NATO Latvijā

Nu man pieejamie fakti liecina ka Venecuēlas iedzīvotajiem šobrīd 90% ir pieejama medicīniskā palīdzība un 85% ar viņas kvalitāti ir apmierinati.Piezīmešu ka valstī neviens nav atcelis privatklīnikas,maksas medicīnu.Skaitļi ir aptuveni bet ja ļoti velies varu atrast tiešo linku.Ka jau ieprieks norādīju tad lielu paldies medīcinas uzlabošanai un par visiem piejamiem pakalpojumiem jāsaka Kubas ārstiem,māsiņam. Vēlak varbūt kautko pastāstīsu par Če gevaru:)

Ja komunistu bljauris grib redzeet kaadu ar selektiivo uztveri, lai paskataas spogulii. Piespiedu darbs un komandekonomika ir viens no komunistu briesmu darbiem. Bet taads aizdomiigs var buut tas, ka Grenaadaa atradaas Kubas karaspeeks, kurs ir paliidzeejis vismaz Angolas iedziivotaajiem celt komunismu. Komunistiskie bandiiti ar smukuliiti Ce Gevaru prieksgalaa atradaas arii Boliivijaa, tikai tur vinjus aatri piezmiedza. Ja veel Grenaadaa uzrastos PSRS speeki, tad buutu veel viena komunistu ubagu valsts un revoluucijas eksporteetaajs ASV tiesaa tuvumaa. Tas arii bija LIKUMIIGS pamats gaazt komunistu diktatuuru (to, ka valstij ir tiesiibas aizstaaveet ne tikai pasai sevi, zinaaja jau Hugo Grocijs 16. gadsimtaa, ja komunistu mulkjis ir dzirdeejis par taadu). Varbuut mediciina arii bija pieejamaa KP SS funkcionaariem specpolikliinikaas, bet vienkaarsjiem darbaljauziem vajadzeeja staaveet garaas rindaas un dot padomju aarstiem kukuljus, lai tie straadaatu. Ja komunistu mulkjis ir iespiiteejies un nedzird otras puses argumentus, tas nepadara sos argumentus par neesosiem, bet padara komunistu par stulbu un aprobezotu. Bet fakti ir taadi, ka 20. gadsimtaa, kad PSRS sagraaba svesu valstu teritorijas, ASV teritorija nav palielinaajusies ne par vienu kvadraatmetru. Arii fakts. Un arii to ar spiiteesanos un kurluma simulaacijaam nenoliegsi.

Nu redzi tad jau tu esi atbildējis uz "krasnajas presņas" mocīšanos ap Grenadu - nekāda likumīga pamata uzbrukt nebija. Šie fakti zinami visiem L-amerikāņiem ka ASV nav nekāds miera balodītis vismaz L-amerikas vēsturē.

ASV uzbruka Grenadai tā lidlauka dēļ... shades of Cuba. Ja tur jau atrastos PSRS lidmašīnas tad runa būtu par sadursmi ar PSRS un nevis kādu tur Grenadu. ASV karaspēks jau kādus divus gadus kā bija Vietnāmu atstājis pirms Ziemeļvietnāma to ieņēma. Tas arī notika tik tāpēc ka kongress nogrieza visu palīdzību Dienvidvietnāmai [ap miljardu $ gadā], jo bija uz Niksonu pārskaitušies sakarā ar Watergate. Šie ir fakti kurus zin vai visi rietumnieki. ...Ir jau te arī pa ''revolūcionāram"...

Imperialistu pakalpiņam ir selektīva uztvere? Tur tak skaidri rakstīts ka 3 gadu laika Grenada nozīmīgi bija mazinajies bezdarbs un atkarība no pārtikas importa(pieļauju ka viņa bija kļuvusi arī lētaka) neskatoties uz visiem komunistu šausmu darbiem un Kubas klatbūtni.Kas gan var būt tāds aizdomīgs ja kubas mediķi visa pasulē palīdz jaunatīstības valstu iedzīvotājiem?Esi informets ka arī tāda liela valstī kā Venecuela lielu daļu medicīniskos pakalpojumus sniedz kubas ārsti?Tas tāpēc ka iepriekšējiem diktatoriem nevienam nevajadzēja nodrošināt pieejamu medicīnu priekš darbļaudīm.Kapec gan vajag skolot gadiem ārstus ja taja vietā cilvēkus var efektīvi nodarbinat plantācijas u.c.? Tu raksti vairāk savas muļķibas lai cilvēki var paskatīties:)

Atkaartoju speciaali gariigi atpalikusajiem un aprobezotiem spiitniekiem: termins "darbaljaudis" ir komunistu demagogijas paraudzins, jo straadaa arii pasnodarbinaatais, uznjeemeejs un strategjiskajam investoram arii neviens gatavus rezultaatus klaat nenes. Un komunisti ir pilniigi reaalas personas, vienu aadu vari ieraudziit, paskatoties spogulii.

Nu re kur jaukas lietinjas atklaajas. Sarkanie fasisti (komunisti) eksportee totalitaarus reziimus un kad dabuu pa snukji, saak smilksteet par "mieru". Sarkanais fasists runaa par mieru divos gadiijumos: kad maskee gatavosanos agresijai vai kad izgaazies agresijas meeginaajums. Paraadi ir jaamaksaa. Ja tev nemaksaatu paraadus, ko tu, paargudreli dariitu? Teiktu nemaksaataajam paldies un aizdotu veel? Valsts monopoli,; kaa zinaams, ir rijiigi, eefektiivi un nekontroleejami.

Taatad Grenaadaa veidojaas totalitaars komunistisks reziims (pat muusdienu krievu autori nenoliedz, ka bija politieslodziitie), Grenaadaa jau atradaas totalitaaraas komunistiskaas Kubas speeki un ja veel paraadiitos PSRS speeki, tad buutu veel viena komunisma un revoluucijas eksporta baaze kariibu juuras rajonaa. ASV izjauca so scenaariju un tev, omunist atiek vieniigi smilksteet, ar ko arii apsveicu. Speciaali mulkjiem un spiitniekiem atkaartoju: nekaadas "sakaaves" Vjetnamaa nebija un tika noslegts pamiers, peec kura amerikaanji arii aizgaaja. "veiksmiigi sociaalistiski ekspermenti" dabaa neeksistee. Visos gadiijumos vienmeer veidojas totalitaari reziimi ar sociaalo naidu kurinosu ideologiju (kas nezin kaapeec tiek uzskatiita par progresivu, kameer visas paareejaas naida kurinaasanas formas ir atziitas par noziedziigaam) un neefektiivu ekonomiku. Nebija arii nekaada "reziimu mainjas precedenta". Komunisti ar militaaru speeku mainiija reziimus Ungaarijaa 1956. gadaa, Cehoslovakijaa 1968. gadaa un Afganistaanaa 1980. gadaa - PSRS gaaztais Amina reziims bija prokomunistisks. Es varu saprast, ka informaacijas vakuumaa tureets PSRS pilsonis ir totaals mulkjis un spiitiigs kaa eezelis, bet kur taadi rodas sodien?

Grenada's Revolution One of the tiny island nations that grew out of the British colonies in the eastern Caribbean, Grenada--like its neighbors--was populated by descendents of black African slaves. The original inhabitants, the Carib Indians, were wiped out during the early stages of colonialism. Receiving independence in 1974, the island was ruled initially by the despotic and eccentric Prime Minister Sir Eric Gairy, whose murderous secret police--known as the Mongoose Squad--and his passion for flying saucers, the occult, and extra-terrestrial communication had brought him notoriety throughout the hemisphere. On March 13, 1979, in an almost bloodless coup, a young attorney named Maurice Bishop seized power with the backing of the New Jewel Movement. They proceeded to impose an ambitious socialist program on the island inspired at least as much by Bob Marley as Karl Marx. In the next four years, while most Caribbean nations suffered terribly from worldwide recession, Grenada achieved a 9% cumulative growth rate. Unemployment dropped from 49% to 14%. The government diversified agriculture, developed cooperatives, and created an agri-industrial base that led to a reduction of the percentage of food and total imports from over 40% to 28% at a time when market prices for agricultural products were collapsing worldwide. The literary rate, already at a respectable 85%, grew to about 98%, comparable to or higher than most industrialized countries. A free health care and secondary education system were established, the number of secondary schools tripled, and scores of Grenadans received scholarships for studies abroad. There were ambitious programs in the development of the fishing industry, handicrafts, housing, tourism, the expansion of roads and transport systems, and the upgrading of public utilities. What excited many in the American progressive community was the government's openness to decentralization and appropriate technology, which allowed small-scale American entrepreneurs access to development planning alongside those preferring a more traditional, centralized, capital-intensive model. It was an accessible revolution, close by and carried out by English-speaking people influenced more by Black Power and New Left politics than by Soviet-style communism. Though he would have likely won any popular vote, Bishop never held free elections as promised. The opposition newspaper was repressed and there were some political prisoners, though the overall human rights record was not bad compared to most governments in the hemisphere during this period. On the international scene, Grenada largely supported Soviet policy, including the invasion of Afghanistan, though not to the degree of subservience as Eastern European countries. Relations were closest with Cuba, which brought in hundreds of skilled laborers, medical personnel, military advisers, and development workers, though there were also good relations with Western European nations, Canada, Mexico, and Venezuela. Ultimate control remained in the hands of the party and the popularity of the regime was centered on the charismatic personality of Prime Minister Bishop. At the same time, the development of parish and zonal councils along with "mass organizations" insured a degree of grassroots democracy and a reflection of the government's desire to create a "popular socialism." However, the New Jewel Movement also included a minority of hard core Marxist-Leninists like Bernard Coard, who led a military coup on October 19, 1983 and placed Bishop and other leading moderates under arrest. In response, there was a nationwide general strike and other protests. When a crowd of Bishop supporters liberated the ousted prime minister and his allies from prison, army troops massacred dozens of protesters and executed Bishop and two other cabinet members. President Reagan immediately implied that the Cubans were behind the coup and the killings. In reality, Cuban President Fidel Castro had condemned the coup and declared an official day of mourning for the late Prime Minister. Strongly worded cables from Havana underscored the Cuban government's concern, threatening a cessation of Cuban assistance and a declaration that Cuban forces on the island would fire only in self-defense. On the morning of October 25, U.S. troops invaded the island, ousting the government and taking full control of the country within three days. U.S. Hostility toward Grenada The United States had long sought to overthrow the New Jewel Movement. Immediately following the revolution in 1979, the Carter administration granted asylum to the exiled Prime Minister Gairy, who used the U.S. as a base for anti-government radio broadcasts. After the U.S. refused to provide aid for military defense and offered only limited economic assistance, Bishop turned to Cuba for help. The Carter administration then launched a campaign to discourage U.S. tourism, forbid emergency relief aid, and refused recognition of Grenada's ambassador. When the Reagan administration assumed office, American hostility increased. Economic assistance through the World Bank and the Caribbean Development Bank was blocked, aid from the International Monetary Fund was restricted, and participation in the Caribbean Basin Initiative was not even considered. When Prime Minister Bishop visited the United States in June 1983, President Reagan refused to see him and offered to send only a secondary official. The Prime Minister eventually received an audience with National Security Adviser William Clark, who reportedly did not know where Grenada was located. Reagan administration officials later argued that such peace overtures by Bishop were a major factor in his overthrow. More likely, it was the lack of a favorable American response that led coup leaders to conclude that such moderation did not pay off and that Bishop must therefore by removed. Reports from the Washington Post indicated that since 1981 the CIA had engaged in efforts to destabilize the Grenadan government politically and economically. In August 1981, U.S. armed forces staged a mock invasion of Grenada on the island of Vieques off the coast of Puerto Rico. As in the real invasion that would come later, paratroopers secured key points on the Grenada-sized island followed by a marine amphibious assault with air and naval support, totaling almost 10, 000 troops. Striking similarities in the geographic code names during the exercise to actual locations on Grenada were hardly coincidental. It is not unreasonable to assume that a U.S. invasion of Grenada was planned at least two years prior to the revolution's self-destruction, which gave the United States the excuse it had been waiting for. The Rationalizations for the Invasion The U.S. invasion of Grenada was the first major U.S. military operation since the end of the Vietnam War. Indeed, it may have in part been a test of the so-called "Vietnam syndrome," the purported "affliction" that makes it difficult for the American public to support U.S. military intervention without a just cause. As with Iraq, the initial justifications for the invasion proved to be either highly debatable or demonstrably false, yet it still received bipartisan support in Congress and the approval of nearly two-thirds of the American public. The major justification for the invasion was the protection of American lives. Reagan administration officials falsely claimed that the island's only operating airport was closed, offering the students no escape. In reality, scores of people left the island on charter flights the day before the U.S. invasion, noting that there was not even a visible military presence at the airport and that customs procedures were normal. Regularly scheduled flights as well as sea links from neighboring Caribbean islands had ceased as of October 21, however, though this came as a direct result of pressure placed on these governments to do so by U.S. officials. Apparently, by limiting the ability of Americans who wished to depart from leaving, the Reagan administration could then use their continued presence on the troubled island as an excuse to invade. The Reagan administration admitted that no significant non-military means of evacuating Americans was actively considered. Particular concern was expressed over the fate of 800 American students at the U.S.-run St. George's University School of Medicine. The safe arrival in the United States of the initial group of happy and relieved students evacuated from Grenada resulted in excellent photo opportunities for the administration. It appears, however, that the students' lives were never actually in any danger prior to the invasion itself. Grenadan and Cuban officials had met only days earlier with administrators of the American medical school and guaranteed the students' safety. Urgent requests by the State Department's Milan Bish to medical school officials that they publicly request U.S. military intervention to protect the students were refused. Five hundred parents of the medical students cabled President Reagan to insist he not take any "precipitous action." Staff members from the U.S. embassy in Barbados visited Grenada and saw no need to evacuate the students. The medical school's chancellor, Charles Modica, polled students and found that 90% did not want to be evacuated. Despite repeated inquiries as to whether Washington was considering military action, he was told nothing of the sort was being considered. As the invasion commenced, Dr. Modica angrily denounced the invasion as totally unnecessary and a far greater risk to the students' safety than Grenada's domestic crisis. Vice-chancellor Geoffrey Bourne and Bursar Gary Solin also declared their steadfast opposition. The U.S. media focused great attention on the students who were first evacuated and "debriefed" by U.S. officials who generally supported the invasion. However, virtually no attention was given to those who stayed behind, who tended to be more familiar with the island and who largely opposed U.S. intervention. There were no confirmed reports of any American civilians harmed or threatened before or during the invasion. It was three days after U.S. troops initially landed before they decided to take control of the second medical school campus, raising questions as to whether the safety of Americans was really the foremost priority. A second major justification for the invasion was the reported Cuban military buildup on the island. President Reagan claimed that U.S. troops found six warehouses "stacked to the ceiling" with weapons that were earmarked for Cuban military intervention in Central America and Africa. In reality, there were only three warehouses that were only one-quarter full of antiquated small arms that had been confiscated a few days earlier by the coup leaders from the popular militias. Furthermore, Grenada was a most unlikely place for the Cubans to have stockpiled arms: Grenada is three times further from the Central American isthmus than is Cuba itself and only marginally closer to Cuban bases then in Angola, more than 12,000 miles away Despite administration claims to the contrary, less than 100 of the 750 Cubans on the island were military personnel. Furthermore, despite initial press accounts that the U.S. assault was resisted almost exclusively be Cuban forces, it appears that the bulk of the resistance to the invasion was done by Grenadans. Many observers speculate that this was the primary reason for the refusal by the Reagan administration to allow media access to the island during the initial phases of the invasion when most of the fighting took place. The U.S. estimates that only about 35 Cubans died, but has never released Grenadan casualty figures. A major concern for the Reagan administration was an airport under construction on the southern tip of the island at Port Salines, near the capital of St. George's. President Reagan repeatedly charged that it was to be a Soviet/Cuban air base. However, it has since been acknowledged that its sole purpose was for civilian airliners. Like other Caribbean islands, the tourist industry is an important source of income. The existing airport at that time was too small for jet aircraft and did not have facilities for instrument landings, resulting in the occasional stranding of tourists for days at a time during bad weather. Nighttime landings were also impossible. To make matters worse, the airport was on the opposite side of the island over a range of mountains from the capital and most tourist facilities. While many of the new airport's construction workers were Cuban, the contractor was Plessey, a British firm underwritten by Conservative Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's government. Canadians, Finns, and Grenadans were also involved. As was pointed out by Plessey officials at the time, none of the necessary components for a military airfield were being built, such as bomb-resistant underground fuel tanks, sheltering bays for parked aircraft, or fortified control towers. Nor was the length of the runway excessive, as the Reagan administration charged. Three neighboring islands had even longer airstrips. Originally the United States had been asked to help build the airport, which had been in the planning stages of more than 25 years, but had refused. After the invasion, however, the U.S. assisted in finishing the almost-completed project. A third major pretext cited for the U.S. invasion was a request for intervention by the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS), the charter of which allows for "arrangements for collective security against external aggression." However, since Grenada was a member of the OECS, there was no external aggression. The article stipulates that decisions for such actions must be unanimous among member states, which was not the case, since Grenada, St. Kitts-Nevis, and Montserrat did not support it. In addition, the United States is not even a party to the agreement. Finally, the treaty specifically states that the rights and obligations of OECS members under other treaties--such as the charters of the United Nations and the Organization of American States, that specifically prohibit such armed intervention--are not affected. Why, then, did the United States invade? Many believe that Grenada was seen as a bad example for other poor Caribbean states. Its foreign policy was not subservient to the American government and it was not open to having its economy dominated by U.S. corporate interests. A show of force would cause states with similar leftist nationalist ideals to think twice. If a country as small and poor as Grenada could have continued its rapid rate of development under a socialist model, it would set a bad precedent for other Third World countries. In short, Grenada under the New Jewel Movement was reaching a dangerous level of health care, literacy, housing, participatory democracy, and economic independence. Of particular concern was the influence Bishop and his supporters--who were greatly inspired by the Black Power movement in the United States--could have on African-Americans. A successful socialist experiment by English-speaking Blacks just a few hours by plane from the United States was seen as a threat. This invasion was also an easy victory for the United States eight years after its defeat in the Vietnam War and just two days after the deadly attack against U.S. forces in Lebanon. It established the precedent for "regime change" by U.S. military intervention and served as an ominous warning to the leftist Sandinista government in Nicaragua that the Reagan administration could go beyond simply arming a proxy army like the Contras and actually invade their country outright. It also led to a sudden rise in President Reagan's popularity, according to public opinion polls. Despite the fact that the invasion was a clear violation of international law, there was widespread bipartisan support for the invasion, including such Democratic Party leaders as Walter Mondale, who would be Reagan's Democratic challenger for the presidency the following year. (In his successful challenge of incumbent Connecticut Senator Lowell Weiker that year, Democratic Senate nominee and future vice-presidential candidate Joseph Lieberman attacked his moderate Republican opponent for having raised Constitutional objections to the invasion of Grenada.)

Nedaudz patulkošu lai visiem kļūtu skaidri motīvi kāpec Aristidu vajadzēja nolaupīt. Haiti prezidents Ž.B.Aristide jautats kādi bija īstie iemesli viņa izsūtīsanai no valsts atbildeja ka tie esot trīs:"priatizācija,privatizaācija un privatizācija". Viņš stāsta ka esot atsacījies maksāt diktatora Duvalier sataisītos parādus ārzemju kreditoriem,ieviest brīvo tirzniecību un ateicies pārdot valsts uzņēmumus.Aristids esot iebildis ka valsts monopoli pārvērtīsies par privātiem oligarhu uzņēmumiem un palielinās plaisu starp nabadzīgajiem un bagatajiem.

When United Nations troops kill residents of the Haitian slum Cité Soleil, friends and family often place photographs of exiled President Jean-Bertrand Aristide on their bodies. The photographs silently insist that there is a method to the madness raging in Port-au-Prince. Poor Haitians are being slaughtered not for being “violent,’ as we so often hear, but for being militant; for daring to demand the return of their elected president. It was only ten years ago that President Clinton celebrated Aristide's return to power as “the triumph of freedom over fear.’ So what changed? Corruption? Violence? Fraud? Aristide is certainly no saint. But even if the worst of the allegations are true, they pale next to the rap sheets of the convicted killers, drug smugglers and arms traders who ousted Aristide and continue to enjoy free rein, with full support from the Bush Administration and the UN. Turning Haiti over to this underworld gang out of concern for Aristide's lack of “good governance’ is like escaping an annoying date by accepting a lift home from Charles Manson. A few weeks ago I visited Aristide in Pretoria, South Africa, where he lives in forced exile. I asked him what was really behind his dramatic falling-out with Washington. He offered an explanation rarely heard in discussions of Haitian politics — actually, he offered three: “privatization, privatization and privatization.’ Aristide agreed to pay the debts accumulated under the kleptocratic Duvalier dictatorships, slash the civil service, open up Haiti to “free trade’ and cut import tariffs on rice and corn in half. It was a lousy deal but, Aristide says, he had little choice. “I was out of my country and my country was the poorest in the Western hemisphere, so what kind of power did I have at that time?’ But Washington's negotiators made one demand that Aristide could not accept: the immediate sell-off of Haiti's state-owned enterprises, including phones and electricity. Aristide argued that unregulated privatization would transform state monopolies into private oligarchies, increasing the riches of Haiti's elite and stripping the poor of their national wealth. He says the proposal simply didn't add up: “Being honest means saying two plus two equals four. They wanted us to sing two plus two equals five.’ Aristide proposed a compromise: Rather than sell off the firms outright, he would “democratize’ them. He defined this as writing antitrust legislation, insuring that proceeds from the sales were redistributed to the poor and allowing workers to become shareholders. Washington backed down, and the final text of the agreement — accepted by the United States and by a meeting of donor nations in Paris — called for the “democratization’ of state companies. But when Aristide began to implement the plan, it turned out that the financiers in Washington thought his democratization talk was just public relations. When Aristide announced that no sales could take place until Parliament had approved the new laws, Washington cried foul. Aristide says he realized then that what was being attempted was an “economic coup.’ “The hidden agenda was to tie my hands once I was back and make me give for nothing all the state public enterprises.’ He threatened to arrest anyone who went ahead with privatizations. “Washington was very angry at me. They said I didn't respect my word, when they were the ones who didn't respect our common economic policy.’ Yet despite these attacks, Haitians are still on the streets — rejecting the planned sham elections, opposing privatization and holding up photographs of their president. And just as Washington's experts could not fathom the possibility that Aristide would reject their advice a decade ago, today they cannot accept that his poor supporters could be acting of their own accord — surely Aristide must be controlling them through some mysterious voodoo arts. “We believe that his people are receiving instructions directly from his voice and indirectly through his acolytes that communicate with him personally in South Africa,’ Noriega said. Aristide claims no such powers. “The people are bright, the people are intelligent, the people are courageous,’ he says. They know that two plus two does not equal five. Šī ir intervija ar Ž.B.Aristidi ko var atrast aristide.org

"In 2003, Aristide demanded that France pay Haiti over 21 billion U.S. dollars, what he said was the equivalent in today's money of the 90 million gold francs Haiti was forced to pay Paris after winning its freedom from France as the hemisphere's first independent black nation 200 years ago." [7][8] "Some analysts believe that France's refusal to support the deployment of an international peacekeeping force to Haiti until after the president's departure was linked to Aristide's unpopular – in Paris – demand for reparations. The United Nations Security Council, of which France is a permanent member, rejected a Feb. 26, 2004 appeal from the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) for international peacekeeping forces to be sent into its member state Haiti, but voted unanimously to send in troops three days later, just hours after Aristide's controversial resignation. "I believe that (the call for reparations) could have something to do with it, because they (France) were definitely not happy about it, and made some very hostile comments," Myrtha Desulme, chairperson of the Haiti-Jamaica Exchange Committee, told IPS. "(But) I believe that he did have grounds for that demand, because that is what started the downfall of Haiti," she says." The US lawyer representing Aristide claimed that the rebellion was supported by the United States and included former death squad members.[14] After a 3-week rebellion in 2004 Aristide voluntarily[15] or involuntarily[16][17] left Haiti on a US plane accompanied by US security personnel[16][17] as the rebels approached the capital[18] and was flown, with[15] or without[16] knowledge of his route and destination, via Antigua to Bangui, Central African Republic.[19] In November, 2004, the University of Miami School of Law carried out a Human Rights Investigation in Haiti and documented serious human rights abuses. It stated that "Summary executions are a police tactic."[22] It also stated the following: "U.S. officials blame the crisis on armed gangs in the poor neighborhoods, not the official abuses and atrocities, nor the unconstitutional ouster of the elected president. Their support for the interim government is not surprising, as top officials, including the Minister of Justice, worked for U.S. government projects that undermined their elected predecessors. Coupled with the U.S. government’s development assistance embargo from 2000–2004, the projects suggest a disturbing pattern."[22] The US has denied the accusations. "He was not kidnapped," Secretary of State Colin Powell said. "We did not force him onto the airplane. He went on the airplane willingly and that's the truth." The kidnapping claim is "absolutely false," concurred Parfait Mbaye, the communications minister for the Central African Republic, where Aristide's party was taken. The minister told CNN that Aristide had been granted permission to land in the country after Aristide himself – as well as the U.S. and French governments – requested it.[15] Tas no wikipedijas

ar vai bez Aristida, bet Haiti ir viena no trūcīgākajām valstīm un nedemokrātiskākajām Pasaulē un es tur gan negribētu dzīvot, tad jau labāk Krievijā

Jautājums Lieģa kungam: vai tad, kad Latvijā nokrita meteorīts (vai nenokrita), pirmajai ziņai, ka tie ir maldi, nevajadzēja nākt no NATO, kas kontrolē Latvijas gaisa telpu?

Es nedaudz vēlāk sameklēšu vairāk materiālus.............................iespējams pat interviju ar pašu Ž.B.Aristridu! P.S.Darbaļaudis nav mistisku komunistu termins.Parasti 1.maijā tev nezināmi cilvēciņi visā pasaulē atzīme tādus svētkus:)