The rationale for sending in the military is that "no one else has the logistical capacity."
Why would that be?
What scenarios emerge if there has to be more cooperation and less unilateral action from the get-go?
DC
On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 5:42 AM, Fernando Cassia <fcassia at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 8:45 AM, James Heartfield
> <Heartfield at blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>> Doug writes: 'Why on earth would the U.S. want to destroy Haiti? To provoke more boat people? To lower the minimum wage, now $3 a day? ' and 'Chavez has enough to worry about without embracing nonsense like this.'
>>
>> But given the ambiguity about what has been attributed to him, it seems better to respond to what he did say, which is that the US was using the earthquake as a pretext for a military invasion.
>
> The way I see it, when Obama gave the orders to deploy the troops and
> rescue effort, some US general thought it was his chance to "run the
> show" and tell those U.N: idiots how things get done... hence the
> first thing they did was taking command of the airport´s control
> tower, and proceed to give priority to US flights putting the French
> at the bottom of the waiting list for landing, raising theire and
> formal complaint by France...
>
> That complaint, in turn, seems to have led to Hillary kicking
> someone´s arse and now the U.S: troops are "cooperating" and
> "coordinating" with the U.N.
>
> ...Just my view from afar...
> ;-)
>
> FC
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>