No fake attack. It's been determined that is was an accident that the US took for an attack. Perhaps known by higher-ups and used, perhaps not.

Ever hear of the Cuban Missile Crises? That was not a false flag operation and represented a serious national threat from the Soviets.

I'm sure they would if the US didn't have it's own forces to keep the peace.

The USS Maine.

Yes the USS Maine, which blew up about the harbor and has since been determined caused by an accident on board. This is based on photographs of the salvaged remains.

Hmmm, well I guess there is still debate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Maine_%28ACR-1%29

I see the US troops as a stabilising feature/peacekeepers against looters etc.

They've put enough personnel and equipment in there to warrant such a presence, if not just for security to their own but also to that of the islands inhabitants.

I would like to see them leave though when some semblence of normality is resumed....but I guess that will depend on how the population settle and move on with the aftermath.

Was Haiti considered normal before the quake?:hmmm:

Accident or not, it sparked The Spanish American War.

Can you run through a quick summary of open and false flag operations representing serious national threats against Cuba in the years before that?

As I understand it, most of those "bullies" to which you mentioned are really other kids that have gotten themselves injured.

And I see like the real American government, you have completely ignored the very problem of crashing into someone elses' borders en masse, armed, without prior permission.

If the concept of sovereignty, or the sanctity of your own home on a domestic scale, is to have any meaning, you have to be control of access into it, yes even in emergencies.
-------
Sideline the CMC: Utter hypocrisy from the Americans - basically it is saying "Me putting missiles into Turkey to nuke you ... right. You putting missiles into Cuba to nuke me ... wrong."

Not off the top-o-the-head. This thread is piquing my interest, however, in regard to early twentieth century Spanish-American relations. Especially in light of the Spanish Nationalists, and the Communist movements in the thirties. Many people from the US fought against Franco's Nationalists whom they felt were the larger threat. Many of these people were not members of the Communist Party, but saw fascism (correctly) as the greater threat to world peace. This must have played a great part in how Cuba and Hispaniola were treated at the time. Certainly not an easy call. :arrgh!:

One would ask what type of government would place the niceties of sovereignty above the urgent humanitarian needs when that government has collapsed entirely?

Don't leave the European nations out of the equation concerning missiles. If Turkey were the only country in the area not under the USSR's influence, your statement would be more relevant.

A country that respects international law? A nation that respects sovereignty? A country that understands what it might look like to everyone that does not have 100% blind faith in you when you pour thousands on thousands of troops into a nation under any pretext?

What will you have said if it was say China or Russia who was doing the insertion of thousands of troops for "humanitarian cause"?

The closest thing to correct procedure, if no one can be reached in the Haiti government, is to go for the UN - I know what the average American, especially SUBSIM's Americans, thinks of the UN, but I'll think for something like this, for ONCE you'll get a speedy response.

And if one MUST take unilateral action, at the very least dedicated medics, not that many troops with guns. I understand the need for security for your medical and rescue people, but there are limits.

What difference does it make, in your opinion?

I guess it's in your general opinion of the inherent good or evil of the US what your feelings are. I have little faith in the UN to make a move anywhere near in time to render aid. First would be the discussions of what to do, then who would do it, etc. Meanwhile, thousands die of starvation because quick action was needed. Not that I disagree that the UN would be the through channels way.

To the second point, are you referring to cold war politics? The difference is NATO was a bloc of nations, mostly in the general vicinity, opposed to the further spread of USSR style communism with its purges and bloodbaths, not one small nation posing a nuclear threat. If that does not make a difference to you, than we can not find any common ground and should let this rest.

After reading this again, I think you are referring to more recent post USSR missiles in Turkey. I still think the same argument applies.

Maybe. We could argue the potential ramifications of what "most" entails in a country known for it's dangerous gangs and weak public safety even in "nomal" times, but either way that doesn't make a desperate survivor and less dangerous to relief workers.

Excuse me, I must have missed something. Are you claiming that the Haitian government did not ask for our assistance?

There are limits? Whose limits? What you are saying is we should accept a certain amount of risk to our relief workers in order to, what? Silence critics? How many critics do you think there'd be if we some of our doctors and nurses are killed because we didn't provide enough security to them?