In article <C6tzz3.M7C@ucdavis.edu>, ez000281@hamlet.ucdavis.edu () writes: |> Srinivas Suder writes: |>  |> >If the Haitian people's will is that their current Govt. get thrown out,  |> >they'll find a way to do it. Getting the US/UN to short-cut the process will  |> >only hasten it, but sets a bad precedent - can the US interfere EVERYWHERE?  |> >Why not right at our doorstep - Cuba? |>  |> Precisely, why not Cuba??  Why not???  The Hatians are being ruled by thugs  |> and their elected leader has asked support to reestablish the peoples will.    Well, let's delve one level deeper. Why is democracy better than tribalism or other means of Govt.? The President of Georgia was elected with a thumping majority and booted out later, w/ no objections from the UN. Similarly, the people of Algeria elected an Islamic Fundemantalist Party into power but the junta declared it illegal. In both cases, I personally have _no_ problems with the outcome, but if the voice of the people is that hallowed thing that the  world community claims to revere so, why isn't it interfering there?   |> the U.S. or any other democracy wishes to, they are in the perfect right to  |> help them without any whining from thir parties.  After all if it turns out to  |> be colonialism and the poeple don't like it, they' find a way to throw them out . Exactly. My point is that it will inevitably turn out that way, and we can save ourselves a lot of pain and trouble by simply letting people sort out their problems on their own. Colonial interventions, even in Haiti, haven't worked  in the past. They had a 102 coups from 1845-1915. The US invaded in 1915. And left in 1933, almost 17 years after they had intended to. Was it a success? Well, look at Haiti today and of the past 40 years and decide for yourself. It _was_ a success so long as the US was in, from what I remember. But it didn't last long, obviously.  |> >There is an implicit assumption here that we as outsiders have a right to sit |> >in judgement of another people, and to then act on it. To me, it is in there |> >that the roots of old colonial attitudes lie. Today, the motives are noble. |> >Tomorrow, they may not be. |>  |> Who ever said people who commit genocide have the right to commit genocide??   Nobody did. People should have a right to self-defense. If the UN wants to arm the Bosnians or Haitian revolutionaries or whoever, I have no problems with that. I do when they cross that line and attempt to re-arrange boundaries, govts. etc., the Vance-Owen plan being one such piece of insanity.   |> I want a world where criminals agains humanity have no place to hide, while you  |> want special sovereignties designed to protect them.  Nobody has the right to  |> commit crimes against humanity, and if they do they loose all right to self  |> determination.  If this is classical colonialism, then so be it.  We finally have a clearly-stated point of difference. Colonialism can have its good side, which is as you stated above - removing thugs from being able to lord it over powerless people. I am worried that the bad side is what  will assert itself, and I am prepared to let natural forces take their course  if that will mean we can avoid the bad side of colonialism.   --  Srinivas Sunder                                         sunder@crhc.uiuc.edu  If The University of Illinois shares these views, I'd be surprised. They aren't that smart generally -:).