Why Are Black-Led Countries Doing So Badly?

[Archie68]

Re: Why Are Black-Led Countries Doing So Badly?

Now we have advocasy for increased military spending when we are beyond broke; we are borrowing to pay interest. Do I need to prove it. My magazines are waiting to liquidate your answer.

What is your point? Jamaica should spend more to have a bigger military? TO do what? Why borrow money for a bigger military? Why the additional debt?

This what annoys me about this man, he rant without thinking and claims to make a point and be clever.

People like him are the reason Jamaica is a wreck. We borrow for highways when we cannot afford oil? Why not spend our limited coin on things that reduce oil consumption.

These are "brains" that think for us. This is why we fail. We have a man advocating more debt to do nothing but buy arms against enemies he cannot identify or describe. Jamaica just "needs" a more advanced military.

What trash. The race needs a purge.

[johnnycakes]

Re: Why Are Black-Led Countries Doing So Badly?

Wolmersboy,
"What do the black led countries do given the conditions forced upon them by the First World /capitalist imperialists?

They have to do what Cuba has done or perhaps what Venezuela has done in taking back their resources.
The question though is very complex. The poorest of the poor and the countries that have been desertified or massively indebted or are lacking in any major natural resources are screwed, they are doomed to perpetual and worsening human conditions.
What is required is a union of states that can help one another in what they each lack. A sharing of the world's resources.

Look, I can't see any other way but a world with a democratic government and more importantly, a socialist economy.

There is no other way to end the tens of millions of deaths that occur yearly in the poor Third World countries in Africa and elsewhere from starvation, curable disease, lack of drinkable water and the other effects of poverty.

Cubans make about $2800.00US per year yet they all have enough to eat, education, healthcare, a safe living environment.
They could not do it in a capitalist economy where the top 5% or so own and get about 80% of the wealth.

There is enough of everything in the world to provide a decent life for every man, woman and child on the planet but it will not happen, cannot happen under capitalism and especially the U.S free market style, the so-called neo-liberal economy that has so impoverished the Third World.

I cannot see any other way of achieving a decent life for all, a much better life.

Fortunately, the empire that is the United States is on the decline and cannot even deal with militarilyl second rate countries like Afghanistan and Iraq so movements toward independence from the empire and it's wicked ways such as is taking place all over Latin America is far more a possibility than anytime in the past 60 years or so.

It would be a good time for some African Fidel Castros and Hugo Chavez's and Evo Morales to rise up and lead the African nations to a better future.

[Dyoll_73]

Re: Why Are Black-Led Countries Doing So Badly?

Save the "workers of the world unite" speech. Despite Cuba's achievements in literacy/education and healthcare, it remains frozen in time - to the year 1959 to be specific.

Adopting a purely socialist model for Jamaica is just as detrimental as crude capitalism, if not worse. I will concede certain benefits of the welfare state - free/affordable education and universal health care, two essential components of human resource development, the platform upon which productivity is manifested. I will also add that I advocate public ownership of certain natural resources from which come great wealth: bauxite (in Jamaica's case, and in the case of other countries, oil, gold, diamonds, etc). These resources, if properly managed, will provide revenues for government as it provides education, healthcare, roads, irrigation, transportation, and other physical infratructure. A country such as Jamaica must re-negotiate those bauxite deals to ensure that Jamaica receive a greater share of those revenues, at the very least, as it moves toward full ownership of those resources.

Other than that, a vibrant private sector is needed in creating jobs, providing innovation, and being the engine of growth for the economy. A critical component here is having a skilled labor force available. Unfortunately, Jamaica is in urgent need of improvement in this regard. I'm talking about a labor force that is suitable for jobs in science and technology, the areas that will yield the greatest economic dividends, and lift Jamaica out of its poverty, and not just cheap jobs such as waitresses and cooks in the tourism sector. And this is where education and training is important (something which socialist countries such as Cuba and China are smart to emphasize). If Jamaica is serious about real development, it has to think on a grand scale, beyond tourism. The economy has to driven by a robust private sector with respect to job creation. If not, what is the alternative, a bloated public sector, an elephantine beaurocracy, maintained by taxpayers? Of course it would require a strong government to ensure that while Jamaica attracts investments, especially those from abroad, that there are safeguards with respect to labor standards, conditions of work, environmental impact, etc.

[Dyoll_73]

Re: Why Are Black-Led Countries Doing So Badly?

[ QUOTE ]
I merely added another very important huedel to achieving real economic growth be black politically led countries.
Do you realize that Jamaica is restricted from increasing their military strength,by treatie demands of their former colonizers and other developed countries?
Did you know that even an attempt by countries like Jamaica to update the weapons of the military is seen as agression by these well armed developed countries?
The same goes all wlack led countries. countries like Australia,New zealand and other former colonies are not onlt free to hold the most advance arnament,but are encouraged. south Africa is a case,where while it was white controlled politically,theywere allowed to have neuclear weapons. On the country achieving majority rule all those weapons were taken away from the country.
What enemy has change their level of agression towaRDS THE COUNTRY?
Just as black citizens in all countries are restricted from holding licensed fire arms,black politically led countries are also restricted from adequate defence of their country.
Anyway this is for another post.

[/ QUOTE ]

Suddenly, I start thinking about some impoverished country in Sub-Sahara Africa where people are starving, and dying of disease but the embeciles in power are more interested in buying guns (from their former colonial masters in Europe, or American arms dealers) instead of providing food and medicine.

It might be a good thing for Jamaica to dismantle the Jamaica Defense Force (JDF). The Engineering Unit could be incorporated into the the civilian Office of Disaster Preparedness and Emergency Management (ODPEM). The few helicopters in the Air Wing could be given to the Police or the Fire Department, and be used for surveilance, or for providing emergency medical assistance or evacuations. The one plane they have (an old plane; I've seen photographs of it) could be placed at the museum at the Institute of Jamaica, provided they have the space to keep it. The existing Coast Guard unit could function as a division of the Police, perhaps under the Narcotics Division to intercept drug operations. Some personnel from the army could be used to bolster the Eradication Squad ,ACID, Special Anti-Crime Task Force or whatever they call it these days.

Of course, I'm mindful that any Prime Minister might view this as an invitation for a coup. Most PMs usually hold on the Defense Portfolio.

[Dr.Dudd]

Re: Why Are Black-Led Countries Doing So Badly?

[ QUOTE ]


Suddenly, I start thinking about some impoverished country in Sub-Sahara Africa where people are starving, and dying of disease but the embeciles in power are more interested in buying guns (from their former colonial masters in Europe, or American arms dealers) instead of providing food and medicine.

It might be a good thing for Jamaica to dismantle the Jamaica Defense Force (JDF). The Engineering Unit could be incorporated into the the civilian Office of Disaster Preparedness and Emergency Management (ODPEM). The few helicopters in the Air Wing could be given to the Police or the Fire Department, and be used for surveilance, or for providing emergency medical assistance or evacuations. The one plane they have (an old plane; I've seen photographs of it) could be placed at the museum at the Institute of Jamaica, provided they have the space to keep it. The existing Coast Guard unit could function as a division of the Police, perhaps under the Narcotics Division to intercept drug operations. Some personnel from the army could be used to bolster the Eradication Squad ,ACID, Special Anti-Crime Task Force or whatever they call it these days.

Of course, I'm mindful that any Prime Minister might view this as an invitation for a coup. Most PMs usually hold on the Defense Portfolio.

[/ QUOTE ]
Just as how it was a good thing when Haiti dismantled it's military??
Incidentally I was not suggesting that Jamaica develop a larger or more sophisticated military.
I was just explaining that other countries place restrictions on Jamaica regarding the size of it's military with the view that as long as any country cannot defend itself against them,they are free to control their economy through the minority elite in place there to effect this on their behalf.
Jamaica does not need a larger military. It need free access of legal firearms to it's citizenery.
Why would this make a difference?
..because with the same access to fire arms as the parasitic elite.The equasion will be more balanced,that's all.
In every country where th emajority have easy access to legal fire arms, they are in controls their economy and it florishes.
This won't happen in Jamaica though,because it would mean a drastic change in the opportunities in th eeconomy and the entrenched parasites that send every dollr of their earnongs to the economies of their masters.
They can't have that,noooooo.

[Dyoll_73]

Re: Why Are Black-Led Countries Doing So Badly?

[ QUOTE ]
Just as how it was a good thing when Haiti dismantled it's military??
Incidentally I was not suggesting that Jamaica develop a larger or more sophisticated military.
I was just explaining that other countries place restrictions on Jamaica regarding the size of it's military with the view that as long as any country cannot defend itself against them,they are free to control their economy through the minority elite in place there to effect this on their behalf.
Jamaica does not need a larger military. It need free access of legal firearms to it's citizenery.
Why would this make a difference?
..because with the same access to fire arms as the parasitic elite.The equasion will be more balanced,that's all.
In every country where th emajority have easy access to legal fire arms, they are in controls their economy and it florishes.
This won't happen in Jamaica though,because it would mean a drastic change in the opportunities in th eeconomy and the entrenched parasites that send every dollr of their earnongs to the economies of their masters.
They can't have that,noooooo.

[/ QUOTE ]

There was a breakdown in law and order in Haiti even before the dismantling of the military. The military in Haiti was an instrument of oppression. Many of the mullato leaders came from its ranks. But I take your point, though, on arming the citizenry.

[Dr.Dudd]

Re: Why Are Black-Led Countries Doing So Badly?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Just as how it was a good thing when Haiti dismantled it's military??
Incidentally I was not suggesting that Jamaica develop a larger or more sophisticated military.
I was just explaining that other countries place restrictions on Jamaica regarding the size of it's military with the view that as long as any country cannot defend itself against them,they are free to control their economy through the minority elite in place there to effect this on their behalf.
Jamaica does not need a larger military. It need free access of legal firearms to it's citizenery.
Why would this make a difference?
..because with the same access to fire arms as the parasitic elite.The equasion will be more balanced,that's all.
In every country where th emajority have easy access to legal fire arms, they are in controls their economy and it florishes.
This won't happen in Jamaica though,because it would mean a drastic change in the opportunities in th eeconomy and the entrenched parasites that send every dollr of their earnongs to the economies of their masters.
They can't have that,noooooo.

[/ QUOTE ]

There was a breakdown in law and order in Haiti even before the dismantling of the military. The military in Haiti was an instrument of oppression. Many of the mullato leaders came from its ranks. But I take your point, though, on arming the citizenry.

[/ QUOTE ]
I can see that you have no clue about the theory of goverment.

rule of law 101.
any situation where in which a country finds itself with a monopoly type security force,it will be run at the whims and fancy of who ever influences that leader.
You want to tell me that eve after the recent 'sick out' by the police force we still have educated people recommending a single security force as in the police?
Then if the educated is doing this,i have to question who paying them to push such destructive policy in th emedia. i am sure that the people who are suggesting this are not that ignorant of reality,so I have to accept that they are paid to do so.
every successful governing countrty has multiple levels and pluralities of security force.
That is why although the presidents have been assasinated,the military has never take control of the copuntry. the reason is that there are too many securirty heads,and they will never get a consensus,or abbillity to nutralize those who may not agree.
There is no cheap way to properly run acountry.
Just as irrespective of how small th eperson they still need two legs to walk. irrespective of how poor a country is,they need at least two seperate security force.
To th enieve who will ask what wars have the JDF fought. MY question is, do you cancel your insurance because you had no claims?
Or do you leave your house open,because no burgler tried to come in?
Deterrence is an idea that only the thoughful recognizes it before the need arise.

[Dyoll_73]

Re: Why Are Black-Led Countries Doing So Badly?

The JDF, as it currently exists, can effectively put down an uprising in Jamaica if called upon to do so. But what external threats can it deal with? Who is it capable of fighting? Sure, maybe Antigua, the so-called "Caribbean Tigers" - Barbados and Trinidad, except that those countries are unlikely to wage military aggression against Jamaica. The more likely aggressors may be its giant neighbor to the north, and those across the atlantic.

A single security force is all that is neccesary for Jamaica. A dual (or multi) layer security apparatus is quite frankly a waste of resources. But this you call "rule of law 101" - I must have have been sleeping through my poli sci classes. Forgive me, but this is educated nonsense.

[niceniss]

Re: Why Are Black-Led Countries Doing So Badly?

[ QUOTE ]
Especially compared to (formerly poor) Asian countries like Thailand, India, and China?

[/ QUOTE ]

in a word, corruption.


Corruption is very expensive but black leaders seem not to grasp that concept...

There are a few black countries not doing well though.

[niceniss]

Re: Why Are Black-Led Countries Doing So Badly?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Especially compared to (formerly poor) Asian countries like Thailand, India, and China?

[/ QUOTE ]


There was a great quote from a nigerian econmoist. "(independence)............ was never about development" Poltical independence was about securing power and resoucrces... Until that concept is understood, then there can be no discussion....

And there is one African country that it seems may be well run.. Botswana.

[/ QUOTE ]

that's the one I thought of. There are a few in the caribbean as well.

[Dr.Dudd]

Re: Why Are Black-Led Countries Doing So Badly?

[ QUOTE ]
The JDF, as it currently exists, can effectively put down an uprising in Jamaica if called upon to do so. But what external threats can it deal with? Who is it capable of fighting? Sure, maybe Antigua, the so-called "Caribbean Tigers" - Barbados and Trinidad, except that those countries are unlikely to wage military aggression against Jamaica. The more likely aggressors may be its giant neighbor to the north, and those across the atlantic.

A single security force is all that is neccesary for Jamaica. A dual (or multi) layer security apparatus is quite frankly a waste of resources. But this you call "rule of law 101" - I must have have been sleeping through my poli sci classes. Forgive me, but this is educated nonsense.

[/ QUOTE ]
AHH -73, if you are here long enough you will see how much of an educated nonsense it is.
There is education and then there is education!!

[Archie68]

Re: Why Are Black-Led Countries Doing So Badly?

I am going to play fool to catch wise. Dr. Dudd, I know you are not Jamaican so you will not get my reference.

I repeat, why the talk of weaponry? What does it serve? Who are we to fight? Why the debt when we are borrowing to pay interest?

Some speak of education. Some of us need to start with mathematics; God's language.

The semi-educate have stated a point. Explain.

[Dr.Dudd]

Re: Why Are Black-Led Countries Doing So Badly?

[ QUOTE ]
I am going to play fool to catch wise. Dr. Dudd, I know you are not Jamaican so you will not get my reference.

I repeat, why the talk of weaponry? What does it serve? Who are we to fight? Why the debt when we are borrowing to pay interest?

Some speak of education. Some of us need to start with mathematics; God's language.

The semi-educate have stated a point. Explain.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry I can't break it down any simpler, this is certainly not for the K-6 level educated.

[Archie68]

Re: Why Are Black-Led Countries Doing So Badly?

Go dey super genius irrigation man. Your insults are complements, KNOWdenorrestignoramous. No answers. No insight; The usual. [img]/forums/images/graemlins/70394-sleeping.gif[/img] [img]/forums/images/graemlins/70394-sleeping.gif[/img] [img]/forums/images/graemlins/70394-sleeping.gif[/img] [img]/forums/images/graemlins/70394-sleeping.gif[/img]

Walk on to where you plan to go and have a good night.

[JCOURT]

Re: Why Are Black-Led Countries Doing So Badly?

I first visited JA in 2003, and initially, as a white person coming from the USA was afraid in a country where I clearly was a minority (and having grown up in a US city that had had some interracial divisions and fights). I soon learned, however, that the people of JA are just people like the everyone else, regardless of skin color. What I discerned in my 2004 trip and many trips since then is that the REAL people of JA (excluding the hagglers on the beach and other tourist spots) are concerned about the same thing those of us here in the UA are concerned about (a) obtaining housing; (b) supporting their families; and (c) educating the youth of the country.

The people of JA are highly motivated to acheive this, and simply seem to lack the ability to obtain jobs in JA that allow them to do this. In my personal opinion, JA should petition to become a part of the USA, which would allow manufacturers to reloctae there to hire workers at wages less than those paid to US workers, but which would improve the standard of living of most Jamaicans, and which would also allow Jamaicans to come to the US to work freely. It does not seem to me that GReat Britain or the UK has done much for Jamaicans since its independence, although certainly they have an obligation to do so. The US may be overwhelmingly white, but the fact remains that the majority of the population of the world is not and instead is black. As humans and humane beings, we need to realize that we are all one people, with all of our origins stemming from Africa, and that we need to accept each other as equals, at least on the level of humanity.

It was interesting to me to read, in a book about Africa and genealodgy, that the DNA among those of African descent is far more diverse than that of Caucasians...which led me to the conclusion that lighter skinned peoples were probably driven out of Africa by virtue of prejudice, since they did not look "right," which likely led to the popoulation of Europe (where Caucasians became "whiter"). Notwithstanding that, many discoveries owe their gratitude to the advanced civilization in Africa, including math, language and so on.

This heritage is largely ignored in the US, but perhaps that could be remedied by inclusion of a virtually all-black nation, such as JA, which could point us in the correct direction in terms of inter-racial contributions to society, since I am sure that this aspect of civilization must be more stressed in JA schools than it is in the US.

Certainly the US is looking for less expensive labor outlets -- anad JA is looking to bring in jobs... so perhaps an arrangement akin to Puerto Rico's arrangement could be arranged -- retaining independence, yet obtaining the benefits that accompany affiliation with the US. The greater question if what has G.B. done for you lately?? As far as I can see, the answer is NOTHING. So, join the U.S (I know easier said than done, but worth considering), and get the benefits of doing so as P.R. has done.

It's worth some thought anyway, don't you think?