Africa: the Prison Continent

Originally posted by Souljah
1) Number of American and other Soldiers standing on the Frontline and saying - NAY! THOU SHALT NOT KILL YOUR BRETHERIN, FOR THE NOBLE KNIGHTS OF JUSTICE HAVE ARRIVED!

2) So, WHY are just the Africans the ONES who HAVE TO FREE THEMSELVES?

Originally posted by Souljah
Yet Another Story and another Sign of Extreme Conditions and the Extreme Siutation that the People of Africa are Facing. Not only the have to Eat Dog Food - they have to Drink their own Urine also.

Sad, really Sad...

Originally posted by AceOfBase
Ya know what else is sad?
The US tried to help the Somalis but they were dragged through the streets by those ingrateful bastards.

If that's how they treat people who come to help them then they don't deserve help. Let the *edit* starve.

Souljah:

I guess that Dragging Through Streets did not Stop the US Marine Core to Level the City of Fallujah with Ground? I guess that Several Thousads dead US Soldiers did not stop the US not to continue the Vietnam Campaign? But when it comes to Africa, everybody mentiones the Mogadishu Incident, and thats the end. So, where the Trick Ace? How come that after 2200+ US soldiers DEAD the US Forces are Bulding Half a Billion Dollars worth Super-Embassy-Bunker-Comples in the middle of Baghdad? Why aren't the US troops leaveing the Ungrateful Iraqi Bastards to slaughter themselves among each other?

Our position however is that the Palestinians have a real grivevance: their homwland for over a thousand years was taken, without their consent and mostly by force, during the creation of the state of Israel. And all subsequent crimes - on both sides - inevitably follow from this origional injustice.

What happened was that the Zionist movement, from the begninning looked forward to a practically complete disposession of the indigenous Arab population so that Israel could be a wholly Jewish state, or as much as possible.

The Arab community, as it became incresingly aware of the Zionist intentions, strenuously opposed further Jewish immigration and land buying because it posed a real and imminent danger to the very exsistance of Arab society in Palestine. Because of this opposition, the entire Zionist project never could have been realized without the military backing of the British.

Palestine has been Arabic since the seventh century AD.

In short, Zionism was based on a faulty, colonialist world veiw that the rights of the indigenous inhabitants didn't matter. The Arabs opposition to Zionism wasn't based on Anti-Semitism but rather on a totally reasonable fear of the disposession of their people.

One further point; being jewish ourselves the position we present here is critical of Zionism but is in no way anti-semitic

The borders that Europe drew up were poor at best, drawn along landmarks, not tribal regions. But, see, the strange thing is, instead of the continent re-arranging itself, the fights simply continue without any progress being made.

Imperialism

Meaning the practice, the theory and the attitudes of a dominating metropolitan center that rules a distant territory.

Colonialism*

Which is almost always a consequence of imperialism, is the implanting of settlements on distant territory. As the historian Michael Doyle puts it;

Empire

Is a relationship, formal or informal, in which one state controls the effective political sovereignty of another political society. It can be achieved by force, by political collaboration, economic, social or cultural dependence. Imperialism is simply the process or policy of establishing or maintaining an empire

Careful buddy, I really don't like what you're implying here. As a former "knight" I resent the remark

We have tried for a LONG time to do the right thing in Africa. If a country doesn't respond that is NOT the fault of the US. We have Peace Corp all over the world, we have Doctors without borders (loaded with US docs), we have MANY charities helping Africa, where do you get off saying that we don't care about "Africans because of color"?

Three charities are launching what they say is the world's largest campaign against the global arms trade.

They argue the trade is out of control and that Britain and America have, if anything, relaxed their controls since 11 September as they seek allies in the war on terror. The charities' campaign for much stricter controls follows protests against Europe's largest arms fair, held in London's Docklands last month.

The government says Britain has a good track record on arms sales and will introduce new legislation later this month to control technology transfers and the activities of arms brokers.

THE ARMS TRADE

Key facts and figures from a business worth almost £19bn a year worldwide

In detail

Governments collectively spend more than £442bn ($700bn) on their armed forces every year and official annual arms sales are valued at up to £18.9bn ($30bn).

But Oxfam, Amnesty International and International Action Network on Small Arms (Iansa) claim the proliferation of arms is unacceptable and are launching a hugely ambitious campaign, says BBC defence correspondent Paul Adams.

Stricter controls

At its heart is a call for a legally binding arms trade treaty within three years.

It is not a move to ban the trade, but to adopt far stricter controls, across regions and in local communities.

The charities claim that national arms export controls are riddled with loopholes.

They say: "The easy availability of arms increases the incidence of armed violence, acts as a trigger for conflicts, and prolongs wars once they break out."

'Awash with guns'

Campaigner Richard Stanforth from Oxfam said: "From Birmingham to Bogota the global arms trade is out of control.

"There are more regulations on the music industry than on arms traders."

The village I grew up in Sudan is now completely awash with guns, even children as young as nine carry weapons in Torit.

James Omunson, Oxfam campaigner

Campaign supporter James Omunson said: "The village I grew up in Sudan is now completely awash with guns, even children as young as nine carry weapons in Torit.

"I urge all governments to sign up to an Arms Trade Treaty to control weapons sales in Torit and Birmingham alike."

As part of the campaign, organisers aim to create a "Million Faces" petition.

Instead of signing a petition, organisers are urging supporters to email in a photo or self-portrait of themselves.

These will then be presented to governments in what is hoped will be a statement of mass public antipathy to the arms trade.

'Stifling development'

Government officials say they applaud the campaign's intentions, but argue it is only likely to succeed if all the major players including Britain, the United States and Russia sign up.

On recent showing the Bush administration seems an unlikely supporter, says Paul Adams.

He says the world is awash with arms, with hundreds of millions of weapons scattered around the globe, killing, stifling development, and spreading poverty and disease.

Despite UN programmes, regional codes of conduct and domestic legislation, far too many weapons end up in places where for reasons of embargos or human rights they should not, he adds.

Major weapons manufacturers include US firms Lockheed Martin, Boeing and Raytheon, BAE Systems in the UK and French company Thales.

Zimbabwe's President Robert Mugabe is in New York for the UN Millennium Summit. Last night, he stepped away from the formal festivities of the largest gathering of world leaders in history and headed to Harlem. There at the Mount Olivet Baptist Church, he received thunderous applause from an audience of more than 1,000 people.

In his speech, Mugabe discussed his controversial land reform plan that takes land away from descendants of British colonialists and gives it to impoverished blacks. White farmers, less than a tenth of a percent of the population own a third of the land.

South African poet and former political prisoner Dennis Brutus was born in Zimbabwe. He talks about the current land crisis as well as the other summit that is taking place in New York this week: the People's Summit in the streets.

Anything that threatens contentment is undesirable to the political majority. It is a political disaster to be really honest about the deeper social, economic and environmental problems that seriously threaten contentment, because people won't vote for the truth if it threatens their contentment - they would rather live in a world of blissful ignorance. So we see an all too obvious process of social and political denial and avoidance. This leads to widespread distrust, disillusionment and apathy. This is agonisingly obvious when we look at the state of national politics in the UK, the USA and most 'western' nations, where the political majority is affluent and comfortable.

Originally posted by AceOfBase


Ya know what else is sad?
The US tried to help the Somalis but they were dragged through the streets by those ingrateful bastards.

If that's how they treat people who come to help them then they don't deserve help. Let the *edit* starve.

[edit on 16-2-2006 by sanctum]

Souljah:

As I have shown in a post about Nigeria a couple of Pages ago, it is pretty much clear, that Oil in Nigeria is NOT under Control of the People of this Land, but is Controlled by Foreign Corporations, such as Mobil, Chevron, Shell, Elf, Agip and others. Why is that?

Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus
Actually America's goal was to secure the Somali coastline from piracy.

Clinton changed that goal to a "humanitarian" one and ruined the effort causing the situation that happend...and today that coast line is one of the most pirated in the world.

Go Clinton!

Souljah:

Are things more Clearer, why these Militants are prepared to conduct such Military Operations in Niger Delta?

Originally posted by AceOfBase
The Nigerian government gets 80% of it's revenues from oil.
If you kick out the foreign oil companies there's no way the Nigerians will be able to keep it operating at it's current capacity.