28 replies to this topic

[The Silver Thong]

Corp, on 24 January 2010 - 04:39 PM, said:

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 by Not the 1, 24 January 2010 - 05:09 PM.

[Cadetak]

Not the 1, on 24 January 2010 - 04:49 PM, said:

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]

Cadetak, on 24 January 2010 - 05:08 PM, said:

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]

Not the 1, on 24 January 2010 - 05:12 PM, said:

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]

Quote

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.peopl...56/6876865.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]

expandmymind, on 24 January 2010 - 05:19 PM, said:

http://english.peopl...56/6876865.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]

Cadetak, on 24 January 2010 - 05:25 PM, said:

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 by Not the 1, 24 January 2010 - 05:54 PM.

[ExpandMyMind]

Cadetak, on 24 January 2010 - 05:25 PM, said:

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]

Not the 1, on 24 January 2010 - 05:53 PM, said:

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]

expandmymind, on 24 January 2010 - 05:59 PM, said:

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.

[ExpandMyMind]

i'm inclined to agree with you but i also have my doubts. so, we'll see.

[The Silver Thong]

expandmymind, on 24 January 2010 - 06:05 PM, said:

i'm inclined to agree with you but i also have my doubts. so, we'll see.

Thats pretty much all we can do. I'm sure Haiti will rise from the ashes.

[acidhead]

Karlis, on 24 January 2010 - 08:08 AM, said:

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

I'll take a stab at that question...

-because its not their money.

[Cadetak]

acidhead, on 24 January 2010 - 08:31 PM, said:

I'll take a stab at that question...

-because its not their money.

The United States government is offering 100+ million to Haiti Recovery. That may seem like a lot to be spending but every other major country is committing to relatively similar amounts. The citizens of the United States have already donated like 50mil to the cause...which to me seems to indicate that the money isn't a concern and the concern is the recovery of Haiti

Edited by Cadetak, 24 January 2010 - 08:40 PM.