Togo Wants Bush to Overthrow Their Leader... - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 02-11-2005, 01:20 PM   #1
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 03:33 PM
Togo Wants Bush to Overthrow Their Leader...

...but since the country has no oil, does that mean Bush will leave this dictator in power?

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/africa....ap/index.html

Quote:
Tensions rise with Togo neighbors
West African leaders decline Togo's invitation to meet


LOME, Togo (AP) -- Security forces used tear gas and batons to scatter hundreds of opposition demonstrators Friday, and tension heightened between Togo and its neighbors over what West African and other leaders call a Togolese military coup d'etat.

Five West African leaders refused an invitation to Togo's northern city of Kara for a meeting with Togo authorities on ending the constitutional crisis, saying they preferred to meet in the capital, Lome, instead. The leaders then offered to meet Togo officials in Niger.

Togolese leaders never explained why they wanted to meet in Kara, but the capital has be beset by unrest in recent days and Kara is a stronghold of the Gnassingbes.

Hundreds of people gathered early Friday in the capital's southern neighborhood of Be, a dusty, overcrowded area long a stronghold of opposition against dictator Gnassingbe Eyadema, who died Saturday.

Demonstrators angered by the iron-fisted military's installation of Eyadema's son, Faure Gnassingbe, as president blocked the roads with tires and set them ablaze, singing as they danced around the flames.

The crowd of mostly students called on the United States to help weed out Gnassingbe before a new era of military tyranny has time to sink roots in this small West African country.

"We are launching an appeal to the USA to help us fight this regime," said Kofi Awokou, a 30-year-old mechanic. "We want George Bush to give us guns or call in the army to sack the president."


All around him, teenagers in sunglasses -- and even an old woman -- performed a synchronized dance, with movements mimicking the act of mowing down enemies with machine guns.

"We know how to shoot," Awokou said. "We are ready to fight."

Opposition leaders say at least 10 people were injured by police. The number could not be independently verified.

The White House on Thursday called on Togo to move quickly toward free national elections. President Bush strongly supports efforts by the African Union and the Economic Community of West African States to promote a democratic transfer of power, White House press secretary Scott McClellan said.

On Friday, two French reporters and a photographer were arrested while covering the demonstrations. The journalists asked The Associated Press not to identify them or their organization.

The West African delegation intended to pressure Gnassingbe to hand over power to the speaker of parliament and arrange new elections, as had been specified in the constitution before the army installed Gnassingbe last week.

The delegation was formed during Wednesday's emergency summit of the 15-nation Economic Community of West African States. The ECOWAS leaders declared that the Togolese military had committed a coup d'etat in anointing Gnassingbe on Saturday, hours after his father died of a heart attack.

On Friday, the presidents of Nigeria, Mali, Niger, Ghana and Benin met in Benin's commercial capital, Cotonou, with the speaker of Togo's parliament, Fanbare Natchaba.

"The heads of state meeting at Cotonou ask President (Mamadou) Tandja of Niger to invite the Togolese authorities to Niamey" on Saturday, the statement said.

They wanted to advise Togo authorities "of the positions of ECOWAS on the Togolese situation," the statement said. "If these authorities do not show up for the reunion, they risk sanctions."

The 52-nation African Union, which has been trying to shed the continent's legacy of despots seizing power through the barrel of a gun, also has threatened to impose sanctions on Togo.

The protests in Lome were the result of a call Thursday by opposition leader Harry Olympio, who went into hiding this week, fearful that he is being hunted by police.

"I'm calling on Togo's people to stand up for themselves," Olympio said in a telephone interview from an undisclosed location. "We will continue to fight and apply pressure until there is a rightful leader in Togo. What we have now is a coup d'etat."

Olympio is a nephew of Togo's first president, Sylvanus Olympio, who was killed at the gates of the U.S. Embassy in a 1963 coup that brought Eyadema to power. He runs the opposition party Rally for the Support of Democracy and Development with his cousin, Gilchrist Olympio, who lives in exile in Paris and is the son of the first president.

At the Olympio home in Be, the leader's wife and three children were visibly shaken, fearful of being targeted by government forces. Near their front door, a man beaten by police sat with bandages around his head.

"I fear for my children," said Michelle Olympio, sitting on the front porch of their home, where the smell of burning tires wafted through the air.

Eyadema's security forces were accused of killing hundreds of protesters and opposition members during his 38 years in power. Despite their losing history against the riot brigades, the opposition keeps pressing.

On Friday, police chased packs of demonstrators down the dirt roads, firing tear gas whenever they lingered to form a crowd.

"Where is George Bush?" screamed one passing man.
Of course, who am I trying to fool? We all know that the United States wants nothing to do with military action in Africa. But if Iraq was all about "installing freedom" and not oil, why does he only seem to pay attention to oil-rich dictatorships?

Melon
__________________

__________________
melon is offline  
Old 02-11-2005, 01:28 PM   #2
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
coemgen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Black and White Town
Posts: 3,962
Local Time: 03:33 PM
How about Bush and this guy get in the ring and duke it out and we see who wins. Either way, it sounds like the world just may be a better place.

I'd like to see more action in Sudan myself.
__________________

__________________
coemgen is offline  
Old 02-11-2005, 01:38 PM   #3
War Child
 
Do Miss America's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: In Ryan's Pocket
Posts: 738
Local Time: 02:33 PM
I agree with you 100% Melon.
__________________
Do Miss America is offline  
Old 02-11-2005, 02:23 PM   #4
Acrobat
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 442
Local Time: 08:33 PM
OK I GIVE UP.... IT'S ALL ABOUT THE BLOOD FOR OIL...... PURE AND SIMPLE........VENEZUELA- YOU'RE NEXT................. AND ALL YOU CARIBOU UP IN ANWAR- LOOK OUT!!!!!
__________________
drhark is offline  
Old 02-11-2005, 02:33 PM   #5
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 03:33 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by drhark
OK I GIVE UP.... IT'S ALL ABOUT THE BLOOD FOR OIL...... PURE AND SIMPLE........VENEZUELA- YOU'RE NEXT................. AND ALL YOU CARIBOU UP IN ANWAR- LOOK OUT!!!!!
No need to be histrionic. I just wish the Bush Administration be honest: Iraq is a strategically placed nation, where a U.S. friendly government would be to American interests. Iraq has oil, yes, but it also provoked Israel on a regular basis.

Additionally, the main gripe of Al Qaeda is of the military presence in the Arabian Peninsula. Deputy Secretary of Defense, Paul Wolfowitz, quite frankly stated that they wanted to "liberate" Iraq, so they could establish permanent military bases in Iraq and ease pressure off of Saudi Arabia, which they know inflames terrorism (he also said that WMDs were just an excuse that "everyone could agree upon." I guess honesty isn't a moral value.). It's also in line with PNAC's pre-9/11 agenda, which Wolfowitz and much of the Bush Administration are a part of.

So why won't Bush "liberate" Togo? Because there's nothing in it for American interests. I say that if you're going to reduce everything as to whether or not America gains economic and strategic benefits, then be honest and say so. Cut the crap about "spreading freedom" and tell the truth. Or are we ashamed to admit the truth?

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 02-11-2005, 02:45 PM   #6
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 12:33 PM
If I recall correctly, this is a result of Togo's president passing away a few days ago and the installation of the president's son. It does not appear that a succession of power plan was in place and respected by all.

I'm not sure the US should police every transfer of power and action in Togo does not appear to have "ripened" to the point of military action (despite the cries of a few protesting teen agers).

That being said, if we list all the potential military actions we could take, I think it is fair to incorporate the strategic value to the US to rank said actions.

The UN is welcome to create their own list and take their own action.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 02-11-2005, 02:58 PM   #7
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,661
Local Time: 02:33 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader

I'm not sure the US should police every transfer of power and action in Togo does not appear to have "ripened" to the point of military action (despite the cries of a few protesting teen agers).

That being said, if we list all the potential military actions we could take, I think it is fair to incorporate the strategic value to the US to rank said actions.

The UN is welcome to create their own list and take their own action.
Once again comes back to why not the U.S? Bush is the one speaking about spreading democracy, freedom, etc. not the U.N.

We found out there are no WMD, so now all Bush supporters have twisted it around to sound like we went in there for pure altruistic reasons. Sounds hypocritical to say let the UN take care of the others.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 02-11-2005, 05:23 PM   #8
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 06:33 AM
No country is ever altruistic ~ there always has to be something at stake for action to be taken, I think that there is an issue of political will and strategic gains. It would be useless for the US to spend its time liberating every tinpot dictatorship in Africa where it has nothing to gain (leave that to the French) but if it focuses its power both soft and hard on countries where change can be brought about. The real race against the clock is to reform much of the Muslim Middle East and it will not be done with millitary prowess alone ~ the Mullah's in Iran could be toppled by a US backed popular revolution, Jordan and Egypt could be forced to reform more quickly, the PA may wind up fighting terrorism all as flow on effects from the invasion of Iraq. What does Togo offer? fuck all, the US would get rid of the son and stick in some new democratic leader who would become the next dictator and they will have to do it all over again in a decade.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 02-12-2005, 03:25 PM   #9
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 01:33 PM
Re: Togo Wants Bush to Overthrow Their Leader...

Quote:
Originally posted by melon
...but since the country has no oil, does that mean Bush will leave this dictator in power?

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/africa....ap/index.html



Of course, who am I trying to fool? We all know that the United States wants nothing to do with military action in Africa. But if Iraq was all about "installing freedom" and not oil, why does he only seem to pay attention to oil-rich dictatorships?

Melon
Bush has did more for the entire continent of Africa then Bill Clinton did for Rwanda.

db9
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 02-12-2005, 03:47 PM   #10
Acrobat
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 442
Local Time: 08:33 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon


No need to be histrionic. I just wish the Bush Administration be honest: Iraq is a strategically placed nation, where a U.S. friendly government would be to American interests. Iraq has oil, yes, but it also provoked Israel on a regular basis.

Additionally, the main gripe of Al Qaeda is of the military presence in the Arabian Peninsula. Deputy Secretary of Defense, Paul Wolfowitz, quite frankly stated that they wanted to "liberate" Iraq, so they could establish permanent military bases in Iraq and ease pressure off of Saudi Arabia, which they know inflames terrorism (he also said that WMDs were just an excuse that "everyone could agree upon." I guess honesty isn't a moral value.). It's also in line with PNAC's pre-9/11 agenda, which Wolfowitz and much of the Bush Administration are a part of.

OK, now we can talk.

Yes, we have strategic interests in the Middle East, of which oil is a big part. A stable Middle East is in our best interest. In addition to oil, there is our alliance with Israel, the only stable democracy in the region. Add to that the threat of terrorism in the post 9/11 world which originates in the region. Add to that a number of dictators, the worst of which tortured and killed thousands, used chemical weapons, started wars, invaded neighbors, etc.

There are many reasons we need a stable Middle East, and oil is right there among them.

So looking at the whole picture, this region (that we depend on to be stable) is so fucked up, one would wonder how to achieve long term stability.

Bush's solution to this is introducing freedom to the region. It's not a sure thing, but he's betting on the idea that humans have a desire to control their own destiny. The status quo was going nowhere. Were there any other bright ideas out there? Talks? yeah right. Sanctions? only work if the leader gives a shit about his people. So for lack of a better idea, Bush chose war and liberation as a plan for ultimate peace.

So I apologize for the histrionics, but to condense this complex issue into blood fot oil is just fucking juvenile. I tired of hearing it. Can you imagine protesting Carter with "no peace talks for oil" signs? Or "No seling out Israel for oil"?

Wolfowitz is the Deputy SOD, an advisor to Bush. He is not Bush and his words shouldn't be put in Bush's mouth.

Quote:
Originally posted by melon

So why won't Bush "liberate" Togo? Because there's nothing in it for American interests. I say that if you're going to reduce everything as to whether or not America gains economic and strategic benefits, then be honest and say so. Cut the crap about "spreading freedom" and tell the truth. Or are we ashamed to admit the truth?

Melon
Let's all be honest: We went to war to depose Saddam and liberate the Iraqis, with the ultimate goal of spreading democracy, which will foster any chance of prosperity, decrease the conditions for terrorism, stabilizing the region thus preserving our national interests which of course include oil.

Democracy is the only alternative to a mushroom cloud in that region.

Unless you can think of a better idea.
__________________
drhark is offline  
Old 02-12-2005, 03:59 PM   #11
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,661
Local Time: 02:33 PM
Re: Re: Togo Wants Bush to Overthrow Their Leader...

Quote:
Originally posted by diamond


Bush has did more for the entire continent of Africa then Bill Clinton did for Rwanda.

db9
Please inform me on what Bush has done.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 02-12-2005, 04:03 PM   #12
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 03:33 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by drhark
Wolfowitz is the Deputy SOD, an advisor to Bush. He is not Bush and his words shouldn't be put in Bush's mouth.
I have my doubts that Bush formulates any of his own policy. His foreign policy tends to mirror PNAC, and his domestic policy mirrors the U.S. Chamber of Congress. Iraq? PNAC. Social Security reform? U.S. Chamber of Congress.

Thus, it is perfectly relevant to mention his administration officials.

Quote:
Let's all be honest: We went to war to depose Saddam and liberate the Iraqis, with the ultimate goal of spreading democracy, which will foster any chance of prosperity, decrease the conditions for terrorism, stabilizing the region thus preserving our national interests which of course include oil.

Democracy is the only alternative to a mushroom cloud in that region.

Unless you can think of a better idea.
Personally, I think "freedom" is a front. What we really want is a U.S. friendly government. If that happens to be a democracy, then so be it. If it happens to be a dictatorship or royal family, then so be it.

Ignoring Africa for a second, Saudi Arabia is probably one of the most fucked up nations in the Middle East. After the Taliban in Afghanistan, I don't know of any other Islamic nation that teaches such an extreme and fanatical form of Islam that Saudi Arabia does. In fact, it is said that the Taliban's ideology came from Saudi Arabia! Not to mention all the terrorists that seem to come from Saudi Arabia, including a certain Osama bin Laden.

But I know perfectly well why Bush won't target Saudi Arabia. The nation invests over $1 trillion into the U.S. economy. We also want their oil. And we also cannot forget how "tight" the Bush family is with the House of Saud.

Watching the U.S. ignore Saudi Arabia, while targeting other nations is tantamount to ignoring the root of the terrorism problem. We can "liberate Iraq" and "blow up Iran" all we want, but as long as Saudi Arabia is ignored, we will always have a terrorism problem.

That's why I think Bush is full of shit.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 02-12-2005, 04:52 PM   #13
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 08:33 PM
Re: Togo Wants Bush to Overthrow Their Leader...

Quote:
Originally posted by melon
...but since the country has no oil, does that mean Bush will leave this dictator in power?

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/africa....ap/index.html



Of course, who am I trying to fool? We all know that the United States wants nothing to do with military action in Africa. But if Iraq was all about "installing freedom" and not oil, why does he only seem to pay attention to oil-rich dictatorships?

Melon
The Persian Gulf Region has been vital to global security because of its vast energy reserves that the planet has grown increasingly dependent on as the world continues to rapidly grow economically.

It was President Roosevelt that started the United States deep involvement with the Arab countries in the Persian Gulf back in the 1940s. Ever since World War II, the Persian Gulf region has been one of the most important regions of the world from an international security stand point. Only Western Europe during the Cold War has topped it in importance.

Any thing that threatens Persian Gulf Energy supply is a serious concern because of the immediate disasterous effect the sabotage or siezure of theat supply could have on the entire planet.

The United States and Allies do not have the resources to overturn every undemocratic government on the planet, but they do have the resources to act in area's and regions where international security is at stake.

As terrible as the problems in Togo may be, they do not impact the entire planet to the degree that situations in the Persian Gulf do.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 02-12-2005, 04:56 PM   #14
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 08:33 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


Once again comes back to why not the U.S? Bush is the one speaking about spreading democracy, freedom, etc. not the U.N.

We found out there are no WMD, so now all Bush supporters have twisted it around to sound like we went in there for pure altruistic reasons. Sounds hypocritical to say let the UN take care of the others.
We failed to find WMD, but that does not change the fact that Saddam failed to verifiably disarm of all WMD and failed to meet the conditions of the 1991 Gulf War ceacefire agreement, which authorized military action if Saddam failed to meet the stated conditions.

The need to remove Saddam because of the threat he posed to the region and the world still stands.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 02-12-2005, 05:12 PM   #15
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 08:33 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon


I have my doubts that Bush formulates any of his own policy. His foreign policy tends to mirror PNAC, and his domestic policy mirrors the U.S. Chamber of Congress. Iraq? PNAC. Social Security reform? U.S. Chamber of Congress.

Thus, it is perfectly relevant to mention his administration officials.



Personally, I think "freedom" is a front. What we really want is a U.S. friendly government. If that happens to be a democracy, then so be it. If it happens to be a dictatorship or royal family, then so be it.

Ignoring Africa for a second, Saudi Arabia is probably one of the most fucked up nations in the Middle East. After the Taliban in Afghanistan, I don't know of any other Islamic nation that teaches such an extreme and fanatical form of Islam that Saudi Arabia does. In fact, it is said that the Taliban's ideology came from Saudi Arabia! Not to mention all the terrorists that seem to come from Saudi Arabia, including a certain Osama bin Laden.

But I know perfectly well why Bush won't target Saudi Arabia. The nation invests over $1 trillion into the U.S. economy. We also want their oil. And we also cannot forget how "tight" the Bush family is with the House of Saud.

Watching the U.S. ignore Saudi Arabia, while targeting other nations is tantamount to ignoring the root of the terrorism problem. We can "liberate Iraq" and "blow up Iran" all we want, but as long as Saudi Arabia is ignored, we will always have a terrorism problem.

That's why I think Bush is full of shit.

Melon
It was President Roosevelt that started the US relationship with Saudi Arabia and every US administration has been good friends with the House of Saud since President Roosevelt was in office. Saudi Arabia over the past 60 years has also been a good ally and has supported the United States and its allies in every single operation it has launched in the Persian Gulf Region over the past 60 years.

Al Quada though is not representive of what most Saudi officials and citizens think or believe. Bin Ladin is the one that made sure most of the terrorist involved with 9/11 were Saudi's in order to plant the illusion that America's biggest enemy is in fact Saudi Arabia. One of Bin Ladin's chief goals is to end the relationship that the United States and Saudi Arabia have had for the past 60 years. So far he has failed in doing this, but he certainly has got millions of people thinking that all Saudi's are terrorist and has definitely planted seeds of doubt in many peoples heads about the Saudi's.

Saudi Arabia indeed is a backward country in many ways, but most people there do not have in interest in being a suicide bomber or becoming involved in any form of terrorism. They like the money and the technology that their relationship with the United Sates and its Allies has brought them and don't want to return to the middle ages as Bin Ladin would like.

The United States has had a strong political and military relationship with Saudi Arabia since 1945, so these idea's that Al Quada exist because 5,000 US troops were stationed in Saudi Arabia after the 1st Gulf War is rubbish. This brand of terrorism did not start in 1991.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:33 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com