Ron Paul votes "No" to US long-term Haiti aid

[Karlis]

The House voted to express its condolences to Haiti for devastating earthquake, commending international relief efforts, calling for a long-term U.S. commitment to rebuilding the hemisphere's poorest nation, and urging Haiti's creditors to cancel its debts.The vote was 411-1.

Read more...

Citing the short article:

The lone holdout? Rep. Ron Paul of Lake Jackson - the former GOP and Libertarian contender for president and advocate for the most limited federal government possible.

"Certainly I am moved by the horrific destruction in Haiti, and would without hesitation express condolences to those who have suffered and continue to suffer. As a medical doctor, I have through my career worked to alleviate the pain and suffering of others," he said.

But he expressed grave misgivings about the "possibility of an open-ended US military occupation" and said voluntarily donations should suffice to help Haiti recover.

Ron Paul was the only one who voted "No". Would you agree with his vote, or not?

Karlis

[Corp]

Why in God's name would the US want to occupy Haiti?

[Wickian]

Unless they need and ask for the extra help to keep the peace from looting and such I see no reason for military occupation.

[The Silver Thong]

Why in God's name would the US want to occupy Haiti?

Why is the U.S. in Cuba? Haiti means a closer link to Venezuela. Oil is the answer.

No, the U.S. did not cause the earthquake.

Edited January 24, 2010 by Not the 1

[Pseudo Intellectual]

That isolationist nut is at it again!

Can't wait for Graney to take his seat come March.

[el midgetron]

I rise in reluctant opposition to this resolution. Certainly I am moved by the horrific destruction in Haiti and would without hesitation express condolences to those who have suffered and continue to suffer. As a medical doctor, I have through my career worked to alleviate the pain and suffering of others. Unfortunately, however, this resolution does not simply express our condolences, but rather it commits the US government “to begin the reconstruction of Haiti” and affirms that “the recovery and long-term needs of Haiti will require a sustained commitment by the United States….” I do not believe that a resolution expressing our deep regret and sorrow over this tragedy should be used to commit the United States to a “long-term” occupation of Haiti during which time the US government will provide for the reconstruction of that country.

I am concerned over the possibility of an open-ended US military occupation of Haiti and this legislation does nothing to alleviate my concerns. On the contrary, when this resolution refers to the need for a long term US plan for Haiti, I see a return to the failed attempts by the Clinton and Bush Administrations to establish Haiti as an American protectorate. Already we are seeing many argue that this kind of humanitarian mission is a perfect fit for the US military. I do not agree.

Certainly I would support and encourage the efforts of the American people to help the people of Haiti at this tragic time. I believe that the American people are very generous on their own and fear that a US government commitment to reconstruct Haiti may actually discourage private contributions. Mr. Speaker, already we see private US citizens and corporations raising millions of dollars for relief and reconstruction of Haiti. I do not believe the US government should get in the way of these laudable efforts. I do express my condolences but I unfortunately must urge my colleagues to vote against this resolution committing the United States government to rebuild Haiti.

http://www.ronpaul.com/2010-01-22/ron-paul-on-haiti-condolences-yes-occupation-no/

Personally, I don't trust the government to have the best interests of the Haiti people at heart.

[Fluffybunny]

I see no reason to spend money we don't have all over the world. Haiti included.I feel horrible for what happened there. They do need help. But t can't be all us. Send a few million in medical supplies that would otherwise expire, offer some short term help, but good grief we cannot go there and spend endless money. We just don't have it to spend...this isn't the old days; we are broke. People don't seem to understand that, because it hasn't hit them personally...but we are not that rich country with the platinum credit cards anymore; we are over our limits, and our car is about to be repossessed...

[RobertoIlias]

yes I agree with Dr.Paul's decision and would like to add that he's the most sensible man in politics today.

[Karlis]

Ron Paul was the only Congressman out of 400-plus Congressmen who voted "No" for long-term aid to Haiti. Is it possible that Ron Paul is the only one Congressman correct in his conclusions? Also, why did all the other Reps vote "Yes"?

Just pondering,

Karlis

[preacherman76]

That isolationist nut is at it again!

Can't wait for Graney to take his seat come March.

We have already been acused of occupying Haiti by several countries. We have taken over millitarily 4 major airports. But RP is a isolationist cause he's against it?? You are the nut.

For the second part, LOL, you actualy think anyone but Christ himself is going to beat Ron Paul in Texas? Again, you are the nut.

[Pseudo Intellectual]

Yes, we have been accused of that... but by who? Chavez. The French. The usual suspects. They've been accusing us of such things since... well, for decades, really. Who cares what they think?

And I know Paul's district. He's had it easy these past few years, running against far lefties, and giving his people no choice but to elect him. Now we have Graney, who's basically just like Ron Paul, except sane. We'll see who wins.

[Cadetak]

Ron Paul was the only Congressman out of 400-plus Congressmen who voted "No" for long-term aid to Haiti. Is it possible that Ron Paul is the only one Congressman correct in his conclusions? Also, why did all the other Reps vote "Yes"?

Just pondering,

Karlis

It was a mess before the quake but now and without help Haiti will completely collapse.

Reconstruction takes many months, not weeks. The Military has the personel, tools, and expertise to do such a thing effectively.

Oh they probably all voted Yes because voting No would make them look bad...and you know...votes.

[Karlis]

It was a mess before the quake but now and without help Haiti will completely collapse.

~~~ ...

...

Oh they probably all voted Yes because voting No would make them look bad...and you know...votes.

That's more or less what I also think ... so much has changed since the Founding Fathers. Sad.

Again -- just my opinion,

Karlis

[The Silver Thong]

As the old saying goes " you can't help others if you can't help yourself" Now there are ways of helping but not getting caught up in the help by making it political. As Fluffy said, send some money and medical supplies and let them use it to rebuild as they see fit. They can hire contractors as the military has a track record of helping for a reason and it's not humanitarian. If they waste what is given, so be it.

Edited January 24, 2010 by Not the 1

[Corp]

Why is the U.S. in Cuba? Haiti means a closer link to Venezuela. Oil is the answer.

So if the US gets involved in helping a country it's because they want their oil, and if that country has no oil it so they can try and control other country's oil? Sorry but I don't buy that. Oil is not the answer for every single thing the US does. As for being in Cuba they have one military base back during the time when they actually controled Cuba, so the two cases aren't really similiar.

Haiti is a horrible mess and has been for years. Massive amounts of money is going to need to be poured in for them to get back on their feet so whatever possible advantage the US might have in gaining control of the country would be massively outweighted by the debt they would build up trying to run the place.

[The Silver Thong]

So if the US gets involved in helping a country it's because they want their oil, and if that country has no oil it so they can try and control other country's oil? Sorry but I don't buy that. Oil is not the answer for every single thing the US does. As for being in Cuba they have one military base back during the time when they actually controled Cuba, so the two cases aren't really similiar.

Haiti is a horrible mess and has been for years. Massive amounts of money is going to need to be poured in for them to get back on their feet so whatever possible advantage the US might have in gaining control of the country would be massively outweighted by the debt they would build up trying to run the place.

Yes Haiti is in a terrible mess no doubt about it. Cuba still has a base of operations for the U.S. due to the Cuba missle crisis and still has sanctions on it. Does America care how that effects Cubans?

Venezuela just announced it has 10 times the oil it thought it did and the U.S. is none to friendly to Hugo Chav whatever. This in military talk is a great oppurtunity to establish another base in the region as I doubt America wants Venezuela to be shipping oil to hostile nations. If one controls the oil flow they can control a military that may pose a threat. No army can work with out oil and I see conflict on the horizon. If you can take the horse from under the soldier you do so.

I'm just making a guess but we will have to see. Will Haiti have a perminant U.S. base after this?

Edited January 24, 2010 by Not the 1

[Cadetak]

Yes Haiti is in a terrible mess no doubt about it. Cuba still has a base of operations for the U.S. due to the Cuba missle crisis and still has sanctions on it. Does America care how that effects Cubans?

Venezuela just announced it has 10 times the oil it thought it did and the U.S. is none to friendly to Hugo Chav whatever. This in military talk is a great oppurtunity to establish another base in the region as I doubt America wants Venezuela to be shipping oil to hostile nations. If one controls the oil flow they can control a military that may pose a threat. No army can work with out oil and I see conflict on the horizon. If you can take the horse from under the soldier you do so.

I'm just making a guess but we we will have to see. Will Haiti have a perminant U.S. base after this?

If we needed a base closer to venezuala we could just use Puerto Rico

This whole conspiracy business is a bit silly. We will leave when we are asked to, no longer needed, or when Haiti is back on its feet.

[The Silver Thong]

If we needed a base closer to venezuala we could just use Puerto Rico

This whole conspiracy business is a bit silly. We will leave when we are asked to, no longer needed, or when Haiti is back on its feet.

I don't make the conspiracy, I just read about them. We will see what happens, till then I hope Haiti gets all the help they need. It's hard to watch it on the news and worse on the comp.

[Cadetak]

I don't make the conspiracy, I just read about them. We will see what happens, till then I hope Haiti gets all the help they need. It's hard to watch it on the news and worse on the comp.

Puerto Rico is literally right next door to Haiti and we already pretty much own it. As Haiti itself has nothing of value there is no reason for occupation. So take whatever the conspiracy theorists with a grain salt.

[ExpandMyMind]

General Douglas Fraser, who is in charge of the U.S. Southern Command, announced on Thursday that nearly 20,000 U.S. troops are expected to operate on and offshore, by Sunday. And Washington has said it plans to stay in the country for the long term.

"We are there for the long term, this is not something that will be resolved quickly and easily," U.S. Deputy Ambassador to the UN Alejandro Wolff said here on Thursday.

http://english.people.com.cn/90001/90777/90856/6876865.html

looks like they're in it for the long haul... another lengthy military expedition

haiti have oil and minerals don't they? and they're situated quite nicely for an american military base.

[Cadetak]

http://english.people.com.cn/90001/90777/90856/6876865.html

looks like they're in it for the long haul... another lengthy military expedition

haiti have oil and minerals don't they? and they're situated quite nicely for an american military base.

For the long haul means that the earthquake was so devastating that we cannot simply be done with it in the many of weeks and it will take a long time.

If we needed a base in that area...we have Puerto Rico, it is literally right next door.

[The Silver Thong]

For the long haul means that the earthquake was so devastating that we cannot simply be done with it in the many of weeks and it will take a long time.

If we needed a base in that area...we have Puerto Rico, it is literally right next door.

Seems I wasn't to far off base lol or did the General lie? Come on man it's right there to see. If I can call it anybody can. Puerto Rico, so what does that have to do with anything. Is Puerto Rico just going to allow a massive expantion in there country, no that wouldn't look good as when Russia put missiles in Cuba look what happened. Haiti is a great place to expand in a guise of humanitarian aid. I know it sounds crappy I don't like it you don't like it but does that mean it's not happening.

Edited January 24, 2010 by Not the 1

[ExpandMyMind]

For the long haul means that the earthquake was so devastating that we cannot simply be done with it in the many of weeks and it will take a long time.

If we needed a base in that area...we have Puerto Rico, it is literally right next door.

i used the phrase 'long haul', not the article. the man quoted said, 'long term'.

i feel the two have a subtle difference. but that's just me.

[Cadetak]

Seems I wasn't to far off base lol or did the General lie? Come on man it's right there to see. If I can call it anybody can. Puerto Rico, so what does that have to do with anything. Is Puerto Rico just going to allow a massive expantion in there country, no that wouldn't look good as when Russia put missiles in Cuba looked what happened. Haiti is a great place to expand in a guise of humanitarian aid. I know it sounds crappy I don't like it you don't like it but does that mean it's not happening.

Slow down, think rationally, don't jump to conclusions.

Read what the General actually said and in the context he said it. "We are there for the long term, this is not something that will be resolved quickly and easily," which equates to 'Haiti is a mess of a disaster, it won't be over in mere weeks it will take months to get them back on their feet'

The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico is United States territory. So if we needed a military pressence in that area we would surely utilize our own Puerto Rico and not a destroyed country that is prone to environmental disaster(Haiti is geographical death trap, bad place to put a base) and is being watched by every eye on the planet(Puerto Rico of course isn't, won't be, and putting a base on your own territory? Not that suspiscious).

[Cadetak]

i used the phrase 'long haul', not the article. the man quoted said, 'long term'.

i feel the two have a subtle difference. but that's just me.

Nonetheless the quote is not expressing or evident of military occupation. It is a quote addressing the time it will take for recovery.