Any thoughts on this? BBC News Online coverage

Canadians are on the ground, French were coming, last I heard.

President stepped down, Supreme Court now in control.

What does everyone think of us going in? I'm against it. We have little to no ties with Haiti, and it's been failing as a democracy for a long time now.

Where's the oil?

Sometimes that's the best indicator that we shouldn't be there. =)

Rich Lowry on Haiti

As I understand it, just a few Canadian troops are there to protect the embassy. There's no intent to prop up Aristide's regime.

Aristide doesn't have a regime to prop up - he's in South Africa now.

The French were calling for him to step down before the Canadians and Americans got in it...

I was under the impression that "failing as a democracy" was a key reason TO be involved in something like this. Or at least the propping up of democracy has been used as an excuse for a number of other military involvements. Maybe its the "little or no ties" bit that is key.

The US has consistently NOT backed Aristide, but as the duely elected official of a country, ousted from power in the early 1990's by an illegal military force, the US was required to restore to him his office. Seems reasonable, unless you believe that only the duely elected officials that the US is fond of should be allowed to remain in power in any given country. The US did what they could to ensure the man would not be in power again, forcing him to sign a statement that he would not run for re-election when his term ended. He was elected to a second non-consecutive term, ending as you see it now.

(Also worth noting this quote by Noam Chomsky: "Washington maintained close intelligence and military ties with the new rulers while undermining the embargo called by the Organization of American States, even authorizing illegal shipments of oil to the regime and its wealthy supporters." The US was providing illegal aid to a military junta which had ousted an elected official from office and which was ruling as a police state.)

I guess I'm unclear as to what is "our fault" here.

Well, when he was ousted before, this was a sign of a major problem in the country that (some of) his people didn't like his rule so much. It's sort of like a revolution, the way I see it. Think of England's Glorious Revolution - had it occurred now, should the US have tried to restore the King to his throne and knock Cromwell out?

The US helped keep him in power by getting involved, and he never 'cleaned up his act'. Hence the events of the past week. Had the US not intervened before, they wouldn't be ousting Aristide now. (Although who knows if Haiti would have been better/worse off had the US not intervened. I just think it shows that we had a hand in helping bring about *this* present Haiti.)

We DID have a hand in bringing about this present Haiti, that much is sure. But I think it has as much to do with trade embargoes and hand-tying as anything else. My husband was in Haiti during the rule of the military junta who ousted Aristide the first time, and he said that you couldn't go anywhere without being followed by a man with a gun, and they weren't there for protection. His comments were that it may not have been worse, but it wasn't any better. Aristide had pretty clear ideas of social and economic change, but has been unable to do anything because of financial gagging.

I also don't think that rebellion need necessarily be considered "revolution" and I don't think that because some people are unhappy with their current leadership and choose to take matters into their own hands, the US should support them because it's a "revolution." (No one considered Timothy McVeigh to be a revolutionary, for instance.) I've read reports of Aristide's supporters showing violence in the streets in response to anti-Aristide protests, I've seen reports of the killing caused by the rebels. I haven't seen a clear indication of what the root problem is, though. No shouts of Aristide being the Devil as we saw with Saddam. No indications that Aristide was a threat. Haiti was a police state, I hear, but it was under the military junta that ousted him the first time, too, and the same leaders were in control of this rebellion, so what do we have to show that it will be any different now than it was under Aristide? Because of this, I am not a supporter of either side, but I think there are surely some fishy things going on here. Very fishy, on both sides.

[Edited to add:] I think it is correct to assume that the rebels didn't like Aristide's leadership. I think it is incorrect to assume that the US has necessarily backed the right horse. I haven't seen any reason that the junta who ousted Aristide the first time did so for any other reason than they wanted control of Haiti and didn't like the guy's ideas. Haiti was a fledgling democracy at the time, and this organization was "revolting" against that democracy and it's elected representative. Under the Junta, it was not a democracy, and the US got involved on both sides, by providing aid to the junta and by finally "helping" Aristide to regain his position, with numerous restrictions, effectively negating Haiti's democractic process. (And here I thought the US LIKED democracy...) The US was surely involved, but it was the people who voted in Haiti's elections who are to "blame" for him being in power. AND, his second term of office was non-consecutive. How is US involvement to blame for a guy who finished a term at president, did NOT run for re-election, waited through the term of another, different president, then managed to get himself elected a second time?? It isn't like he has been President the entire time since the US "propped him back up." He got back there on his own, with the help of Haiti's voters (or lack thereof).

I guess this whole situation confuses me for a number of reasons, and I can't find any clear news reports or other information that has helped me sort things out.