![]() |
|
1
9th February 00:06
External User
Posts: 1
|
**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****
------------------- ------------------------------- Ivory Coast Opposition Party Quits Gov't Associated Press, ABIDJAN, Ivory Coast, Mar 4 - A leading opposition party pulled its ministers from Ivory Coast's power-sharing government on Thursday, charging that President Laurent Gbagbo was destabilizing the west African nation's shaky peace deal. The Democratic Party of Ivory Coast decided its seven ministers would boycott the transitional government arranged under a January 2003 peace deal to "protest against Gbagbo's acts of aggression and humiliation," against the bloc, said its spokesman, Maurice Kakou. "Gbagbo's destabilizing the peace process," he said in Abidjan, the commercial capital of the world's largest cocoa producer. He did not say what would induce the ministers back to the cabinet. Minister of Reconciliation Dano Djedje — a Gbagbo ally — said the boycotting ministers are the ones threatening the peace process. ---------------------------- Comment: Similar events unfolded in Haiti recently - with political power-seeking priests of the (white) churches(!) and the foreign-funded(!) civic bodies insisting (with support from foreign powers) that they would not seek a diplomatic negotiation and that the democratically-elected leader must go. So much for those who peddle 'democracy'. The foreign whites, of the 'democracy and good governance' stripes, insist that the (white-sponsored) opposition thugs in African countries must be in power too - or else. Now, why should the opposition be in power? OK. Perhaps it is a good thing and we may assume that the whites want a good thing for themselves too. Why don't the Africans/third-worlders insist that the white countries MUST also include their opposition in the government? In the USA, the democrats, greens and communists would just love to be in charge at the justice and education and housing and commerce and environment ministries/departments. Of course it wouldn't work - because the agenda of the two political parties are (diametrically opposed and) different in significant ways. We know that it wouldn't work in Africa either - since many of their structures are fashioned after our western political systems. And THAT is why we push this idiotic treachery in Africa. Cursed? Maybe. But, NO. We are just looking out for OUR survival that is predicated on continued availability, and unchallenged access to, Africa's fabulous wealth. The longer the Africans are pre-occupied with in-fighting and white-sponsored civil wars, the less demand, and time they will have, for harnessing their resources for THEIR own development and the cheaper we will have the resources in exchange for old arms to both sides of the conflict. Of course they cannot have an indigenous arms industry or chemical industry or nuclear arms industry that may challenge us now or in the future. Brutality of summary executions, rape and social dislocation takes care of the emergence of any upstarts in the wealthy African countries. 'War on terrorism' takes care of the locals that may challenge us in the relatively calmer African countries ... We still maintain the control on African countries. And damn it: between standing still and fleeing away lightning-fast, what approach would the hungry lion FORCE the obedient(stupid) antelopes to adopt? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= *** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! *** http://www.usenet.com Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= |
|
|
SPONSORED LINKS BY GOOGLE |
|
SPONSORED LINKS BY GOOGLE |
|
|