Devil Bush?

[Roxanne Appleby]

Dupe post.

 

[Pure]

to roxanne,

well, i thought that as a friend of freedom, that you had a problem with dictators. silly me.


===
roxanne said, when asked about whether she supported treating Musharref as an ally and funding his military.

I don't know, what do you think? Really. Are you suggesting it's a no-brainer? If you were Secretary of State what would you recommend?

 

[garbage can]

Bush is an average man trying to do an impossible job in a very difficult world, earnest but without any rational and consistent set of principles to guide him. The lefties will someday look back on their hyperventilating Manichean fever-swamp fantasies regarding this administration with deep embarrassment. If anyone should be be furious at Bush it's my people - limited government libertarians.

Chavez, on the other hand, is truly evil. He does have a consistent set of principles, which are the same depraved ones that guided Stalin and Mao - power from the barrel of a gun, the truncheons of the secret police, and the bullying of his brownshirt street thugs. Poor Venezuela . . .

Is that all just too un-PC for AH? Be glad you're not in Hugo's gulag.

Thanks Roxanne.... the 1st rational response.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

well, i thought that as a friend of freedom, that you had a problem with dictators. silly me.


===
roxanne said, when asked about whether she supported treating Musharref as an ally and funding his military.

I don't know, what do you think? Really. Are you suggesting it's a no-brainer? If you were Secretary of State what would you recommend?

Gosh, Mr. Secretary of State, could you be a little more clear? The Foreign Relations chairman awaits your response, and he's not amused by snippy, snide little slurs that attack others without stating any opinon of one's own.

 

[Pure]

from your postings i thought you had a problem with dictators. from that and you posting about freedom i thought you might object to funding them and arming their militaries. i cant seem to get an answer from you.

as to my opinion, i'd say the US was closer to a sensible approach when it, in 1998, banned transferring highlevel military stuff to Pakistan, because of its nuclear armed belligerance with India,

so, again my question is Do you support the change in treating this dictator, from squeezing him, to filling his pockets with some 200 million a year, and as many F 16s as *our aid* can buy for him?

do you support freedom and oppose dicators, or do you say, "It depends." Do you favor, like Bush, picking one dictator to lavish money on and another to excoriate, depending on your concept of 'greater good'?

---
some background info from the same source:

http://www.worldpolicy.org/projects/arms/reports/wawjune2005.html

INDIA AND PAKISTAN
Nuclear Neighbors

The United States imposed sanctions on rivals India and Pakistan after their 1998 "tit for tat" nuclear tests, prohibiting the export of goods listed on the U.S. Munitions List, military financing and the transfer of certain military technologies.

But the sanctions were lifted in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks in September 2001 when Washington sought allies for the war on terrorism. In the years since the attacks, Pakistan and India have benefited from billions of dollars in new military aid, training and weaponry.

While adopting the rhetoric of Washington's anti-terrorism agenda, both countries continue to pursue their nuclear aspirations, bicker across the Line of Control in Kashmir, repress domestic opposition movements and violate human rights. It remains to be seen whether recent peace talks over Kashmir can change this long term dynamic of tension between India and Pakistan.

PAKISTAN

General Musharraf is the right man in the right place at the right time.
Secretary of State Colin Powell[71]

Despite the sheen of democracy, Pakistan remains a military dictatorship in all but name. General Musharraf's seizure of power was legitimized by a controversial nationwide referendum in April 2002, but many observers questioned the free and fair nature of this "exercise in democracy."[72]

Soon after September 11th, President Bush judged that the sanctions imposed on Pakistan "would not be in the national security interests of the United States."[73] Thus, in early November 2001, the U.S. agreed to provide Pakistan with $73 million in "border security" military hardware, including Huey helicopters and spare parts for F-16 fighter planes.[74]

 

[Joesephus]

One of the problems I see...

is that Americans seem to have lost their understanding of democracy. My country, will, someday achive what the USA has, but not until we learn what American seems to be forgetting. Not only do minorities have rights and majorities obligations, but the reverse is also true.

I think it is wonderful that the opposition in this country is free to revile Bush, but do they also have an obligation to support him. I took great heart today when I heard a leading Democrat announce that Mr. Bush was his President and he didn't want to hear trash talk from someone like Chavez.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

is that Americans seem to have lost their understanding of democracy. My country, will, someday achive what the USA has, but not until we learn what American seems to be forgetting. Not only do minorities have rights and majorities obligations, but the reverse is also true.

I think it is wonderful that the opposition in this country is free to revile Bush, but do they also have an obligation to support him. I took great heart today when I heard a leading Democrat announce that Mr. Bush was his President and he didn't want to hear trash talk from someone like Chavez.

Very well put. Even though I don't agree with someone does not mean I will not support that person or defend that person when slurs are fired their way.

 

[cantdog]

In reply to the turn Pure has taken in this discussion, why not mention Musharraf?

We flirted briefly, under Mr. Carter, with the notion that the human-rights record of a government ought to have some bearing on whether or not we support it. Since then, the subject is referred to only in the most cynical or hypocritical terms. It is brought out to smear some regime which we already have decided on other grounds is an enemy, even though no one in charge would dream or considering it while the decision was being taken, and without regard to the truth or falsity of the various smears. Or it is held up during jingoistic rally speeches like a hollow mask on a stick, worn as if it were a proud characteristic of our policy, to make the crowd feel good about themselves and their oh-so-humane government.

Clinton reverted to the usual bloody-handed cynicism on this score as much as anyone from the other side of the aisle.

In the meantime, Europe has made human rights, defined rather definitely, a prerequisite for participation in their system on any level. It figures in their criticisms of one another, it always has to be dealt with when a new policy is proposed. In short, it actually figures in their decisions.

Do we want to try this approach? Are we to begin, as a state department, to make it at least a part of the mix, at least one determinant of policies? Are we ready as a nation to actually act as though we believed that all men are endowed with certain rights?

I'm ready to advocate it. It has to beat robbing the world at the point of a gun.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

The two best quotes I've heard about Bush are:

"Bush is the finest President this country has had in the 21st century." Time Magazine

"The Bush administration will be remembered in history as the most corrupt since Teapot Dome." Washington Post

As far as Satan? I can't comment.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

from your postings i thought you had a problem with dictators. from that and you posting about freedom i thought you might object to funding them and arming their militaries. i cant seem to get an answer from you.

as to my opinion, i'd say the US was closer to a sensible approach when it, in 1998, banned transferring highlevel military stuff to Pakistan, because of its nuclear armed belligerance with India,

so, again my question is Do you support the change in treating this dictator, from squeezing him, to filling his pockets with some 200 million a year, and as many F 16s as *our aid* can buy for him?

We made a pact with Stalin to defeat Hitler. I suppose that a more consistent approach would have been to oppose both, but then,
do you support freedom and oppose dicators, or do you say, "It depends." Do you favor, like Bush, picking one dictator to lavish money on and another to excoriate, depending on your concept of 'greater good'?

---
some background info from the same source:

http://www.worldpolicy.org/projects/arms/reports/wawjune2005.html

INDIA AND PAKISTAN
Nuclear Neighbors

The United States imposed sanctions on rivals India and Pakistan after their 1998 "tit for tat" nuclear tests, prohibiting the export of goods listed on the U.S. Munitions List, military financing and the transfer of certain military technologies.

But the sanctions were lifted in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks in September 2001 when Washington sought allies for the war on terrorism. In the years since the attacks, Pakistan and India have benefited from billions of dollars in new military aid, training and weaponry.

While adopting the rhetoric of Washington's anti-terrorism agenda, both countries continue to pursue their nuclear aspirations, bicker across the Line of Control in Kashmir, repress domestic opposition movements and violate human rights. It remains to be seen whether recent peace talks over Kashmir can change this long term dynamic of tension between India and Pakistan.

PAKISTAN

General Musharraf is the right man in the right place at the right time.
Secretary of State Colin Powell[71]

Despite the sheen of democracy, Pakistan remains a military dictatorship in all but name. General Musharraf's seizure of power was legitimized by a controversial nationwide referendum in April 2002, but many observers questioned the free and fair nature of this "exercise in democracy."[72]

Soon after September 11th, President Bush judged that the sanctions imposed on Pakistan "would not be in the national security interests of the United States."[73] Thus, in early November 2001, the U.S. agreed to provide Pakistan with $73 million in "border security" military hardware, including Huey helicopters and spare parts for F-16 fighter planes.[74]

We made a pact with Stalin to defeat Hitler. I suppose that a more consistent approach would have been to oppose both, but then, the Third Reich would still exist and NO ONE would have survived the Holocaust. There certainly wouldn't have been an Israel to bash over its human rights record (while conveniently ignoring the troubles with Syria's, Iran's, Cuba's, Venezuala's, Zimbabwe, etc.).

Yes, all dictators have to be resisted on some level. However, some are more strategically threatening (China's Communist regime, for instance). And, admit it: the liberals have their pet dictators too: Allende, Castro, Chavez, Mugabe, FRELIMO, the MPLA, Brezhnev, Ortega, Indira Gandhi, Ho Chi Minh, etc.

Yes, India and Pakistan are quarreling over Kashmir and nukes. Yes, Pakistan has an abysmal human rights record. Yes, Pakistan helped the Taliban. It is also true the Indian state has brutally oppressed the Sikhs of the Punjab and the Muslim majority of Kashmir (depriving them of their right to choose their fate for themselves).

Just something to note. And, Carter, for all of his human rights talk, was certainly cozy with Beijing and the Shah.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

from your postings i thought you had a problem with dictators. from that and you posting about freedom i thought you might object to funding them and arming their militaries. i cant seem to get an answer from you.

as to my opinion, i'd say the US was closer to a sensible approach when it, in 1998, banned transferring highlevel military stuff to Pakistan, because of its nuclear armed belligerance with India,

so, again my question is Do you support the change in treating this dictator, from squeezing him, to filling his pockets with some 200 million a year, and as many F 16s as *our aid* can buy for him?

do you support freedom and oppose dicators, or do you say, "It depends." Do you favor, like Bush, picking one dictator to lavish money on and another to excoriate, depending on your concept of 'greater good'?

---

Well, isn't this a switch: Pure is arguing for an absolutist black and white position, and I appear to be saying "gray."

Ah, I see what's happened: We've gone from discussing what individuals should think and say about injustice and oppression (condemn it), to how should a government act in a messy and dangerous world (carefully!)

I explained my views on foreign policy in a different thread, here: https://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=18916023&postcount=29

I don't call myself an isolationist, or any kind of "-ist" on foreign policy, really. Henry the K's realpolitik gets a lot of bad press, as does Jimmy Carter's human rights-ism, but I am sympathetic to both, and others also. Maybe I don't accept that there is any silver bullet on foreign policy; nation-states still live in the Hobbesian world of all against all, and in that environment no one ever has certainty, and no single "-ism" applies in every case. You know whose formulation I liked best recently? GWB's - in the Al Gore debate, when he spoke against "nation-building" and said we need to be "humble" in our estimation of our capabilities on such things. He's come a long way, baby.

I'm really just kind of thinking out loud there about what I "am" in terms of a foreign policy philosophy. I'm essentially pragmatic, in the plain english sense, not necessarily the philosophical sense, but pragmatism broadly interpreted, so sometimes the effective stance is a Jimmy Carter human rights campaign, because that plays to an opponents weakness. At other times Kissengerian realism makes more sense.

The key concept there is that nation-states still exist in a Hobbesian war of all against all. Do the principles that apply to individuals living in civil society also apply in that environment? I don't know. There's not much point in having high principles if you're radioactive dust floating in the troposphere. On the other hand, might high principles be what it takes to stay out of the troposphere? I don't think it's a simple question, which means it may be simplistic to suggest that it is.

 

[Pure]

to roxanne,

ok, so the US is to make deals and line the pockets of dictators, when they might make useful allies. little things like raped women being punished go by the board for the 'greater good.'

it's a plausible utilitarian argument.

BTW. IT follows from your last post that you do not really object to Chavez dictatorial means, being pres. for life, etc. You object to his manners. Were an equally bad dictator, like Nazarbayev, willing to suck GWBs cock and allow air bases, you'd be all for it. Just wanted to clarify your complaint.

 

[Pure]

S: Yes, Pakistan has an abysmal human rights record. Yes, Pakistan helped the Taliban.

P: OK, let's get this straight, Sev, since I have you to dialogue with instead of GWB. Pakistan is a military dictatorship with nukes that's bellligerent with its neighbor, India, also with nukes. Women in pakistan are suffering from lack of rights; if they complain of rape, they get charged; if another family member pisses off an official, the woman may get raped in retaliation.

We're going after the Taliban becuase they're a thread to Western civilization and our values and rule of law; church state separation, etc.

SO: AS A MEANS of "fighting the war on terror," getting at the Taliban (a super evil, I suppose) we make a deal with the Dictator Mushareff ( a lesser evil). We arm his military and give him all manner of hightech goods.

The Al Queda are hiding in Pakistan. Radical clerics and 'talk' abounds. The madrasas are going full steam teaching hate. Pakistan is an Islamic state which brings to trial not just non Muslims, but Muslims NOT in the official listing (nonconformist muslims, so to say).

NOW: this course of supporting Pakistan is 1) bringing democracy there. Yes? and 2) its weakening the Taliban, (yes?) and 3) we have a good and valuable ally in Mr. Musharref. (yes?)

 

[Pure]

R:Pure is arguing for an absolutist black and white position,

P: where? quote me?


R and I appear to be saying "gray."

P: correct me if i'm wrong, but in your moral universe there are no shades of gray are there? i believe Rand says you can't be a tiny bit dishonest or a tiny bit of a liar, just as you can't be a tiny bit pregnant. (incidentally we're talking about your individual act of support a gov that supports a dictator.)

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

ok, so the US is to make deals and line the pockets of dictators, when they might make useful allies. little things like raped women being punished go by the board for the 'greater good.'

it's a plausible utilitarian argument.

BTW. IT follows from your last post that you do not really object to Chavez dictatorial means, being pres. for life, etc. You object to his manners. Were an equally bad dictator, like Nazarbayev, willing to suck GWBs cock and allow air bases, you'd be all for it. Just wanted to clarify your complaint.

Does Chavez have bad manners too? Nobody told me he has bad manners. Now I'm really mad.


Rure is arguing for an absolutist black and white position,
P: where? quote me?

Aren't you? Why don't you answer a question I asked above: If you were Secretary of State, precisely what policy would you recommend vis-a-vis Pakistan? Don't just criticize, take a stand, Pure.

I might even agree with you - wouldn't that be a moment.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

In reply to the turn Pure has taken in this discussion, why not mention Musharraf?

We flirted briefly, under Mr. Carter, with the notion that the human-rights record of a government ought to have some bearing on whether or not we support it. Since then, the subject is referred to only in the most cynical or hypocritical terms. It is brought out to smear some regime which we already have decided on other grounds is an enemy, even though no one in charge would dream or considering it while the decision was being taken, and without regard to the truth or falsity of the various smears. Or it is held up during jingoistic rally speeches like a hollow mask on a stick, worn as if it were a proud characteristic of our policy, to make the crowd feel good about themselves and their oh-so-humane government.

Clinton reverted to the usual bloody-handed cynicism on this score as much as anyone from the other side of the aisle.

In the meantime, Europe has made human rights, defined rather definitely, a prerequisite for participation in their system on any level. It figures in their criticisms of one another, it always has to be dealt with when a new policy is proposed. In short, it actually figures in their decisions.

Do we want to try this approach? Are we to begin, as a state department, to make it at least a part of the mix, at least one determinant of policies? Are we ready as a nation to actually act as though we believed that all men are endowed with certain rights?

I'm ready to advocate it. It has to beat robbing the world at the point of a gun.

Before you go all goo-goo eyed over Europe, recall how cynical they can be when it comes to doing business with bloody handed dictators. Food for Oil, anyone?

 

[cantdog]

Before you go all goo-goo eyed over Europe, recall how cynical they can be when it comes to doing business with bloody handed dictators. Food for Oil, anyone?

That isn't the question, Roxanne. Do you think, now this IS the question, that we ought to bring human rights into the mix when we make state department decisions?

Or not?

Well?

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

S: Yes, Pakistan has an abysmal human rights record. Yes, Pakistan helped the Taliban.

P: OK, let's get this straight, Sev, since I have you to dialogue with instead of GWB. Pakistan is a military dictatorship with nukes that's bellligerent with its neighbor, India, also with nukes. Women in pakistan are suffering from lack of rights; if they complain of rape, they get charged; if another family member pisses off an official, the woman may get raped in retaliation.

We're going after the Taliban becuase they're a thread to Western civilization and our values and rule of law; church state separation, etc.

SO: AS A MEANS of "fighting the war on terror," getting at the Taliban (a super evil, I suppose) we make a deal with the Dictator Mushareff ( a lesser evil). We arm his military and give him all manner of hightech goods.

The Al Queda are hiding in Pakistan. Radical clerics and 'talk' abounds. The madrasas are going full steam teaching hate. Pakistan is an Islamic state which brings to trial not just non Muslims, but Muslims NOT in the official listing (nonconformist muslims, so to say).

NOW: this course of supporting Pakistan is 1) bringing democracy there. Yes? and 2) its weakening the Taliban, (yes?) and 3) we have a good and valuable ally in Mr. Musharref. (yes?)

Not happy with Pakistan, granted. Not happy with a lot of regimes. Not happy with China, either, with whom every President from Nixon to Bush seems to be cozy.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Duplicate deleted.

 

[only_more_so]

I love option 3. Because really, if the US wanted to take over all of South America, who would stop us? If we took over Mexico, we could even do away with illegal immigration!

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

That isn't the question, Roxanne. Do you think, now this IS the question, that we ought to bring human rights into the mix when we make state department decisions?

Or not?

Well?

Yeah, I do, sometimes. And sometimes we should use hardnosed realpolitik. I think. I don't know what the right answer is, Cant, but I suspect the word "balance" will be part of it. See my post above about nation-states living in the Hobbesian state of nature.

Are you suggesting that we should just be lily pure and guide our entire policy on this one thing? Aren't you afraid that's simplistic? How far would you go with it - stop giving any stuff or money to Pakistan, that's fairly simple. Stop trading with them? Stop trading with others who trade with them? How about China - same thing?

I am very sympathetic to emphasizing human rights more in our foreign policy. But I'm suspicious that beating the human rights drum simplistically often is motivated by partisanship, not principle.

 

[cantdog]

Yeah, I do, sometimes. And sometimes we should use hardnosed realpolitik. I think. I don't know what the right answer is, Cant, but I suspect the word "balance" will be part of it. See my post above about nation-states living in the Hobbesian state of nature.

Are you suggesting that we should just be lily pure and guide our entire policy on this one thing? Aren't you afraid that's simplistic? How far would you go with it - stop giving any stuff or money to Pakistan, that's fairly simple. Stop trading with them? Stop trading with others who trade with them? How about China - same thing?

I am very sympathetic to emphasizing human rights more in our foreign policy. But I'm suspicious that beating the human rights drum simplistically often is motivated by partisanship, not principle.

Well, no, I can't see it as a keystone. But right now, exploitation is a keystone, instead. Haiti bleeds. It goes to my heart. I am, of course, no nationalist. You must have noticed. I have no enemies. I want none. If, though, we ceased to arrange foreign policy simply to aid these corporations in their heartless acquisitory endeavors, we would require some other goal, some larger project. Why not human rights? When I was in school, they tried to tell me we thought human rights important, as a people. What America meant was a great experiment in democracy, a hope of people, ordinary people, for expression.

Would it not be a better, less filthy, less crass sort of foreign policy? There's a large project there, if we want to undertake it. A lot of the world is crushed underfoot.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Good post, Cant.


Two minor observations, not disagreements really.

1. Haiti has bled since the first African was dragged onto that benighted island's shore. It's almost an existential reality that "Haiti bleeds." In many ways it's the victim of the same socio-political pathologies that afflict sub-Saharan Africa. Frankly, no one knows how to fix it. I can say this, though: The fix will come when there is a popular concensus among the Haitian people in support of the rule of law. How that comes about I have no idea. It's an educational project that might take generations even after it begins, which it has not. The ability of the U.S. government to help in this regard is nil. Certain civil society institutions might be able to do more.

2. There's nothing wrong per se with "heartless acquisitory endeavors" of corporations or anyone else. Certain actions a person might take in such an endeavor is a different matter, of course. Like bribing a corrupt government to dispossess 2,000 indigenes to get their oil, to cite one example. Fraud and coercion are to be condemned wherever they are undertaken.

 

[cantdog]

Good post, Cant.


Two minor observations, not disagreements really.

1. Haiti has bled since the first African was dragged onto that benighted island's shore. It's almost an existential reality that "Haiti bleeds." In many ways it's the victim of the same socio-political pathologies that afflict sub-Saharan Africa. Frankly, no one knows how to fix it. I can say this, though: The fix will come when there is a popular concensus among the Haitian people in support of the rule of law. How that comes about I have no idea. It's an educational project that might take generations even after it begins, which it has not. The ability of the U.S. government to help in this regard is nil. Certain civil society institutions might be able to do more.

I'm not sure where you got this all from.

When it comes, as it has several times, it comes from below. How these people achieve the raw courage to defy tonton macoutes and the like is beyond me, but they do it, time and again. Here we are only mildly threatened, with simply having all our mail opened and all our calls listened to, our cars and houses searched, our libraries and bookshelves bowdlerized on political grounds, our brown people systematically jailed (to a litany of dignified and solemn statements about the 'rule of law'), and numerous other relatively small indignities. Here, we reserve the SWAT teams for those brown people-- the dramatic bursting in of booted and armed military-looking (and military-style trained) police, screaming and spreadeagling one's children on the floor, trussing people with handcuffs at gunpoint to haul them off to jail to stay-- white guys don't see that so much, now do they?

In Haiti, they broke in shooting once they'd targeted a member of a household, if they liked. They hauled them off to torture them to death and leave the bodies in the street. They do this to serve the same purpose as medieval heads on a pole, and to make the neighbors and families deal with the clearly tortured remains to send the message deeper.

In Haiti, they don't invest in expensive surveillance gear, they just accept the word of anyone who wants to turn someone in. They can be wrong much more often, because there's unlikely to be a trial anyway, and the trial, which will happen if the person has money, will be before a judge well paid.

The people of Haiti, when they rise against the duvalieristes, to vote for the new leader, find army outposts at the polls, firing on anyone who dares approach them to vote! Yet they do it anyway. The will to freedom is that strong. They know from history that once the truly popular government begins to legislate to alleviate the injustices, there will be, in this order, a coup which, if it fails, will be followed by an assassination which, if enough of them fail, will be followed by the US Marines, which will occupy and run the country while the new tontons scour the countryside on a killing spree, and a new, US-compliant, leader is installed.

Yet they do it anyway. Their courage and hope in the face of such withering odds is starkly incredible to me, yet it has happened many times. And not just in Haiti.

2. There's nothing wrong per se with "heartless acquisitory endeavors" of corporations or anyone else. Certain actions a person might take in such an endeavor is a different matter, of course. Like bribing a corrupt government to dispossess 2,000 indigenes to get their oil, to cite one example. Fraud and coercion are to be condemned wherever they are undertaken.

Condemned by whom? We reward these people, here, and we support their endeavors with troops overseas. Capitalism itself doesn't seem to mind that this sort of subsidy at home and armed support abroad is not a part of the theory of a free market. On the contrary, capitalism seems instead to actively solicit this kind of thing. So who do you think, besides the doomed brown people abroad from time to time, is going to object, let alone condemn?

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Condemned by whom? We reward these people, here, and we support their endeavors with troops overseas. Capitalism itself doesn't seem to mind that this sort of subsidy at home and armed support abroad is not a part of the theory of a free market. On the contrary, capitalism seems instead to actively solicit this kind of thing. So who do you think, besides the doomed brown people abroad from time to time, is going to object, let alone condemn?

I was deliberately vague because I didn't want to get into one of those stupid discussions in which companies are condemned for not paying U.S. union scale wages in a nation where the annual per-capita income is like $1,000. (Exagerating to make the point.)

There are laws on the books against bribing foreign officials and things like that. It's a tricky issue though, because if you squeezed too hard on that front the effect would be no investment in certain countries, which wouldn't help the people there either. It's a complex and messy world, Cant, as you know, and simplistic answers can look pretty dumb when they crash into the on-the-ground realities in many places. The kinds of fraudulent coercive actions we all condemn are not the norm, but they do happen. Should the law be more proactive in responding? Probably, but there are limits, and you don't want to throw out the baby of investment with the bathwater of corruption. Mixing metaphors here, it's not always easy to separate the sheep from the goats in such matters. That's just the reality, and idealistic or politically motivated posturing won't change it. (I am not accusing you of posturing - not even close.)

I join your salute to the courage of the Haitian people. And yet, somehow courage is not enough, is it? They know what they are against, but they don't know what to be for. Often times this plays out as opposing the current "strong man" in favor of a different "strong man."

I said above, "My favorite recent foreign policy formulation was GWB's in the Al Gore debate, when he spoke against "nation-building" and said we need to be "humble" in our estimation of our capabilities on such things." With that in mind, probably the best thing the U.S. government can do is to first do no harm by butting out. Private institutions have a better chance to do the work that needs to be done there.