Dictator Dozen — Africa's Worst Despots

I misspoke when I said East Africa
what I meant was the "Horn Of Africa"

Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrean I do not consider these people "black Africans"

the Middle Eastern/Arab influence is too strong for me to consider them the same as a black person from

South Africa , Ghana...etc

for example

you could line up five black men

one from South Africa
one from Ghana
one from kenya
one from Nigera
one from Ethiopia
and I could spot the Ethiopian in a second

I couldn't do the same for the South African or Kenyan or Nigerian..etc because they would all look the same to me
they would all look like "black Africans"

you could replace the Ethiopian with the Somalian and I could spot him in a second too

once again because of the heavy influence of the Middle Eastern culture.

so just to clear it up

"Black Africa"

Western/Central/Eastern(below the Sahara except for the"horn of African) and Southern region of the African Continent.

Sir, we are all slowly learning. Now, what is culture? What does middle eastern "culture" got to do with how Ethiopians and Somalians look (facial/phenotype features)? Many black people in the UK that are born in the UK speak ENGLISH which is part of the so called BRITISH culture but do they look like "BRITISH PEOPLE"? They also eat a lot of fish and chips (very common meal in the UNITED KINGDOM) but does that make them less black because of the influence of the so called BRITISH culture? Sir, i told you, it gets more complicated. Sir, talk to me...
 
has a Jamaican it hurts my heart to see
Rasta Man worship Haile Selassie
like I said
I don't consider Ethiopians black
but
I guess it's okay since it was the
black prince

that told them to look to the east..

It's official: duppy_maka does not consider ETHIOPIANS AS BEING BLACK. :smh: So what are they? I hope not white...:eek:
 
It's official: duppy_maka does not consider ETHIOPIANS AS BEING BLACK. :smh: So what are they? I hope not white...:eek:

Culturally and Ethnically Ethiopians are more Middle Eastern than "black AFrican"

that is why they look different than your typical
"black AFrican" South African, Nigerian, Kenyan..etc

listen
we all know there is only one race
the human race
but
this is the real world we live in.
 
question .. and i honestly don't know the answer ... so maybe y'all can educate me ...

how do these african dictators get into power and remain in power??

are they backed by the CIA and economic hitmen like a sadam hussein ... or is it something/someone else??
 
So I take it that African leaders can never be held responsible for anything? :confused: how about 50 years from now, will it be ok to critisize them by that point, or are africans gonna be brainwashed forever?:eek:
 
Racism is white supremacy and white supremacy is racism. That's the major, dominant oppressive system of the UNIVERSE. And yeah, cats are acting like a so called "dictator" is just one individual that is responsble for the so called "problems" on the so called African continent. oNe!!!

You're pathetic.
 
The member is failing to accept the fact that the term, "black Africa" is a "colonial construct" that was designed to mistreatment the people within the African continent that had/have a darker skin color in favor of the people on the continent that had/have a lighter skin color. "They" constructed the term while "they" were trying to attach themselves to the great civilization of EGYPT.

So you think the DNA of sub-Saharan Africans matches the DNA of Northern Africans????
 
Culturally and Ethnically Ethiopians are more Middle Eastern than "black AFrican"

that is why they look different than your typical
"black AFrican" South African, Nigerian, Kenyan..etc

listen
we all know there is only one race
the human race
but
this is the real world we live in.

What is a "race"? What is ethnicity? What is culture? And what is a "human race"? Personally, i believe that one can't be "human" and also be a member of a "race". It is just not logical and it is a racist/white supremacist concept that is designed to promote confusion. Now, Sir you didn't make any reference to my previous post,
"What does middle eastern "culture" got to do with how Ethiopians and Somalians look (facial/phenotype features)? Many black people in the UK that are born in the UK speak ENGLISH which is part of the so called BRITISH culture but do they look like "BRITISH PEOPLE"? They also eat a lot of fish and chips (very common meal in the UNITED KINGDOM) but does that make them less black because of the influence of the so called BRITISH culture? Sir, i told you, it gets more complicated. Sir, talk to me..."
i am still waiting. Sir, talk to me...
 
question .. and i honestly don't know the answer ... so maybe y'all can educate me ...

how do these african dictators get into power and remain in power??

are they backed by the CIA and economic hitmen like a sadam hussein ... or is it something/someone else??

So I take it that African leaders can never be held responsible for anything? :confused: how about 50 years from now, will it be ok to critisize them by that point, or are africans gonna be brainwashed forever?:eek:

I said, lets speak of "AFRICAN DICTATORS" within the context of white global hegemony. Nothing more, nothing less. (Most people don't want to put the issue in its right and appropriate context.) Why? because we are living in a global, national and local system of racism/white supremacy. Now, if a so called "AFRICAN DICTATOR" is in power, you best believe that the white people that practice racism/white supremacy are helping him/her directly to stay in power. CASE IN POINT: Mr. Mobutu.
 
So I take it that African leaders can never be held responsible for anything? :confused: how about 50 years from now, will it be ok to critisize them by that point, or are africans gonna be brainwashed forever?:eek:

No non white person should be held responsible of this global, national and local system of mistreatment. The system is a system of white global dominance and it influences directly and indirectly the political, social and economical relations in Africa and in all regions that are predominantly non white. 50 years from now? well it all depends on if the system is still in existence.
 
Last edited:
Wow you guys got waaaaaay off topic.

Back to dictators.

The reason I dont like giving them a pass due to history is because they have the power to change the course of history. That is an actual fact. They have the power to break the cycle.

Look, we all know the history, we are all part of that history one way or another, but its time that we look each other in the eye and tell each other that we do not have to be bound by that history.

How many more years of brutal dictatorship are we supposed to excuse/reason away because of our past? You guys got another 20-50 years of excuses in you? 100 maybe?

Look, not every nation in Africa is that way. How come some have been able to make progress but not others? Thats proof right there that time for excuses is past.
 
No non white person should be held responsible of this global, national and local system of mistreatment.

Why not? Why not hold the african men accountable for the murder and genocidal aspects of their reigns? Because whites put them there? So the africans in question in "power" have never been accountable?

this i strongly disagree with. These "dictators" rise to power and become greedy murderous and destructive in the name of whatever. And their people starrve. And die off. They could have effected positive change for their people but instead....lined and fattened their pockets.

Granted i understand they got their through white supremacy. But what kept them there? What kept them making the decisions they have?

I'm listening.
 
You dont understand what is being said.

One cannot "break the bonds of history".

History is not "objective".

The relationship with history is subjective because it creates, guides, and refines the present.

There is NO GAP between "history" and the "present".

Studying the past illuminates how we function in the present.

It is all within the same vacuum.

Cats are not "making excuses".

Cats are saying that the full context of the problem stems from a presence and dogma that is foreign to Africa.

You can never take spatial/temporal "snapshot" and form a conclusion.

This is what Europeans have mastered in the last 2 centuries.

When you form incomplete conclusions, the fragmented conclusion, by nature, eliminates other variables that are just as significant such as historical foreign relationships.


It is you who do not understand.

There is a gap between the past and the present. The gap is called choice. I make it sound simple while its not, but it is there nonetheless.

Im gonna repeat it again, because every time I bring this up people like you try to avoid it.

Not all of Africa is ruled by brutal dictatorships. Some leaders have made the right choices, meaning trying to move the nation forward, instead of just moving their bank accounts forward.

Yes, you cats are making sorry ass excuses. Keep it up for another 100 years lets see where that gets our people.
 
dude I've read the history
that's why I have such strong opinions on the subject

do you consider people from northern Africa "black"
do you think a man from Algeria considers himself being of the same ethnic group as a man from Angola..

come on man

when I say "black" I mean slaves that were brought to the Americas and the caribbean

ethnically there is no difference between a Jamaican and a African American
a black dominican or black person born in Brazil

all our ancestors came in the same slave ships from west/central/southern region of Africa

there weren't too many slaves from Northern Africa or East Africa ethiopia, somalia..etc.
Slaves weren't brought to tha Americas from Southern Africa so does that mean they are not Black???
Just cause YOU neva seen Blacks in Morroco doesn't mean their aren't any there.
Just like you probably never knew there were Blacks in the Middle East doesn't mean they're not there.
You need to concede your argument.

I understand your anger at tha topic at hand but you lack to many facts about tha situation to say who is right and who is wrong about tha current situation in Africa.
 
No non white person should be held responsible of this global, national and local system of mistreatment. The system is a system of white global dominance and it influences directly and indirectly the political, social and economical relations in Africa and in all regions that are predominantly non white. 50 years from now? well it all depends on if the system is still in existence.

Puppets on a string eh?

So if african leaders are not to be held responsible for helping to perpetuate this system, becuz they've been brainwashed via its pervasiveness, then why shouldn't this same logic apply to everyone including Europeans? Why should anyone be held responsible for anything?

You might say that euros are the ones oppressing non-white people globally (subtley and not so subtley) through their policies and that may be true, but why blame them? They've been brainwashed by this system of white supremecy to believe that they are superior to non-white people. They're just as helpless as the Africans, trapped in this global system, its just that it works in their favor.
 
Why not? Why not hold the african men accountable for the murder and genocidal aspects of their reigns? Because whites put them there? So the africans in question in "power" have never been accountable?

this i strongly disagree with. These "dictators" rise to power and become greedy murderous and destructive in the name of whatever. And their people starrve. And die off. They could have effected positive change for their people but instead....lined and fattened their pockets.

Granted i understand they got their through white supremacy. But what kept them there? What kept them making the decisions they have?

I'm listening.

You mentioned it. what kept them there? They want to stay there but only if it benefits the racist/white supremacist suspects. Look at the case of Mr. Lumumba. He had a different vision for his people but the power relation that exists between white and non white people could not accept this. The question should be, how is that power relation maintained for the service of racism/white supremacy? The same question could also be asked of the black on black violence in Africa and in the American or Brazilian ghettos. I fail to accept that non white people are innately violent and don't want to unite or work together for the benefit of their communities. This understanding is wrong and the evidence supports it. If it were true that non white people are innately violent and do not want to unite, then RACISM/WHITE SUPREMACY as a global, national and local SYSTEM of domination would not be necessary.
 
Puppets on a string eh?

So if african leaders are not to be held responsible for helping to perpetuate this system, becuz they've been brainwashed via its pervasiveness, then why shouldn't this same logic apply to everyone including Europeans? Why should anyone be held responsible for anything?

You might say that euros are the ones oppressing non-white people globally (subtley and not so subtley) through their policies and that may be true, but why blame them? They've been brainwashed by this system of white supremecy to believe that they are superior to non-white people. They're just as helpless as the Africans, trapped in this global system, its just that it works in their favor.

Because some one that is classified as white, and is able to practice racism/white supremacy has to be held responsible. Why? because the system is in place and it is based on the mistreatment of non white people by the people classified as white. Now, in regard to white people being brainwashed, i am not in a position to judge that. Why? because many, not all, people that are classified as white are very deceitful. Other than that, the system is maintained by deceit and direct and indirect violence. African leaders can only be held responsible as subjects. Just like slaves on a plantation. The person to blame is the one that set up the slave system and not the slaves. Most Black people are not aware of the system of racism/white supremacy as a global, national and local plantation system where the racist/white supremacist are in charge. Most of us are made to believe that we are living in a so called "democracy" :smh:
 
I don't consider moroccans black
I don't consider Egyptians black
I don't consider the people of nothern Africa above the the Sahra desert black.
those people are more Mediterranean/arab than black

I don't even consider the peoples of east Africa black they are more Arab than black


When I say "black"
I mean people from the West/Central/Southern regions of the AFrican Continent

Those are the people that got transported to the "new world"(the Americas and the Caribbean)

"black Africans"


??????????????????????????????

That logic is what fueled a genocide in Sudan(and continues to).

Does the instance of a majority of Norwegians having Blond Hair and Blue Eyes mean that the people in the Eastern Bloc of Europe aren't Caucasian?


Does the instance of Japanese having slightly different facial features when compared to the Chinese mean that they are not Asian?



Ethiopian, Somali,Sudanese--> having suave hair or lighter skin does not mean they aren't black. Black Men don't all look the same. We carry different physical characteristics.



There are people who are even trying to say that the Tuareg aren't black. People speak as if all "Sub-Saharan" Africans must be the same.

And this "Sub-Saharan" BULLSHIT has been introduced by who? Historians hailing from what countries?

It is all a bullshit mentality that is designed to disintegrate the ties within the African continent in order to continue the degradation of what Europeans call the "Black Man".
 
You mentioned it. what kept them there? They want to stay there but only if it benefits the racist/white supremacist suspects. Look at the case of Mr. Lumumba. He had a different vision for his people but the power relation that exists between white and non white people could not accept this. The question should be, how is that power relation maintained for the service of racism/white supremacy? The same question could also be asked of the black on black violence in Africa and in the American or Brazilian ghettos. I fail to accept that non white people are innately violent and don't want to unite or work together for the benefit of their communities. This understanding is wrong and the evidence supports it. If it were true that non white people are innately violent and do not want to unite, then RACISM/WHITE SUPREMACY as a global, national and local SYSTEM of domination would not be necessary.

I hear what you're saying but i do not believe that these men are exempt from wrong doing.
 
Duppy has me heated because that logic is precisely what historians, with motive, are using to discredit any kind of contributions our ancestors made to society.

I had a conversation with a Historian who had the Audacity to tell me that the Tuareg people weren't black. He said that they were Arab.

Ironic isn't it.How he is trying to say that the tribe of people who were said to discover one of the most advanced and progressive cities in Antiquity, Timbuktu, weren't black.
 
Last edited:
So I take it that African leaders can never be held responsible for anything? :confused: how about 50 years from now, will it be ok to critisize them by that point, or are africans gonna be brainwashed forever?:eek:

No, corrupted leaders must be held responsible. Unfortunately, Duppy has made this shit a whole other thread.
 
Why not? Why not hold the african men accountable for the murder and genocidal aspects of their reigns? Because whites put them there? So the africans in question in "power" have never been accountable?

this i strongly disagree with. These "dictators" rise to power and become greedy murderous and destructive in the name of whatever. And their people starrve. And die off. They could have effected positive change for their people but instead....lined and fattened their pockets.

Granted i understand they got their through white supremacy. But what kept them there? What kept them making the decisions they have?

I'm listening.




Ok, I'm back to the thread.


Choose any African country and I'll oblige you........

Anyone please choose a country



:yes::yes::yes:
 
Because some one that is classified as white, and is able to practice racism/white supremacy has to be held responsible. Why? because the system is in place and it is based on the mistreatment of non white people by the people classified as white. Now, in regard to white people being brainwashed, i am not in a position to judge that. Why? because many, not all, people that are classified as white are very deceitful. Other than that, the system is maintained by deceit and direct and indirect violence. African leaders can only be held responsible as subjects. Just like slaves on a plantation. The person to blame is the one that set up the slave system and not the slaves. Most Black people are not aware of the system of racism/white supremacy as a global, national and local plantation system where the racist/white supremacist are in charge. Most of us are made to believe that we are living in a so called "democracy" :smh:

I hear you, however nobody is born with the intentions of maintaining the system of white supremacy. If you are willing to believe that african leaders are merely subjects to this system (i.e. brainwashed to follow it) then by that same logic, european leaders are also brainwashed by this system despite the fact that they benefit from it.

Sorry, you're just reaching when you say that african leaders are not held responsible at all:smh:
 
Ok, I'm back to the thread.


Choose any African country and I'll oblige you........

Anyone please choose a country



:yes::yes::yes:


Great.

How about Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo, who'se country is shock full of natural resources. His family seems to be the only one who see a profit for it.

Talk to us about his uncle's rule too while you at it. He was worse.
 
I misspoke when I said East Africa
what I meant was the "Horn Of Africa"

Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrean I do not consider these people "black Africans"

the Middle Eastern/Arab influence is too strong for me to consider them the same as a black person from

South Africa , Ghana...etc

for example

you could line up five black men

one from South Africa
one from Ghana
one from kenya
one from Nigera
one from Ethiopia
and I could spot the Ethiopian in a second

I couldn't do the same for the South African or Kenyan or Nigerian..etc because they would all look the same to me
they would all look like "black Africans"

you could replace the Ethiopian with the Somalian and I could spot him in a second too

once again because of the heavy influence of the Middle Eastern culture.

so just to clear it up

"Black Africa"

Western/Central/Eastern(below the Sahara except for the"horn of African) and Southern region of the African Continent.

So dumb ass. These women aren't black?

tony2_inside.jpg


20080627_100_1.jpg


liya.jpg


Read this, then start reading books.


"Native African populations are phenotypically "polytypic", that is, there exists in Africa a variety of phenotypes (faces and/or body shapes) that may differ from the stereotypical "Negro", falsely formed and firmly fixed within the rigid imagination and classification of Eurocentric observers. Crawford outlines six of these variants or types. I shall, lest they be lost to students, highlight the main features of these types. There is the Elogated variant, to which General Aidid, who fought our troops to a standoff in Somalia, belongs. This variant is distinguished by an elongated body build, narrow head, face and nose, dark skin and spiralled hair, thick but not everted lips, They range from long to moderately long-headed, with a narrow nasal opening, long narrow face and mild to absent prognathism (that is, with either slightly protruding or non-protruding upper jaw/lower face). this stands in contrast to the classical Negro type but are indigenous, unmixed Africans. They were living in Africa long before Egypt was born. The Elogated type includes the Fulani, the Tutsi and the Hima (Rwanda) the Masai (Kenya) the Galla (Ethiopia) the Somalis (Somalia) and the Beja (Northern Sudan)." I believe Ivan Van Sertima Explained this Ph. D
 
You need to add the United States as the worst despotic government in the world.

1. The United States proclaims it was founded on the principles of freedom. Began by killing indigenous population, settled in other countries territories and engaged in war (Mexico) taking their land. 'Bought' other areas from other European Nations even though they never had a legitimate claim. Utilized war, mass starvation, or fraud to gain additional territory from the native population.

2. Although the United States professes freedom of speech, the government on many occasions has blocked employment opportunities, with the cooperation of the private sector of many well known people as punishment for their speech regarding war or civil rights causing harm.

3. Overthrows of kills democratically elected leaders for nationalizing resources such as petroleum.

4. Utilized nuclear weapons on non-military populations even though the other country never possessed the technology. Proposed utilizing nuclear weapons on other countries during conflicts that did not possess the technology. Proliferated the technology to other countries, increasing the chance for nuclear war.

5. Engages in an extensive domestic and international surveillance program, red flags individuals for a number of reasons and attempts subvert their activities or assassinate covertly.

6. Utilize slavery to acquire great wealth, only abolished slavery due to population concerns and loss of jobs to slaves. Created an apartheid system afterwards and engaged in terrorism to undermine. Denied voting, land ownership, and access to education. Undermined any economic development of the former slave population to ensure control of the resources.

7. Death Penalty

8. The United States spends vastly more war spending than any other country in the world, undermining domestic spending on social safety net programs. Has troop presence in many other countries throughout the world, causing conflict and terrorism.

9. Established an economic system that transfer wealth to a small percentage of the population. These elites routinely enter into politics or fund campaigns to control the creation of laws that favor them such as employment at will, formation of Unions.

10. Mass media is compromised due to advertising to maximize profits. Routinely engages in propaganda to promote war or the economic system of the elite.

11. Highest percentage of the population in prison. Law enforcement target minorities who make up a vast majority of the prison population.

12. Gone to war with nations without provocation and without the other nation declaring war on the United States (Vietnam, North Korea, and Iraq) killing millions.

13. Torture

Don't fall for the propaganda being spewed out, a democratic government doesn't mean shit. Some countries like Cuba or China are open about their dirt, the United States does their crap in the dark, hidden.
 
Last edited:
Great.

How about Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo, who'se country is shock full of natural resources. His family seems to be the only one who see a profit for it.

Talk to us about his uncle's rule too while you at it. He was worse.


Thanks for this, this is rather easy, too easy..........



Background

Colonial rule: AD 1472-1968

A large island off the Guinea coast (the site today of Malabo, capital of Equatorial Guinea) becomes known in history as Fernando Po - because it is first reached, in about 1472, by the Portuguese navigator Fernão do Pó. The island and the neighbouring coast are mainly visited by Portuguese traders, giving Portugal certain rights in the area (rights recognized at any rate by Catholic Europe, since the pope has granted Africa to Portugal in the treaty of Tordesillas).

In 1778 Portugal assigns these rights to Spain. The intention is to give Spain a foothold in Africa from which to conduct her own slave trade. In return Spain recognizes Portugal's rights in the interior of Brazil, far to the west of the Tordesillas line.

The Spanish, daunted by yellow fever, make little use of this new opportunity in Africa. In the first half of the 19th century they lease harbours in Fernando Po to the British (for their campaign to suppress the slave trade). Finally, from the 1850s, they begin to establish a Spanish presence in their African colony. Minor explorations are made inland from the coast. From 1879 Fernando Po is used as a penal settlement for troublemakers deported from Cuba.

When the scramble for Africa begins, in the 1880s, Spanish activity in this part of Africa is feeble compared to that of immediate neighbours - Germany to the north in Cameroon, France to the south in Gabon. Spanish Guinea wins recognition as a colony, but it is a decidedly pinched area.

Spanish colonial interest centres at first on the healthy and fertile Fernando Po (with its cocoa and coffee plantations), but after decades of neglect the mainland also begins to receive some attention in the 1930s.

In 1968 the Spanish government proposes a constitution for an independent republic. Within months, before the end of the year, this constitution is approved in a plebiscite. Parliamentary elections are held. Independence is proclaimed.

Independence: from AD 1968

The first president is Francisco Macías Nguema, who soon makes it clear that he intends his rule to be absolute, long-lasting and unforgettable. In 1972 he introduces a new constitution, naming himself president for life. In 1973 he grants himself absolute power, takes control of press and radio, prevents his people from travelling abroad, and - to emphasize the drift of his argument - gives Fernando Po a new name, Macías Nguema.

A reign of terror follows, bringing international protests, until in 1979 Macías is toppled in a military coup led by his nephew, the defence minister Teodoro Obiang Nguema.

Obiang declared that the new government would make a fresh start from the repressive measures taken by Macías' administration.
He inherited a country with an empty treasury and a population that had dropped to a third of its 1968 level, with about 50% of the former 1.2 million inhabitants having moved either to Spain or to neighboring African countries, or being murdered during the dictatorship of Obiang's predecessor
. He formally assumed the presidency in October 1979.[citation needed]

A new constitution was adopted in 1982; at the same time, Obiang was elected to a seven-year term as president. He was reelected in 1989 as the only candidate. After other parties were permitted to organize, he was reelected in 1996 and 2002 in elections condemned as fraudulent by international observers

In 2003, Obiang told his citizenry that he felt compelled to take full control of the national treasury in order to prevent civil servants from being tempted to engage in corrupt practices. To avoid this corruption, Obiang deposited more than half a billion dollars into accounts controlled by Obiang and his family at Riggs Bank in Washington, D.C., leading a U.S. federal court to fine the bank $16 million


Analysis:

Note worthy dates & numbers:


1472-1968: 20 years before Columbus came to the Americas, Portugal & Spain fucked it up until 1968, the year MLK Jr died (RIP)

1968 Spain creates a constitution and oversees "election", electing Macias Nguema

1979 his cousin, Obiang Nguema "overthrows" the regime and become President after "election". White House "restores" relations cut in 1976

1982: New constitution

1996 & 2002 Re-elected. 1996 Mobil has been drilling and oil production is at 100 000 barrels a day.

Jul 21, 1999 - Article US Oil Firms Entwined In Equatorial Guinea Deals

Jul 26, 2000 - POLITICS-EQUATORIAL GUINEA: NEW OIL FIND GETS US ATTENTION

2001 The Bush Administration's national energy policy, released last May, predicted that West Africa would become "one of the fastest-growing sources of oil and gas for the American market." The year before, Paul Michael Wihbey of Washington's Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies described West Africa as "an area of vital US interest" in testimony before Congress. He proposed the creation of a new South Atlantic Military Command that would "permit the US Navy and armed forces to more easily project power to defend American interests and allies in West Africa."
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-84559900.html


January 25, 2002, the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies, a Jerusalem-based think tank, sponsored a forum on “African Oil: A Priority for U.S. National Security and African Development” at the University Club in Washington, DC


September 20, 2002
MALABO, Equatorial Guinea (AP) _ In the run-up to a possible U.S.- led offensive on Iraq, U.S. oil companies and strategic planners have their sights on another gulf _ West Africa's Gulf of Guinea, a booming backwater surpassing Saudi Arabia in oil exports to the United States.
Giant U.S. oil rigs and tankers offshore, and American oil roustabouts sporting coveralls and the flat drawls of Oklahoma and Texas onshore, are vanguards of a U.S.-led oil boom in the region. It's one the United States is acknowledging as a strategic interest to be safeguarded militarily.
"It's like the Persian Gulf in the 1960s," said Paul Michael Wihbey
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-67581083.html

2003 he transferred $500 million to Riggs Bank in Washington DC

01-26-2005 Earlier this month in a South African court, Mark Thatcher, the son of the former British prime minister, admitted to playing a role in a failed mercenary plot last year to overthrow the government of Equatorial Guinea. This was the first time many people had even heard of that West African nation, but it has a long history with American oil companies, which helped bankroll that company's long-sitting dictator, Teodoro Obiang Nguema.
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-104737512.html


07 August 2006

Prospective Envoy Urges Closer U.S. Ties with Equatorial Guinea

U.S Ambassador-designate Johnson testifies before a Senate committee

He also told senators that the Bush administration believes it is important to have an ambassadorial presence in Equatorial Guinea: The country is the site of more than $10 billion of U.S. foreign direct investment

In addition, he said, U.S. investment in Equatorial Guinea is concentrated in an industry that is of critical interest -- America's energy security.
"Nearly all of this [energy-related] investment has taken place within the past decade, and it continues to increase," Johnson said.
With America importing over a third of its energy needs in 2006 [66 percent of its petroleum], the stability and reliability of a source for raw materials equivalent to more than 350,000 barrels of oil per day from Equatorial Guinea is significantly relevant to our energy security and economic well-being, he said.

In closing, Johnson said, "Let me be clear - in conducting this dialogue, we would like the government and people of Equatorial Guinea to know that the United States wishes only the very best for them. We would like Equatorial Guinea to be a friendly, democratic, prosperous, secure, and peaceful society." :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

http://www.america.gov/st/washfile-english/2006/August/20060807125330WCyeroC0.7602655.html


04-28-2006 Bush courts allies rich in oil, poor in democracy -- President looks for energy suppliers outside Persian Gulf.

Searching for energy supplies and allies against Iran, the Bush administration is reaching out to leaders who rule countries that are rich in oil and gas but accused of authoritarian rule and human rights violations.The presidents of Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Equatorial Guinea are all getting special attention.
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-122725632.html



In a lengthy state visit from March to April 2006, President Obiang sought to reopen the closed embassy, claiming that "the lack of a U.S. diplomatic presence is definitely holding back economic growth."[10]
President Obiang was warmly greeted by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who called him a "good friend"




Do you want me to continue?????


:lol::lol::lol:
 
Last edited:
Who are white people to judge us, and why do you sit there and regurgitate their nonsense? As hated as I am on this forum, how would feel if I started judging Black Americans????

You're not hated, you speak a lot of truth!
The audacity of these CAC's to determine the "degree of corruption". They distort history for their own benefit.
The question that needs to be asked is; in what ways does the western world assist in creating the situation that brings theses leaders into power? Their involvement is major. How much assistance do these leaders receive in terms of arms and military advice when they bend to the will of the west?
Mougabe is expeceted to be prominently high on this list because he had the balls to TAKE land back for his people that were previously stolen by the europeans. Let us not forget about the manipulation of African economies of leaders that don't conform to their wishes either.
The hyprocracy is repulsive.
Where was the list with george bush's name on it?
 
Last edited:
You're not hated, you speak a lot of truth!
The audacity of these CAC's to determine the "degree of corruption". They distort history for their own benefit.
The question that needs to be asked is; in what ways does the western world assist in creating the situation that brings theses leaders into power? Their involvement is major. How much assistance do these leaders receive in terms of arms and military advice when they bend to the will of the west?
Mougabe is expeceted to be prominently high on this list because he had the balls to TAKE land back for his people that were previously stolen by the europeans. Let us not forget about the manipulation of African economies of leaders that don't conform to their wishes either.
The hyprocracy is repulsive.
Where was the list with george bush's name on it?

:yes::yes::yes:





513DSJDMQ7L._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg


Killing Hope: U. S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II

Is the United States a Force for Democracy? From China in the 1940s to Guatemala today, William Blum provides the most comprehensive study of the ongoing American holocaust.
Covering U.S. intervention in more than 50 countries, KILLING HOPE describes the grim role played by the U.S. in overthrowing governments, perverting elections, assassinating leaders, suppressing revolutions, manipulating trade unions and manufacturing "news."



:cool:
 
And for all the other nations in africa that dont have a so called dictator,would you say they are living lavishly or the country is doing great.

dictators..you kats will believe anything that the western media tells you without looking at both sides.
 
Back
Top