How Does The Usa Block Africa's Sucess

My point was that he was making it out to sound like it was JUST the West that was taking the Africans into slavery, when it was their own people selling them into it.

Listen, I dug some of this info up and posted it on a thread about legalizing drugs. I am a patriot, but have been aware of some of our unfair trade practices for quite some time.

We subsidize crops domestically, giving huge credits for exporting, and drive down the value of cotton worldwide. This is a crime by World Trade Organization standards. It steals about $200 million (for cotton alone) from west African nations. We do this with just about every crop.

Now, I will state that the conspirists will tell you that the US uses Afghanistan and Cambodia to grow its heroin, and central America for everything else. But that is for you to decide on your own.

THe trade practices are fact, and it has most of the world really upset with us.

Now, i am a patriot, but i am also a fair man that believes we should provide a hand up, not a foot in the chest. Every single US citizen is one of the lucky few that get to live here. We shouldn't take advantage of this by using our influence to create situations that feed our children by starving theirs. This isn't what America should stand for. I want to stand for the nation that wants the world to give us their downtrodden, the tired, weak and huddled masses. That is the nation that makes goosebumps rise on my skin. Not the evil Eagle Empire.

Don't be blindly patriotic. Patriotism is the descriptive for the act of tending to the the interest of the Union. We are not doing that very well right now, and we have turned a blind eye to many, many actions that need to change. Selfless is right on with this one. God Bless America...but help her to find her way in the dark.

EU residents, you are not off the hook either:

www.globalpolicy.org...

Its not just Africa, either. Every nation in the world has the US's boot in their chest. We have them all over a barrell. Slavery was as much the Africans fault for selling their people into slavery. They aren't the first, and they likely won't be the last in the Earth's history. This is about keeping them in poverty. So poor they can't even get malaria treatment.

[edit on 30-4-2007 by bigfatfurrytexan]

Even if the US's interests aren't the best socially for Africa, its still they're responsibility to get they're act straight. Just because we give them guns doesn't mean they should be shooting themselves.

Just remember, the united states is also one of the largest countries that gives africa foreign aid through food supplies and water treatment. its not our fault that the warlords take the food.

Why isn't it? We provide things to a group in power, or put it in a position where it is easily siezed. It is like trying to feed the runt of a little by just throwing meat over the fence. The alpha's will get the goods, the rest will suffer and pray to live.

Our people do lots of good work. Our government does the equivalent of putting money in the collection plate at church. We pay to not have the guilt on our nation. During the tsunami we gave money, then started carping on our media outlets about how miserly the rest of the world is. That does not represent American values. It doesn't represent us. That was childish, and it betrayed the ulterior motives lurking behind official policy and action.

Why is it not our fault? Because we can't force people to do something. If the alpha of the pack gets it, we can't go into theyre country and manhandle them. Its not our place.

You are right. But, we can employ fair trade practices. We don't have to create the environment...it didn't work in Iraq and it won't work in Africa. But we can allow the environment to create itself. Our corporations could still exploit business opportunities, but the spread of commerce (read incrase of each nations GDP) would create the environment that allows the alpha dogs to have their teeth filed.

Our government is just like any other, in that it wants to control us. We are controled with comfort, success. Other contries use force, violence. Others use religion. Our allows for more success, however, because we get the full buy in, the concerted efforts of our people. This is what capitalistic democracy has done for us. Humans are entrepreneural by nature, and it is a perfect system for the current time. But we manage it with malice. If we didn't have malice, we would ask our farmers to grow crops that their lands can sustain, rather than pay them the difference in a $140 dollar yield on a $500 dollar acre (costing us the $360 balance) just so that we can raise a crop better raised in Africa and keep their standard of living down.

This same policy is seen domestically. Look at the welfare state we have created with our nation. It seems to be a standard strategy.

Providing meager aid does nothing when you prop up governments that stifle economic growth in favor of keeping a thriving diamond industry under tight control. As well, how long do you think it took the leaders of the nation to realize that in order to climb we had to step on others? Isn't this part and parcel to the mob mentality of politics? Get a leg up by holding down "the competition"? It is what we did worldwide, except for Europe. After WWII, the exEuropeon aristocracy of the US rebuilt them in our image.

However, it seems our deeds have come home to roost. Militant Islam is spreading over the poverty stricken region like wildfire.

See the forest. It is in there somewhere amongst all them silly trees.

I think this is a good thread. We should definitely spend some time discussing our foreign policy and its ramifications.

We tend to look at it from an egocentrists point of view. We don't worry about the impacts of our governments decision making process because we are placated with the riches of the world.

I understand that it is a building process, where you provide what you can to whom you can, and then slowly attempt to spread it worldwide. America's riches came from the mouths of foreign families, but it now has the opportunity to improve. We now have the ability to spread this lifestyle change back across the world. Sure, it may stifle our overall growth, but we CAN make it better for other countries just by changing our trade and crop subsidy policies. However, one of the "unseens" tied in with this is drug law reform, as the best alternative to cotton is hemp.

Im pretty surprised to see such naive folks on this site. Do you all have any idea what the CIA does to these countries ? If you did, you certainy wouldnt be ignorantly blaming them.

The CIA frequently pays disident groups to form rebel militias. They supply them with guns, food, cash, etc to get them going. These paramilitary groups would never exist without the CIA to start them.

This of course is done for one purpose only and it has nothing to do with capitalism.

You'll find your answers with organizations such as Population Council (Founded and financed by CFR member Rockefeller).

The Elitist of the world subscribe to a belief that their race is pure an superior. And to keep that edge, the lesser races must have their populations reduced through war, poverty, and even forced sterilization.

Take a good look at studies like Iron Mountain. Its all about keeping other nations populations low so we can exploit their national resources. But thats just a bonus result. The real agenda is keeping "inferior" race populations low.

In the early 1970's Henry Kissinger (a member of these population control groups and the CFR) was heavily involved in work to keep africa, south america, and asia in a constant state of civil war for these very reasons. His buddy Thomas Ferguson - the Latin American case officer for Office of Population Affairs stated...

"There is a single theme in all our work. We must reduce population levels.
Either the govt does it our way (he is referring here to loans from IMF and American aid as a means to force them to pass out birth control products), through nice clean methods, or they wil get the kind of mess we have in El Salvador or Beruit (referring to civil war). "

"The professionals arent interested in lowering population for humanitarian reasons. We look at resource and environmental constraints. We look at our strategic needs and we say that this country must lower its population or else we will have trouble. So steps are taken."

"To reduce the population quickly you will have to pull all the males into the fighting and kill signifigant numbers of fertile, child-bearing age females."

(source - page 168 from And the Truth Shall Set you Free by David Icke)

So in a nutshell, we use IMF and American Aid to force these countries into sterilization policies to reduce their numbers. We use civil war to further their numbers. And this is all done so there are less of them to complain when we rape their land of natural resources for our benefit.

On a personal note, I have firsthand experience with american foreign policy. As a soldier I was one of the first on the ground for the invasion of Panama in december of 1989. Years later I did extensive research trying to understand why as a soldier i was asked to help "secure" a bank there. It turned out that we went into Panama because Noriega had done something very bad, he had nationalized the banks there. He did this because they were corrupt (owned by rockefellers and a few other NWO types) and were laundering billions of dollars worth of drug money. In addition, he had planned on stopping the drug trade through Panama. Suddenly this elected president was labelled a dictator and drug smuggler by us media and we invade. Of course the banks were returned to rockefeller control and the drug trade flourishes.

This is the horrific policy we conduct with so-called 3rd world nations. And if you do some research, you'll see an awful pattern appear. United Fruit complains, we replace their president with a ruthless dictator...Exxon complains some other country is getting oil rights, we invade. The pattern repeats over and over.

So when you think of our foreign policy try and remember it has nothing to do with humanity. And definitely do not blame africa for its problems. we and our elitist banker masters are 100% to blame.



[edit on 1-5-2007 by admriker444]

Here is a good post on similiar american foreign policy "interventions"...

original posting here...

www.abovetopsecret.com...



The Birth Panama and it's Canal

In 1902 , the U.S Congress and President Theodore Roosevelt negotiated a treaty with Colombia to try to buy land in the Isthmus of Panama for the Panama Canal. When the treaty was taken to the Columbia's Congress, they rejected it.

In New York, Dr. Manuel Amador Guerrero,a Columbian Physician who worked for the Panama Railroad and hailed from Panama City had been coached by officials of the Canal Company and his employers, and given a secret interview with President Roosevelt in Washington. He was instructed to hold a revolution in the Isthmus of Panama on the 3rd November 1903,a date chosen because it would be election day in the United States and the newspapers would be filled with other news that would crowd out any unhelpful despatches that might come out from central America.(one of the first examples of burying unwelcome news)He was supplied with a flag suitable for the "Republic of the Isthmus," which his revolution was to establish, and provided with funds to help him recruit other "revolutionaries".

On the set date Dr. Amador began his "spontaneous uprising" marching with the new flag of Panama conveniently alongside the American Consul General carrying the Stars and Stripes, he led his band of forty or forty-five paid "Freedom Fighters" declaring Panamanian independence.The Columbian General in charge of the garrison at Panama City had been paid $15,000 to concede defeat.Meanwhile, American warships were patrolling both coasts to discourage Columbian reinforcements, and in one place American marines landed to instruct the locals, who did not know they had "spontaneously revolted".

When news came through that the revolution had been successful the U.S government immediately recognised the new state of Panama.

Two weeks later a treaty was signed between Panama and the United States. This treaty gave the United states a permanent lease on a section of central Panama 10 miles wide, where the canal would be built, the right to take over more Panamanian land if needed, and the right to use troops to mediate in Panama. The United States also had to give Panama 10 million dollars for the land and had to pay an annual fee of $250,000 for the land of the Canal Zone.

Interesting postings, Admiral.

I am not clear on all the information surrounding the posting, but it seems to ring true in some regards.

Racism is a common theme in our world history.

The results between what you propose and mine are generally the same.

The real litmus test will come in how we deal with Chavez and his nationalized infrastructure.

Originally posted by WolfofWar
Why is it not our fault? Because we can't force people to do something. If the alpha of the pack gets it, we can't go into theyre country and manhandle them. Its not our place.

You forget that we (the western nations) could and did go in, and manhandle them, whether it was right or not. Over all of Africa, vast amounts of resources of all kinds, from metals, to gems, for a long time even people , were and are taken by us. For generations, we took it all by force. That is a far worse imposition than the one you refer to. Sure, you are right, but put it in context. Is it not necessary for us to make a serious effort to minimize the damage we have caused? It can never be repaid in full, imho, but we could lessen future harm greatly. We just won't. There is no profit in it, and it means admitting to living off of their misery and death. The US blocks Africa's success, but at least they can say severyone else is doing it too so why can't we?' Canada is guilty too, with their actions surrounding mining in Sudan as one recent example.

So the answer is yes, USA continues to exploit Africa from corporations and from trade policies by the GOP.

An yes is impossible for regular citizens to even stop the exploitation because they themselves are being exploited by corporations i.e. (insurance companies, anti- union Wal-Mart type policies, constant increase in productivity for the same salary) and from policies enforcement by the GOP i.e. ( tax cuts for the top 1%, horrible management of both the educational and medical care systems.

Perhaps Talking about nations or countries is useless at this point, it seems from what I gather that our problems are inherent to the current system, and expand across countries. Environmental Catastrophes and Terrorism are examples of problems affecting a world wide audience. It will require a world wide response to deal with these problems.

I will think most people are getting use to the idea that what someone is messing up around the world those have a negative effect on my environment.

I have to wait and see. I will be paying close attention on that experiment going on in Venezuela.