₦airaland Forum

Africa without the legacy of slavery and colonisation would have been a great continent with the ability to stand shoulder to shoulder with other great nations of the world. You only have to look back into our history to understand that we were and still are capable of great achievements.

You have to understand that the european assault on africa occured in phases, first of all you had slavery which sowed the seeds of mayhem, inter tribal wars and chaos it also resulted in the decimation of our populations and laid the foundation for the downward spiral that we are curently experiencing, the next phase was colonialism this is where the europeans regrouped and launched an all out assault on the entire continent with the objective of carving it up and sharing it out amongst themselves - an objective that they suceeded in acheiving, finally we are now in the neo colonial stage where europe pulled out of africa physically but installed puppet kleptocrats who run their respective countries not for the benefit of their indigenous people but for the benefit of international financial organisations such as the IMF, the world bank and various multinationals such as Shell BP, Chevron, Elf and other powerful transnational corporations.

As a result africa remains in bondage still controlled and directed by europe and america but this time indirectly.

We are currently a conquered race and cannot regard ourselves as an emancipated people until we throw off the shackles of neo colonialism.

ababda:
Cap28, have you ever visit Sudan before? If you have not i suggest you close your month with your rhethoric, Thank You. Also, it is most likely the South will separate and form their own country, and i will wish them well on their endeavers.

sorry?? did you say something - are you going to deny that Sudan is being run by a group of half arab half black genocidal maniacs who hate their black african ancestry?

can you tell me why sudan fought a war for over 50 years with the south? Also why does the genocidal Omar al bashri sanction the enslavement of black africans, if you can't handle the truth you know what you can do.

Sudan is a country that does not recognise the humanity of its black african population, it was involved in a 50 year war with southern sudan? why? so that it could enslave the dinka, nuer and other black african tribes in the south, if nigeria were not being run by a group of kleptocratic scum bags who idolise and worship arabs we should have severed all diplomatic links with this country by now.

those nigerian deportees were lucky to escape that country in one piece. 

I don't know if you guys are aware of this but Sudan is ruled by a arab muslim minority from Khartoum, these supposed arabs who are not fully arab but mixed race arabs hate black africans and they persecute and terrorise the mainly christian black africans in southern sudan.  They carry out raids of southern sudanese villages where they kidnap young black african men and boys and then sell them into slavery in arab countries like egypt, iraq, iran and even palestine.  They chain young black african men the way you would chain a dog or goat and make them sleep outside or with their animals in sheds, this people are subhuman.  This is what they are currently doing to the black africans in darfur, they are despoiling and killing the women and children and enslaving the men.  Their goal is to eradicate black africans from their country and completely arabise it, apparently their long time goal is to move south into other black african countries to continue with their arabisation programme.

ogugua88 i think you are extremely naive to dismiss wyclef jean as being capable of running for president of his country because he is not "college educated" whatever that means, what has having a college education got to do with having vision?

by the way Toussaint L'ouverture and Dessalines  who emancipated haitians from slavery and founded the first black republic were semi literate and former slaves but they were still able to outsmart and defeat THREE IMPERIAL POWERS - GREAT BRITAIN, FRANCE AND SPAIN !!

self delusion is one of the most dangerous afflictions that a man can suffer from, paddy lo and his followers have continued to delude themselves into thinking that nigeria is some sort of invincible nation with the capacity to defend itself militarily , a "nation" that has never defended its territory from any external attack, a supposed nation which uses its military to terrorise and massacre its own people (biafra, Odi, Zaki Biam, Niger delta) a nation run by a criminal comprador class of western appointed puppets - when is the penny going to drop for you people.

This military hardware is being stockpiled to be used against nigerian citizens should there be any attempt to resist IBB's bid for the presidency come 2011.

This is what you get when you allow a criminal to get away with his crimes, not only is this man brazenly nursing hopes of becoming the president come 2011 but he's also planning on amassing even more money by procuring arms for the nigerian army and navy!!! i suppose he used his MOSSAD contacts to set himself up as an arms dealer, well i suppose now it will be virtually impossible to topple him if he ever gets back into office,  the thing to note is just how invicible this man appears to be, to think that he has now moved from drug trafficking into arms procurement!!!! - how do you bring a man like this down?
To be involved in arms procurement you have to be extremely well connected it is not a business for small boys.

Jonathan is really just an errand boy when you look at the bigger picture, there is no stopping IBB, the americans have given him the green light to proceed and now he's raising money by way of lucrative arms deals, what next?

The July 66 coup was a revenge attack by northern officers who had been manipulated by the british into beleiving that the January coup was an igbo coup. The January 66 coup was actually a nationalist revolution aimed at toppling british appointed puppets. The british knew that the only way they could crush a nationalist movement in nigeria was to stoke the flames of tribalism by pitting the igbos against the northerners and making the igbos scapegoats that is how they succeeded in crushing the nationalist revolutionary movement which had been planned by Ifeajuna, Nzeogwu and various other officers.

The likes of Babangida, Murtala Mohammed, Obasanjo, Danjuma et al were rewarded for returning nigeria back to the british and this is why they have remained rich and powerful to date.

mr paddylo perhaps this might help you to put things into perspective, your enslaved mind prevents you from understanding how capitalism actually came about and its impact on africa, perhaps this might help:



[b]The rise of capitalism and the development of Europe
Enlarge image
by Washington Alcott
Could Britain have grown from being a mainly agricultural society to a mainly industrial society without the transatlantic slave trade?

The forced flow of people and material from Africa resulted in great wealth in Europe. The profits gained from the transatlantic slave trade and then later from the exploitation of Africa by taking direct control over the land (colonialism) were used to develop the West.

'The colonial system was the spinal cord of the commercial capitalism of the mercantile epoch.' Eric Williams

Capitalist economies
So what is capitalism? A basic explanation would say that it is an economic system where those things that make money, like land, factories, communications, and transportation systems, are owned by private businesses and corporations which trade in a ‘free market’ of competition. This system uses the investment of money, or ‘capital’, to produce profits. It leads to a small upper class of people having the most wealth and the growth of large corporations. This leads to economic inequality between rich and poor, which governments try to reduce by various social schemes, regulations and activities. It is different to the system in the Middle Ages, usually called feudalism, where control of land and the workers who were bonded to that land was the key to making wealth.

In other words, capitalism is the system that allows rich people to invest their money in projects and make (or lose!) even more money. It allows anybody who is rich enough to do this. The historian Eric Williams argued that a huge amount of money was made by Europeans from their network of colonies, and their plantations of sugar, cotton and tobacco. This wealth – sometimes called ‘capital’ – had to be invested somewhere. It was used to pay for the industrialisation of Europe. So the transatlantic slave trade and plantation wealth were the major causes of the growth of capitalism in Europe.

Royal Africa Company monopoly
At the beginning of the transatlantic slave trade era, the British government did not allow rich individuals to try to make profits from the trade. The only company that transported enslaved people was the British government’s own, it was called The Royal Africa Company. Established in 1672, this Royal Company transported an average of 5,000 enslaved Africans a year between 1680 and 1686.

Then in 1698 the law changed. It became legal for other British merchants to trade enslaved Africans as a 'fundamental and natural right'. The number of enslaved Africans transported increased dramatically from 1698.

One port, Bristol, shipped 160,950 Africans from 1698 to 1707. In 1760, 146 slave ships with a capacity for 36,000 enslaved people sailed from British ports, while in 1771 that number had increased to 190 ships with a capacity for 47,000 enslaved Africans.

Exploitation for profit
The ‘upper’ or ‘capitalist’ class in Europe used their control of international trade to ensure that Africa specialised in exporting captives, and right through the 1600s and 1700s , and for most of the 1800s, Europeans continued to make super profits from the exploitation of African natural resources and African labour. These profits continued to be re-invested in Western Europe into areas such as shipping, insurance, the formation of companies, capitalist agriculture, technology and the manufacture of machinery, including James Watt’s invention and production of the steam engine.

Technological developments were funded with transatlantic slave trade money. James Watt expressed eternal gratitude to the West Indian slave owners who directly financed his famous steam engine. Their money allowed him to take his designs from the drawing-board to the factory.

The financial effects of the transatlantic slave trade were wide-ranging. For instance, the French St Malo fishing industry was revived by the opening up of markets in the French plantations flourishing using enslaved Africans; while the Portuguese in Europe depended heavily on dyes like indigo brought from Africa.

Trading in enslaved Africans also speeded up Europe’s technological development. For example, the evolution of European shipbuilding from the 1500s to the 1800s was a logical consequence of their monopoly of sea commerce in that period.

Port cities and industrial towns
The transatlantic slave trade directly led to the rise of many sea-port towns, notably Bristol and Liverpool in Britain, Nantes and Bordeaux in France, and Seville in Spain. Towns that were manufacturing centres often grew in places connected to these ports. And it was in these manufacturing centres that the ‘Industrial Revolution’ took place. In England, Manchester was the first centre of the Industrial Revolution. The growth of Manchester happened on the back of the growth of Liverpool. And why did Liverpool grow? It was where so many slave trading ships set off from, at one time the largest slaving ship port in the world.

Banking and insurance
Eric Williams cited several examples of great personal wealth, derived from trading and exploiting enslaved Africans. For instance, David and Alexander Barclay made vast amounts of money from the transatlantic slave trade in 1756. They later used this money to set up Barclays Bank. The famous Lloyds of London is another banking organisation with its roots in transatlantic slave trading. Slave trading profits allowed it to grow from being a small London coffee house to become one of the world’s largest banking and insurance houses.

European expansion
It was not just in Britain that such profits and connections existed. During the 1700s the West Indies accounted for 20% of France’s external trade – much more than that for the whole of Africa in the present century.

The Portuguese made enormous profits from the transatlantic slave trade. Perhaps unfortunately for Portugal, much of this money passed rapidly out of Portuguese hands into the hands of the more developed Western European nations. These more developed nations supplied Portugal with loans, ships and trade goods. Germany was one of these countries, along with Britain, Holland and France.

The transatlantic slave trade had a huge ‘ripple effect’ in terms of trade within Europe and beyond. Brazilian dyewoods, for example, were re-exported from Portugal into the Mediterranean, the North Sea and the Baltic, and passed into the continental cloth industry of the 1600s .

According to Eric Williams, by the middle of the 18th century there was hardly any British town of any size that was not in some way connected to the transatlantic slave trade or colonial rule. Thus, the accumulation of wealth (or ‘capital’) in Britain that helped to fuel the Industrial Revolution was made on the back of the transatlantic slave trade.[/b]


http://www.revealinghistories.org.uk/how-did-money-from-slavery-help-develop-greater-manchester/articles/the-rise-of-capitalism-and-the-development-of-europe.html

[quote author=paddy_lo link=topic=484099.msg6441192#msg6441192 date=1279929198][size=14pt]Unlike a pre-modern partnership or any other sort of company lacking in a simple ownership transfer mechanism, a corporation is never dissolved or wound down when an owner decides to exit the property: Rather, the corporation is merely passed from owner to owner by way of its stock sale[/size].

Some owners might decide to break off productive units of a corporation and sell them off—maybe the corporation is a conglomerate, and the new owners decide to break it apart until there’s nothing left. The conglomerate itself might disappear completely—but those productive units that made it up live on with new owners. Gulf + Western would be an example.

A corporation might even go bankrupt—in fact many small corporations do. But if the corporation is of a size where its productive units are individually viable—say one of its factories that produces doo-dads is still a money-making venture—then the corporation’s owners’ stock will be wiped out in a bankruptcy, but the corporation’s productive units will be sold off to pay its creditors. Those productive units will continue to exist through time, with new owners who will improve them.

So then what are these “productive units” that I’m speaking of? The productive units are what carry out the business of the corporation—but that’s no help at all. Let me rephrase the question: What does a productive unit have that makes it worth keeping, as opposed to dismantling it into its component parts—tools, trucks, desks, chairs, etc.—in a bankruptcy? To rephrase again: What is the thing that holds all the assets of a company together, and makes it worth more whole than dissolved?

[size=14pt]Or to rephrase yet again: What is the soul of a company?[/size]

An apocryphal story: Sir Walter Raleigh bet Queen Elizabeth that he could measure the weight of smoke from a cigar—a seemingly impossible feat. He took a fresh cigar, carefully weighed it, then smoked it, making sure to tap all his ash on the scale. When the cigar was consumed, he weighed the ash and the remains of the cigar—the difference between that weight and the weight of the fresh cigar was, he claimed, the weight of smoke. He was right, too. Just because you can’t catch it, doesn’t mean it’s weightless, or immaterial, or nonexistent.

I said before that a company is a repository of assets, both tangible and intangible. The concept of tangible assets is pretty obvious and straightforward. The company accumulates and owns buildings, trucks, chairs, desks, tools, paperclips, whathaveyou. Those things are the tangible assets of any company.

The intangible assets, however, are trickier. On the one hand, there are monetizable intangible assets, such as patents and copyrights, or specific permits or warrants, and of course professional services. There are also stocks and bonds and other financial assets. These are all intangible assets which can be bought or sold or hired; hence they are monetizable.

But then there is another intangible asset which cannot be quantified or monetized, yet which undoubtably exists, and has real value—like Raleigh’s smoke. This non-monetizable, intangible asset is accumulated through the ordinary activities of the company, and is essential to the company’s existence through time. It is the way in which the component elements of a company are arranged between one another—the way in which tangible and intangible assets are arranged and interact. This seemingly weightless smoke—which is essential—I will call the structural asset of the company.

The structural asset of the company refers to the way that the company is internally organized, in order to pursue its business and satisfy the demand by society for its products. It is the thing that makes a company worth more than the sum of all its tangible and intangible assets.

To make this concept clear: A human body is made up of 43 kg of oxygen, 16 kg of carbon, 7 kg of hydrogen, 2.8 kg of nitrogen, 1 kg of calcium, 780 g of phosphorus, and about a kilo of various other elements. If I gather these elements together, and then dump them all in a tub, do I wind up with a 70 kg person? I should, shouldn’t I? After all, those elements I just mentioned are what make up a human being’s body, in those amounts that I just listed. If I gather them in a tub, and mix them up, a fully formed person ought to pop out, shake my hand, and join me for lunch at the restaurant down the street—right?

Of course not—what’s lacking here is the structure of the body: The way those elements are arranged internally. I can have all the elements that make up a human body—but not have a human body.

Similarly with a company: The machine tools, the trucks, the patents, the services of various workers, the copyrights, the paperclips—those are the component elements that make up a company. But they are not the company. What they need is the structural asset of the company, to arrange those component elements into a viable business.

It cannot be monetized or measured, and it cannot be transferred—it is inherent to the company. The structural asset of a company is constantly being accumulated and expanded through the business activity of the company. It is the thing whose decay leads to the entropy of the company. It is the thing which makes the company worth more than its constituent assets.

The structural asset of a company makes it possible to replace one tangible or intangible asset for another, without losing the company’s identity. That is, it allows a company to swap an old machine on the factory floor for a new one, a new worker for a worker who has left, and still remain what it was. Just as, say, a lung transplant for John does not mean that John ceases to be John and is now Frank, the structural asset allows a company to change machinery and people and locations and even businesses, while maintaining its identity through time.

[size=14pt]The structural asset of a company is the mechanism that allows it to accumulate knowledge[/size].

[size=14pt]But up until 1602, companies whose owners died or lost interest were dissolved or wound down—thus was the structural asset of a company lost. Which meant that the accumulated knowledge was lost too. That’s why the technology behind the Antikythera clockwork was lost for 1700 years—since there was no mechanism to pass on the accumulated knowledge inherent in the structural asset of their company, once the owners lost interest in the business or died, all the accumulated technologies they had developed were lost.[/size]

However, I argue that with the founding of the Dutch East India Company in 1602, such loss of technology stopped happening. Owners who lost interest in the business for whatever reason could sell their stock in the corporation—and thus the corporation lived on, continuing to preserve and accumulate knowledge through time with other, more interested owners. Thus was technological development out of Europe a geometric progression.

This also explains why other cultures and empires, more civilized and advanced than Europe in 1602, were left in the dust a mere two hundred years later, and have been struggling to catch up to the West ever since. Think Japan, China, and the Ottoman Empire in 1602: Far superior to Europe, one and all. Now think Japan, China, the Ottoman Empire in 1850: Far behind Europe technologically, struggling to compete, and only able to once they had imported the concept of the corporation.

[size=14pt]Had the Greek manufacturer of the Antikythera clockwork been a corporation instead of (likely) a tradesman with a few apprentices, the technology of the Antikythera clockwork would not have been lost. In fact, that technology would have been built upon as subsequent owners of the Antikythera Clockworks Corporation would have added and expanded its business, before selling on their stock in the corporation to some other owners, who would themselves have improved the corporation[/size].

That did not happen—because corporations did not exist. There was no efficient ownership transfer mechanism which would maximise the benefit for both the seller of the company, and for the company itself. But once corporations came into existence in 1602 in Europe, we have had the smooth uninterrupted material progress I spoke of earlier, and which we enjoy today.

[size=14pt]This is why corporations matter. This is why they are an essential part of our current civilization[/size]—above any religion, second only to the individual and the state.

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/guest-post-why-corporations-matter-part-1

THERE U HAVE IT MR CAP28. . I DARE U TO REFUTE ANY PART OF THIS BRILLIANT PAPER
The Corporations/Capitalism u rail against,is one key factor that guarantees our way of life and that of our Civilization

And pls Becomerich dont even try reading this expose cause it is obviously so above your vapid,Brainless skull
cheers[/quote]Nice work Paddy im so impressed at your ability to cut and paste one sided opinions and refer to them as "brilliant papers" on corporations and capitalism - just in case you missed it this was one person's opinion on capitalism and should not be taken as irrefutable proof that  capitalism is a progressive economic model.

The writer's central theme focuses on how capitalism encourages innovation, leads to improved technology and the accumulation of skills and knowledge - all good concepts by the way but like any other good concept must be examined critically before a verdict can be given as to its veracity.

Lets take a brief look at one of the earliest capitalist models invented by the europeans: the transatlantic slave trade - here we have a system which was "innovative" led to improved techniques about marine navigation and ultimately generated huge financial profits for the merchant classes and their business backers (shareholders) but there is no denying the fact that there was another side to this story and that other side was far from positive, where do we start - is it the systematic dehumanisation of africans into commodities for purchase and sale?  is it the labour depletion of manpower from africa or is it the beginnin of the stagnation and economic decline of africa? so paddy can you see that when you are evaluating an economic model you have to look at it holistically not based on the perspective of the shareholder who is reaping billions in profit, not based on financial backers who have a vested interest in its success but based on the long term effect of the system. 

YOu see you come on here praising an article written by a guy who is probably white and middle class and who has been the beneficiary of a system which was built on exploiting black african slave labour.  This is why i say you are not good at analysis - have you stopped to ask yourself who the beneficiaries of the present day capitalist system are - i can assure you that it is not people like you and I. 

You talk about how it generates wealth - for whom? tell me who benefits from this wealth and how?

This guy being a brainwashed white boy who can only see the world through a white lens talks about how Europe overtook other "more civilized and advanced cultures like Japan, China and the Ottoman Empire,  but of course makes no mention of  ancient egypt a black civilization whose technological advancement and civilization predates the ones he mentioned above, this is the  person whose word you accept and praise.   

Listen to his rubbish:

This also explains why other cultures and empires, more civilized and advanced than Europe in 1602, were left in the dust a mere two hundred years later, and have been struggling to catch up to the West ever since. Think Japan, China, and the Ottoman Empire in 1602: Far superior to Europe, one and all. Now think Japan, China, the Ottoman Empire in 1850: Far behind Europe technologically, struggling to compete, and only able to once they had imported the concept of the corporation.

Doesnt this i.d.i.o.t understand that the appropriation of natural resources from africa and asia and the use of the gun gave europe the upper hand not his brainwashed and delusionary beleif that it was down to their innovative skills, intelligence and creativity.

He then praises the ingenuity of the Dutch East India company but conveniently leaves out the fact that this company eventually fell into bankruptcy as a result of mismanagement and corruption by its directors and had to be "bailed out by its govt" - (sound familiar!)

As i said earlier paddy, cutting and pasting one sided views written by white middle class frat boys who have no real understanding of what goes on in the real world doesnt make you look more believable it merely demonstrates that you dont understand what you are following.  Fela said mr follow follow - when you follow make you open eye, open ear, open sense - try doing that okay.

[quote author=paddy_lo link=topic=484099.msg6441066#msg6441066 date=1279926653]@cap28
where were u indoctrinated,and where did u go to school. . cuba,North Korea.  .Venezuela  .  . ?.  .cause u sound like the crackpot chavez,the lunatic Kim jon ill(lil jon),or the demented castro. . .[/quote][color=Black]Paddy paddy calm down, i can see you are getting excited because i have exposed you for the fraud  that you are.

You are very good at regurgitating fairy tales, but not very good at analysing the substance of that information. okay now tell me why you refer to the likes of chavez as a crackpot, Kim Jong Il as a lunatic and Castro as demented - is it because the US told you to think that way? do you know anything about the struggles of the people of those countries, do you understand anything about the tyranny that existed in those countries until people for instance like Chavez and Castro came along?

Are you aware that Cuba was being run by the mafia in conjunction with corrupt american multinationals like united fruit company? in fact Cuba before the 1959 revolution was very similar to how nigeria is today, are you aware that in Cuba education for its people is free up to university level? are you also aware that health care in Cuba is also free for its citizens, are you aware that america that you worship cannot even boast of providing affordable health care to its citizens and its supposed to be a world superpower?

YOu describe chavez as a crackpot, why? If he is a crackpot as you say why is it that since he took over power he has implemented so many programmes aimed at reducing illiteracy and the introduction of free health care, actions which have led to some of the poorest people in that country now having the hope of becoming educated and aspiring to a higher standard of living, something that was unheard of in that country only until he took over in 2002.

When are you going to learn to think for yourself and stop peddling stories fed to you by the western media?[color=Black]

Now in your ramblings above u fail to distinguish btw multinationals and the country in which they have their headquarters. .
In one breath U say multinationals remove jobs from america to third world countries,yet u still claim its americas plan to de-industrialize Africa. .
well which one is it cause it cant be both. . .

[color=Black]Okay let me be clear because you obviously dont understand what you are talking about here,  US multinationals outsource jobs to countries where labour is cheaper - that is not the same thing as industrialising that country ,  when you get rid of jobs in your US factory because its cheaper to produce those goods in lagos it does not in any way mean that you are transferring the technology to the third world country, you are merely setting up shop somewhere else, utilising the cheap labour there and then funnelling your profiits back into the industrialised nations economy.[/color]

Your problem is u fail to understand what capitalism means. . .The shareholders of any company are the owners,not the Govt,not the country it is Headquartered in
and in todays world anybody can wake up and buy into apple computer,intel,boeing,Google,Ford and so on,on any continent in the world,from the very comfort of his home through a discount broker,from capetown,to sao paulo,to singapore

[color=Black]You really dont understand how capitalism operates do you, for your information, many major corporations are subsidised and funded by govt, they also enjoy huge tax breaks and are bailed out (as was the case with many of the banks in the US and the UK) when they fail, so your naive understanding of how these corporations come about is at best misguided and at worst downright ignorant.

Also the majority of people who own controlling shares of the major corporations are the super rich not the average joe on the street and these sort of people make up less than 1% of the populations of some of the richest western countries in the world [/color]  

That means anyone can own these multinationals u rail against,who pay dividends and contribute to world growth and commerce

misguided and wrong

The key is for African countries to develop their own multinationals,and in Nigeria we are already doing so.  .from Dangote,UBA,First bank,Oando and so on who are spreading all over Africa and listing on the Johannesburg stock exchange

You are dreaming, no african country is permitted by any of the G8 countries to compete on the international market with their own multinationals, your argument is so ludicrous, can you mention any african multinationals?  Which market share will these african multinationals be allowed to control given that the western and asian ones have already carved out their own share?

The problem with the likes of u is that u enjoy the trappings of capitalism,and free markets,free press.,by hiding in such places as the U.K,while u rail against those such luxuries u enjoy

You keep referring to "free markets and free press - youre a joke, most of these corporations operate as monopolies they dominate whole swathes of international markets and dictate to african economies how much african nations must pay for their products and how much they will pay for african products - what's free about that?

as for the free press, well if you think its normal for one man to own and run over 5 different news media (rupert murdoch) then that gives me an idea as to your level of reasoning.

u should pls move to IRAN,VENEZUELA,CUBA or NORTH KOREA and spare us the idiotic rants. . .
lets see how long u last over there,lets see if u can get online and speak your mind freely without being arrested
Lets see if u can really survive in such bankrupt economic systems where u have to get permission from the state to open a barbing salon,and when they give their consent they tell u what to charge and set your salary

You are so dumb - Did you not hear about the mccarthy witchhunts in america in the 1950's, did you not hear about about COINTELPROin the 60's? havent you heard of the  Patriot Act which permits the US govt to tap your phone, check your email, arrest you and hold you without charge if you are suspected of engaging in "terrorist activity", havent you heard that Bush suspended parts of the US constitutions follownig the implementation of the above mentioned Patriot Act?

have you heard of wiretapping and other covert surveillance methods used by the FBI and other govt organisations to spy on their own citizens - like i said - you're in a dream world.

by the way those countries you mentioned above are in economic dire straits as a direct result of draconian economic embargoes imposed on them by western europe and america, try and get your facts right.

lets see whats really good homie. . put up or shut up. . . .

Move to cuba or North Korea live there,and see how the shoe pinches then come back and lets talk
Free market CAPITALISM is the best path to Prosperity,and the corporation has a key role to play in it

You dont understand what free market capitalism is - you merely parrot that phrase because you think it makes you sound intelligent, unfortunately the more you extol its non existent virtues the more ignorant you sound, this so called free market capitalism is the reason thousands of nigerians have to leave nigeria in order to make a living elsewhere in the world, it has crippled and continues to cripple our economy because it seeks to make profit for its corporations only, it isnt  interested in the economic development or growth of the country whose wealth it appropriates.

free market capitalism is purely about appropriation of resources and labour for profit, free market capitalism operates better in the third world because we do not have labour laws to protect workers, impose minimum wages, impose health and safety working practices etc all these things eat into profit margins and this why multinationals love investing in africa where none of these practices are observed. 

You obviously have not understood the impact of capitalism on people in the third world and you merely regurgitate what you have heard on tv not understanding that it is killing your people - i pity you!![/color]

In fact,theres a thought provoking paper that states that the Corporation is the link that has kept innovation alive in the world or the past 500yrs,i'll post it next. . . .

keep parrotting the above junk - perhaps it helps you sleep better at night when you make such vacuous statements.

[quote author=~Bluetooth link=topic=484099.msg6440912#msg6440912 date=1279923929]most info are just allegations.the US have a tendency of establishing good rapport anywhere there interests lie,so no big qualms about that but making unsubstantiated information that has not been de-classified is unnecessary.would you also deduce that jonathan has been recruited as an agent ?[/quote]well, i didnt expect you to take my word for it, there are so many books out there written by ex insiders who know the truth, you can research the US's imperialist activities around the world and you'll be suprised at what you'll find.

here is an excerpt of an article written by a british journalist about Obasanjo's relationship with high ranking US govt officials:


[b]Background to the recent Nigerian elections
General Obasanjo more than just a "friend" of the Americans
By Elizabeth Liagin
17 March 1999

Elizabeth Liagin is an independent journalist who has done extensive research into General Olusegan Obasanjo, who won the recent presidential election in Nigeria. She submitted the following commentary in response to the 5 March article "Nigerian election fraud leaves elite in control" by Chris Talbot

The 13 February 1976 assassination of Murtala Muhammad, which brought Olusegan Obasanjo to power the first time, was widely believed at the time to be the linked to the CIA. Perhaps the same might be said for the 27 February 1999 "coup" as well.

Obasanjo is more than just a "friend" of the Americans. He is an operative. And his involvement with America's foreign policy elite is a long, sometimes complicated, but delightfully interesting story.

There are several key persons and institutions that appear over and over in the Obasanjo files. One is Donald B. Easum, who was the United States Ambassador to Nigeria at the time of the 1976 assassination. Another is the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, where Henry Kissinger, who was Secretary of State at the time of the same assassination, serves as a "counsellor." Then we have Robert S. McNamara, a former World Bank president and the Secretary of Defense who carried much of the blame for the Vietnam War. More recently, McNamara embarked on an excursion to Haiti in the aftermath of the election that brought Jean Bertrand Aristide to office. Upon his return, McNamara pronounced Aristide "vehemently" anti-US, implying that the United States would be in for another round of whatever it was that Fidel Castro stirred up in people after his revolution more than two decades before. Within a year of McNamara's assessment, Aristide was ousted by thugs on the CIA's payroll.


Back to the seventies: At the time of the coup that installed Obasanjo, the US was still reeling from the OPEC oil embargo. That action would have been all the more devastating were it not for the fact that Nigeria, under Yakubu Gowon's leadership, had opted to breach the embargo and ship oil to the West. Because of the inflated price petroleum commanded at the time, Nigeria experienced unprecedented economic growth. When Murtala took over, the US immediately became concerned, not knowing if Nigeria could be relied upon as a supplier under a new regime. In an attempt to soften up the anti-Western ideology associated with Murtala, Secretary of State Kissinger proposed a state visit. Murtala told him to stay home--something interpreted in Washington as a "ten" on the scale by which political insults are ranked.

In the months after Murtala took over in July of 1975, cables between Washington and Lagos increased in number almost five-fold. That in itself is an indicator of heightened political interest that goes beyond the mere arrival of a new administration. Some of those cables have been released via the Freedom of Information Act, and although they may not be entirely conclusive, they certainly suggest a US role in the assassination that brought Obasanjo to power in 1976.

To avoid getting overly-complicated, there were two dominant themes conveyed in most of those formerly classified cables. One concerned oil and the extent to which the new Nigerian leadership would try to use oil "as an economic weapon" against the US, to quote the language used in several dispatches. The second concerned Nigeria's growing economic, political and military status within Africa.

The written communication between Lagos and Washington--much of which, I should add, is still classified--focused mainly on political intelligence, on the anti-Western opinions of various ministers and other leaders, on Nigeria's foreign policy (including its support for the then-banned African National Congress in Lusaka), and, of course, its support for any potential OPEC strike in the future. Also of concern to Washington power brokers was the fact that Nigeria continued to acquire weapons of increasing sophistication and could be expected to effectively enforce its national interests in any regional dispute.

Among the more interesting cables is one, written by Ambassador Easum just days before Murtala's murder, that suggested Nigeria's economy would have to be brought down ("degraded," in Clinton terminology) so that development expectations would compete with the growth of national power--the assumption being that the military expansion Washington so feared would falter.

A related concern was the strength of Nigeria in terms of manpower. In August of 1975, as a matter of fact, the Congressional Research Service prepared a study called "Oil Fields as Military Targets." Its purpose was to serve as a background briefing to Congress in the event a second, "air-tight" oil embargo was launched and the president decided to seek legislative approval for a war over oil. One nation evaluated, and ultimately dismissed, as a possible subject of such an attack was Nigeria. There were definite advantages to attacking Nigeria, of course. Not the least of these were the fact that (a) the country's oil reserves were largely on land, making them less costly to operate (or reconstruct in the event of sabotage) in the wake of an invasion; (b) Nigeria offered a clear benefit in terms of transit because shipments would be relatively direct, not passing through strategic "hot spots" like Hormuz; (c) the populace would be relatively unsuspecting, giving the US military the advantage that comes with surprise (which rather contradicts the notion of Congressional debate); and (d) Nigeria would be among the countries least likely to provoke retaliation by the USSR, not to mention Soviet interceptions of communications, etc. But on the negative side, two important aspects of the would-be invasion stood out. One was the terrain--similar in many respects to that which had "frustrated" US troops in Vietnam over the previous decade. The second was the density of population in the eastern and delta regions in which the purported invasion would have had to take place. The ensuing struggle, one in which tens of thousands of angry Nigerians were potential combatants, would have drawn world attention to American imperialism, the report frankly concluded, making any attempt to colonize Nigeria's oilfields a distinct liability.

There were other documents produced at around the same time to corroborate this intense interest in Nigeria, the country's population, and its oil wealth. The US Information Agency or USIA (which operates the Voice of America of other propaganda actions around the world) does yearly reports on the US interest in various countries. Theirs, too, cites the pervasive worries about Nigeria becoming the economic and demographic giant of Africa, capable of spreading an anti-American ideology all over the continent, and likewise stressing that agency goals should serve the larger objective of increasing US influence over Nigeria's politics and culture. Then there was the notorious NSSM 200 (National Security Study Memorandum 200), sometimes called the "Kissinger population paper," in which it was stressed that oil and mineral-rich Nigeria could easily cope with a far larger population and would gain sufficient status to compete with the US influence over Africa. The memorandum recommended that 13 of the largest developing countries, Nigeria included, be targeted with aggressive campaigns of fertility control in order to contain their rise to power.

"Whatever may be done to guard against interruptions of supply," said the document, which was adopted as official policy "guidance" in the development assistance program in late 1975, "the US economy will require large and increasing amounts of minerals from abroad, especially from less developed countries. That fact gives the US enhanced interest in the political, economic, and social stability of the supplying countries. Wherever a lessening of population pressures through reduced birth rates can increase the prospects for such stability, population policy becomes relevant to resource supplies and to the economic interests of the United States."

The same study included detailed instructions on how US policymakers could use such "multinational" institutions as the World Bank and various UN agencies to pressure governments into adopting population-reduction policies, and even hinted that food and development aid might be made conditional on actual (measurable) reductions in national fertility rates.

The general tone of the dispatches sent between Lagos and Washington was clear. Washington wanted new leadership for Nigeria. And on 13 February 1976, the assassination that brought Obasanjo to power was carried out. Curiously, it was exactly five days later, on 18 February, that President Gerald Ford signed a long-awaited and much-publicized executive order barring the assassination of foreign heads of state by the CIA.

In 1979, Obasanjo became the first Nigerian military leader to voluntarily turn over his office to an elected leader, Shehu Shagari. And what came next is important. Almost right away, Obasanjo turned up in New York, where he was appointed to the board of directors of the African American Institute. The African American Institute, then located directly across the street from the United Nations, had been set up in 1954 with money that came from the CIA. Its principal task was to increase US influence over the foreign and domestic policies of the emerging African states, at that time still under formal European control.

In the next few years, Obasanjo began turning up in all kinds of interesting places--giving a high-proflie lecture at Kissinger's Center for Strategic and International Studies (which also distributes literature written by Obasanjo), for one thing, and hosting a meeting on religion and politics at the government-controlled US Institute of Peace. During the mid- and late 1980s, things were especially fascinating. Obasanjo was still on the AAI board, as he has continued to be, even during his years in detention under Sani Abacha right up to the present day. In 1988, from his vantage point at AAI and CSIS, Obasanjo launched an endeavor of his own, the Africa Leadership Forum. Assisting him from the beginning, and prominently involved over the next several years, was the notorious ex-defense secretary, World Bank boss, and probable Haiti coup-instigator, Robert McNamara.

Obasanjo's forum fits every description of a classic "front group." Its financing comes from nebulous sources, its activities are conducted for the most part under pseudonyms. It created centers for the study of military and "security" issues; organized "leadership" conferences; underwrote reports on policy matters by "local" scholars; recommended legislation (not just in Nigeria but before the AAU, as well); financed an office for conflict monitoring; recruited journalists for propaganda campaigns; and sought out young academics for political training--most of these actions presented as the initiative of host country institutions that were, in reality, Obasanjo creations. In the 10 years between the founding of the forum and Obasanjo's decision to make a run for president, the forum also worked with the development agencies of various nations, the US Information Service, and other big league collaborators in the Western world.[/b]

http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/mar1999/nig-m17.shtml

PapaBrowne:
Most countries which have partnered with the US have turned out extremely successful. Examples abound. South Korea, Japan, Germany, UAE, Qatar and a host of other countries. So I don't see why it is bad to partner with the almighty U.S of A. The country I detest is the the U.K.

hahahaha

you crack me up

funny how you didnt mention any african countries - could it be because america's economic policy with regard to africa is based on the draconian washington consensus which stipulates that african and latin american countries are to be used as sources of cheap natural resources and kept stagnant and backward, how come african countries are constantly blocked by the west from industrialising like their G8 counterparts?

Paddy lo loves singing the praises of america's economic policies but sadly he doesnt seem to understand what the involve.

Paddy let me explain something to you that you have failed to understand america practices  neo imperialism - it invests in countries like nigeria because nigeria has poor human rights records meaning low tolerance by the govt for riots, labour unions, protests and other grassroots groups which pose a potential threat to foreign multinational exploitative practices, also because of grinding poverty labour in nigeria is extremely cheap, which again is ideal for US/British owned multinationals as they are only interested in maximising profit at the expense of the workforce, you should ask yourself why these multinationals are forever shutting down their factories in the US and Europe and relocating them to places like nigeria, india, indonesia and thailand which have abysmall human rights records.

Its all about proft my friend - nothing more nothing less - you seem convinced that the US are interested in the economic development and grownth of nigeria, if that were the case why is it that they attack countries who refuse to adopt their neo liberal economic policies like Cuba, Venezuela, north korea, Iran  why have they imposed an economic blockade agaisnt cuba since 1959 despite Cuba's willingness to engage in trade with them (but not in accordance with their neo liberal economic policies) why?

Stop deceiving yourself and start educating yourself about the truth of america's economic policies towards africa and latin america, have you for one day even looked at the international trade agreements that nigeria is signed up to with europe and america - do they resemble anything close to a fair and equitable trade arrangement or are they exploitative and predatory?

You are delusional and there is nothing i can do to change that but stop misleading people with your fantasy stories about the supposed economic development which you claim is being initiated by america and europe in Nigeria.

If  you dont understand something just be honest enough to admit that you dont understand it rather than spouting off fantasy stories.

[quote author=~Bluetooth link=topic=484099.msg6440541#msg6440541 date=1279920122]these are classified information if i'm not mistaken.i would know some have been de-classified for you to know.please provide a reliable SOURCE because they are incredible accusation against the US.[/quote]as  you correctly noted most of this is classified, however some of it over the years has been leaked but many of the sources have been discredited or even murdered thereby making it very difficult to substantiate, if i had access to the classified files on Obasanjo's relationship with the americans I doubt that i would be risking my life by disclosing their contents on the internet, are you aware that the files on the assassination of John F Kennedy, Martin LUther King, Bobby Kennedy, Malcolm X and John Lennon remain classifed until 2080 when we'll all be dead - but there are still various pieces of evidence that have surfaced indicating govt invovlements and coverups.

With regard to Noriega - some info on him has been declassified - his life sentence was reduced and he was released in April this year but was re indicted by a french court and is now serving 7 years in a french jail for
murder, drug traffickign and money laundering.

manuel noriega was a  drug baron and former president of panama, he was also a CIA agent - he was indicted on drug trafficking charges by the US when he refused to continue to allow america to dictate the economic and political direction of  his country- funnily enough his CV sounds quite similar to IBB's the only difference being that IBB never challenged the imperialist dictates of the american run world bank and IMF infact he collaborated with these two institutions assisting them in the economic rape of our country.  i suppose thats why he is still alive, rich and has even been given the green light by america to run for the presidency come 2011.

Noriega was well known to the CIA as a drug trafficker well before he was indicted by the US govt infact the US ASSISTED him in many of his drug traffickign operations and he assisted them by providing them with intelligence on the left wing govt of nicaragua which america was trying to overthrow at the time, so it was a case of you scratch my back and i scratch yours.  As a result he became extremely rich and powerful - does that sound familiar (IBB anyone? Obasanjo)

His biggest mistake though was biting the hand that assisted in feeding him, IBB differs from him in that respect,  IBB is a man with absolutely no conscience and reminds me of Mobutu Sese Seko of congo (another CIA stooge).

When stooges turn against their masters its just a matter of time before they are brought down - remember Saddam?

So the moral of the story is - allow foreigners to come in and appropriate the wealth of your country and youll be allowed to traffick drugs and even kill people (IBB) but if you dare stand up to the west and try to prevent them from reducing the people of your country to serfs and destitutes you will either end up six feet under or if you are lucky you'll spend a very long time in a maximum security prison for a very long time - nice eh.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manuel_Noriega#Involvement_with_CIA

becomrich i would advise you to seek immediate psychiatric attention as you seem to be in a very unstable condition - who told you america remains neutral with regard to the internal politics of other countries - let me ask you a question:

who assassinated Murtala Mohammed in 1976?

who overthrew Kwame Nkrumah in 1966?

who removed Manuel Noriega of Panama in 1989 - and can you tell me why he is serving life imprisonment in a Miami jail?

who kidnapped former Haitian president - Jean Bertrand Aristide and DEPORTED him to Congo in 2004?

who abducted Hugo Chavez in 2003 and tried to have him murdered?

who murdered Patrice Lumumba of Zaire in 1964 and replaced him with dictator Mobutu?

who threatened to launch a nuclear strike on  Cuba in 1961?

You better go back and get some treatment from your shrink then do a crash course on US imperialism.

now back to the topic

the handwriting is now on the wall, the US have shown their hand - does anyone know of any non western country that the US supports that engages in a democratic system of government.

The US was responsible for eliminating Yaradua and replacing him with their docile puppet Jonathan under instructions from their agent Obasanjo - Obasanjo has been on the CIA payroll since the 70's this is why he keeps wandering in and out of the corridors of power whenever he feels like, Abacha like Yaradua was seen as a thorn in the side of the US when he stopped taking orders from washington and decided that he could make his own decisions without consulting them first, unfortunately enough for him he underestimated the ruthlessness of american imperialism and paid with his life.

Walter Carrington has long been involved in nigerian politics therefore it is ludicrous for him to blatantly lie about his involvement in the nigerian political system as the US and the British have been teleguiding the political and economic direction of nigeria since independence. 

The sooner nigerians wake up and understand what is really going on the better for us, we are yet to take control of our political and economic destiny, nigerian is  a client state of the US and Britain and will remain one until we have a revolution which will clear out this band of criminals who have decided to collude with foreigners to destroy our country and the lives of future generations to come.

Nzeogwu tried it but was stopped by cowardly gutless Ironsi and other hopeless and delusional fools, now look at where we are today, it is going to take a completely new and radicalised generation of courageous young nigerians to overthrow the tyranny that exists in present day nigeria, and it will be no easy task, the civil war of 67-70 will be childs play compared to what is to come.

Deep Sight:
I tend to get better quality in terms of ripostes on the Religion Board of this forum.

This is quite interesting. Let's have a look.

A woman gets pregnant. Two persons have different views as to how that happened.

Person 1: Has the view that, as is consistent with human reproductive experience, the woman had gotten pregnant from s.exual intercourse.

Person 2: Has the view that an intangible spiritual entity magically made her pregnant without intercourse.

Which view is more consistent with reason, human experience and common sense? ? ? ?

And some how I am the one being deleuded? Well, your choice, son.

On no account would you receive from me that which you give: namely knee jerk insults arising from a void.

There is a well studied psychological phenomenon amongst human beings and this is it; when a human being is unable to address a glaring (and painful) internal inconsistency in his beliefs, he is most likely to convulsively explode. That explosion has appeared in the form of your insults - I take no offence in the least; I merely recognise that which is obvious: namely that you are deeply pained by the absurdity that emerges as your conviction: It is simply and civilly pointed out to you that it is not very likely that a woman would get pregnant without intercourse - and you have made exactly no logical rebuttal of that reasonable proposition. What you have done is simply evince the truth; namely that you have no answer to that obvious illogicality which happens to be your conviction. In this you are sadly supported by a group of people who have not proffered any reasonable rebuttal in that regard.

Accordingly I see no reason as yet to retract the very simple proposition that I laid before you; namely that people to not get pregnant by spiritual or magical means; but by s.exual intercourse or artificial insemination - which was not available two thousand years ago.

It is hardly my cup of tea that you subscribe to ancient semitic myths which would certainly sound ludicruous to you if they were tales of your own ancestors.


This is where I have a problem. And further this is what I mean by thoughtless knee-jerk reactions. You have stated –

1. That I have blasphemed.

2. That I have “abused’ God.

I am aghast at these conclusions. From where did you get the notion that questioning the likelihood of a pregnancy arising without s.exual intercourse, amounts to blasphemy? We are well past the age of reason, dear friend. If we are entitled to question such things as men turning into frogs, surely we are entitled to question an ancient story which tells us that a woman conceived a baby out of thin air.

Now I would urge you to be more perceptive. At time of that supposed event, the punishment for s.exual activity outside wedlock was death by stoning. What do you suppose a young female who is pregnant outside of wedlock would do? Admit that she has had s.ex? Or blame it on the Holy Ghost?

You riddle me with laughter. You do have miles to walk yet, son.

Again let us look at the second part of your statement. You stated that I have abused God! That is a grand presumption sir, for I did no such thing.

I drew out an analogy showing that it is unlikely that a woman may be pregnant without any form of natural conception. How does that amount to abusing God? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

I do not know what your perception of the transcendental almighty God is: but I can assure you that I believe in God and worship God. My perception of God however, does not involve such things as miraculous pregnancies or rituals of any sort. I urge you not to make any presumptions in this regard.

Dress warm.

breathtakingly refreshing, funny and erudite - but i fear you have an uphill task reasoning with some people on here who have been completely brainwashed by religion, this is why the chinese regarded the white man's religion as anathema - its not for nothing that they described it as opium of the masses - long live our inability as a people to think rationally.

The irish couple who had a "black" child due to a mix up in sperm samples by the hospital claimed that the mistake (the black child) has completely destroyed their lives as everywhere they go , people laugh at the man and make nasty jokes about his wife's infidelity.

here is his account of how his life went downhill:

[b]When ten-year-old Michael Williams climbs into his father Keith's arms for a goodnight cuddle, he will often ask the same dreaded question: 'Why am I brown?' Looking up into his father's blue eyes and taking in his light brown hair and fair skin, his son will then ask: 'How can I make myself lighter, like you?'
Keith doesn't know how to answer these questions, so he'll make a joke about how Michael was delivered by a stork or that he was found under a gooseberry bush. Anything to avoid having to tell him the truth.
For the reality is that not only was Michael conceived via IVF using donor sperm, but there was a terrible mix-up when the wrong sperm was mistakenly used by the hospital fertility clinic the couple attended in their hope of becoming parents.

Caring: Keith and Catherine with their children, who were conceived using sperm from a Cape Coloured man. Their faces have been obscured at their own request.
The result is that while Keith, 47, and his 46-year-old wife Catherine are white, their son is black. To add to their distressing situation, their 13-year-old daughter Susan, conceived three-and-a-half years earlier than their son in the same manner - and bizarrely with the same sperm donor - is light-skinned.
Instead of fertilising Catherine's eggs with 'White Caucasian' donor sperm, as the couple had requested and, they say, been promised, a staff member at the Regional Fertility Centre at Belfast's Royal Victoria Hospital accidentally used donor sperm marked 'Caucasian Cape Coloured'.
South African in origin, the sperm's racial make-up is a mixture of white, black and Malay, which means children born from it can be either black or white. This accounts for the difference in colour between the Williams siblings, who - although born three years apart - came from the same batch of fertilised eggs.
In a letter dated October 2003 to the Williams family - to protect the children's identities, the Mail has changed their names - the Regional Fertility Centre offered the couple an 'unreserved apology' for the mistake over the labelling.
It stated: 'Normal practice would be that only sperm from White Caucasian donors would be requested, unless a couple of a different race were being treated.'
Even more disturbingly, the hospital admitted the Williamses were among a number of couples treated at the Regional Fertility Centre (RFC) who, according to the letter, also 'achieved pregnancy as a result of using a particular batch of such donor sperm' - presumably with the same unexpected consequences.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1192717/Why-I-dark-daddy-The-white-couple-mixed-race-children-IVF-blunder.html#ixzz0uG9dmz00[/b]

something is not right here, I suspect that the child may have been conceived by way of ivf and some mix up with the sperm sample may have occurred - both parents should ask for a dna test to be carried out as something similar to this happened with a white irish family some years back.  Unlike the nigerian father who is quite happy  with his "white" child the irish father was totally outraged when he saw his own child who looked mixed race, he demanded a dna test and it was discovered that the hospital had accidentally swapped the  white sperm sample with a mixed race man's sperm sample, the hospital had to pay them huge compensation.

mikeansy:
He should go and sit down.

I stopped taking this man seriously when he publicly said negotiating Bakassi away to Camerounians without achieving anything in return even though the locals of that land want to remain Nigerians is his life time achievement.

He has nothing to offer Nigeria. He is a sellout.

You are 100% correct mike, these buffoons are nothing more than a bunch of political p/ro/sti/tu/tes with nothing to offer the country, as long as they can continue to milk the country dry they are happy.  They have sold out our generation by forcing many people like myself out of the country because of their visionless and directionless plans for nigeria.  Actually their plans are not directionless their plans for nigeria are for the complete political and  economic subjugation of nigeria to western financial institutions which is currently an ongoing process.

To now come talking about a parlimentary system as being the best way forward should give you a glimpse into how devoid this man is of anything constructive or progressive for nigeria.  This is why nigeria continues to lurch from one crisis to another, what do you expect when we  have useless parasites like this in the corridors of power?

He isnt afraid of anything, he is being backed by the US so whats there for him to be afraid of?

Do you think he would be speaking so confidently if he knew he couldnt clinch the presidential elections? Its in the bag okay

debosky:
So they should allow immigrants to flow in endlessly because it is expensive to train doctors? Doctors and scientists are not the only class of immigrants coming into the UK and the government IS acting on training UK citizens to take up jobs - for example, I can tell you for a fact that in a few years, there will be little need for chemical engineers to be recruited into the UK due to the high rise in enrolment in Chem Eng by British students. It is unsustainable to continue to depend on immigration for supplying highly skilled workers - the line must be drawn somewhere.

Just in case you missed the point i was making earlier - the whole point of immigrant labour is to REDUCE LABOUR COSTS NOT INCREASE IT - it is with this in mind that the UK govt has always adopted a policy of recruiting workers from abroad(skilled and unskilled)  rather than train homegrown british citizens. Therefore to answer your question yes the british govt would rather recruit foreign highly skilled workers like doctors rather than spend money training their own people - its simple economic common sense. 
To say that it is unsustainable to continue to rely on immigrant highly skilled workers indicates to me that you do not understand the reasoning behind the recruitment of immigrant labour to this country, how can you talk about the unsustainability of immigrant recruitment when the UK has successfully built its economy on the recruitment of immigrant labour, if it were such an unsustainable policy why were west indians recruited from the carribean in the 1950's and 60's by the then tory govts, and why is it that the last labour govt went on recruitment campaigns to africa, australia, canada and new zealand in a bid to recruit social workers, teachers and nurses?  the economy of the UK has reaped huge financial benefits from immigrant recruitment.


At the moment the only type of immigrants from outside the EU  that are likely to be granted residence in this country are highly skillled workers ie doctors and scientists, they are of course not the only type of immigrants applying to come here but they are the only ones that the british govt are interested in granting residence at this particular point in time. 

Cutting budgets will lead to increased unemployment, only a daft government will do that but yet keep increasing the immigrants coming in.

The current cap on non EU immigration will have virtually no impact on the availability of jobs for white british people in this country, the majority of jobs that are being cut are public sector jobs which tend to be occupied by white english people and not highly skilled immigrants who are the target of this cap.

That is not true - the bulk of recent immigrants are coming from non-EU countries - .2.6 million out of the foreign 3.8 million workers came from OUTSIDE the EU.

okay so if we are to go along with your thinking on this - you cap non EU immigration in order to reduce the 2.6 million figure what happens where the numbers of EU immigrants increases beyond the original 1.2 million - what happens then, how will this have reduced the influx of immigrants overall? 

You are propagating myths - the mass increase in university graduates (over 50,000 more since 2008) shows that there are ample UK citizens able to carry out the jobs being done by the skilled immigrants (those under the cap). Your examples of mcdonalds and picking fruits are irrelevant in this case, since highly skilled migrants are not being brought in to do those jobs.

I said that most working class whites will not do the menial jobs like fruit picking and working in mcdonalds because they feel those jobs are beneath them and because they have an alternative - state benefits.  On the other hand non EU immigrants are more than happy to do those jobs.  Since immigration from outside the EU has now been restricted to highly skilled immigrantsts who is going to do those menial jobs?

With regard to the highly skilled jobs many of the white working class english simply can not fill those jobs as they are not suitably qualified.

There may well be an increase in UK university graduates but what type of courses are they studying, many british university students opt for media studies, fashion, sports sciences and other less academic courses as opposed to the science disciplines, hence the shortage of workers in those fields.

I think you're mixing up issues here - the class divisions in the UK is not a reason for allowing uncontrolled immigration. You don't need to go to Oxbridge before you can be an engineer, financial analyst or any of the other jobs being done by skilled immigrants now.

I never said that you had to go to Oxbridge in order to become an engineer etc but what i did say is if you dont come from an affluent background you are more likely to end up with little or no education and lesser chances of success as the two tier british educational system and entrenched class structure separates the haves from the have nots very early in life.  This entrenched class discrimination creates a shortage of labour in certain highly skilled areas of employment as the british fail to train and educate enough of their own people into certain areas of work and immigration is relied on to bridge this gap.

It is their prerogative - this is their country and they are in the majority, hence they can act in a way they believe is acceptable. Besides, the rapid and uncontrolled immigration since 97 is unsustainable and is higher than at any other time in British history - it has to be controlled else the nation will be strained to breaking point. In any case, the English people aren't afraid of immigration - they only want it controlled to manageable levels.

Really? so despite the fact that Britain amassed its wealth on the back of slavery, colonialism and now neo colonialism you still beleive that "it is their prerogative to act in anyway they beleive is acceptable" thats interesting, why are you so quick to defend such an exploitative system, if you were a white middle class man from an affluent background i could understand your reasoning but correct me if im wrong but im very sure you are a recent immigrant to this country yourself.

Population increases driven by immigration will place undue pressure on the resources of the UK to cope - housing, healthcare amongst others.

You speak as if you stand to benefit from the reduction of immigration in this country, remember that as a black man you are treated in the same way as other immigrants and you will never have the same opportunites that are open to whites in this country, infact a white south african, new zealander, or australian who arrives in this country today will have access to better jobs, housing and health care services than you even if you were born here. 

That only goes to bolster the point - the large immigration influxes is causing a dislocation in urban areas and worsening crowding. Why should cities be exempt when considering crowding? Why should English people be driven out of Barking due to the influx of immigrants? Why should communities be changed without their permission?

English people are not being driven out of Barking, they chose to leave because most of them are racists and hate living within  close proximity to foreigners, have you heard of white flight? well thats what happens when a lot of blacks or non whites move into a predominantly white neighbourhood, whites move out in droves, they are not under pressure to move , they chose to move of their own accord. Also the UK govt ensures that there are enough  services in areas which have been designated for the dispersal of immigrants before these immigrants are actually dispersed to those areas.

Are the immigrants the only ones paying tax? Is the UK born workforce exempt of tax? The bulk of UK workers are still UK born, so the immigrants are not bearing a disproportionate tax burden for those on benefits. Let the UK government decide how it will engage these people back into work - it is already proposing a reform of the benefits system to achieve this aim.

Whether its UK citizens paying tax or immigrants paying tax, white working class men and women should still be encouraged to get off their backsides and start working for their own upkeep.

One thing you must note is that apart from unemployment benefits, there are many other benefits immigrants benefit from - education, healthcare and housing demands, which impact the entire population.

why shouldnt they benefit from these- as workers they pay tax and therefore they should be entitled to full use of public services like all other british tax payers.

That is not true - immigration in the labour years reached astronomical levels that MUST be brought down to return sanity to the system. That is the reality of the matter. The policy is clear - reduce immigration from the hundreds of thousands to the tens of thousands, this will limit population growth as well as reduce tensions from a mass influx

Immigration began to decline during the labour years and as i have said labour introduced the points based system which dramatically cut the number of non EU immigrants entitled to work and live in the UK.

An excerpt from The Independent on Sunday -  a left wing british newspaper on immigration:

[b]Myth and reality: Sorting the facts from the fiction on immigration

Britain isn't British any more

The myth: Nick Griffin claimed that "we, the indigenous British people, will become an ethnic minority in our own country well within 60 years – and most likely sooner".

The reality: The Celtic Britons were conquered by the Romans, who were replaced by the Anglo-Saxons after they left; followed by the Vikings, the Normans, the Italians, more Germans, the Irish, Jews, Indians, West Indians, 

Immigrants are responsible for violent crime

The myth: Many newspaper articles claim crime is caused by immigration. The Daily Mail said in August that one in every five killers is an immigrant. In 2008 the Daily Express quoted the chief constable of Kent, Mike Fuller, as blaming "migration surges" for a 35 per cent rise in violent crime in the county.

The reality: Over a three-year period ending in 2006-07, the Government reported 23 racially motivated homicides. In Scotland and N Ireland, attacks on new immigrants from within the EU continued to be reported at a high rate. Racist and religiously motivated offences totalled 39,643 in 2007-08, the last year for which UK statistics are available. It was 21,750 ten years ago.

Migrants are taking our jobs

The myth: "Nearly all the jobs created in the UK since 2001 have gone to immigrants – not British-born workers," claimed Sir Andrew Green, the chairman of Migration Watch.

The reality: The economic forecasters Oxford Economics said: "Migrant workers now account for 11 per cent of UK jobs. Within Europe, the UK has a lower overall migrant employment share than many developed countries, including Spain, Germany, Ireland and Sweden."

Immigrants get priority housing

The myth: "Well-meaning welfare programmes have been exploited to become nothing more than a free handout to scroungers, foreign and local," said the BNP.

The reality: A study for the Equality and Human Rights Commission in July found that 1.8 per cent of social tenants had moved to Britain within the past five years. Nearly 90 per cent were British-born.

Racist crime is on the rise

The myth: A relentless and increasing tide of racist attacks is sweeping through Britain, as the BNP and its supporters become emboldened by electoral success, according to anti-fascist campaigners.

The reality: According to Home Office reports, in 2006-07, 61,262 racist incidents were reported to the police, an increase of 3.7 per cent over the previous year. Among these, there were 42,551 racially or religiously aggravated offences, representing a 2.6 per cent increase over the previous year.

Muslims want sharia law in UK

The myth: "There are a lot of things that happen in Trafalgar Square that should not happen – the drugs, the alcohol," said the radical Muslim extremist Anjem Choudary. "Under sharia law it would be a different environment and atmosphere."

The reality: A British Muslims for Secular Democracy spokesman said: "We are proud of the heritage of this country and British heroes like Nelson and Churchill have made this country the place it is today. It reflects badly on the entire Muslim community when this group does these very aggressive activities."

London has been ethnically cleansed

The myth: BNP leader Nick Griffin argued that the Question Time audience was hostile because London had been "ethnically cleansed".

The reality: London is a cosmopolitan world city with residents from 243 different countries. Nearly 70 per cent of those are white, 60 per cent describe themselves as white British, and 70 per cent were born in the UK.

Britain faces immigration crisis

The myth: Roger Martin, chair of the think tank Optimum Population Trust, said: "Britain's population increase is out of control; we are on course for a high-density, low-quality future."

The reality: Before the recession, the number of migrants coming to Britain was roughly on a par with the number leaving Britain. The ONS immigration statistics for the year to December 2008 showed a total of 395,000 people emigrated, up 24 per cent on the year before. They included 237,000 non-Britons, many Eastern Europeans.

Money is being wasted on translation services

The myth: "Translation has been used too frequently and without thought," said the then communities secretary Ruth Kelly in 2007, and people should be encouraged to learn English.

The reality: The former head of the CRE, Trevor Phillips, said: "Translation is a way of helping people in transition to integrate into our society."

Kids don't speak English in class

The myth: According to Sir Andrew Green of Migration Watch: "There are more than 300 primary schools in which over 70 per cent of pupils have English as a second language."

The reality: Figures from the DfE in 2007 show that in inner London primary schools, 53.4 per cent spoke a dialect other than English as their main language, while in secondary schools it was 49.3. [/b]

Victoria Richards

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/the-truth-about-immigration-citizenships-granted-fall-by-35000-in-a-year-1809143.html

debosky:
Cutting down or limiting the number will not stop the UK benefiting from immigration. It is about reducing the numbers of immigrants and upskilling the UK citizens to take up the jobs dependent on migrant labour. The benefits of immigration are clear, but it must be limited to prevent causing excessive impacts on the system.

Im sorry but there is no way the UK govt are going to be able to fill those vacancies for highly skilled workers from their own indigenous workforce, they simply havent got the calibre of people required, secondly the whole point of recruiting foreigners is because its cheaper, you get a fully trained doctor and pay him less than what you would be able to pay a UK or US trained doctor, the whole point is to REDUCE labour costs not increase them, don't you think the UK govt know that there is a shortage of homegrown doctors, scientists and nuclear physicists, do you seriously think that at this point in time where the british govt are cutting public spending they will INVEST in education and training, did you not see George Osbourne's recent public spending cuts in education?

No the population is still increasing - it means the rate of increase is slowing down. There were still an additional 163,000 people added to the UK population by immigration alone, not counting births.

Okay that may be true but the bulk of these people are actually WHITE immigrants not brown or black immigrants as the Sun and Daily Mail  tell us.  Since the bulk of immigrants coming to the UK are  mainly from Ireland and other EU member states then that  means that there is nothing that the UK govt can do about it because they are under a legal obligation to let these people into their country(Article 62a of the Lisbon Treaty).

The government is reforming the benefits system as well - and a fundamental part of the immigration reform involves upskilling UK workers to take up jobs dependent on migrant labour.

The government has no intention of educating and training white working class people to take up jobs which are predominantly carried out by white middle class english people (finance and banking, medical sciences, scientific research etc) they will merely fast track many working class whites into dead end minimum wage jobs, incidentally these minimum wage jobs are currently carried out by  africans, asians and eastern europeans.  Many white working class people do not want to work in mcdonalds, pick fruit, work on factory assembly lines, when they can sit at home and have their house rent paid, receive child benefit and get a little extra pocket money to go down the pub with to have a laugh.

You should ask  yourself why there is a two tier educational system in this country - if you are middle class or wealthy and live in an affluent neighbourhood the schools in your area will be of a higher standard than the ones in a poorer neighbourhood, your children will therefore benefit from a higher standard of education than someone who was unfortunate enough to be born in a poorer area.  IN the UK the school you go to determines your level of success in british society  - notice how the current govt is made up of privately educated Oxbridge types, almost all of Cameron's cabinet ministers are products of private education. What makes you think they will want to upset the status quo?

Looking at the total population misses the point. Immigrants do not disperse evenly across the country but congregate in urban centres, changing the make up of those communities. Read up on Barking as a case study. These changes are real.

39% of new households in the next 20 years will be immigrants
http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/statistics/pdf/1172133.pdf

If that is true and i sincerely doubt that it is the case, so what ? why are white english people  afraid of immigration, the british themselves make up the bulk of immigrants in other countries around the world , have you forgotten that they migrated to what is now the united states and changed the make up of that country forever, how about canada, australia, new zealand  were those countries originally inhabited by white english people?
How about south africa which is a majority black country but run and controlled by a white dutch/english  minority.

The number of foreign born workers over 16 had doubled since 1997 from 1.9 million to 3.8 million. Of these 2.6 million came from outside the EU. source - ONS Quarterly Migrant Worker Estimates February 2009 Table 2

If those rates of the past 10 years are allowed to continue, things will get out of control.

How can things get out of control when whites still make up the majority population in this country, still run and control the economy and still favour their own indigenous people in terms of employment, housing, healthcare and education?

Pressures on housing - England is the second most crowded country in Europe, housing is in short supply and 1.5m homes will be needed to house migrants if current rates continue.

Crowding is only present in the urban areas, not in the rural areas or the small towns outside the major cities in england, how many black, asian or chinese people do you see outside london, birmingham or manchester?   A large proportion of white english people do not live in urban areas.  

Non white people are concentrated in the urban areas because that is where they are more likely to find employment, and again the jobs they are offered are the ones the whites either dont want or can't undertake because they do not have the skills.

The young white men are citizens and have a right to be in the UK - the immigrants don't have such a right by birth. In any case, the focus on immigration to fill in job slots has led to the neglect of youth training leading to ballooning youth unemployment. That needs to be addressed.

Yes but the fact that they are UK citizens doesnt exempt them from working for a living, why should immigrants be working and paying tax to support these loafers?

As i have said earlier immigrant labour is cheaper and enables UK owned businesses to make record profits as they are able to pay immigrants lower wages than those they would be forced to pay to their own indigenous workforce.  
the benefits systems serves as an alternative to many british people, they are not forced into taking the low paid jobs that immigrants have to take as they can fall back on the benefits system, most immigrants are barred from claiming benefits and have no choice than to work for low wages, this is precisely why the govt is now "restructuring" the benefits system , the intention is to force many working class whites who have preferred to be on benefit rather than work for starvation wages into these jobs.

Let everyone go out to work for a living - immigration while good, needs to be controlled properly to continue to be beneficial both to existing immigrants and future ones.

It is already being controlled, the latest announcement of a cap on non EU immigration is nothing more than a publicity stunt being used by the current govt to divert attention away from the real issues that many white workign class people will be battling in the near future ie  imminent job cuts, rising unemployment, increase in living costs and cuts in health care services and education.  
the immigration card is always played by the UK govt when the standard of living of its people starts to fall.

debosky:
I disagree with this - when you look at non-EU immigration, both students, workers and dependants, their numbers are greater than EU immigration. You CANNOT avoid the issue of non-EU immigration because this is the ONLY section of the immigrant population that can be controlled by the UK government.

Non EU immigration is already subject to immigration control under labour's points based system which was introduced in 2008 , now the UK is obliged to allow only the best brains in from the "third world" ie doctors, scientists, academics and other groups that add value to the economy of any nation, in other words they have shut the door on the victims of their exploitative economic policies imposed by institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank  and are welcoming in only the cream of the crop who will help in building up their economies.

The  UK NEEDS non EU immigration - historically this country's economic development has been dependant on foreign labour - if anything the cap on non EU immigration will damage the UK economy as the bulk of people who fall into this category are educated professionals - doctors, scientists, academics etc, they have already been trained and educated in their countries of origin and the UK does not have to invest any further spending in equipping them for their jobs, Britain does not have enough skilled and highly educated people because of its entrenched racism and class discrimination, the bulk of its population are uneducated and unskilled.
Their govt know this but in a bid to pander to racist far right groups they pretend as if immigrants are taking away white british people's jobs, the truth is the majority of white british people are not equipped to take up highly skilled jobs because their govt does not want to spend money educating the so called lower classes - they would rather use foreign workers and when there is no longer any use for the foreign worker they dump them and in some cases repartriate them.

This is not true net migration in 2007 was 237,000, 2008 was 163,000, so where you get the number of those coming in being lower than those leaving is surprising to me.

Hang on a second you say that net migration - and by net migration you mean the difference between those coming in and those leaving was 237,000 in 2007 and was 163,00 in 2008 - surely that means the current numbers of people RESIDENT  in this country are actually FALLING as opposed to RISING?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8380367.stm

Partly, but not wholly so - it cannot be the creation of the media that certain boroughs in London have close to 70% of people in work there born OUTSIDE Britain. That is a significant issue that does need to be addressed.

But what sort of work are these people employed in?  is it the sort of work the average british person would want?
consider the fact that many young white men  PREFER to remain on benefits rather than work as fruit pickers, these are young able bodied white  men with little or no qualifications but feel that it is their birthright to go on the dole rather than work, how many young immigrant men do you know that would prefer to stay on the dole rather than work.  Infact many immigrants by law CAN NOT claim state benefits as the law prevents them from doing so.

You cannot dismiss the concerns of people as immigration changes the UK at a faster rate than ever before, adding a city the size of Birmingham to the UK every 10 years from immigration alone.

In what way? what is the percentage of immigrants in this country in comparison to the white english population?

According to the last census conducted in 2001, 92% of the population of this country was white and born in the UK while 8% was foreign born, of this 8% over  53%   were born in europe with the republic of ireland constituting the highest number of foreign born immigrants, the next largest ethnic groups for people born overseas were Indian (569,800) and Pakistani (336,400). 

I am therefore at a loss to see how the supposed influx of immigrants is changing britain.

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=1312

With the pressures within the system and the mistakes made in the past by not limiting EU immigration, there is no option but to focus on non EU immigration.

What pressures on the system?

how many immigrants do you know that claim state benefits, by contrast young white men prefer to remain on the dole rather than work for minimum wage, who is placing more pressure on the system?

who is really milking the benefit system in this country? - feckless white working class men and women who refuse to take minimum wage jobs or african/asian immigrants?  Who do you think are employed in fruit picking and other manual labour jobs in this country young white (uneducated) british men and women or eastern european immigrants?

The truth of the matter is the white british people are lazy, they prefer to sit at home and let the state provide them with a rent free home whilst also paying for the upkeep of their (in many cases illegitimate children), well, their govt has decided that they are going to treat them in the same way that they have been treating immigrants for years they are now going to have to go out there and actually earn a living as opposed to letting the tax payer pay for their upkeep.