in millions of African slaves, and pillaged the natural resources. When the Haitian slave revolution ended, the French left, and the former slaves ended up running things. Never mind that these former slaves were completely illiterate, had almost zero family structure thanks to the way the plantations functioned, and were completely out of their league.

It would be like putting a 6-year-old into office as president and then blaming him when he f'ed up.

Yes, I know all about it. That doesn't change anything I said though and in fact reinforces it. No matter what horrors or tragedies have happened in the past, right this minute, Haiti isn't capable of governing itself, it's people are not qualified and any "aid" that is offered is going to be extremely long-term, if not permanent because they cannot, at least for generations, take on the responsibility themselves.

Therefore, the idea of keeping their independence seems absurd, they can't handle it. Someone else should take over the land, someone with the knowledge, education, money and skill needed.
 
Haiti isn't capable of governing itself, it's people are not qualified and any "aid" that is offered is going to be extremely long-term, if not permanent because they cannot, at least for generations, take on the responsibility themselves.

I agree, but I think that the goal of taking over Haiti should be to CREATE self-governance, and then eventually turn over the reins.

And, I think France and Spain should be responsible for doing this, since their empire-building created the problem. They have a moral obligation to engage in "nation building."

Ironic, don't you think?
 
I agree, but I think that the goal of taking over Haiti should be to CREATE self-governance, and then eventually turn over the reins.

And, I think France and Spain should be responsible for doing this, since their empire-building created the problem. They have a moral obligation to engage in "nation building."

Ironic, don't you think?

Good luck on that. Once Haiti declared themselves independent of French rule, they were, in essence, saying they could handle it from there on. It would be like America declaring itself independent from England, then asking England to keep giving them money.

You seem to think that somehow, Haiti *DESERVES* to be an independent state. I think it need to earn it. It's proven that, at least at the moment, it cannot handle it. It needs someone else to step in, or it needs to be dissolved entirely and a different state set up that is no longer Haiti. You don't make political decisions based on "oh, those poor people had bad things happen to them, therefore they DESERVE all this stuff", but on what they can independently earn.

Right now, they haven't done it.
 
Have you actually read ANYTHING about the history of Haiti? The French killed off the natives, brought in millions of African slaves, and pillaged the natural resources. When the Haitian slave revolution ended, the French left, and the former slaves ended up running things. Never mind that these former slaves were completely illiterate, had almost zero family structure thanks to the way the plantations functioned, and were completely out of their league.

It would be like putting a 6-year-old into office as president and then blaming him when he f'ed up.

Leave Obama out of this.......:mrgreen:
 
Good luck on that. Once Haiti declared themselves independent of French rule, they were, in essence, saying they could handle it from there on. It would be like America declaring itself independent from England, then asking England to keep giving them money.

So, in your worldview, the slaves should have stayed quietly on the plantations as property?

SERIOUSLY?

You seem to think that somehow, Haiti *DESERVES* to be an independent state.

I think all people deserve freedom, however, in some cases, nations have been so handicapped by their history that achieving it on their own is unlikely.

It's proven that, at least at the moment, it cannot handle it. It needs someone else to step in, or it needs to be dissolved entirely and a different state set up that is no longer Haiti.

How is this different from what I've said above?

You don't make political decisions based on "oh, those poor people had bad things happen to them, therefore they DESERVE all this stuff",

I would make my decisions based upon the history of the country. France and Spain destabilized Haiti. They bear the primary onus for Haiti's current conditions.

but on what they can independently earn. Right now, they haven't done it.

This is based upon the naive but typical hard-right opinion that people are born capable of earning independence, and if they don't, it's because they don't deserve to be independent. When, in point of fact, people have to be educated to be capable of self-governance. Even our founding fathers recognized that.

You may well be capable of self-governance because you grew up in a country where you received an adequate education and had some degree of family stability.

In contrast, the poorest, most dysfunctional ghetto child in the U.S. has far more assets than the average Haitian.
 
Last edited:
So, in your worldview, the slaves should have stayed quietly on the plantations as property?

SERIOUSLY?

I never said that, but those slaves can't just turn around to their former masters and hold out their hand either. If you want to be independent, you need to be independent.

This is based upon the naive but typical hard-right opinion that people are born capable of earning independence, and if they don't, it's because they don't deserve to be independent. When, in point of fact, people have to be educated to be capable of self-governance. Even our founding fathers recognized that.

Not deserve, earn. It's something that people need to earn for themselves, not simply granted by fiat. Those who work hardest deserve far more than those who do not.

You may well be capable of self-governance because you grew up in a country where you received an adequate education and had some degree of family stability.

And they've had time and at least a modicum of financial success over the years where they could have started implementing that, seeking foreign advisors, etc. They just didn't. They made quite a bit of money from sugar and rum exports. Where did that money go?
 
Back
Top Bottom