Haitian Children Stolen - Yankee Go Home

chuck schmidt · Jan 31, 2010

Haiti Detains Americans Taking Kids Across Border

31 January 2010

Full story: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100131/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/cb_haiti_americans_detained

By FRANK BAJAK, Associated Press Writer Frank Bajak, Associated Press Writer – 51 mins ago

PORT-AU-PRINCE, Haiti – Ten U.S. Baptists were being held in the Haitian capital Sunday after trying to take 33 children out of Haiti at a time of growing fears over possible child trafficking.

The church members, most from Idaho, said they were trying to rescue abandoned and traumatized children. But officials said they lacked the proper documents when they were arrested Friday night in a bus along with earthquake survivors aged from 2 months to 12 years.

________________________________________________________________________

I hate to say it, but since 2001 for the first time in my life I find myself being anti-American. I spent some years going to school there. I have family there. I got married there. But I fear the place and won't go there any more if it can be avoided. It has become militaristic, fascist and fearful, IMO. Not as bad as Nazi Germany, but then I believe that some things Nazi Germany did are still too recent to be got away with again - yet. The American ego appears power oriented and insatiable. Americans invade, kill, rob, rape, exploit and often do it blatantly "in the name of God" and supposedly to help the people being abused. It has more people in its own prisons than any other nation in the world, per capita and real numbers, and refuses to recognize that fact as a symptom of anything but blame the prisoners.

Did the Baptists above take the children for profit? I doubt it. I hope not. But I note they come from the church of George Bush and mostly from a region in America rife with extremism. Do they deserve to be punished? I believe so. Not as harshly as somebody would be punished in the US for trying to sneak American children out of the country, because IMO America has become unreasonably and counter-productively harsh. But a criminal record nonetheless, to prevent them from travelling in the future and as an example to others. If you don't like the cultures and laws of another country, tough. Don't go there.

myp · Jan 31, 2010

chuck schmidt said:
I hate to say it, but since 2001 for the first time in my life I find myself being anti-American. I spent some years going to school there. I have family there. I got married there. But I fear the place and won't go there any more if it can be avoided. It has become militaristic, fascist and fearful, IMO. Not as bad as Nazi Germany, but then I believe that some things Nazi Germany did are still too recent to be got away with again - yet. The American ego appears power oriented and insatiable. Americans invade, kill, rob, rape, exploit and often do it blatantly "in the name of God" and supposedly to help the people being abused. It has more people in its own prisons than any other nation in the world, per capita and real numbers, and refuses to recognize that fact as a symptom of anything but blame the prisoners.

While this situation is unfortunate and the people who tried to essentially traffick the kids, essentially criminals, I don't feel this should effect your attitude towards Americans. This was not a group that represented the nation and while they were American citizens, most people here would not support such a thing. This was just a group of some citizens who made poor choices for whatever reason. Every nation has people like this. As an American citizen, I find it very sad that some of my fellow citizens did this as I would never even consider such a thing myself. I really hope you don't judge America based on the actions of a few.

chuck schmidt said:
Did the Baptists above take the children for profit? I doubt it. I hope not. But I note they come from the church of George Bush and mostly from a region in America rife with extremism. Do they deserve to be punished? I believe so. Not as harshly as somebody would be punished in the US for trying to sneak American children out of the country, because IMO America has become unreasonably and counter-productively harsh. But a criminal record nonetheless, to prevent them from travelling in the future and as an example to others. If you don't like the cultures and laws of another country, tough. Don't go there.

I don't feel they should be prevented from going to other countries though- they should simply be tried as is usually done in this case (I am not sure of the exact laws, but that would be fair.)

As for America and extremism, I again don't think we have a large extremist population. Sure we have some, but again, every country has its share.

Dirk · Jan 31, 2010

myp said:
As for America and extremism, I again don't think we have a large extremist population. Sure we have some, but again, every country has its share.

How about religious extremism in the context of highly industrialised Western countries?

(Western Europe, North America, Japan, Australia, NZ etc.)

myp · Jan 31, 2010

Dirk said:
How about religious extremism in the context of highly industrialised Western countries?

(Western Europe, North America, Japan, Australia, NZ etc.)

It isn't extremism though. There is a huge difference between being religious and being an extremist. Sure there are some extremists, such as the Westboro Baptist Church and unfortunately, the media tends to focus on them because controversy sells. In reality, for every extremist group like that, there are many more groups that are not extremist.

If you want to say America is generally more religious than Europe, that is fine, but that does not make the population crazy.

chuck schmidt · Jan 31, 2010

myp said:
I don't feel this should effect your attitude towards Americans. This was not a group that represented the nation and while they were American citizens, most people here would not support such a thing. This was just a group of some citizens who made poor choices for whatever reason. Every nation has people like this. As an American citizen, I find it very sad that some of my fellow citizens did this as I would never even consider such a thing myself. I really hope you don't judge America based on the actions of a few.

"Americans" per se, no. Heck, my brother and his multitudinous children are all American, him by choice them by birth. But the US government, yes. I don't suppose I can explain it adequately, but I believe the neoconservatives took America as far to the right as they could and would have taken it further if permitted. I think of America since dubya as fascist, and that is scary. I hope I don't offend you. Its the government I fear, not the people. I like most Americans I meet in the same proportions as every other nationality. I got married in the US after 2006, and that was a long time after dubya scared me away.

I don't feel they should be prevented from going to other countries

I'm not advocating that. I suspect its a legal consequence of any serious criminal conviction, especially one that involves border crossing. At the very least they'll likely have to make special applications after waiting a while to "cool off" the conviction.

David · Jan 31, 2010

chuck schmidt said:
"Americans" per se, no. Heck, my brother and his multitudinous children are all American, him by choice them by birth. But the US government, yes. I don't suppose I can explain it adequately, but I believe the neoconservatives took America as far to the right as they could and would have taken it further if permitted. I think of America since dubya as fascist, and that is scary. I hope I don't offend you. Its the government I fear, not the people. I like most Americans I meet in the same proportions as every other nationality. I got married in the US after 2006, and that was a long time after dubya scared me away.

I'm not advocating that. I suspect its a legal consequence of any serious criminal conviction, especially one that involves border crossing. At the very least they'll likely have to make special applications after waiting a while to "cool off" the conviction.

There's no difference from an American and a European except that we're open about what we do. It was the UN, dominated by America and Europe, that ordered the invasion of Iraq. It's NATO that invaded Afghanistan. It's the Arctic States that are acting the part of imperialists with Russia claiming a full 90% of the Arctic as it's own. But they are quite, they say they oppose such things, they point the finger at us. We just shoot and ask questions later. That is the 1 and only difference.

So please, get of your high horse. And for the record I oppose the vary existence of the US, so don't chuck my argument up to non-existent patriotism, you're just off base and I'm calling you out.

chuck schmidt · Feb 1, 2010

David said:
It was the UN, dominated by America and Europe, that ordered the invasion of Iraq. It's NATO that invaded Afghanistan.

First, the war in Iraq is WAY off topic.

Second, my memory is the UN and all Europe except Brit PM Blair said no to war in Iraq. The UN authorized Gulf War 1, but it was expressly opposed to the 2003 US attack. Dubya eventually bribed his "Coalition of the Willing" but didn't manage to scrape up much more than a few luke-warm second or third world medical and cafeteria parties. Most of the civilized world thought it was ridiculous that the left wing Labour Brit PM would tag along obediently while dubya played "war president". People openly joked online that dubya must have some pretty good pictures of Tony the Poodle.

So please, get of your high horse. And for the record I oppose the vary existence of the US, so don't chuck my argument up to non-existent patriotism, you're just off base and I'm calling you out.

My position as to who supported the war in Iraq is that you are just plain mistaken. See Wicki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_and_the_Iraq_War

In March 2003 the United States government announced that "diplomacy has failed" and that it would proceed with a "coalition of the willing" to rid Iraq under Saddam Hussein of weapons of mass destruction the U.S. insisted it possessed. The 2003 invasion of Iraq began a few days later.

Prior to this decision, there had been much diplomacy and debate amongst the members of the United Nations Security Council over how to deal with the situation. This article examines the positions of these states as they changed during 2002-2003.
Prior to 2002, the Security Council had passed 16 resolutions on Iraq. In 2002, the Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 1441.

In 2003, the governments of the U.S., Britain, and Spain proposed another resolution on Iraq, which they called the "eighteenth resolution" and others called the "second resolution." This proposed resolution was subsequently withdrawn when it became clear that several permanent members of the Council would cast no votes on any new resolution, thereby vetoing it. [1] Had that occurred, it would have become even more difficult for those wishing to invade Iraq to argue that the Council had authorized the subsequent invasion. Regardless of the threatened or likely vetoes, it seems that the coalition at no time was assured any more than four affirmative votes in the Council—the U.S., Britain, Spain, and Bulgaria—well short of the requirement for nine affirmative votes.[2]

On September 16, 2004 Secretary-General of the United Nations Kofi Annan, speaking on the invasion, said, "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN Charter. From our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal."[1]

deanhills · Feb 1, 2010

chuck schmidt said:
The American ego appears power oriented and insatiable. Americans invade, kill, rob, rape, exploit and often do it blatantly "in the name of God" and supposedly to help the people being abused. It has more people in its own prisons than any other nation in the world, per capita and real numbers, and refuses to recognize that fact as a symptom of anything but blame the prisoners.

I'm not that comfortable with stereotyping like this. For me it is looking on the negative side, where there is also a positive side to be found. The perspective is a bit wonky on the negative side.

chuck schmidt said:
Did the Baptists above take the children for profit? I doubt it. I hope not. But I note they come from the church of George Bush and mostly from a region in America rife with extremism. Do they deserve to be punished? I believe so. Not as harshly as somebody would be punished in the US for trying to sneak American children out of the country, because IMO America has become unreasonably and counter-productively harsh. But a criminal record nonetheless, to prevent them from travelling in the future and as an example to others. If you don't like the cultures and laws of another country, tough. Don't go there.

Again lots of negative stereotyping. I can't see the link with George Bush. What happened was wrong, and obviously needs to be investigated.

chuck schmidt · Feb 1, 2010

deanhills said:
I'm not that comfortable with stereotyping like this. For me it is looking on the negative side, where there is also a positive side to be found. The perspective is a bit wonky on the negative side.

Again lots of negative stereotyping. I can't see the link with George Bush. What happened was wrong, and obviously needs to be investigated.

Too general a criticism for me to understand. Criticizing a national government is a too-broad stereotype? Had I said the German Nazi government of WW2 would that be a too-broad stereotype?

deanhills · Feb 1, 2010

chuck schmidt said:
Too general a criticism for me to understand. Criticizing a national government is a too-broad stereotype? Had I said the German Nazi government of WW2 would that be a too-broad stereotype?

The subject of the discussion is "Haitian Children Stolen", you tried to politicize it with very broad sweeping statements. What has the "stolen" children got to do with Nazi Germany or whether the United States is a fascist country or not? What does it matter what George Bush's religion is? Surely that has nothing to do with the subject of the "stolen" children?

Bottomline for a more down to earth point of view would be that there is chaos and mayhem in Haiti after the earthquake, people are lost, children don't know where to go. People who happened to be officials of the Baptist church did what they thought would be a good thing to do, which obviously broke the rules. I don't see anything political in it. Just breaking the law? Hopefully it can all be sorted out in an amicable way? As far as I can see Americans have gone out full throttle to help Haiti in very difficult times.

JFSC201 · Feb 1, 2010

I've lived in Europe, specifically Italy for the past 8 months and I can tell you one thing is clear and that is the United States is the most open minded country of the 15 or so countries I've visited in my life (except for Amsterdam). There is room for everyone from what you call an extremist to every religion and every kind of person possible. I mean really, George W. Bush scared you away? I mean come on, this has to be the most ignorant, off topic, generalization loaded, spewing of hate that I've seen in quite a while. If GWB who on most accounts is identical to the current president (spending money like there is no tomorrow) is really scaring you that much you probably need to grow some. America is not a right wing country and I especially know that after visiting Europe. We have more rights in the States whether it be legally or socially. Maybe instead of taking shots at an entire country you should instead calm down and focus on doing something good like giving money to Haiti or helping the homeless instead of posting garbage about an entire country that it really doesn't sound like you've spent much time in. I know for a fact that since I've been here I've seen French police arrest black citizens without reason, I got a parking ticket in Italy mailed to me 5 months after the fact with no proof of any wrongdoing, and I personally was pulled over in the middle of the night in Germany and had my car searched for absolutely no reason! Wouldn't have happened in America. I have some negative opinions about the U.S. as well but I keep them rational, and your silly ridiculous comments only feed the ego and the arrogance of Americans, because you really make yourself look like a whining baby who instead of pitching in to help the world you would rather just complain and call names.

Dirk · Feb 1, 2010

myp said:
It isn't extremism though. There is a huge difference between being religious and being an extremist. Sure there are some extremists, such as the Westboro Baptist Church and unfortunately, the media tends to focus on them because controversy sells. In reality, for every extremist group like that, there are many more groups that are not extremist.

If you want to say America is generally more religious than Europe, that is fine, but that does not make the population crazy.

I was thinking about creationism, actually.

chuck schmidt · Feb 1, 2010

Originally Posted by deanhills
The subject of the discussion is "Haitian Children Stolen", you tried to politicize it with very broad sweeping statements. What has the "stolen" children got to do with Nazi Germany or whether the United States is a fascist country or not? What does it matter what George Bush's religion is? Surely that has nothing to do with the subject of the "stolen" children?

[FONT=&quot] The issue in page 1 post 1 is the current US image in the world and I gave my view in reference to a fresh news story. You replied that criticizing America is too general but gave no reason. I asked if criticizing Nazi Germany would be acceptable, in other words why one but not the other? You declined to respond to my point. I suspect my reply brought home to you that yes, one can criticize a national regime without being too vague. You just disagree with me about your country. That's fine. We can agree to disagree.

deanhills · Feb 2, 2010

chuck schmidt said:
[FONT=&quot] You declined to respond to my point.

No. I genuinely thought you were going off your own topic, but I guess the "Yankee go home" part of the title of your thread covers the political statements you made.
[FONT=&quot]
[FONT=&quot]

chuck schmidt said:
I suspect my reply brought home to you that yes, one can criticize a national regime without being too vague. You just disagree with me about your country. That's fine. We can agree to disagree.

I'm always a person for a compromise wherever I can as I agree with you that one can agree to disagree with the proviso however that I do not have to move too far from some of my basic principles. So given your statements above, let me start my comment from scratch again.

chuck schmidt said:
The American ego appears power oriented and insatiable. Americans invade, kill, rob, rape, exploit and often do it blatantly "in the name of God" and supposedly to help the people being abused. It has more people in its own prisons than any other nation in the world, per capita and real numbers, and refuses to recognize that fact as a symptom of anything but blame the prisoners.

I can't agree with this statement. I can agree with your point of view that there may be people outside the United States who could be of that opinion, but you may be surprised that there are more people outside the United States that you may imagine there to be, who admire the United States for acting decisively when called upon to do so. Problem is we only hear the very loud minorities. For example, take the recent willingless of Kuwait, UAE and Bahrain to participate with the United States in creating defence positions in the Gulf against Iran in the nuclear fuel dilemma. There has to be lots of respect and good will for countries like that to rally to the United States. Another example would be people from Pakistan, who in their fight with the Taliban are very grateful for the presence of the United States on the Afghanistan borders, as well as US support and pressure on the Pakistan Government to get rid of the Taliban. Yes, there are naturally factions in Pakistan who are very much anti-American, but there are perhaps more peace loving people (the ones we don't hear about in the press) who would be supportive of what the Americans are doing in Afghanistan. I think you have every reason to be very proud of being an American. To be able to admit your mistakes so very publicly to the point of impaling yourself in mortification for the invasion of Iraq, and still being there to help fix some of the damages that have been done to the country, and hopefully build something better in its place is something to be genuinely admired. There are also those Americans who fought for their country, and who believed they were fighting for the freedom and security of their country, as well as the freedom of the people of the world. One cannot help but be totally in awe of their courage and sacrifice.

chuck schmidt said:
Did the Baptists above take the children for profit? I doubt it. I hope not. But I note they come from the church of George Bush and mostly from a region in America rife with extremism.

I was with you until you brought George Bush into it and made the church something of politics. I think the church and the politics had very little to do with anything. I take my hat off for the Haiti Government though that they resisted the removal of the children from Haiti. That says something for me.

chuck schmidt said:
Do they deserve to be punished? I believe so. Not as harshly as somebody would be punished in the US for trying to sneak American children out of the country, because IMO America has become unreasonably and counter-productively harsh. But a criminal record nonetheless, to prevent them from travelling in the future and as an example to others. If you don't like the cultures and laws of another country, tough. Don't go there.

I agree completely with you on this one. Also that it was very presumptuous of the Baptists as well as disrespectful to the people of Haiti to have thought that they could simply remove the children from Haiti without some proper legal process. It even hints of arrogance to me. They probably will have to do a lot of explaining to their Church, to the American Government as well as the people of Haiti. And with all the infrastructure down in Port au Prince, I can only imagine they will be spending lots of time in makeshift jails.

chuck schmidt · Feb 2, 2010

Thanks for your polite and reasonable response.

deanhills said:
I can't agree with this statement. I can agree with your point of view that there may be people outside the United States who could be of that opinion, but you may be surprised that there are more people outside the United States that you may imagine there to be, who admire the United States for acting decisively when called upon to do so. Problem is we only hear the very loud minorities.

Fair ball.

For example, take the recent willingness of Kuwait, UAE and Bahrain to participate with the United States in creating defence positions in the Gulf against Iran in the nuclear fuel dilemma. There has to be lots of respect and good will for countries like that to rally to the United States. Another example would be people from Pakistan, who in their fight with the Taliban are very grateful for the presence of the United States on the Afghanistan borders, as well as US support and pressure on the Pakistan Government to get rid of the Taliban.

I don?t necessarily agree with the idea I underlined. When it comes to questions of war sometimes idealism is involved. WW2 was an example. However, especially since 1945 it is more often than not what the writers call ?real politik?. As the world witnessed in the run up to the 2003 attack on Iraq, shameless bartering and bribing. And guess whose taxes pay? I personally do not believe that Iranian nukes are any greater a risk of offensive warfare than those of any other power. The first non-defensive use, and maybe even any use would result in instant immolation. Iranians may be unfamiliar to us, but I think the notion that they would commit national suicide is pure propaganda the same as when it was said about the Russians then the Chinese.

Yes, there are naturally factions in Pakistan who are very much anti-American, but there are perhaps more peace loving people (the ones we don't hear about in the press) who would be supportive of what the Americans are doing in Afghanistan.

The entire Gulf region was split into competing regions by the Brits for the express purpose of keeping it divided in conflict. The intention was that it not coalesce into a single power capable of resisting western interference. IMO it?s time to butt out. Let the region do whatever it takes to come to peace with itself to whatever degree it can. It isn?t ours to worry about. Nobody sent troops in to interfere with the English or US civil wars, and the sooner it coalesces the sooner it can be on the road to whatever healing is possible. In the meantime they have nothing but oil. It will still be for sale.

I was with you until you brought George Bush into it and made the church something of politics.

IMO dubya IS the current ugly American.

deanhills · Feb 3, 2010

chuck schmidt said:
I don?t necessarily agree with the idea I underlined. When it comes to questions of war sometimes idealism is involved. WW2 was an example. However, especially since 1945 it is more often than not what the writers call ?real politik?. As the world witnessed in the run up to the 2003 attack on Iraq, shameless bartering and bribing. And guess whose taxes pay? I personally do not believe that Iranian nukes are any greater a risk of offensive warfare than those of any other power. The first non-defensive use, and maybe even any use would result in instant immolation. Iranians may be unfamiliar to us, but I think the notion that they would commit national suicide is pure propaganda the same as when it was said about the Russians then the Chinese.

I don't think you understood the point that I was trying to make. I'm not saying what the US is doing is right, or that Iran is a threat. I was saying that the US does have enough respect from countries, even in the Middle East, to support United States in its attempt to create a solid defensive position. It's the willingness to collaborate and be on the same page that I am underlining.

chuck schmidt said:
The entire Gulf region was split into competing regions by the Brits for the express purpose of keeping it divided in conflict. The intention was that it not coalesce into a single power capable of resisting western interference. IMO it?s time to butt out. Let the region do whatever it takes to come to peace with itself to whatever degree it can. It isn?t ours to worry about.

The Brits' ability to do that more or less ended after WWII. Its strategy of divide and rule is world renowned, right from India through to South Africa and the United States to mention a few.

chuck schmidt said:
Nobody sent troops in to interfere with the English or US civil wars,

I can't quite see what that has to do with the present? For one, the United States was very remote and isolated from the rest of the world, be difficult to see the Germans and French crossing the Atlantic Ocean? Would have been interesting if they would have done that ...

chuck schmidt · Feb 3, 2010

deanhills said:
The Brits' ability to do that more or less ended after WWII. Its strategy of divide and rule is world renowned, right from India through to South Africa and the United States to mention a few.

I am saying that the US has now taken that role ... then read on the next reply this post.

I can't quite see what that has to do with the present?

Because the west (now the US instead of the Brits) continues to play divide and conquer with the Gulf. If the world had interfered with the US Civil War and the US had devolved into a Balkanized country of bickering state-sized countries, don't you think "Americans" would pull a 9-11 to tell a European or Asian country to back off?

For one, the United States was very remote and isolated from the rest of the world....

Not any more. Writers on ebola have speculated that a person freshly infected with ebola could be in any world metropolitan centre between the time they catch ebola and the time it becomes infectious. No nation is an island any more.

deanhills · Feb 4, 2010

chuck schmidt said:
I am saying that the US has now taken that role ... then read on the next reply this post.

Because the west (now the US instead of the Brits) continues to play divide and conquer with the Gulf. If the world had interfered with the US Civil War and the US had devolved into a Balkanized country of bickering state-sized countries, don't you think "Americans" would pull a 9-11 to tell a European or Asian country to back off?

I see a huge difference between the Brits and the US. The Brits used to go into a country and play sides, dividing people of one country so that they can rule them properly. They had a complete hands-on approach. I can't get your analogy of the US devolving into a Balkanized country. With which countries or organizations are you comparing this situation? Also very difficult for me to visualize. I can't see the Americans pulling a 9-11 in any situation.

Dirk · Feb 4, 2010

deanhills said:
I see a huge difference between the Brits and the US. The Brits used to go into a country and play sides, dividing people of one country so that they can rule them properly.

You mean like the US fought with the UIF/Northern Alliance against the ruling clique in Afghanistan?

chuck schmidt · Feb 4, 2010

deanhills said:
I see a huge difference between the Brits and the US. The Brits used to go into a country and play sides, dividing people of one country so that they can rule them properly. They had a complete hands-on approach.

So you don't think that has happened in Iraq and Afghanistan? Or Iran with the Shah in the 50's, 60's and 70's? If not, let me please suggest that you have simply bought in to US propaganda.

I can't get your analogy of the US devolving into a Balkanized country. With which countries or organizations are you comparing this situation? Also very difficult for me to visualize.

Let's imagine that the US was not a powerful united country, but was instead a series of bickering state-sized mini-countries because outsiders sent in troops during the US Civil War and forced a balkanized North America south of the US-Canada border. Then lets imagine that leaders in, for instance, Texas were kept in power for 20-30 years with no fair elections because other powers, say the Brits, wanted Texas oil dirt cheap. Then imagine that because of this Texas was kept poor and starving. Would Texans respond aggressively to foreign domination? The original 13 states did in the 1770's, so why not Texas? And why not kamikaze jets?

I can't see the Americans pulling a 9-11 in any situation.

No? Why? Are Americans too principled or angelic? You've never read of the atrocities of the Revolutionary War or Civil War? Or Vietnam War or Gulf War? You would rather watch your children starve? Or go up against the world's largest most sophisticated military in a stand up unwinnable conventional engagement? I suppose you also choose not to see Mohammad Atta and his teams as men of courage?

Haitian Children Stolen - Yankee Go Home

Similar threads