The Haitian Solution - Page 2

Boris Godunov · March 1, 2004, 00:03

Quote:

Originally posted by Giancarlo
And the embargo should stay until Castro stops executing the opposition.

Thought so. Chicken.

Pax · March 1, 2004, 00:05

France had a democratic free market economy when they invaded Vietnam and made it a law for the consumption and tax on opium and other harmful products.
Britain was a democratic free market country during the Opium Wars.

I would have to say that a communist government that does not force its people to use opium is better than a free one that does.

Giancarlo · March 1, 2004, 00:10

Quote:

Originally posted by Pax Africanus
Britain was a democratic free market country during the Opium Wars.

No dispute on France. But Britain was a monarchy.. the 19th century opium wars with China correct?

Quote:

I would have to say that a communist government that does not force its people to use opium is better than a free one that does.

I am not proposing to have one that does. Stop pulling words out thin air and trying to degrade my opinion on the issue.

Pax · March 1, 2004, 00:12

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Why would we possibly think that the dictatorial regime you suggest would work better than any of the others Haiti has tried?

All of the other dictatorial regimes have not had the same type of goal I mentioned. Most have had some faction with an agenda that does help everyone only the faction members. Once again think Boss Tweed. All have had to start out corrupt by pretending to have fair elections. The first sin is the lie. After that the rest is easy.
Let's not pretend to be having fair elections. Let's set up a government that is going to benefit the people by rebuilding. After the country it's get to a certain level of prosperity then we take off the training wheels. SLOWLY.

Pax · March 1, 2004, 00:16

Quote:

Originally posted by Giancarlo
I think a more federal system, with a weaker central government that responds to the budget and security is needed.

Finally you make a real suggestion instead of trying cut down mine. Okay we have a weak central government similar to the type the U.S. had right after the Revolution. This had the states printing there own money, refusing to give financial support to the central government and armed conflict with eachother. This almost like the situation Haiti already has.

Boris Godunov · March 1, 2004, 00:18

Quote:

Originally posted by Giancarlo
But Britain was a monarchy.. the 19th century opium wars with China correct?

Um, Britain's monarchy in the 19th century didn't have the power, the Parliament did. It had been a constitutional monarchy for some time...

Giancarlo · March 1, 2004, 00:18

Quote:

Originally posted by Pax Africanus

Finally you make a real suggestion instead of trying cut down mine. Okay we have a weak central government similar to the type the U.S. had right after the Revolution. This had the states printing there own money, refusing to give financial support to the central government and armed conflict with eachother. This almost like the situation Haiti already has.

Again wrong. That is not the type of government I propose. You are twisting my words and pulling things out of nowhere I never said. I am talking about a federalist system, set up in the way like the US. So states have a reasonable but not overwhelming amount of power. I am not talking about the Articles of Confederation, and I never suggested a Confederation type of government.

Pax · March 1, 2004, 00:23

Quote:

Originally posted by Giancarlo
Stop pulling words out thin air and trying to degrade my opinion on the issue.

I'm just stating that Vietnam and China are better off now than before. If only for the fact that these countries now have control over their own destinies. I'm willing to bet that neither France nor Britain would be able to push these countries around like they did before these countries were communist.

Pax · March 1, 2004, 00:25

I also maintain that Cuba is in the same boat as Vietnam and China. Maybe democracy is the ultimate way to go but if I was in Haiti I would be tired of democracy and be looking for some repression under communism.

Giancarlo · March 1, 2004, 00:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Pax Africanus

I'm just stating that Vietnam and China are better off now than before. If only for the fact that these countries now have control over their own destinies. I'm willing to bet that neither France nor Britain would be able to push these countries around like they did before these countries were communist.

The only reason Vietnam and China are better off now than they were before is because of FDI (foreign direct investment) and capitalism. These countries are not really communist but moreso capitalist than anything.

Quote:

I also maintain that Cuba is in the same boat as Vietnam and China.

Not at all. FDI is lacking in Cuba.

Pax · March 1, 2004, 00:31

Quote:

Originally posted by Giancarlo

Again wrong. That is not the type of government I propose. You are twisting my words and pulling things out of nowhere I never said. I am talking about a federalist system, set up in the way like the US. So states have a reasonable but not overwhelming amount of power. I am not talking about the Articles of Confederation, and I never suggested a Confederation type of government.

I'm sorry. Is federalism a strong or weak form of central power? I thought you said a weak central government.

Pax · March 1, 2004, 00:33

Point blank.
Which system is working better Haiti's or Cuba's?

Giancarlo · March 1, 2004, 00:33

Quote:

Originally posted by Pax Africanus

I'm sorry. Is federalism a strong or weak form of central power? I thought you said a weak central government.

Well I am not talking about a confederated form of government. That won't work. That is a very weak central government. I am talking about one that has more power but less than the system you propose but where states have power too. Something like the US system.

DinoDoc · March 1, 2004, 00:34

Quote:

Originally posted by Pax Africanus
All of the other dictatorial regimes have not had the same type of goal I mentioned.

You still didn't answer my question. So far your only answer seems to be a slightly stupid chant that because dictator has fuzzy feelings about people and stuff he maight not be all bad.

Pax · March 1, 2004, 00:37

Quote:

Originally posted by Giancarlo

Well I am not talking about a confederated form of government. That won't work. That is a very weak central government. I am talking about one that has more power but less than the system you propose but where states have power too. Something like the US system.

Haiti is very small there really is no need for the system you're talking about. It sounds like extra laws. Extra bureaucracy can lead to extra corruption. This country needs clear laws and a strong government to maintain the rule of law.

Giancarlo · March 1, 2004, 00:42

I'm NOT talking about extra bureaucracy (sheesh there you go again pulling words out of thin air I never said). I want a smaller central government than you want, and if anything, your system will come with extra corruption.

And never have I said there shouldn't be clear laws or a government that would maintain security and a pass a proper budget. What is not needed is heavy or moderate government interference with the economy as you propose.

Pax · March 1, 2004, 01:01

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc
You still didn't answer my question. So far your only answer seems to be a slightly stupid chant that because dictator has fuzzy feelings about people and stuff he maight not be all bad.

I may not be able to answer your question without sounding stupid. I'm just not as smart as you. My point is that strong central governments historically have been successful in enforcing peace. That's the first step in getting business into the country. Knowing that your investments won't be looted. Stron central governments in several countries such as Cuba, Vietnam, and China have been successful becoming independent of outside military powers and to and extent making them economic and or military powers of scale. Agreed that these countries are guilty of human rights violations but so was the U.S. during its period of industrialization. The system in Haiti works that even if you are fairly elected you can be uprooted by the military or enough armed men. This is no good. The government needs to be strong enough that it cannot be destroyed by force of arms. Having a dictator or strong central government that the people know is looking out for them will do a lot for stability. Cuba and China both came to power fighting against supposed Democracies that did not have the support of the people. If these two countries would have remained the way they were they would have continued to be weak. I hope this is not too stupid

DaShi · March 1, 2004, 01:28

There's a Haitian music store in Hangzhou.

Urban Ranger · March 1, 2004, 02:01

Quote:

Originally posted by JimmyCracksCorn
Haiti's only option now is to follow every UN/US recomendation and wait for the loans and grants to flow in. Combine this with a responsible and non-corrupt Haitian government with some kind of a sustainable plan for recovery and development and Haiti should be on the road to recovery.

Hm, right, really.

Point me to an example that a third country does well after getting all the IMF/WB loans with strings.

Urban Ranger · March 1, 2004, 02:04

Quote:

Originally posted by VetLegion
You won't believe this, but even a corrupt "democracy" and/or a dictatorship is usually in long term better than communism.

In the long term, we all die.

In fact, in the long term, nothing would matter.

The Mad Monk · March 1, 2004, 02:13

What about the Dominican Republic? How have they been doing?

If they are significantly better off than Haiti, what are they doing right, that the Haitians are doing wrong?

The Mad Monk · March 1, 2004, 02:20

Dominican Republic

Haiti

Wow. The contrasts are, in fact, staggering.

DaShi · March 1, 2004, 02:40

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

In the long term, we all die.

In fact, in the long term, nothing would matter.

Then why even post?

VetLegion · March 1, 2004, 02:56

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

In the long term, we all die.

In fact, in the long term, nothing would matter.

It takes a country a short time to recover from a hunta when the conditions are right. It takes a country much longer time to recover from communism. And it's harder.

Pax · March 1, 2004, 03:23

I once again point out that some countries can and have actually benefitted from communism/socialism. I believe Cuba, Vietnam, and China at least. Other countries that were satellites of the Soviet Union probably did not benefit at all. Also, countries that were involved in the cold war that had to spend enormous amounts of there resources, time, and effort did not benefit from communism/socialism. This has more to do with the leaders of to ideologies setting themselves up to compete for power than rebuilding a country. The idea behind communism and socialism is not inherently evil. But they do grow out of a need for change.

Giancarlo · March 1, 2004, 03:44

And I'll point out you are completely wrong. Vietnam and China are not really communist or even socialist, they have capitalist economic systems. China is definitely capitalist. Most of the growth is associated to the opening up of China, the opening up of the market.

Ned · March 1, 2004, 03:52

Pax, Cuba? Its economy is 1/10 of what it used to be and you say that communism has benefited Cuba?

Communism began to benefit China only when it turned away from socialism.

Communism hardly benefited Vietnam. And I wonder if you support the current genocide under way in Vietnam against the Montagnard people.

PAX, you obviously do not care about facts, assuming that you knew the above and still supported Communism.

The Mad Monk · March 1, 2004, 03:53

Nuts.

There's a much more successful nation literally right next door to Haiti. Copy them.

Giancarlo · March 1, 2004, 04:17

The Dominican Republic had some of the fastest economic growth rates.

Well it is hard discussing it with Pax since he doesn't have a clue what economic system really runs China. It is very capitalist.

The problem with Haiti is mainly the result of the years of misrule by the Papa Doc and Baby Doc regimes (Duvalier family). And further mismanagement under Aristide. Communism or socialism won't fix this and will only mess things up further.

Pax · March 1, 2004, 04:23

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned
Pax, Cuba? Its economy is 1/10 of what it used to be and you say that communism has benefited Cuba?

Communism began to benefit China only when it turned away from socialism.

Communism hardly benefited Vietnam. And I wonder if you support the current genocide under way in Vietnam against the Montagnard people.

PAX, you obviously do not care about facts, assuming that you knew the above and still supported Communism.

No I don't know everything. I do know that if a country adopts a form of government that does not mean that this is why they committed some evil. We are communist so we must commit genocide. NO.
When you say Cuba is 1/10 of what it was what does that really mean. NOTHING. Why, because it does not really speak to wheter or not the average citizen is better off under Castro or Batista. I personally think Castro.
Once again are the Chinese better off now or at the turn of the century. Are they still considered the weak men of asia. When did this change. Under Communism you say.

The fact is that Genocides, GDP/GNP's, aside these countries are much more powerful now than at the turn of the century or even in 1945, 1949, and 1959 for Cuba. These now have self determination like never before.