Article

2003-07-27 Africa: West

Liberian Rebels Advance as Peacekeepers Awaited

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Fred Pruitt 2003-07-27 00:07|| || Front Page|| [2 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Nigeria is a key player in moves to bring peace to Liberia. Aside from its role as west Africa's big brother, Washington's other big interest in Nigeria is its huge oil reserves. Described by one oil executive this week as a US strategic target. The United States already imports 1.5 million barrels of Nigerian crude per day -- three quarters of Nigeria's OPEC export quota -- and expects to source much more of its energy in Africa in the years to come. Many analysts see Nigeria as a useful source of oil far away from the political and military uncertainties of the Middle East. http://www.smithbits.com/NEWS_REVIEW.asp?id=7732

In Africa, Shell's oil exploration and production activities on Ogoni land in Nigeria has brought to the public's attention the impact these operations have not only on the environment but also on tribal peoples' land rights. Shell is not the only oil company operating in Nigeria; British Petroleum, Chevron / Esso, Du Pont, ERAP, Texaco, and Total also have interests in Nigeria, where any exploitation is facilitated by a compliant oppressive regime. http://www.mcspotlight.org/beyond/oil.html

The US currently receives 16 percent of its imported oil from sub-Saharan Africaâmore than it gets from Saudi Arabia. West Africa exported almost twice as much crude oil to the US in 2001 as it did to Europe (68.1 million tonnes to the US, 34.9 million tonnes to Europe.) According to projections by the US National Intelligence Council, the proportion of oil imported to the US from sub-Saharan Africa will reach 25 percent by 2015, exceeding that from the Persian Gulf. http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/aug2002/oil-a20.shtml

Was BushI motivated to send troops to Somalia because of the hunger and starvation there?

Nearly two-thirds of Somalia was allocated to the American oil giants Conoco, Amoco, Chevron and Phillips in the final years before Somalia's pro-U.S. President Mohamed Siad Barre was overthrown and the nation plunged into chaos in January, 1991. Industry sources said the companies holding the rights to the most promising concessions are hoping that the Bush Administration' decision to send U.S. troops to safeguard aid shipments to Somalia will also help protect their multimillion-dollar investments there. http://www.ddh.nl/pipermail/wereldcrisis/2002-January/002537.html

Posted by fullwood 2003-7-27 12:34:34 AM|| [http://www.returningsoldiers.us] 2003-7-27 12:34:34 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 Fullwood--

Do you smell a conspiracy? Why not just come out and tell us what you're driving at instead of all the Chomskeyite "fill-in-the-blanks" crap?

Do us a favor: Start a business in a high crime neighborhood, pour your live savings, time, and expertise into making it a success; then keep track of the minutes it takes you to phone the police when the local yokels start tearing your investment to shreds.

Twerp.

Posted by Anonymous 2003-7-27 4:43:11 AM|| 2003-7-27 4:43:11 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 Anon: Thank you, my sentiments exactly.

Since we were in Afghanistan for the oil, and Kuwait for the oil, and Iraq twice for the oil, and Somalia for the oil, and now Liberia for the oil, we must be awash in oil. That must be why the price has come down so dramatically.

You have to marvel at the foresight of President Polk. Long before the automobile, we were in Texas... for the oil.

Posted by Mark IV 2003-7-27 10:11:48 AM|| 2003-7-27 10:11:48 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 Was BushI motivated to send troops to Somalia because of the hunger and starvation there?

I guess the implication here is that the US got into Somalia because of nebulous reasons related to oil. This is wrong on so many levels that they need to be enumerated, and questions have to be asked:

- If Somalia had exploitable oil resources, why were Somalis starving, necessitating the aid mission in the early '90's? Why is Somalia not swimming in petrodollars, now that US forces have left?
- How exactly does the US get any special benefit from having access to Somalia's notional oil, unless we annex Somalia's territory to the United States, given that we buy oil from every one of our suppliers at market rates?
- If Somalia's notional oil was so precious to American interests, why did politicians on both sides of the aisle demand a pullout of American forces from Somalia after a mere 19 KIA? After all, we took 100,000 KIA in the Korean and Vietnam wars, where nothing as important as oil was at stake.:-)
- If Somalia's notional oil was so vital, why did the Clinton administration steadily divert military resources from that theater of operations?
- In light of the fact that most host governments have opted to tear up pre-discovery oil contracts in favor of nationalization, how exactly does a notional discovery of oil by US or European oil companies in Somalia benefit the United States?
- Given that we incur all of the costs and none of the benefits, how did an intervention in Somalia make any kind of sense? I think the implication is that American policymakers are greedy and stupid.

If you want a really solid example of invading territories for oil, take a good look at China and Russia - both of them have good operating templates for this kind of thing. China invaded East Turkistan about 50 years ago. There are now a million Chinese troops on East Turkistan's territory. Oil exploration continues at a rapid pace. Nuclear, biological and chemical experiments have been conducted on East Turkistan's vast territory. China has expanded its military operations to the the South China Sea where it has invaded islands atolls owned by Vietnam and the Philippines in order to acquire their offshore oil rights. This is how land grabs to acquire oil are done right.

Russia invaded Chechnya twice. The Russian occupation forces are pumping oil from Chechnya's oil fields as fast as they can - none of the benefits of the oil accrue to Chechens, who are mired in intense poverty. Nonetheless, the Russians continue to pump men and money into keeping the legitimate government of Chechnya from taking power again. The Russians are losing casualties in the teens on a daily basis.

Invading countries to seize their oil involves killing and expelling large numbers of their natives, and replacing their numbers with settlers. Trucking in free food and other aid is not how you do it - that tends to suck in even people from neighboring countries. To call the operation in Somalia anything but a humanitarian operation is to harbor a level of hatred and anger at the US government that the country's enemies understandably harbor. What excuse does an American citizen have for this level of sentiment?

Posted by Zhang Fei 2003-7-27 11:00:27 AM|| 2003-7-27 11:00:27 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 Moonbat fever - catch it!

Posted by Frank G 2003-7-27 11:05:27 AM|| 2003-7-27 11:05:27 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 Zhang Fei, If Bush really cared about the concerns of Africans, he would do well to start at home with the members of the black Caucus who he refuses to meet with, and whose members have been actively involved in the promotion of African issues even before his father snubbed them, as well, in his term.

I stand chastised that the UN was motivated to intervene in Somalia by 'humanitarian concerns'. But I refuse to believe that either Bush I or Bush II has, or had, concern for any starving African. That's not anti-American Zhang Fei, that's anti-Bush.

. . .how exactly does a discovery of oil by US or European oil companies in Somalia benefit the United States? - Given that we incur all of the costs and none of the benefits

You have stumbled into my argument here Zhang. Bush and other industry insiders don't care about the cost effectiveness or the practicality of sacrificing American lives or resources to further corporate influence in these exploitable countries. These natural resources have enriched a small minority while the vast majority have become increasingly impoverished.

Mark IV: I assume that no oil royalties have been forthcoming from any of these interventions that have been made available to you and your ilk. Suprising though, with all of the aid and comfort you provide to these corporate traitors.

Posted by fullwood 2003-7-27 12:52:31 PM|| [http://www.returningsoldiers.us] 2003-7-27 12:52:31 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 Anonymous: Local Yokels?

'Trust the people'- GWBush

Posted by fullwood 2003-7-27 12:57:32 PM|| [http://www.returningsoldiers.us] 2003-7-27 12:57:32 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 --These natural resources have enriched a small minority while the vast majority have become increasingly impoverished.--

Yup, the ruling class of the countries in question.

They are the ones ultimately in charge. Unless our corporate interests are holding their families hostage? Well, I guess one could say they are, if the handcuffs are covered in jewels. And they're ensconced in villas, driven in RR, etc. And don't forget the private airplanes.

Posted by Anonymous 2003-7-27 1:22:25 PM|| 2003-7-27 1:22:25 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 Just to give you a flavor of the area. My pilot friend was flying DeHaviland DHC-3 twin otters for Chevron out of Khartoum in the Sudan. One chap died right in front of the hotel where my friend was staying. He lay there in the 115F heat for three days before some chaps came to pick him up and haul him away.

Posted by Alaska Paul 2003-7-27 1:56:35 PM|| 2003-7-27 1:56:35 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 mmmmm thanks AP

Posted by Frank G 2003-7-27 2:03:42 PM|| 2003-7-27 2:03:42 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 My Ilk and I are having a hard time dividing Somalia's annual average barrels of oil pumped fairly, cause "0" keeps causing one of those Division errors in Excel.

It's always possible that there's some oil there. A thoughtful article by Bush apologist Abdulkadir Abiikar Hussein, Engineering Geologist to King Fahd, examines the matter, concluding in part "Many oil experts believe that Somalia has got a high potential, and that the country needs peace, democracy and political stability in order to attract international investment necessary for exploration and development. Once the country embarks on the mentioned course, interested oil companies will return immediately and resume exploration."

Meanwhile, back in Peshawar market:

Crazy Ali says, Help! Weâre overstocked!

Previously-martyred AKMs, 9 for a goat! 20 for 2 goats!! These are the real Avtomat Kalashnikovi, not cheap Chinese copies!

See our stall (Peshawar Sporting Goods and Religious Supply) â be one of the first 10 visitors and get a FREE grenade launcher attachment!!!

âThe stall with it all (inshâallah)!â

Posted by Mark IV 2003-7-27 2:52:39 PM|| 2003-7-27 2:52:39 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 Ah, yass, it's all about oiiil.

"that's not anti-American, it's anti-Bush" - and there you have it.
Crazy anti-globalization protester? Extreme left-wing Democrat activist? Green party? ANSWER enthusiast? - Which are you, fullwood?

Can't you guys come up with anything else besides these tired old myths?

Posted by Uncle Joe 2003-7-27 3:12:34 PM|| 2003-7-27 3:12:34 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 Move beyond any attachment to
names.
Every war and every conflict between
human beings
has happened because of some
disagreement about names.
It's such an unnecessary foolishness,
because just beyond the arguing
there's a long table of companionship,
set and waiting for us to sit down.
What is praised is one, so the praise is
one too,
many jugs being poured into a huge
basin.
All religions, all this singing, one song.
The differences are just illusion and
vanity.
Sunlight looks slightly different on this
wall than it does on that wall.
and a lot different on this other one,
but it is still one light.
We have borrowed these clothes,
these time-and-space personalities,
from a light,
and when we praise,
we pour them back in.
~Mevlana Jelaluddin Rumi - 13th century~

Posted by fullwood 2003-7-27 3:23:20 PM|| [http://www.returningsoldiers.us] 2003-7-27 3:23:20 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 If Bush really cared about the concerns of Africans, he would do well to start at home with the members of the black Caucus who he refuses to meet with, and whose members have been actively involved in the promotion of African issues even before his father snubbed them, as well, in his term.

So, like Jesse Jackass, who helped Clingon prop up Charles Taylor during the Clinton presidency? Like that? Don't use arguments that are self-defeating. It marks you as a loser.

Posted by Old Patriot 2003-7-27 3:38:35 PM|| [http://users.codenet.net/mweather/default.htm] 2003-7-27 3:38:35 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 Ah, now I understand, Woody. Hippy-dippy retread or hippie wanna-be?

Posted by Uncle Joe 2003-7-27 3:56:43 PM|| 2003-7-27 3:56:43 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 Well, Old Patriot,
How do you feel about the Bush administration's support of Nigerian's president,Olusegun Obasanjo? Behind its military rulers, five companies tower over Nigeria: British/Dutch Shell, Italian AGIP, French Elf-Aquitaine, and US giants Chevron and Mobil. They operate in partnership with the Nigerian National Petroleum Company (NNPC), a government-run corporation. Control of the NNPC is rumored to have made General Sani Abacha, head of the country's military junta, a billionaire and his military associates millionaires. His 'election' was plauged by charges of vote-rigging. Who do you support in Africa?

Posted by fullwood 2003-7-27 3:57:21 PM|| [http://www.returningsoldiers.us] 2003-7-27 3:57:21 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 Trying to claim the High Road, huh?

Here I am trying to reach out, understand, feel your pain - and you pull the old post some unfathomable poetry shit that has been through 20 translations but thoroughly rewritten to make it sound really really good and touchy-feely and attribute it to some ancient guy so it seems wise and beyond question routine.

Ha! I'm onto your game, phool (that's Phrench for fool). Ha!

Posted by PD 2003-7-27 4:01:18 PM|| 2003-7-27 4:01:18 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 I should have said Congressional Black Caucus. Jackson is a private citizen. I won't characterize his views on Africa. I apologize.

Posted by fullwood 2003-7-27 4:02:37 PM|| [http://www.returningsoldiers.us] 2003-7-27 4:02:37 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 Sani Abacha? That late son of a bitch! I sent money to his son to recover his fortune, along with my credit info and account numbers, and does he respond? No! I responded to his emails! you'd think a simple courtesy call or sumpthin' would be in order....but, I digress

Posted by Frank G 2003-7-27 4:05:39 PM|| 2003-7-27 4:05:39 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 Alright Uncle Joe, you've got me pegged. Hippie. Retread. Better?

Posted by fullwood 2003-7-27 4:08:04 PM|| [http://www.returningsoldiers.us] 2003-7-27 4:08:04 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 "You have to marvel at the foresight of President Polk. Long before the automobile, we were in Texas... for the oil."

And the Lousiana purchase; and Alaska. We're good. Darn good. But why didn't we get Canada and Mexico for their oil long ago? Or Norway? When the reasons are all oil, how could any countries with oil escape our attention? Why do we pick the hard ones far away with angry Islamists?

Face it, we intervened in Somalia from humanitarian concern and the desire to show Moslems we'd intervene to help Moslems who have nothing but dirt and khat.

Why it's easier to believe America is awful is beyond me.

As to meeting with the congressional black caucus as a direct indicator of our interest, just what did our prior president do that was so great for Africa? (sheesh, i'd have settled for him doing something good for America--but he never did meet with congressional american caucus so maybe there is a link)

Posted by BJD (The Dignified Rant) 2003-7-27 4:15:58 PM|| [www.geocities.com/brianjamesdunn/TDRhome.html] 2003-7-27 4:15:58 PM|| Front Page Top

#22 ~When the reasons are all oil, how could any countries with oil escape our attention? Why do we pick the hard ones far away with angry Islamists?~

The importance of Africa's oilfields has increased in recent years for a number of reasons:

* The increasing volatility of the Middle East.

* The large amounts of oil discovered in the region.

* The development of technology allowing the extraction of oil from fields as deep as 8,000 feet.

* The scarcity of big new oil prospects elsewhere.

The region is also attractive to US companies because it is geographically closer than the Middle East. The regionâs crude oil production exceeded four million barrels a day in 2000âmore than Iran, Venezuela, or Mexico. The US currently receives 16 percent of its imported oil from sub-Saharan Africaâmore than it gets from Saudi Arabia. West Africa exported almost twice as much crude oil to the US in 2001 as it did to Europe (68.1 million tonnes to the US, 34.9 million tonnes to Europe.)

Posted by fullwood 2003-7-27 4:50:28 PM|| [http://www.returningsoldiers.us] 2003-7-27 4:50:28 PM|| Front Page Top

#23 Fullwood--

Stop smoking pot.

Posted by JDB 2003-7-27 5:09:59 PM|| 2003-7-27 5:09:59 PM|| Front Page Top

#24 JDB, we must have met before.

Posted by fullwood 2003-7-27 5:18:17 PM|| [http://www.returningsoldiers.us] 2003-7-27 5:18:17 PM|| Front Page Top

#25 Fullwood: Did you read the papers before we went into Somalia? It was a bloody year of every NGO, the EU, and the UN screaming at us to intervene before we went in. Were they part of the conspiracy, too? This is a documentable part of the historical record. Or was it all part of some world-wide deception plan?

Your logic isn't consistent. Why even bother with Africa when we could just take over Venezuela or Mexico? Why not Norway? We get a lot of oil from them and we'd take a lot fewer casualties. Hell, they barely fought the Nazis.

Posted by 11A5S 2003-7-27 5:38:45 PM|| 2003-7-27 5:38:45 PM|| Front Page Top

#26 "... increasing volatility of the Middle East..."

Ha. Hahaha. BWAAHAHAHAHA.

Yep, Africa's the place, for stability.

Do they have newspapers wherever you soph your mores?

Is extracting from 8000 ft. down "geographically closer"? (Not like Alaska closer, but, y'know,closer).

As Anon pointed out first time around, you have yet to spell out your point (unless Frank G has grocked it). This allows you to play the old "I didn't say that -you're putting words in my mouth" game until your local Starbucks closes for the night.

Put some words in your mouth.

Consider that the world's poor OUGHT to be fortunate that they are sitting on rotting Jurassic fauna they that wouldn't have had a use for, if they had a clue that it was there in the first place, if their corrupt warlords and backwards worldview hadn't shafted them royally (to make the unintentional pun). You're friggin' welcome.

By the time it's gone, we'll have moved on to another fuel source. They will get the benefits of western technology for free, again, if their feudal society lets it trickle down, except they won't have made or banked enough capital to buy the consumer goods that take advantage of it, so they'll whine and bitch and blow up some more stuff.

Oil, hydrogen, radioactive isotopes, solar, whatever. When will you realize that it's "all about decomposition (TM)"?

Posted by Mark IV 2003-7-27 5:53:43 PM|| 2003-7-27 5:53:43 PM|| Front Page Top

#27 Four American oil giants had negotiated oil concessions with the previous government in Somalia, effectively dividing up more than two-thirds of the land area of Somalia into four giant oil concessions. Geologists had told the oil companies that a subterranean structure, from which oil was already being extracted in Yemen, extended in a sweeping arc beneath the Gulf of Aden and much of the Somali desert.

But in order to gain access to those oil deposits, the four companies, Chevron, Amoco, Conoco and Phillips Petroleum needed a stable government in Somalia that would honor the agreements they had negotiated with a previous regime

From the late 1970s until just before Siad Barre's overthrow in early 1991, the U.S. sent hundreds of millions of dollars of arms to Somalia in return for the use of military facilities which had been originally constructed for the Soviets. These bases were to be used to support American military intervention in the Middle East.
Had the U.S. government not supported the Barre regime with large amounts of military aid, he would have been forced to step down long before his misrule splintered the country.

Barre severely weakened traditional structures in Somali society which had kept civil order for many years. To help maintain his grip on power, Barre played different Somali clans against each other, which in turn contributed to mass starvation and spurred the humanitarian intervention by the UN in 1992.

As the United States poured in more than $50 million of arms annually to prop up the Barre regime, there was virtually no assistance offered that would have helped build a self-sustaining economy which could feed Somalia's people. In addition, the United States pushed a structural adjustment program through the International Monetary Fund which severely weakened the local agricultural economy. Combined with the breakdown of the central government, drought conditions and rival militias disrupting food supplies, there was famine on a massive scale, resulting in the deaths of more than 300,000 Somalis, mostly children.

Was'nt the intervention viewed by conservatives as an ill-advised assertion of well-meaning liberal internationalism?

What was Bush doing there?

Posted by fullwood 2003-7-27 6:08:09 PM|| [http://www.returningsoldiers.us] 2003-7-27 6:08:09 PM|| Front Page Top

#28 The Congressional Black Caucus has NEVER done anything to promote the security of the United States. They are a racial-victimization racket pimping their "constituents" votes for power within the Dem Party. Explain why we should care about what they propose. They throw their own "constituents" to the mercy of inefficient and overpaid educational labor unions for a place at the table. When you take moral direction from Maxine Waters you've lost any cred with me Mr. Fullwood

Posted by Frank G 2003-7-27 6:28:25 PM|| 2003-7-27 6:28:25 PM|| Front Page Top

#29 I'll say this for MarkIV. You're clever and you've got a sharp tounge.

I don't think we get a fair benefit from the $400 billion+ we spend a year on defense. It's more than the next 25 nations combined.

There are needs here at home that could use some attention. Surely there is some need outside of defense and global militarism that you could support spending our tax money for here at home.

There are of course legitimate interventions, and we have UN and NATO involvments that I suppose have merit.

But,I would argue that the priorities for our military are set by standards that overwhelm such lofty aspirations as elimination of despots and the like.

Corporate interests that go beyond oil. Cozy relationships between the administration and military leadership and Lockheed, for example.

But, I suppose I should feel lucky to be a contributor in all of that. But, I really don't.

Posted by fullwood 2003-7-27 6:40:30 PM|| [http://www.returningsoldiers.us] 2003-7-27 6:40:30 PM|| Front Page Top

#30 Fullwood >>

NEWSFLASH!!!>> That's what big oil companies do. Get oil contracts from countries that have oil. The more desperate the country the better deal they'll get. (Capitalism isn't always pretty, but it's a fact of life.)

Also, that's what the US, Russia, and any other world power does to spread their influence. Give arms and/or protection in exchange for use of military bases, airspace, etc. Then again you already pointed that out since the bases were built for the Soviets. I guess it was in exchange for farm tractors. Kuwait, Saudi, Germany, Turkey, England, Belgium, Holland, Japan, Korea, and Iceland also spring to mind just to name a few. Besides, we all know the military protection for ice cubes deal we got with Iceland going on. "Keeping America's beverages cold since 1945." (Shhh...keep that between you and me.)

I also know from a good source that our "Heroic Dear Leader" President ~~Hillary~~ Bill Clinton and his ~~sideshow~~ wife would have won their little known "Hidden War" trying desperately to dismantle all of this oil/big business corruption going on that the Republicans created. They would've done it too if it weren't for that fat intern, his weakness for cigars and her sudden windfall playing the stock market. (See, even good honest people get side tracked sometimes.)

Besides, They only had 8 YEARS to do it in! Sheesh!

Oh, if you want me to cry a river for the kids in Somalia, you'll have to wait. You see, I'm still not done crying for the children of Rwanda. You seem to have forgotten that in your "Dear Leader's" internship as President he failed to act, costing millions of lives. (Honorable mention to the Congo too, as that conflict has been going on for over five years.) Bill would've gotten to it if it weren't for for those damn cigars, I'm sure.

I mean hell, I thought he was suppose to be the blackest white guy in America and he couldn't even help a brother out? Hmmm......

Lastly, we give money to hundreds of countries around the world. Does that mean we are now responsible for all of the bad things that they do?

If so, please give me some of what you're smoking, it must be good stuff. (Note: to Rantburg residents: Don't worry...I don't inhale.)

Posted by Paul 2003-7-27 7:16:49 PM|| 2003-7-27 7:16:49 PM|| Front Page Top

#31 Fullwood,

I don't support ANYONE in Africa. The entire area is a disaster, looking for a place to happen. The big problem is the behavior of colonial powers in Africa since the early 18th century, and the lack of progress toward ending the root causes of the continued bloodshed in Africa: tribalism, cronyism, and greed.

If the British, French, Spanish, and Portuguese had invested as much into infrastructure - roads, schools, etc. - as they did in exploiting the readily-available riches of the area, there would be no problems in Africa today. Instead, a lot of people, thinking they knew better than anybody else, imposed boundaries, institutions, and faiths upon these people, but failed to prepare them for independence. That failure haunts the world today. The disease of Africa isn't the result of actions of the United States, but of the centuries of benign neglect and rampant looting by Colonial Europe.

It ain't our fight, it ain't worth doing, and it's impossible to impose a solution. Africa's going to have to work this out for itself. It'll result in a lot of bloodshed, but that's the only way a REAL solution can come about.

Posted by Old Patriot 2003-7-27 7:23:01 PM|| [http://users.codenet.net/mweather/default.htm] 2003-7-27 7:23:01 PM|| Front Page Top

#32 Paul, I inhale, and I still don't grasp what plane of reality some of these people operate at. There are clear causes that would justify intervention, and what's so beautiful about the hypocrisy is that the "crowd" badgering Bush to get our troops killed in Liberia were all against us defending ourselves in Afghanistan and doing the hard pre-emption work now in Iraq. How many did we save? I don't know, but it's multiples of those dead in Liberia. Where was the CBC in pushing WJC in Rwanda? no votes there huh? Congo? Too tough? . STFU Maxine, Elihu, et al

Posted by Frank G 2003-7-27 7:38:22 PM|| 2003-7-27 7:38:22 PM|| Front Page Top

#33 Old Patriot,

That infamous right-wing apologist for America*, Ousmane Sembene, points that out in his novel and film XALA: THE CURSE OF IMPOTENCE.

Since he's an old-line, non-PC, Marxist, he's unafraid to point out that the first colonial oppressors of West Africa were the Saharan Muslims, cf. his movie CEDDO. 1976

*sarcasm alert, Sembene's a Marxist

Posted by Ernest Brown 2003-7-27 8:31:19 PM|| [saturninretrograde.blogspot.com] 2003-7-27 8:31:19 PM|| Front Page Top

#34 Wasn't Carol Moseley Braun a member of the Congressional Black Caucus?

Wasn't she a friend of Abacha?

--Cozy relationships between the administration and military leadership and Lockheed, for example.--

Don't forget Loral. Our children will be cleaning up that mess, too.

Posted by Anonymous 2003-7-27 8:49:08 PM|| 2003-7-27 8:49:08 PM|| Front Page Top

#35 NEWSFLASH, Fullwood: Liberians are BEGGING the US to go in, and the US does not particularly want to.

So go, sit on that US beach and with your tweezers pick out every black grain, and put it in a jar, and tour the world's blogs telling everyone how the US beach is a black, ugly beach whose foreign policy decisions are ALL about oil .

You and your ilk like to condemn the US every time you see them getting involved in a foreign conflict either for
a) self interest (which is expected of every nation state on the international stage)
b) humanitarian reasons (you both don't believe it, bleat that it's all about OIL or MULTINATIONAL CAPITALISM or else say 'who do they think they are? The global cop?'
c) for NOT intervening in cases YOU think they should (eg: Rwanda. The logic goes: how dare they interfere in LIberia when they could have stopped that massacre in Rwanda and didn't. It's obviously only about the OIL)

So whether the US ever intervenes internationally or not, whether it does so (quite rightly) in it's own national interest (be that oil or security or anything else) or because it is begged to by the UN or the country in question - whatever it does, YOU will always condemn it.

And that is why I throw out all your arguments, all your sophistry, all your selective quoting of facts that you link together to imply causality when in fact NO causal relationship has ever been proved.

Your line of argument is a seductive fraud that has sucked in the majority of unthinking young people in western society, and is weakening our world.

Your line of argument is directly helping our enemies who with their absolutism and religious fanatacism know no such doubts or self-questioning or self-criticism.

Why not have a go at criticising some of the OBVIOUS and non-American targets of international injustice for a change? Of course, you won't get the social credibility then. Your friends, university lecturers, drinking buddies - they won't be impressed. They won't have heard of the places and people you describe and the massacres and human rights abuses will seem remote and irrelevant to them, compared to Shell's ABUSE of the Ogoni or whatever terrible Capitalist Crime is taking place . There won't be any social reward for you except to know that you've made an attempt to put international relations into perspective and balance, by reading about the faults of countries that are NOT america, and caused by non-western cultures and NOT global capitalism.

If you are at all interested in truth and balance, that is...

which I doubt...

because there are too many rewards for spouting marginally-informed, out-of-perspective crap.

Posted by Anon1 2003-7-27 11:23:10 PM|| 2003-7-27 11:23:10 PM|| Front Page Top

#36 There are too many rewards for spouting marginally-informed, out-of-perspective crap.

I throw out all your arguments, all your sophistry, all your selective quoting of facts that you link together to imply causality when in fact NO causal relationship has ever been proved. Your line of argument is a seductive fraud that has sucked in the majority of unthinking young people in western society, and is weakening our world. Your line of argument is directly helping our enemies who with their absolutism and religious fanatacism know no such doubts or self-questioning or self-criticism.

It's amazing. I have learned nothing from these exchanges about issues in Africa. I have however learned a great deal about the responders.

You are an intellegent bunch. The insults are a bit much. But you listened. And, I thank you all for that.

SEE YA!

Posted by fullwood 2003-7-28 11:32:55 AM|| [http://www.returningsoldiers.us] 2003-7-28 11:32:55 AM|| Front Page Top

11:32 fullwood
00:46 Frank G
00:12 Bomb-a-rama
23:42 PD
23:41 JDB
23:35 Anon1
23:31 Watcher
23:29 Anon1
23:23 Anon1
23:18 Dar
23:15 Steve White
22:54 Joe
22:46 jason
22:33 jason
22:33 PD
20:54 Anonymous
20:53 Anonymous
20:51 Dar
20:49 Anonymous
20:42 Frank G
20:37 Anonymous
20:31 Ernest Brown
20:23 Parabellum
19:38 Frank G