Showing posts with label War crime. Show all posts
Showing posts with label War crime. Show all posts

Monday, March 28, 2011

Richard Carrier Blogs: Is Obama a War Criminal?

Heavens to Betsy!!!! I actually agree with Richard Carrier on something!!!! I'm shocked and happy that he chose to speak out condemning the nonsense that President Obama should be considered a war criminal. I don't agree with everything Obama says and does but I think something had to be done to stop the slaughter of people in Libya. One might even argue that using military force was the best option, but if it wasn't what would have been? I don't know. I liked how Mr Carrier pointed out that Obama's action was not unconstitutional and as I have pointed out in a post of my own other Presidents have done the same thing. I recommend this post because it's well done and articulated well. The one point I have a problem with is that Carrier said that there was nothing we could have done in Rwanda or Bahrain. What about Darfar? I think there must have been something more we could have done to save lives. It's easy to sit back and judge those decisions not having been there and judge who to save and who to let die. I'm sorry but I really think that economics and racism has played a part in making those decisions through out American History. Carrier wrote:
It was thus absolutely necessary for Obama to tip the scales away from Qadaffi's success (it will be a disaster for us if he wins--we need him to fail, in every conceivable sense of the word). Who succeeds him is irrelevant, even if its someone ambivalent or hostile to the U.S. That's because we have bigger interests here: as long as the precedent is not established that Qadaffi's methods will go unhindered and unpunished, and as long as the precedent is set instead that America supports the democracy trend raging through the whole region even when we aren't assured of gaining an ally (and that we will not support, even by acquiescence, any anti-democracy regime's use of violence--not even in Bahrain, where we are otherwise helpless), then the entire balance of power in the region is shifted in America's favor, which will be a great benefit to us in the long run. Because an anti-American party elected into power today will, if democracy is sustained, be voted out eventually. In fact, that's the only way the region ever can move forward toward better relations with the U.S. We need democracy in the region. And we will not have it if we sit idly by and let Qadaffi holocaust his own citizens, and then, by extension, any other ruler who will take the hint and do the same, knowing we'll do nothing about it.


I have to agree with his assessment of why we had to intervene in Libya. The question I have is what about all the precedents where the United States did indeed sit idly by and let ____  holocaust his own citizens, and then, by extension, any other ruler who will take the hint and do the same, knowing we'll do nothing about it.? For there have been many. I don't really have answers for how to do this. It's got to be on a case-by-case basis - true - but who do you save and who do you sacrifice on the altar of American interests? What happens when we have to give an account for that?'

Truth is that Obama is not a war criminal. We live in an age where people make truly stupid judgments without really knowing what they talk about. This is a case in point and Richard Carrier has written a post explaining how stupid mistaken Obama's critics have been, at least on this point. Obama doesn't just get a pass, we need to keep examining his policies just like any other President. Again, he is just a man, whom I would assume, is just trying to do the best job he can. So how should Obama respond to sheer stupid and idiotic comments offered against him? The FacePalm. You can disagree with Obama without being racist or Stupid.

Here is a clip from the Daily Show that was mentioned in Carrier's post:



Richard Carrier Blogs: Is Obama a War Criminal?
Enhanced by Zemanta

Thursday, January 20, 2011

Jean-Claude Duvalier in Haiti: Why did Baby Doc return? - latimes.com

My wife was born in Port au Prince, Haiti and still has close family in Haiti. Miraculously, God preserved her family through last year's earthquake and we have been continuing to follow the news of what is happening in Haiti. I don't know how this news got past me, but I just found out that exiled dictator, Jean-Claude Duvalier (aka "Baby Doc") has sneaked back into Haiti last Sunday! I'm shocked. How could that happen? The nation is still reeling from it's problems so much that he could just come in like that. All the historical accounts I could find say that he was a terrible President - he and his father. They tortured people. Silenced dissent. He trampled basic human rights whenever he wanted and then because of a coup in 1986 ran to France with much of Haiti's treasury.

He's under arrest in Haiti, and with most of his stolen money gone (he spent most of it and loosing the rest in a divorce) , 6 million dollars frozen in a Swiss bank account, and rumored ill health we are presented with an opportunity to make him pay restitution for the people he has injured and murdered. I read that the Swiss government have passed a law saying that it would go to Haiti for rebuilding but this is is not enough. He should stand trial for crimes against humanity. It's a horrible situation and more stress on Haiti that it didn't seem to to need. I'm going to be watching this closely because I want to see what will happen. I'm glad that baby Doc isn't being allowed to just run arround but I thin he should be in a jail cell.





Jean-Claude Duvalier in Haiti: Why did Baby Doc return? - latimes.com
5 reasons why Haiti's Jean-Claude Duvalier is infamous
Enhanced by Zemanta

Monday, August 16, 2010

Should France Payback Haiti's "Independence Debt?" - The Snob Blog - Danielle Belton's The Black Snob

I had already heard that Haiti was forced to pay France money to make up for it's loss of Haitian resources when Haiti took its independence. According to this article, there has been a suggestion for France to give the money back. I doubt that it will happen. Then again I was wrong about there ever being a black president of the United States. I hope I'm wrong about this too. My gut tells me you can put this with the "40-acres and a mule" promise my fore-parents never got. This brings up a more fundamental questions about the "debt" France collected from Haiti: Why did Haiti pay it? I mean they had already kicked the French off the island. What did France have on them that the Haitians decided it was less trouble to pay them rather than fight? I mean the United States didn't owe England money after the Revolutionary War. From Wikipedia:

In exchange for French recognition of Haiti as a sovereign republic, France demanded payment of 150 million francs (modern equivalent of $21 billion). - External debt of Haiti


I'm still left with the same question. Most countries at the time refused to recognize Haitian independence. There must be something more. Ahah! I should have known...basic intimidation and extortion. Classic.

Haiti’s legacy of debt began shortly after gaining
independence from France in 1804. In 1825, France, with
warships at the ready, demanded Haiti “compensate” France
for its loss of a slave colony. In exchange for French
recognition of Haiti as a sovereign republic, France
demanded payment of 150 million francs (modern
equivalent of $21 billion). Haiti was forced to choose
between paying this exorbitant sum, about five times Haiti's
annual export revenue, or facing a bloody military clash
with the French fleet. - Fact Sheet - Hatian Debt

Also remembering how in 1825, France was desperate. They just very recently failed to take over Europe and I am certain that they were out of funds. So what do they do? Extort money from Haiti for a "crime" 20 years after the fact. Yup, France should give the money back...with interest.

Should France Payback Haiti's "Independence Debt?" - The Snob Blog - Danielle Belton's The Black Snob