seyibrown said:

ROSSIKE,

Why does Africa need to protect itself against the West with a 1 Million Man Army?

seyibrown, it is not inconceivable that the west is ready to employ violence to maintain Africa's current position as divided price-takers and perennial suppliers of raw materials to western industries, a position the western colonial powers deliberately placed Africa in, in order to maintain their technological/economic dominance.

For Africa to challenge that status quo, and insist on real independence, she will need a powerful, united MILITARY, to defend her position, and act as a deterrent to foreign ENEMIES.

You need to understand that generally speaking, the west are the Enemies of Africa. They are NOT our ''friends''.

We have the resources. They don't. Their wealth is dependent on the EXPLOITATION of our resources and the resources of other developing regions of the earth.

When those regions decide enough is enough, the west will be compelled to adopt means, including military means, to bring such places back into the fold, or risk unrest, upheaval, and economic decline in THEIR countries.

In essence, the world is really just a battleground for dominance and influence among the various blocs. WE in Africa seriously need to get with the program, and start to strategize as a continent, not as individual ''independent'' states (an illusion).

Like the other races do, we need to sit down and strategize not just for this generation, but for future generations of Africans.

ROSSIKE:

violent said:

No ''mate'', you get your brains into gear, if you have any.

Like I suspected, you lack the interest or the smarts to research the history of China, a place that was as divided as Africa was, with as many competing ethnicities. The Chinese sat down and thought about consolidating their position on earth, and ''the country of'' China is the result. It isn't too tasking on your brain to ask that you similarly think, strategize, or project for the future of Africa is it?

Early Chinese independent fiefdoms and states witnessed a lot of corruption, internal conflict etc. When they were united under a single nation and powerful central government, everything changed.



No. Unseriously. Ewu.


We are not talking about ''Nigeria first''.  In fact the idea of a common African ideology defeats the concept of 'independent' nation states.


Ask the Chinese how they managed to replace a culture of drunkenness, sloth, corruption, conflict, and self hate with the the abiding principles of Confucianism.

It's called social engineering.

It can be done.

Go ahead and do it now, Oponu jati jati

Even the truth, when spoken from the mouth of a man that has just devoured feaces for lunch and dinner, starts to stink like shiyyyt!

Perhaps. But like a wise man you need to shield your nose from the foul odour and embrace the truth all the same!

violent said:

Quote from: ROSSIKE on Yesterday at 03:49:48 PM
violent said:

No ''mate'', you get your brains into gear, if you have any.

Like I suspected, you lack the interest or the smarts to research the history of China, a place that was as divided as Africa was, with as many competing ethnicities. The Chinese sat down and thought about consolidating their position on earth, and ''the country of'' China is the result. It isn't too tasking on your brain to ask that you similarly think, strategize, or project for the future of Africa is it?

Early Chinese independent fiefdoms and states witnessed a lot of corruption, internal conflict etc. When they were united under a single nation and powerful central government, everything changed.



No. Unseriously. Ewu.


We are not talking about ''Nigeria first''. In fact the idea of a common African ideology defeats the concept of 'independent' nation states.


Ask the Chinese how they managed to replace a culture of drunkenness, sloth, corruption, conflict, and self hate with the the abiding principles of Confucianism.

It's called social engineering.

It can be done.



Go ahead and do it now, Oponu jati jati

Don't worry about me. Worry about your coming brain transplant!

seyibrown said:

These ENEMIES exploit AFRICA with the consent and involvement of AFRICAN LEADERS!

That's a cop out, and not even accurate. ''African leaders'' are not a homogeneous entity, and cannot be treated as such by any serious analyst. There are 55 countries in Africa, each with its own leaders showing levels of 'involvement with the enemy' often markedly different from the other.

A single government in an Africa united by a common ideology  in my view, will be far less amenable to connivance with outside interests for the simple reason that it becomes unnecessary. Govt oversight of all African resources means it generates a tremendous amount of capital in-house, and there would have to be a really good reason for the government to say, allow Shell to pollute the Niger Delta, or allow them unfavourable extraction terms.

The Nigerian government cannot stop them, not necessarily because 'they are corrupt', but because they are not as rich, powerful, and influential as Shell.

Same applies to all the African governments dealing 'independently' with any of these multinationals.

An African government will be powerful enough to compel Shell to clean up its act or forfeit its right to drill oil in the region. Not just in the region, but in the entire Africa!

Like China, it would be powerful enough to dictate and enforce the terms in which any foreign firm can operate in the land.

It will, without doubt have a seat in the UN Security Council, with veto powers, heavily influencing global economic and social policy. This is what makes you powerful enough to challenge the multinationals, who suddenly become puny.

Does the 'WEST' include CHINA? How will these affect african countries' membership of the COMMONWEALTH?

The ''commonwealth'' is an anachronistic, irrelevant, insulting, and unwarranted association between the former  colonised and the colonisers. The proposed African government is intended to break just those associations. Henceforth, relations between the country of Africa and any other country will be predicated on equality between partners.

Will this army or parts of it be pro-commonwealth and anti-west at the same time?

It depends on what you mean by 'anti west'. Ask yourself first this. Is the west 'pro-Africa'?

You seem more interested in how you treat them than how they treat you.

That's a psychological hang-up from long term dependency and subservience.

THAT NEEDS TO GO.

The truth is, real independence should not have to mean being ''anti-'' anybody.

If the west says an independent Africa amounts to an anti west Africa, they're welcome to have that interpretation.

Africans should have nothing to do with that thinking.

What exactly does Ghaddafi represent?

I'm afraid you'll have to ask him. What I'm writing has nothing to do with Ghadaffi.

^^^

Shut up móron, your delusions are past annoying, Africa is too big and has far more civil problems to be governed by a single government. . . .you dolt, are too dumb to even think it is less imaginable for a country with thousands of ethnic groups to hold on to a single ideology. . .your comparison with China demonstrates a juvenile thinking and unimaginable low IQ level, China has always been China even as far as the  Shang Dynasty, your explanations of multiple fractions coming under one to become China exists only in your insane and seriously deluded mind. . . the ideals of confucianism preached by China maintains a negative view and violates the fundamental human rights of women, its not exactly a model any progressive looking state should emulate

Africa Uniting will be a greatest mishap, there are far too many poor countries within the African continent with the exceptions being Nigeria, South Africa, Algeria, and Egypt {the five biggest economy in Africa} all with a combined GDP of 591 billion only about 42 per cent of the United states GDP of 14.26 trillion.
In your deluded world of an African Union, these five countries will be expected to support and carry the burden of other poor, war driven zones such as Somalia, Liberia, Rwanda, Ethopia etc. . . .and many others with piss poor economy, and far reaching inflations. . . what do we get in return? a negotiating power with the west? Fúck that shyt! who needs that crap?

I imagine being an ídiot, you probably wouldn't understand the fact that identities would be lost as well, and an African Union will have far more civil problems.
Your statement below gave you off as a complete rétard.

The Nigerian government cannot stop them, not necessarily because 'they are corrupt', but because they are not as rich, powerful, and influential as Shell.

You, sir, are a clouted tardy-gaited blockhead, i wouldn't imagine for the life of me that an individual could be so demented, Nigeria is a soverign nation, you dunce, how can you compare the authority wielded by a soverign nation with that of a corporation?

It will, without doubt have a seat in the UN Security Council, with veto powers, heavily influencing global economic and social policy. This is what makes you powerful enough to challenge the multinationals, who suddenly become puny.

Again dumbito, if a nation like the soviet Union with far more developed economies and far less corrupt leaders could fall, how can you in your sick mind piece an African union together? it's not a game of numbers, you ídiot, it's a game of what your country has to offer, that's why Israel with a population of just over 7 million could fend off external threats and Australia with a population of just over 21 million is the world's thirteenth largest economy.

For spitting rubbish on Nairaland for so long, i now dub you a roguish hell-hated  bástard!

^^^^
haba! that was too harsh.

chei violent, you harsh o

Ibime:

Wars are not fought by number of men anymore but by sophistication of weaponry.

Gaddaffi should go and find his voice in an Arab forum.

African Union is making progress and don't need to be derailed by the likes of Gaddaffi with his rants

Do not discount the number of men under the arm, weaponry sophistication or not, unless you are willing to unleash the ultimate weapon of mass destruction.

It would be nice to bring this thread back due to recent events.

mad president man indeed