How Africa is being exploited by banking élites. How US Democrats are on the wrong side.

[Estro Felino]

Seignorage is something I will look into. A new word for the day....

Yes I do think that the best way is revolution. The problem is that that brings its own problems as Africa doesnt have a great track record when it comes to what happens after revolutions. In most cases the lead revolutionary is a puppet of the west or part of an ethnic nationalist movement, and death and tyranny ensue. Corruption causes the wealth to be given to the lead party because everything gets nationalised. So I dont think nationalism is the answer. And in the case of south africa, the revolution was peaceful but through CODESA the agreement kept the wealth in the power of white elites in the new government, imo.

I think the solution is to forcefully or through affirmative action take away the buildings, manufacturing and wealth away from those in power, prevent foreigners from investing in africa because through investment they gain power, isolating africa from everyone else, only nationalise certain activities, such as health care and allow for internal capitalism so that africans own the means of production, and then once we are healed open the continent up again.

But the requirements to get the conditions right is so complex and fought with sink holes that most likely we will be kicked back to the stone age. Then again, the majority of us already live in the "stone age" so they have nothing to lose, so really we are only holding back because of the few of us who are afraid to lose our privilege.

I think that Africans should start thinking that not all Westerners are bad.
There are good Westerners who, because of their Christian principles and faith, believe in social justice.
So they really want Africans to prosper, without being victims of some puppet government who is bribed by Westerners. They need democracy and justice, and the principle "the law is equal for all".

So...in today era, where nations are currently shamed on social media for exploiting other countries (Meloni's video became famous worldwide) it's very difficult for plutocrats and oligarchs to succeed. Because they will be exposed and shamed.

Revolution can also be attained legally because France, who is a member of the EU, cannot commit crimes against humanity in Africa.
Otherwise it would be kicked out of the EU after five seconds.
So the solution is very simple. They need to chase away those who steal resources from their countries through legal means.

 

[Samael_Khan]

I'm aware that the British and the French were the most successful in that enterprise, although other European nations did try to expand and acquire resources in the ways they had available.

But as I said, it's generally how the world has worked. It's not just Europeans, but everywhere in the world can one find historical examples of exploitation, conquest, violence, and atrocity. It's a human trait.



The West is in a pickle right now because they've spent the past several centuries enslaving, exploiting, and pretty much gutting the world of resources and most everything of value. But they have nothing to show for it. Our government in the U.S. is financially strapped, in deep insurmountable debt. My sense is that France may be in a similar situation. I recall quite a political backlash when they wanted to raise the retirement age. That indicates a government with money troubles.

Western countries are also in a situation where they have grown increasingly dependent upon manufactured goods made in far-flung places with exploitable cheap labor. It's the same with mining, as mentioned by Meloni in the video. Can't afford to pay miners in the U.S. or other Western countries, so they outsource that as well.

I've had this conversation all too often with a great many well-meaning liberals who are clearly conflicted on the whole situation, but throw up their hands and accept it because to actually do the right thing would have enormous ramifications and consequences to our economy and standard of living. And they're probably right, since to actually reverse our exploitive policies and to actually pay fair prices and fair wages would wreck the entire global economy and the "new world order" that George Bush worked so hard to create.




I'm not sure who, exactly, is "in on it." As you mentioned, Britain and France were the primary movers and shakers behind most of it, but the US picked up the slack after they got in over their heads with Germany.



I would propose a global socialist government which could harness the world's resources and combined power to implement a global "Marshall Plan" which would modernize cities, infrastructure, housing, transportation, schools, healthcare, etc. But I also recognize that most people in the West would virulently oppose such a proposal. However, I don't think anyone else has any real answer to the situation we currently face. It's not just with Europe or Africa, but it's a global problem.

Regarding the global socialist government you propose, how susceptible do you think it could be to corruption? What would prevent it from getting out of control? I know there are many different versions of socialism which is why i ask. I would think that the problem this type of government would fall into is that it opposes tribal and cultural autonomy, which is the problem with colonialism and creating arbitrary countries in Africa disregarding tribal cultures.

 

[Samael_Khan]

I think that Africans should start thinking that not all Westerners are bad.
There are good Westerners who, because of their Christian principles and faith, believe in social justice.
So they really want Africans to prosper, without being victims of some puppet government who is bribed by Westerners. They need democracy and justice, and the principle "the law is equal for all".

So...in today era, where nations are currently shamed on social media for exploiting other countries (Meloni's video became famous worldwide) it's very difficult for plutocrats and oligarchs to succeed. Because they will be exposed and shamed.

Revolution can also be attained legally because France, who is a member of the EU, cannot commit crimes against humanity in Africa.
Otherwise it would be kicked out of the EU after five seconds.
So the solution is very simple. They need to chase away those who steal resources from their countries through legal means.

Its not that all westerners are bad, but that Africans need to run Africa themselves. As Steve Biko says, Africans suffer from a self esteem issue, and need to achieve success on their own, otherwise they just become infantilised and westerners become the parents.

There is also the issue of the western liberals who dont understand the culture of these people, think about things from their western perspective and who very rarely can see things from the perspective of the people they are fighting for. They think their way is right which further infantilises africans.

Christian principles are a mixed bag. For instance the dutch reformed church was pro afrikaner supporting afrikaner domination in south africa whereas the other churches stemming from England, supported liberation. But their social justice is tone deaf to the needs of Africans, as christianity is tone deaf to other cultures in general, so accompanying it is infantalisation of Africans, which they really dont need more of. Christianity of all sorts have been a scourge in africa, and missionaries who mean well just serve neo colonialism in the cultural aspect.

Even in the west when it comes to lgbtq+ rights, womens rights, racial equality, socialism etc, a lot of non white people have an issue with the tone deafness and infantilisation of their racial groups in those groups by white people and westerners in general.

So inclusion of even westerners who have the best of intentions is more often than not counter productive. IMO

It might even be the case that democracy and the principal of the "law is equal for all" isn't what we need at all and might not be the best for us. Maybe going back to the collectivism and kingdoms of old is actually what we need. Ultimately what we need is to be rulers of our own destiny.

 

[Estro Felino]

Its not that all westerners are bad, but that Africans need to run Africa themselves. As Steve Biko says, Africans suffer from a self esteem issue, and need to achieve success on their own, otherwise they just become infantilised and westerners become the parents.

I 100% agree. Exactly...that's not normal. How some people, especially the French justify themselves by saying that "Western Africans need our guidance to administer the economy there"...whereas I have found incredibly intelligent people coming from that specific area.

We are all different. We had a former colony, in Libya, but history tells us how Italians complied with all the requests the Libyans asked us.
Compensations were paid, all Italians were repatriated to Italy.

There is also the issue of the western liberals who dont understand the culture of these people, think about things from their western perspective and who very rarely can see things from the perspective of the people they are fighting for. They think their way is right which further infantilises africans.

Exactly. That's exactly what Giorgia Meloni says in that video at the end: the solution is to chase away certain Europeans from Africa because Africans are intelligent enough to run their economy alone and their society in the best way possible.
Again...the French do infantilize Africans.

Christian principles are a mixed bag. For instance the dutch reformed church was pro afrikaner supporting afrikaner domination in south africa whereas the other churches stemming from England, supported liberation. But their social justice is tone deaf to the needs of Africans, as christianity is tone deaf to other cultures in general, so accompanying it is infantalisation of Africans, which they really dont need more of. Christianity of all sorts have been a scourge in africa, and missionaries who mean well just serve neo colonialism in the cultural aspect.

That's true. That happens when Christianity is tainted by politics.

Even in the west when it comes to lgbtq+ rights, womens rights, racial equality, socialism etc, a lot of non white people have an issue with the tone deafness and infantilisation of their racial groups in those groups by white people and westerners in general.

Exactly.

So inclusion of even westerners who have the best of intentions is more often than not counter productive. IMO

Indeed. That is why those Westerners don't treat African leaders as equals. But as "people who need the Western leaders' guidance".
So irritating.

It might even be the case that democracy and the principal of the "law is equal for all" isn't what we need at all and might not be the best for us. Maybe going back to the collectivism and kingdoms of old is actually what we need. Ultimately what we need is to be rulers of our own destiny.

I perfectly agree.
And Africans need to determine their own borders...because those borders were drawn by Europeans.

 

[Samael_Khan]

I 100% agree. Exactly...that's not normal. How some people, especially the French justify themselves by saying that "Western Africans need our guidance to administer the economy there"...whereas I have found incredibly intelligent people coming from that specific area.

We are all different. We had a former colony, in Libya, but history tells us how Italians complied with all the requests the Libyans asked us.
Compensations were paid, all Italians were repatriated to Italy.

Exactly. That's exactly what Giorgia Meloni says in that video at the end: the solution is to chase away certain Europeans from Africa because Africans are intelligent enough to run their economy alone and their society in the best way possible.
Again...the French do infantilize Africans.


That's true. That happens when Christianity is tainted by politics.

Exactly.

Indeed. That is why those Westerners don't treat African leaders as equals. But as "people who need the Western leaders' guidance".
So irritating.

I perfectly agree.
And Africans need to determine their own borders...because those borders were drawn by Europeans.

Speaking of the west not treating Africans as equals, see the vid below. Even our African leaders feel that when it comes to serious situations, the west treats us as if our lives dont matter. And the president of South Africa told this directly to Macron.

A pattern that I have seen with the west is this: They came and did a whole lot of horrible deeds in Africa and still do. Our ancestors were their victims. And they justified it, protecting their view that they were the good guys. And this caused a whole lot of negative conditions in the third world. The barbarity that happens in the third world was taught to them by their former colonisers. Now, somehow, the western propoganda says that the west is now somehow the liberators of the third world because they have the "moral highground". They somehow forget their past, because they always have to be the good guys in their view, and now want to play the liberators of the people they oppressed and want to say their former colonies are the barbarians. Its like an abusive relationship. The gaslighting is crazy especially since there are people who are alive today that suffered through their deeds and we are still feeling the after effects. So no, we don't need western guidance. We need our wealth. The west is "moral" because of wealth giving them the privilege. Africans didn't go through the hell we go through now beforw we were colonised. We live in messed up societies because we live in poverty.

And it shouldnt be the case that europeans should leave necessarily. Because we have a lit of wisdom and knowledge to share between our civilisations. It is just that Africans must be our politicians, africans must control our economy and africans should control our culture and europeans must not have influence on these aspects of our society at all in a way that gives them power.

 

[Estro Felino]

Speaking of the west not treating Africans as equals, see the vid below. Even our African leaders feel that when it comes to serious situations, the west treats us as if our lives dont matter. And the president of South Africa told this directly to Macron.

Knowing Macron, I don't think he is able to reply to such a flawless and profound speech.
Macron's speeches are always filled with platitudes and catch-phrases that also tend not to deal with the topic. Banalities.

As you can see from his face, he is clearly in distress. He looks troubled.
Such a speech would have deserved great approval.

A pattern that I have seen with the west is this: They came and did a whole lot of horrible deeds in Africa and still do. Our ancestors were their victims. And they justified it, protecting their view that they were the good guys.

It's monstrous.

And this caused a whole lot of negative conditions in the third world. The barbarity that happens in the third world was taught to them by their former colonisers. Now, somehow, the western propoganda says that the west is now somehow the liberators of the third world because they have the "moral highground".

We have seen that in Iraq...Libya...
do we need to add more?

They somehow forget their past, because they always have to be the good guys in their view, and now want to play the liberators of the people they oppressed and want to say their former colonies are the barbarians. Its like an abusive relationship.

It all comes down to what I said earlier: they don't treat the African leaders as equals.
They don't understand that a sovereign country must be treated as a sovereign country.

The gaslighting is crazy especially since there are people who are alive today that suffered through their deeds and we are still feeling the after effects. So no, we don't need western guidance. We need our wealth. The west is "moral" because of wealth giving them the privilege. Africans didn't go through the hell we go through now before we were colonised. We live in messed up societies because we live in poverty.

The first step is monetary sovereignty.
The African country must determine itself, by deciding its currency and by having a National Bank.
So many African countries don't have a National Bank and that's horrific: that's neo-colonialism.

And it shouldnt be the case that europeans should leave necessarily. Because we have a lit of wisdom and knowledge to share between our civilisations. It is just that Africans must be our politicians, africans must control our economy and africans should control our culture and europeans must not have influence on these aspects of our society at all in a way that gives them power.

Exactly.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Knowing Macron, I don't think he is able to reply to such a flawless and profound speech.
Macron's speeches are always filled with platitudes and catch-phrases that also tend not to deal with the topic. Banalities.

As you can see from his face, he is clearly in distress. He looks troubled.
Such a speech would have deserved great approval.


It's monstrous.

We have seen that in Iraq...Libya...
do we need to add more?

It all comes down to what I said earlier: they don't treat the African leaders as equals.
They don't understand that a sovereign country must be treated as a sovereign country.

The first step is monetary sovereignty.
The African country must determine itself, by deciding its currency and by having a National Bank.
So many African countries don't have a National Bank and that's horrific: that's neo-colonialism.

Exactly.

Yeah, so that speech from Cyril was very big in the african community and potentially internationally. Because usually African leaders are meek and always in "their place". The fact that he made such a bold speech to a european leader was a sign that europe is losing control over africa and pointed to South Africa leading the charge in African liberation. Even more impactful was the francophone countries getting coup'ed and kicking out France.

Now France is in a panic because all their wealth comes from Africa. That goes for the former colonisers in general. African liberation and autonomy means the fall of the west economically. So it isnt in their interest for Africa to be free of their control.

As for Iraq, the WMDs says it all.

I don't think the european leaders see Africa as a sovereign country because they dont like it when Africa makes their own decisions that goes against what the west wants. Lets take the Israel Palestine issue for instance. South Africa went to court on behalf of Palestine. Somehow this means to America that they must consider sanctioning South Africa. And this was under Biden's administration. Regarding South Africa trying to defend another people that is suffering. That issue alone shows how twisted the west's interests are.

And yes, Africans countries must have a national bank. Unfortunately in South Africa it means that we maintain institutions that were set in place during Apartheid and still owned by those linked to the west who horde wealth for themselves. And who knows how money would be used for extravagant things because of the corruption that would ensue.

I am glad that you and i seem to be agreeing on many of these issues.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yeah, he was a brutal dictator, but also the west didn't get rid of him because they were against what he did. If you look at who they have supoorted in thrid world countries we see that they dont have a problem with supporting groups that love perpetrating crimes against humanity.

So what do UN Security Council resolutions 1970 and 1973 say, which were the very documents that mandated the military intervention which resulted in him being taken out?

Also, please give examples.
I think you might be confusing "crimes against humanity" with "not respecting human rights".
Not exactly the same thing.

 

[Estro Felino]

So what do UN Security Council resolutions 1970 and 1973 say, which were the very documents that mandated the military intervention which resulted in him being taken out?

Also, please give examples.
I think you might be confusing "crimes against humanity" with "not respecting human rights".
Not exactly the same thing.

When you answer about the content of that email...I will answer to you.

As you can see, a person from Africa agrees with me.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You are trying to save Sarkoky but documents show that Gaddafi was murdered because he was projecting a gold-standard currency that would have replaced the CFA Franc.


These banksters are disposed to destroy countries and murder leaders in order to save their interests.

I am sorry...but you're not very good at convincing people.
Not even in a courtroom.

As I expected. Drowning in denial.

I can only repeat myself.
Military intervention was mandated by the UN Security Council.
The reasons are mentioned black on white in the resolutions I posted.

Without these resolutions, there would have been no such intervention.

 

[Estro Felino]

As I expected. Drowning in denial.

I can only repeat myself.
Military intervention was mandated by the UN Security Council.
The reasons are mentioned black on white in the resolutions I posted.

Without these resolutions, there would have been no such intervention.

Let's pretend you're in a courtroom and you're the defendant's lawyer.

The DA shows you a document...and what you do?

You don't even read it?
You don't even try to explain why it is wrong?

With you as lawyer...no victories.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

When you answer about the content of that email...I will answer to you.

I have already answered it.
I said it was irrelevant to the whole military intervention.

And I provided support for that statement by posting the very resolutions of the UN that mandated the military intervention and clearly stated the reasons for it.
That document, and that document alone, is what mandated it.

It matters not what Hillary, or any other individual, believed or wanted or would have liked. She is not the boss of the UN.

Here's an analogy, perhaps that makes it clear...

Suppose there is some store somewhere that competes with my store and which takes away business from me.
Suppose I write some emails with someone talking about how we want to boycot them, have them shut down, whatever.
Now suppose the store in question is engaging in massive fraude. They get caught and brought to court. The court judges them to be audited fully and this results in them being heavily fined, having their license taken away and being shut down.

Does it matter what my emails said or didn't say?
Would it be correct to say that they were shut down because I wanted it because they were hurting my business?

As you can see, a person from Africa agrees with me.

So what?
That doesn't make any difference to what the UN resolutions were about.
It just means that the both of you are wrong.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Let's pretend you're in a courtroom and you're the defendant's lawyer.

The DA shows you a document...and what you do?

You don't even read it?
You don't even try to explain why it is wrong?

With you as lawyer...no victories.

The only document that matters here, is the document of the UN that mandated the military intervention.............................................
They provide the context, reason and mandate for the intervention which resulted in gadaffi's capture and death.

Without these resolutions, no intervention would have occurred.

Hillary's mails and opinions are irrelevant to this.
If she liked him being taken out for different reasons then the resolutions state, then she gets a lucky break.
But let's not pretend as if her desires and wishes in any way had a hand in why the military intervention took place or why they were mandated by the UN.

Read my analogous example in my previous post.

If a competing store that I hate and wished gone gets shut down because they get caught with massive fraud, then the reason for the shutdown is them getting caught with massive fraud. That this happens to work into my own wishes and desires is just that.... My wishes and desires have exactly zero causal relationship with the store being shut down by a court due to the massive fraud.


Same with Gaddafi and the UN mandated intervention.
It matters not in whose hand this plays into. It matters not who benefits from it for *other* reasons then the intervention taking place.
There is NO causal link between those things and the intervention.

The intervention is directly and ONLY a result of the resolutions. That's it.

 

[Estro Felino]

I have already answered it.
I said it was irrelevant to the whole military intervention.

And I provided support for that statement by posting the very resolutions of the UN that mandated the military intervention and clearly stated the reasons for it.
That document, and that document alone, is what mandated it.

It matters not what Hillary, or any other individual, believed or wanted or would have liked. She is not the boss of the UN.

Here's an analogy, perhaps that makes it clear...

The problem here is that France is member of the Permanent Council...so if you want to convince me that it's an impartial resolution and there are not SECRET REASONS behind it...you didn't convince me.
You are very bad at convincing people.

Because the email says:

Re: France's client & Qaddafi's gold 1. A high ranking official on the National Libyan Council states that factions have developed within it. In part this reflects the cultivation by France in particular of clients among the rebels. General Abdelfateh Younis is the leading figure closest to the French, who are believed to have made payments of an unknown amount to him. Younis has told others on the NLC that the French have promised they will provide military trainers and arms. So far the men and materiel have not made an appearance. Instead, a few "risk assessment analysts" wielding clipboards have come and gone. Jabril, Jalil and others are impatient. It is understood that France has clear economic interests at stake. Sarkozy's occasional emissary, the intellectual self-promoter Bernard Henri-Levy, is considered by those in the NLC who have dealt with him as a semi-useful, semi-joke figure. 2. Rumors swept the NLC upper. echelon this week that Qaddafi may be dead or maybe not.

3. Qaddafi has nearly bottomless financial resources to continue indefinitely, according to the latest report we have received: On April 2, 2011 sources with access to advisors to Salt al-Islam Qaddafi stated in strictest confidence that while the freezing of Libya's foreign bank accounts presents Muammar Qaddafi with serious challenges, his ability to equip and maintain his armed forces and intelligence services remains intact. According to sensitive information available to this these individuals, Qaddafi's government holds 143 tons of gold, and a similar amount in silver. During late March, 2011 these stocks were moved to SABHA (south west in the direction of the Libyan border with Niger and Chad); taken from the vaults of the Libyan Central Bank in Tripoli.

This gold was accumulated prior to the current rebellion and was intended to be used to establish a pan-African currency based on the Libyan golden Dinar. This plan was designed to provide the Francophone African Countries with an alternative to the French.franc (CFA).

So if you want to convince me that Sarkozy is a SAINT ...you didn't convince me at all.
Because that email says that France needs to safeguard its own legalized usury in Africa.

Suppose there is some store somewhere that competes with my store and which takes away business from me.
Suppose I write some emails with someone talking about how we want to boycot them, have them shut down, whatever.
Now suppose the store in question is engaging in massive fraude. They get caught and brought to court. The court judges them to be audited fully and this results in them being heavily fined, having their license taken away and being shut down.

Does it matter what my emails said or didn't say?

Enormously, In Italy you will be sued and tried.

Would it be correct to say that they were shut down because I wanted it because they were hurting my business?

It's probable...in fact in Italy they will investigate you.

 

[Samael_Khan]

So what do UN Security Council resolutions 1970 and 1973 say, which were the very documents that mandated the military intervention which resulted in him being taken out?

Also, please give examples.
I think you might be confusing "crimes against humanity" with "not respecting human rights".
Not exactly the same thing.

The resolutions mention a whole lot of valid reasons, many ironic ones actually, such as interference in international affairs and violation of human rights which the us supports or does, international terrorism which is subjective and expulsion of minorities. But considering that they dont charge america for either committing or supporting similar things is telling. Such as what is happening in Israel and Palestine.

I think i might be confusing crimes against humanity with not respecting human rights but the lines are blurred because warcrimes are included.

Nonetheless, below are groups or governments that the usa supports who committed warcrimes and such things:



1. Nicaraguan Contras (1980s): The CIA-backed Contras committed human rights abuses, including torture, rape, and murder, during the Nicaraguan Civil War.

2. Salvadoran Military (1980s): The US supported the Salvadoran military during the El Salvador Civil War, despite their human rights abuses, including massacres and forced disappearances.

3. Indonesian Military (1970s-1990s): The US provided military aid to Indonesia during its occupation of East Timor, which included widespread human rights abuses and genocide.

4. Pakistani Intelligence (1980s-2000s): The US worked closely with Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency, which supported Taliban and mujahideen groups responsible for human rights abuses in Afghanistan.

5. Saudi Arabian Government (ongoing): The US has maintained a close relationship with Saudi Arabia despite its human rights record, including executions, torture, and war crimes in Yemen.

6. Guatemalan Military (1950s-1990s): The US supported Guatemala's military during its civil war, which included genocide, forced disappearances, and human rights abuses.

7. UNITA (1980s-1990s): The US supported the National Union for the Total Independence of Angola (UNITA) in Angola's civil war, despite their human rights abuses and war crimes.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The resolutions mention a whole lot of valid reasons, many ironic ones actually, such as interference in international affairs and violation of human rights which the us supports or does, international terrorism which is subjective and expulsion of minorities. But considering that they dont charge america for either committing or supporting similar things is telling. Such as what is happening in Israel and Palestine.

I think i might be confusing crimes against humanity with not respecting human rights but the lines are blurred because warcrimes are included.

Nonetheless, below are groups or governments that the usa supports who committed warcrimes and such things:



1. Nicaraguan Contras (1980s): The CIA-backed Contras committed human rights abuses, including torture, rape, and murder, during the Nicaraguan Civil War.

2. Salvadoran Military (1980s): The US supported the Salvadoran military during the El Salvador Civil War, despite their human rights abuses, including massacres and forced disappearances.

3. Indonesian Military (1970s-1990s): The US provided military aid to Indonesia during its occupation of East Timor, which included widespread human rights abuses and genocide.

4. Pakistani Intelligence (1980s-2000s): The US worked closely with Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency, which supported Taliban and mujahideen groups responsible for human rights abuses in Afghanistan.

5. Saudi Arabian Government (ongoing): The US has maintained a close relationship with Saudi Arabia despite its human rights record, including executions, torture, and war crimes in Yemen.

6. Guatemalan Military (1950s-1990s): The US supported Guatemala's military during its civil war, which included genocide, forced disappearances, and human rights abuses.

7. UNITA (1980s-1990s): The US supported the National Union for the Total Independence of Angola (UNITA) in Angola's civil war, despite their human rights abuses and war crimes.

Yes, now the poster of the OP is a Russia apologist and will only attack the non-authoritarian elements in the Western World including Russia to further her agenda.

So in all fairness, yes, the West including Russia are not always the good guys.
And yes, do point out how it works. But please if you want to be fair, don't just pick some examples.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Yes, now the poster of the OP is a Russia apologist and will only attack the non-authoritarian elements in the Western World including Russia to further her agenda.

So in all fairness, yes, the West including Russia are not always the good guys.
And yes, do point out how it works. But please if you want to be fair, don't just pick some examples.

So because the op addresses the issue with Africa, when we talk about Russia in this thread, i am approaching the discussion from an African perspective. For many of us Russia and China are the lesser of two evils (the other being the west) because of the specific situation we are in at the moment. They havent affected us as much and in a such a brutal way as the west does. If we speak about russia's colonialism, we just have to look at the Soviet Satellite states and Ukraine to see how they are.

As for your second paragraph I am unclear on what you are asking. What are you referring to when you said "do point out how it works?" Are you referring to the UN resolution?

And what do you think the OPs agenda is?

 

[muhammad_isa]

For many of us Russia and China are the lesser of two evils (the other being the west) because of the specific situation we are in at the moment. They havent affected us as much and in a such a brutal way as the west does..

Isn't it more a case of 'the man that pays the piper calls the tune' ?
..and of course, past colonialism leaves a 'nasty taste in the mouth'.

..better not to be a pawn in either superpowers agenda, if it can be avoided.
It's always b****y money!

..and these days, it's mainly a manipulation of electronic digital currency through 'monetary policy'.
The idea of 'money markets' is morally bankrupt .. money should be a medium of exchange, and
not a commodity.

A moral financial system, would not employ usury to put the majority of wealth in the hands of a few.
That's not communism .. that's the guidance of G-d.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The problem here is that France is member of the Permanent Council...so if you want to convince me that it's an impartial resolution and there are not SECRET REASONS behind it...you didn't convince me.

I'm sorry, are you under the impression that France alone gets to decide which resolutions pass and which don't, or what they say?
It matters not what *other* motives or desires they have. They still need to convince all the others to vote.

And no matter what *other* motives or desires they had, these weren't put into the text.

You are very bad at convincing people.

Because the email says:

Re: France's client & Qaddafi's gold 1. A high ranking official on the National Libyan Council states that factions have developed within it. In part this reflects the cultivation by France in particular of clients among the rebels. General Abdelfateh Younis is the leading figure closest to the French, who are believed to have made payments of an unknown amount to him. Younis has told others on the NLC that the French have promised they will provide military trainers and arms. So far the men and materiel have not made an appearance. Instead, a few "risk assessment analysts" wielding clipboards have come and gone. Jabril, Jalil and others are impatient. It is understood that France has clear economic interests at stake. Sarkozy's occasional emissary, the intellectual self-promoter Bernard Henri-Levy, is considered by those in the NLC who have dealt with him as a semi-useful, semi-joke figure. 2. Rumors swept the NLC upper. echelon this week that Qaddafi may be dead or maybe not.

3. Qaddafi has nearly bottomless financial resources to continue indefinitely, according to the latest report we have received: On April 2, 2011 sources with access to advisors to Salt al-Islam Qaddafi stated in strictest confidence that while the freezing of Libya's foreign bank accounts presents Muammar Qaddafi with serious challenges, his ability to equip and maintain his armed forces and intelligence services remains intact. According to sensitive information available to this these individuals, Qaddafi's government holds 143 tons of gold, and a similar amount in silver. During late March, 2011 these stocks were moved to SABHA (south west in the direction of the Libyan border with Niger and Chad); taken from the vaults of the Libyan Central Bank in Tripoli.

This gold was accumulated prior to the current rebellion and was intended to be used to establish a pan-African currency based on the Libyan golden Dinar. This plan was designed to provide the Francophone African Countries with an alternative to the French.franc (CFA).

Great. Now quote from the actual UN resolution which actually mandated the military intervention. Because none of this did.........

So if you want to convince me that Sarkozy is a SAINT

Did I?
Please quote me where I have said any such thing or even insinuated or implied it.....

Seems to me is that all I said was that the military intervention (resulting in Gaddafi's death) wasn't mandated by any of this stuff, but only by what the UN resolution actually said.

If Gaddafi wouldn't have engaged in his crimes against humanity, no resolution would have been voted and thus no military intervention would have been mandated.

Remember my store analogy?
If that hypothetical store wouldn't engaged in massive fraud, courts wouldn't have shut it down.
My desire and wish to have it shut down is irrelevant in the causal sense.

It is also irrelevant if I were the one to have turned the store in, the wistleblower, for the fraud.
It sure would have been convenient for me... but you can hardly blame it on me (or my wishes and desires). The store is to blame for the massive fraud it committed and that, and only that, is what led to it being shut down.

Same with Gaddafi. The resolution deals with warcrimes / crimes against humanity. It does not deal with whatever thing that annoys the french.

...you didn't convince me at all.

I didn't expect otherwise. I don't think there is anything we can say or show you that will ever convince you that you are wrong. You are too far gone in conspiracy theories and propaganda. You probably even believe that everyone in the security council was "in on it" and that while the resolution speaks of warcrimes and crimes against humanity, really it was all really about appeasing the french.

This is your MO.
When facts contradict your beliefs, you assume the facts are wrong.

Because that email says that France needs to safeguard its own legalized usury in Africa.

The resolution that mandated the military intervention, doesn't.

Enormously, In Italy you will be sued and tried.

It's probable...in fact in Italy they will investigate you.

They would not. There would be no reason to. No crime was committed.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So because the op addresses the issue with Africa, when we talk about Russia in this thread, i am approaching the discussion from an African perspective. For many of us Russia and China are the lesser of two evils (the other being the west) because of the specific situation we are in at the moment. They havent affected us as much and in a such a brutal way as the west does. If we speak about russia's colonialism, we just have to look at the Soviet Satellite states and Ukraine to see how they are.

As for your second paragraph I am unclear on what you are asking. What are you referring to when you said "do point out how it works?" Are you referring to the UN resolution?

And what do you think the OPs agenda is?

No, you answered well. You have your POW and I have mine.

Well, for the agenda, just search for opening threads by the OP poster as I am not allowed to link to them.
And for clarity, my bias is that I am Danish and support Ukraine and am a former professional soldier from the Cold War.
And, even Denmark has a colonial past or even present day colonies.