[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Tucker Carlson: Mexico has interfered in US elections 'more successfully' than Russia

Months Before His Death, Anthony Bourdain Blasted ‘Rapey’ Bill Clinton, Exposed Hillary’s Complicity

The Shroud Of Turin Is Not Jesus' Burial Cloths

Trump calls off Cold War II

Police Come to Iraqi Veteran’s Home, Attempt to Confiscate His Guns, He Tells Them No

Hillary Clinton Is Exhausted, Everybody

‘Palestinian’ Man Skates Murder Charge for Stabbing Israeli Woman in Back, Sentenced on Assault

Trump's Putin Summit Is Another Reminder He Prefers Dictators to Democratic Leaders

Libertarians’ reality problem: How an estrangement from history yields abject failure

Trump Is Right to Meet Putin

Full transcript of Chris Wallace's interview in Helsinki with Russian president Vladimir Putin, as supplied by Fox News.

Chris Wallace interviews Russian President Vladimir Putin

Once Again, President Trump Is Magnificently Right—This Time About Russia

McCain rips Trump: 'One of the most disgraceful performances by an American president in memory'

Trump condemned as treasonous after press conference with Putin

How Everything is Racist, And You’re a Terrible Person

The big influence of 'Big Pink'

Documents Reveal Two US Soldiers Overheard Plot To Kill JFK—and Were Committed After Reporting It

Fox's Perino: Strzok marriage questions by GOP lawmaker 'felt like a public lynching (Relly? I don't think so, Dana!'

Trump: Strzok's testimony 'a disgrace to our country'

Trump Is Right: Mueller’s Latest Indictment Suggests He’s Conducting A Witch Hunt

Constitutional Conservatives Fail the Drug Test

Chipped Tires

A collision of views as Bath Township calls artist's work 'junk,' heads to court

How Elected Libertarians Are Making the World More Free

The fundamental contradiction of libertarianism

Dinosaur and man walking together

You're killin' me, Smalls. 'The Sandlot' celebrates 25th anniversary

Massachusetts police officer killed after attacked with rock, shot with own gun, officials say

Mike Rowe Responds to Critics Who Don't Like His Move to Christian TV Network

Police: Richmond homeowner shoots intruder several times (San Francisco)

Internet Trolls Really Are Psychos

Adam Smith to Richard Spencer: Why Libertarians turn to the Alt-Right

Libertarians’ reality problem: How an estrangement from history yields abject failure

Family Calls for Help with Suicidal Child, Cops Show Up and Kill Him

Jury Nullifies Georgia Weed Law, Finds Man Not Guilty Despite Admittedly Growing Marijuana

Former Clinton White House Staffer: It's 'Tempting to Beat the Crap out of Rand Paul'

Reality vs Fantasy: President Trump warns Europe is ‘losing its culture’ by allowing ‘millions and millions’ of migrants, PM Theresa May praises their’ fantastic contribution’

Globalization?

NATO’s Problem Is that Europeans Won’t Fight

Trump isn’t attacking NATO. He’s strengthening it.

North Carolina Scientist Proposes Using Cannabis to Combat Invasive Species

Libertarians on Liberty’s Post suppress dissent – Sad.

Why Internet Libertarians are becoming Fascists

Libertarians Are Insane

Julian Assange, CrowdStrike, and the Russian Hack That Wasn’t

Open Question: What is a Christian Libertarian?

Pakistan Hacked the DNC Server and Maybe Hillary’s Illegal Server Too

Indiana has spent over $20 million on cleanup of failed Pence family gas stations

New Mueller indictment reveals that a congressional candidate requested stolen documents from Russian hackers in 2016


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

International News
See other International News Articles

Title: Haiti between anarchy, normalcy after deadly fuel-price violence
Source: [None]
URL Source: https://www.yahoo.com/news/renewed- ... id-calls-strike-180543172.html
Published: Jul 9, 2018
Author: Amelie BARON
Post Date: 2018-07-09 12:40:25 by Justified
Keywords: None
Views: 109
Comments: 19

Port-au-Prince (AFP) - Scenes of anarchy alternated with tentative signs of a return to normal life in Haiti's capital, with calls for a general strike Monday after two days of deadly looting and arson triggered by a quickly-aborted government attempt to raise fuel prices.

With the death toll rising to four, protesters in the impoverished Caribbean country called for a two-day general strike, despite the government's climbdown over the price increases.

Many Haitians are now demanding the immediate departure of President Jovenel Moise.

"If the president stays one more day, the game will take on a new appearance: we will cut off the roads and burn everything, because we have nothing else to lose," said one masked protestor.

Groups of young men trying to extort money from motorists as well as pedestrians controlled various intersections and roads in Port-au-Prince on Sunday.

Local radio reported that groups of armed people in civilian clothes had been seen in some downtown districts.

In the heart of the capital, AFP journalists saw shops ransacked as protestors demanded Moise's exit.

Some aggressive young men carried knives, and special police crowd control units fired their guns into the air and detonated tear gas.

Alongside these chaotic and violent scenes, a partial return to normal life occurred in parts of the capital.

After mass, many fruit and vegetable merchants had taken up their places again on the sidewalks, and motorcycle taxis were back at their usual intersections -- even if customers were scarce.

Automobile traffic timidly returned to several roads where police had removed barricades.

Some flights returned, too, with three aircraft landing from the United States after all airlines cancelled service on Saturday.

But uncertainty remained, and the embassies of France and Canada said they would remain closed on Monday.

Moise had urged demonstrators late Saturday to "go home," saying the price hike suspension had "corrected what had to be corrected."

His televised speech disappointed much of the population and the political class: "We were expecting another speech, a serene analysis of the situation that has prevailed in the country in the last two days and caused so much loss of life and materials," lawmaker Jerry Tardieu told AFP.

The unrest followed a government announcement on Friday that gasoline prices would rise by 38 percent, diesel by 47 percent and kerosene by 51 percent starting this weekend.

- 'Carried away' -

In suspending the price hikes, Prime Minister Jack Guy Lafontant on Saturday emphasized that "violence and democracy are fundamentally incompatible."

Even before the fuel price controversy, deputies had already begun a debate on his future, and Saturday's U-turn could lead to the government's fall.

On Friday night, the bodyguard of an opposition-party politician died in an altercation with demonstrators in central Port-au-Prince as he attempted to get through a roadblock. His body was then burned in the road.

On Saturday afternoon, an AFP journalist saw a young man who had been shot dead. Two other people have also lost their lives.

Parliamentary discussions are underway to determine the next steps aimed at calming the crisis, with some elected officials urging the immediate resignation of the prime minister.

On Sunday one Haitian, Alphonse Charles, expressed both the frustrations and the sense of fatalism felt by many of his countrymen.

Standing next to the remains of his torched car near burned and looted shops, he blamed politicians but lamented that people had gotten "carried away."

"It's the reality of the country: when we live in Haiti we are angry, frustrated with the way things are managed by politicians."

But "I have to go on living," he added. "We will not get carried away just for that."

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: All (#0)

The unrest followed a government announcement on Friday that gasoline prices would rise by 38 percent, diesel by 47 percent and kerosene by 51 percent starting this weekend.

Normally I would say look at this shit hole people but they are right to be upset but what do you expect from a corrupt demoncracy?

That is what socialism does to you. Takes away your hope and the only way to keep peace is through deadly force. Sad fact is people will demand deadly force even thou the people that caused the issue will be the one ask to use deadly force to solve the anarchy.

Justified  posted on  2018-07-09   12:45:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: Justified (#1) (Edited)

That is what socialism does to you.

Haiti is what dictatorship does.

Vicomte13  posted on  2018-07-09   13:14:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: Vicomte13 (#2)

Haiti is what dictatorship does.

That's Socialism under corrupt leader. That's the problem with socialism. There are no real checks and balances. Democratic system begets you mob rule. That's why capitalism with constitutional Republic is better. Citizens actually have rights whereas demonocracy you can have your rights easily voted away by the mob.

Justified  posted on  2018-07-09   13:23:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: Justified (#3) (Edited)

That's Socialism under corrupt leader. That's the problem with socialism. There are no real checks and balances. Democratic system begets you mob rule. That's why capitalism with constitutional Republic is better. Citizens actually have rights whereas demonocracy you can have your rights easily voted away by the mob.

People don't necessarily have any rights under a capitalist, constitutional republic at all. Did all of the people have rights under the American constitutional republic prior to 1865? They didn't have equal rights under our system until I was ten years old.

Vicomte13  posted on  2018-07-09   13:28:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: Vicomte13 (#4)

People don't necessarily have any rights under a capitalist, constitutional republic at all. Did all of the people have rights under the American constitutional republic prior to 1865? They didn't have equal rights under our system until I was ten years old.

Yes there were some issues in the beginning. It was resolved(Live is always evolving). They had to twist the constitution to disallow Slaves rights. It was argued at the time the hypocrisy of the constitution but there would have been no US otherwise and Slaves would have still be slaves under the British rule.

This is the one thing everyone brings up and we still made it work in the end. That's something socialism has never been able to do. Socialism gets tighter and tighter reign until it chokes out the people and turns into Communism/Fascism/Marxism.

US Capitalism with Constitutional Republic has worked and been the greatest force for freedom the world has ever seen and its not even close. If you were to weigh socialism of any form against US system US wins hands down. People like to take bits and pieces of socialist countries and claim how great it is even though its not correct. Sweden Almost bankrupted itself and had to bring back capitalist ways to prop up their brand of socialism. Sweden was the greatest country at one time before socialism nearly broke it. Never forgetting US basically pays for most of EU's military defense.

Justified  posted on  2018-07-09   14:20:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: Justified (#5)

Slaves would have still be slaves under the British rule.

This is the one thing everyone brings up and we still made it work in the end.

For a generation less. The British Empire outlawed slavery in 1833, peacefully. The Americans didn't do it until 1865, and killed almost a million people to get there.

Vicomte13  posted on  2018-07-09   15:51:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: Vicomte13 (#6)

You are seeing this from the back seat of time.

If there wasn't an American revolution who says British would have end slavery when they did if ever? British probably realized that slavery was going to become an issue when there were more slaves than they could control. In fact Slaves were rebelling all over the colony's after US won independence from England. All the colonial powers were realizing that the cost of keeping the slaves slaves was not worth it and let them go.

Slavery is a nasty unholy business that had been going on for hundreds if not thousands of years.

Either we are going to have to get over slavery of the past or die as a country.

Justified  posted on  2018-07-09   20:31:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: Justified (#0)

two days of deadly looting and arson

It’s not bad enough that it’s a country full of POTATOES... it’s a 3rd world country full of POTATOES. Kinda like the citizens of Chicago.

I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح

GrandIsland  posted on  2018-07-09   20:33:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: Justified (#7)

You are seeing this from the back seat of time.

If there wasn't an American revolution who says British would have end slavery when they did if ever? British probably realized that slavery was going to become an issue when there were more slaves than they could control. In fact Slaves were rebelling all over the colony's after US won independence from England. All the colonial powers were realizing that the cost of keeping the slaves slaves was not worth it and let them go.

Slavery is a nasty unholy business that had been going on for hundreds if not thousands of years.

Either we are going to have to get over slavery of the past or die as a country.

The British did not wise up because of the American experience, they were led to the change politically by Christianity, specifically the Quakers, agitation within Britain.

To "get over" slavery, and segregation, and the ghettoization of our days that resulted from the latter, we need to continue to invest in public education and in bringing up that urban population that resulted from our past policies.

There isn't a point where one can simply ignore the overhanging economic effects of utter privation and pretend that they are not the legacy of segregation. Rather, you have to keep working at it until those overhanging economic effects until they are no longer there. Then the memory of slavery and segregation will fade. Until then, it's just the desire to not have to keep spending capital repairing a very deep wound that still economically cripples a portion of the population.

You don't just end segregation and anti-miscegenation laws and expect that now everything will be tickety-boo. The overhang of poverty FROM slavery and segregation leaves a whole population with no capital. You have to develop their human capital through education. They have to have job opportunities to build up the financial capital. It takes a couple of generations of sustained effort and expense to get the job done. We are well on our way, but we're not done yet. The urban schools still suck; there is still segregation of educational opportunity based on economic status, and segregation of economic status based on race.

The hard forms of repair are direct redistribution, but they don't work so well. The soft form of repair is through robust education, but that takes a few generations and costs a lot of money. We proceed.

Vicomte13  posted on  2018-07-10   10:38:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: Vicomte13 (#9)

RobusT educaTion

EvoluTion

School lunches

Well fed lizards

Love
boris

If you ... don't use exclamation points --- you should't be typeing ! Commas - semicolons - question marks are for girlie boys !

BorisY  posted on  2018-07-10   11:24:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: Vicomte13 (#9)

The British did not wise up because of the American experience, they were led to the change politically by Christianity, specifically the Quakers, agitation within Britain.

I have to disagree. Rich men always decide on financial reasons. When it no longer was viable business model they decided to pull the plug and only then.

I wish people and groups made decisions with Godly views but they really don't and when it comes to money it is really greed that makes the decision.

When you go back in time and look you find slave rebellions taking hold all over the world just after the American revolution. It was the catalyst for freedom when a bunch of poor farm boys took on the greatest force in the world at that time and won.

Justified  posted on  2018-07-10   12:46:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: Vicomte13 (#9)

To "get over" slavery, and segregation, and the ghettoization of our days that resulted from the latter, we need to continue to invest in public education and in bringing up that urban population that resulted from our past policies.

Im sorry but we spend more on educating city kids than any other group. Its not the money its the fact that the blacks went back into slave mode with demoncrats! As bad as it was pre70's for black families it was still much better than it is now.

Stop making excuses and get on with your lives. The only people keeping blacks down is blacks! It was blacks that enslaved other blacks and sold them to other races all over the world and it still is going on today.

Do not give me the excuse of no money to do whatever. That fact is people of all racist come to America with no money, not hardly speaking English if at all and still rise to become successful Americans. Its all about sacrificing the deadly sins and focus on being a productive part of society.

Justified  posted on  2018-07-10   12:55:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: Justified (#11)

It was the catalyst for freedom when a bunch of poor farm boys took on the greatest force in the world at that time and won.

Yes. When those American farmboys along with the French Navy and French Army, and the Spanish Navy and Army down in Florida and the Caribbean, and the Dutch traders with their money and supplies, all took on the greatest force in the world at the time, we all did indeed win.

Vicomte13  posted on  2018-07-10   13:58:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: Vicomte13 (#13)

Yes. When those American farmboys along with the French Navy and French Army, and the Spanish Navy and Army down in Florida and the Caribbean, and the Dutch traders with their money and supplies, all took on the greatest force in the world at the time, we all did indeed win.

Yes. They all wanted the same thing for different reasons. If memory services me I think we had to pay for many of them to help us so England would not send all its forces to stop the rebellion. It would have been a massacre.

Justified  posted on  2018-07-11   8:26:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: Justified (#14)

Other way around. We were not paying them. Rather, the Dutch and the French were subsidizing us, sending guns and ammo. Eventually the Spanish and French both outright declared war on England, and the Spanish attacked the English down in Florida and drove them out, while the French sent an army and their navy directly to America to defeat the British head to head on the main front. The French sent another navy to the Indian Ocean and seized what was at the time British India (Pondicherry), which they kept until they gave it to India in the 1970s. The British later went back and colonized other parts of India, but the original British Indian territories remained French after that.

The American Revolution was one battlefront in a world war between France, Spain, Holland and the US, on one side, and England, on the other. The English lost, and lost most of their empire both in the Atlantic and in India. They rebuilt their empire in the 19th Century.

Vicomte13  posted on  2018-07-11   9:20:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: Vicomte13 (#15)

You are mostly right except they did not give us arms we had to pay for them. What they did is loan us money so we could buy arms and ships.

I guess what I learned in history and what you learned in history comes from a different perspective. History really should be without major biases but it never is.

American revolution is very unique and had a profound mark on the world for good. If it wasn't for the American Rebellion England would have been able to resist Spain and France.

Justified  posted on  2018-07-11   13:41:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: Justified (#16)

You are mostly right except they did not give us arms we had to pay for them. What they did is loan us money so we could buy arms and ships.

They did a great deal more than that! France went 1.3 billion pounds into debt to finance the dispatch of their fleet and a large army to North America and keep it here until the war was won.

The national debt incurred in the war was a burden from which the monarchy's finances never recovered, and hastened the Revolution.

Vicomte13  posted on  2018-07-11   15:15:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#18. To: Vicomte13 (#17)

The way I see it is that France and Spain wanted to knock off England and joined in for their benefit not ours. This was not to help America but to harm England and they did not give us anything but financed our side for their benefit. They miscalculated. This caused The Quasi-War.

I think France thought they could in time take America but that's just the contrarian in me.

Justified  posted on  2018-07-11   16:53:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: Justified (#18) (Edited)

he way I see it is that France and Spain wanted to knock off England and joined in for their benefit not ours. This was not to help America but to harm England and they did not give us anything but financed our side for their benefit. They miscalculated. This caused The Quasi-War.

I think France thought they could in time take America but that's just the contrarian in me.

That is a strange set of beliefs.

Let me set the record straight for you.

France sent their navy and a large army to America.

Yorktown was the decisive battle the ended the war: the defeat of the Royal Navy followed by the capture of an entire British-German Army.

At Yorktown there were about 11,000 American combatants. There were about 26,000 French combatants in the French Army and French Navy at the battle. 600 French soldiers and sailors were killed in those battles. 70 Americans were killed.

You will excuse me for remarking that France did a great deal more than finance your side for their benefit. 9 times as many French men died to win the decisive battle of the war than Americans did. The primary forces that won the Battle of the Virginia Capes and Battle of Yorktown were French, not American.

What France did at Yorktown, with the scale of forces in those days, was the same thing that the Americans did at Normandy: they used their armed forces to defeat a common enemy. And they bled and died in that cause.

No sir, the French did a great deal more than lend the Americans money to fight the British. The French were the primary force that won the final two battles that won the war. Nothing less. America did not win its independence alone any more than France liberated itself alone in 1944. Without the French army and navy, the United States of America would not exist, any more than France would still be an independent and sovereign nation were it not for the American Army and Navy.

What France did for the American Revolution was every bit as vital to the American victory as what the Americans did at Normandy was vital for the liberation of France in World War II.

In NEITHER case was the act of France, or of America, purely an act of charitable goodwill. Germany was France's AND America's common enemy in 1944. And England was America's AND France's common enemy in 1781.

To reduce the French contribution to American independence to mere financial aid is to disregard the loss of French lives and treasure.

The Quasi-War was not caused by a French miscalculation. It was caused because the Americans defaulted on their debt payments to France when the ruling regime in Paris changed from the monarchy to the Republic. When Latin American and Third World governments have made the same argument to default on loans owed to the USA, the Americans have thrown the bullshit flag on that maneuver.

France was never interested in "taking" America after American Independence. There are no plans for such a thing in either the royal archives or in the archives of the Republic. Napoleon recognized that North America was far away and could not be held, given the state of the French Navy, so he sold Louisiana to the USA (Haiti had a hand in hastening that sale).

Vicomte13  posted on  2018-07-11   17:26:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com