Saturday, August 31, 2013

Re: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Eleven Reasons Why the US Should Not Attack Syria

Dear All,
We have come to the threshold of Reason and Morality, and human action in a situation where an allegation of chemical weapon was used by Syrian government against its own people. 
We are not yet really sure if truly the Syrian government or the Rebels were responsible for the use of chemical weapon against their own people.    The UN in its wisdom has done the right thing by asking experts to help unravel the truth whether chemical weapon had been used. And whether its use was responsible for the death of  hundreds or thousands of people including children who died in the suburb of Damascus over a week ago. 
The world is yet to know about the findings. Even when it is proven that chemical weapon had been used by the Syrian government: Is the UN ready to hold Assad regime accountable? Is the UN ready to use a military might to punish Assad government for violating its charter on the use of chemical weapon? 
On the other hand, if it were found that Assad administration,after all, did not use chemical weapon against its people, will Obama administration still have a moral justification to attack Syria? 
In my view, Obama administration should not be in such a terrible haste to attack Syria. As the Yoruba adage says, eko gbigbona 'fe owo suru, meaning, one who wants to drink hot pap needs patience. If he does not exercise some patience and he drinks it hot, he will eventually hurt himself. And he will be blamed for it. 
Let Reason prevail over emotion and military might for now. If the result of the UN experts indicates that the hand of Assad regime is not clean in the use of chemical weapon against its own people,  America should not hesitate to deal with Assad government as a deterrent to others. It is inhuman to use chemical weapon against anyone or nation.  
We need to blame those who first introduced chemical weapon for use during warfare knowing fully well of it's implications. The UN should as a matter of urgency make it mandatory for all countries with chemical weapon to sign the charter that forbids it use for any reason at all. 
We need peace and not chemical weapon. 
SO

Sent from my iPhone

On Sep 1, 2013, at 1:16 AM, ZALANGA SAMUEL <szalanga7994@msn.com> wrote:

This is a very polite way of telling people who are weak and vulnerable in the world to suck up their pain. God forbid but it seems like any situation can lead to the death of innocent people and the whole world will watch or just debate it. After thousands of years of reflecting on the Qu'ran, the Bible, Bhagavad Gita, and the Upanihads, this is what the world looks like to the vulnerable. It is a scary world if you happen to be even at the right place but at the wrong time. This is what the civilized world, erudite and enlightened people tell the vulnerable in the world. But see this excerpt from President John F. Kennedy's inaugural speech:


"To those peoples in the huts and villages across the globe struggling to break the bonds of mass misery, we pledge our best efforts to help them help themselves, for whatever period is required—not because the Communists may be doing it, not because we seek their votes, but because it is right. If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich" (see: http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres56.html)

I do not know how this fits in the vision of American idealism today. I do not deny that there are good arguments people can put forward, legal and what not, but that still does not change the substantive lesson: and that is that in today's world, you can kill thousands, and if they are "surplus people"  people in the world will just debate it and at the end close their eyes, and turn their back on the people. Later they will start talking about human civilization and evolution that has resulted in the concept of human dignity and human rights. Whether the dignity and rights apply to all or some people, at some places, and some time is a fair question and the lives of the ordinary Syrians who are suffering for no fault of theirs is a good context to thrash out the answer to the question than doing so abstractly.

Samuel



From: toyinfalola@austin.utexas.edu
To: USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
Subject: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Eleven Reasons Why the US Should Not Attack Syria
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2013 20:14:11 +0000


Eleven Reasons Why We Should Not Attack Syria

Saturday, 31 August 2013 12:53 By Sarah van Gelder, Yes! Magazine | News Analysis

  • font size decrease font size increase font size
As U.S. political and media leaders prepare for military strikes against Syria, the parallels to the lead-up to the war with Iraq should give us pause. Weapons of mass destruction, we are told, are being used by a cruel Middle Eastern despot against his own people. A military strike is inevitable, media voices say; we must respond with missiles and bombs. The arguments sound all too familiar.
Meanwhile, weapons inspectors from the United Nations are on the ground investigating evidence of chemical weapons. But U.S. and European leaders are looking at an immediate strike anyway—although Britain's Labor Party, still smarting from popular opposition to its leading role in the invasion of Iraq, has successfully pressed for a hold on military action until the results of the U.N. investigation are in.
There are a great many differences between circumstances in Syria and Iraq, of course. Nonetheless, critics warn that, much as it did in Iraq, a military incursion here could have disastrous consequences. Here are 11 reasons the United States should stay clear of military action:
1. We don't actually know who is behind the chemical weapons attack. An attack employing chemical weapons took place in the suburbs of Damascus on August 21 and killed 355 people, according to Doctors Without Borders . Obama administration officials say the attack was carried out by the Syrian regime, but Institute for Policy Studies analyst Phyllis Bennis points out we haven't actually been given evidence that this is the case. And, while it's unlikely that the opposition was behind the attack, NPR has pointed out that the rebels have an incentive to use such weapons to trigger outside intervention and end the stalemate they've been stuck in since late 2011.
2. A military strike would be illegal under the U.S. Constitution and the War Powers Resolution. U.S. military attacks can only be carried out by an act of Congress, unless there is national emergency created by a direct attack upon the United States. The fact that Congress has adjourned doesn't change that. "There is no provision in the Constitution or the War Powers Resolution for a 'recess war,'"says Robert Naiman, writer for Just Foreign Policy. If it was a true emergency, Congress could be called into session to pass a declaration of war.
3. It would violate international law, too. Syria has not attacked the United States, and there is no U.N. Security Council authorization for a strike on Syria. It wouldn't be the first time the United States has violated international law, but doing it again adds to a damaging precedent and contributes to a lawless world.
4. The American people oppose it. Sixty percent of Americans oppose intervention in Syria, according to a recent Reuters poll. Just nine percent support intervention. Even if the use of chemical weapons is proven, just 25 percent of Americans would support intervention.
5. Violence begets violence. According to Stephen Zunes, chair of Middle Eastern Studies at the University of San Francisco, military interventions actually worsen and lengthen violence in the short term. "Countries whose dictatorships are overthrown by armed groups … are far more likely to turn into new dictatorships, often accompanied by ongoing violence and factionalism," Zunes says in an article in Foreign Policy in Focus. In the long term, he writes, interventions only reduce violence if they are impartial, which would certainly not be the case in any upcoming conflict in Syria.
6. Foreign intervention will deepen nationalist support for the Syrian Baath Party and the Assad regime. Zunes also reports that hundreds of members of the Syrian Baath Party, a key source of support for Assad, have left the party in outrage over the regime's killing of nonviolent protesters. But, he says, "few defections could be expected if foreigners suddenly attacked the country." U.S. intervention would play into the hands of the Syrian regime, triggering an outpouring of nationalist support for Damascus. The same thing happened in 1983-84 following U.S. Navy air attacks on Syrian positions in Lebanon, he says, and in 2008 after U.S. army commando raids in eastern Syria.
7. There are no logical targets. Bombing stockpiles of chemical weapons would be untenable, since many would release poison gases into densely populated neighborhoods, according to Zunes. And there are too many ways of delivering chemical weapons—planes, missiles, mortars, and so on—to eliminate all of them.
8. It will be impossible to control who benefits from Western interventionamong the rebels. The Pentagon estimates that there are between 800 and 1,200 rebel groups currently active in Syria, according to USA Today. Among them are ones with avowed affiliations with Al Qaeda, Jabhat al-Nusra, and other groups the United States considers to be terrorists. While the House Intelligence Committee has said it's ready to accept the risk of providing weapons to such groups, a look at the Iraq and Afghanistan shows how such plans can easily unravel.
9. Civilians will be killed and maimed. Policy analyst Phyllis Bennis points out the obvious: Strike with bombs and missiles, and, whatever your intent, civilians with no involvement in the conflict—including children and the elderly—will be harmed.
10. There is no apparent exit strategy. Once we are involved, it is unclear how we will extract ourselves from a massive, ugly civil conflict that could spread to involve nearby countries such as Lebanon, Israel, and Iran.
11. Yes, there is a better way. Tried, true, and boring though it may be, diplomacy often works. As Bennis told Democracy Now! this week, Syria has become a venue for a war between the United States and Russia, and between Iran and an allied United States and Israel.
What's needed, she says, are peace talks involving not only the parties who are fighting, but their backers as well. We need "all the forces on the two sides coming together to talk," she says, "rather than fighting to the last Syrian child, to resolve these wars."
This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source. 


Show Comments

Toyin Falola
Department of History
The University of Texas at Austin
104 Inner Campus Drive
Austin, TX 78712-0220
USA
512 475 7224
512 475 7222 (fax)



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "USA Africa Dialogue Series" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usaafricadialogue+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "USA Africa Dialogue Series" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usaafricadialogue+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Eleven Reasons Why the US Should Not Attack Syria

dear all
i am not convinced by any  of these reasons, though i esteem almost all the commentators cited. zunes, bennis etc. all fine people.
yet not one word seems to be devoted to a realistic strategy aimed at stopping the fighting, and especially in stopping the principal party responsible not just for the chemical weapons attack, which does indeed seem to have been assad's, but more importantly not a word about 120,000 dead. i find the failure to work at real interventions to stop the killing despicable, an abdication of moral authority.
we are not meaningfully divided into citizens of different countries; we are superficially divided into national citizens. what we are, at the base of things, is people all related to each other, descended ultimately from common sources, tied by our species to a common humanity. there is hatred and selfishness and viciousness; but there is also a strong propensity not to let us behave as dogs toward each other.
below are 11 reasons, ultimately specious reasons, to ignore the fighting and to ignore how a national govt is using its army to kill its opposition.
as if permitting the violence to continue is somehow not an act of violence, that is what is specious
ken

On 8/31/13 4:14 PM, Toyin Falola wrote:

Eleven Reasons Why We Should Not Attack Syria

Saturday, 31 August 2013 12:53 By Sarah van Gelder, Yes! Magazine | News Analysis

  • font size decrease font size increase font size

As U.S. political and media leaders prepare for military strikes against Syria, the parallels to the lead-up to the war with Iraq should give us pause. Weapons of mass destruction, we are told, are being used by a cruel Middle Eastern despot against his own people. A military strike is inevitable, media voices say; we must respond with missiles and bombs. The arguments sound all too familiar.

Meanwhile, weapons inspectors from the United Nations are on the ground investigating evidence of chemical weapons. But U.S. and European leaders are looking at an immediate strike anyway—although Britain's Labor Party, still smarting from popular opposition to its leading role in the invasion of Iraq, has successfully pressed for a hold on military action until the results of the U.N. investigation are in.

There are a great many differences between circumstances in Syria and Iraq, of course. Nonetheless, critics warn that, much as it did in Iraq, a military incursion here could have disastrous consequences. Here are 11 reasons the United States should stay clear of military action:

1. We don't actually know who is behind the chemical weapons attack. An attack employing chemical weapons took place in the suburbs of Damascus on August 21 and killed 355 people, according to Doctors Without Borders . Obama administration officials say the attack was carried out by the Syrian regime, but Institute for Policy Studies analyst Phyllis Bennis points out we haven't actually been given evidence that this is the case. And, while it's unlikely that the opposition was behind the attack, NPR has pointed out that the rebels have an incentive to use such weapons to trigger outside intervention and end the stalemate they've been stuck in since late 2011.

2. A military strike would be illegal under the U.S. Constitution and the War Powers Resolution. U.S. military attacks can only be carried out by an act of Congress, unless there is national emergency created by a direct attack upon the United States. The fact that Congress has adjourned doesn't change that. "There is no provision in the Constitution or the War Powers Resolution for a 'recess war,'"says Robert Naiman, writer for Just Foreign Policy. If it was a true emergency, Congress could be called into session to pass a declaration of war.

3. It would violate international law, too. Syria has not attacked the United States, and there is no U.N. Security Council authorization for a strike on Syria. It wouldn't be the first time the United States has violated international law, but doing it again adds to a damaging precedent and contributes to a lawless world.

4. The American people oppose it. Sixty percent of Americans oppose intervention in Syria, according to a recent Reuters poll. Just nine percent support intervention. Even if the use of chemical weapons is proven, just 25 percent of Americans would support intervention.

5. Violence begets violence. According to Stephen Zunes, chair of Middle Eastern Studies at the University of San Francisco, military interventions actually worsen and lengthen violence in the short term. "Countries whose dictatorships are overthrown by armed groups … are far more likely to turn into new dictatorships, often accompanied by ongoing violence and factionalism," Zunes says in an article in Foreign Policy in Focus. In the long term, he writes, interventions only reduce violence if they are impartial, which would certainly not be the case in any upcoming conflict in Syria.

6. Foreign intervention will deepen nationalist support for the Syrian Baath Party and the Assad regime. Zunes also reports that hundreds of members of the Syrian Baath Party, a key source of support for Assad, have left the party in outrage over the regime's killing of nonviolent protesters. But, he says, "few defections could be expected if foreigners suddenly attacked the country." U.S. intervention would play into the hands of the Syrian regime, triggering an outpouring of nationalist support for Damascus. The same thing happened in 1983-84 following U.S. Navy air attacks on Syrian positions in Lebanon, he says, and in 2008 after U.S. army commando raids in eastern Syria.

7. There are no logical targets. Bombing stockpiles of chemical weapons would be untenable, since many would release poison gases into densely populated neighborhoods, according to Zunes. And there are too many ways of delivering chemical weapons—planes, missiles, mortars, and so on—to eliminate all of them.

8. It will be impossible to control who benefits from Western interventionamong the rebels. The Pentagon estimates that there are between 800 and 1,200 rebel groups currently active in Syria, according to USA Today. Among them are ones with avowed affiliations with Al Qaeda, Jabhat al-Nusra, and other groups the United States considers to be terrorists. While the House Intelligence Committee has said it's ready to accept the risk of providing weapons to such groups, a look at the Iraq and Afghanistan shows how such plans can easily unravel.

9. Civilians will be killed and maimed. Policy analyst Phyllis Bennis points out the obvious: Strike with bombs and missiles, and, whatever your intent, civilians with no involvement in the conflict—including children and the elderly—will be harmed.

10. There is no apparent exit strategy. Once we are involved, it is unclear how we will extract ourselves from a massive, ugly civil conflict that could spread to involve nearby countries such as Lebanon, Israel, and Iran.

11. Yes, there is a better way. Tried, true, and boring though it may be, diplomacy often works. As Bennis told Democracy Now! this week, Syria has become a venue for a war between the United States and Russia, and between Iran and an allied United States and Israel.

What's needed, she says, are peace talks involving not only the parties who are fighting, but their backers as well. We need "all the forces on the two sides coming together to talk," she says, "rather than fighting to the last Syrian child, to resolve these wars."

This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source. 

Show Comments

Toyin Falola
Department of History
The University of Texas at Austin
104 Inner Campus Drive
Austin, TX 78712-0220
USA
512 475 7224
512 475 7222 (fax)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "USA Africa Dialogue Series" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usaafricadialogue+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--   kenneth w. harrow   faculty excellence advocate  professor of english  michigan state university  department of english  619 red cedar road  room C-614 wells hall  east lansing, mi 48824  ph. 517 803 8839  harrow@msu.edu

USA Africa Dialogue Series - The Guardian Nigeria: Kunle Afolayan: With October 1, Ilara-Mokin joins Nigeria’s filmic map




With October 1, Ilara-Mokin joins Nigeria's filmic mapTHE cast and crew of Kunle Afolayan's new film, October 1, are currently working in Ilara-Mokin, a once sleepy town in Ondo, which now boasts of a university and golf course. 

   Ilara-Mokin is also hometown of the business mogul and Chairman of Toyota Nigeria, Chief Michael Ade Ojo, whom, Afolayan hinted, has approved his company's partnership so as to ensure a successful experience in the town. 

    Kunle Ade Ojo, Executive Director of the company, says they will be providing vehicles for use during the making of the movie in addition to hospitality for the cast and crew. It is, perhaps, the first time such an outfit will be lending its support to a core Nollywood production and Afolayan is grateful to the quintessential businessman, illustrious Nigerian and philanthropist Chief Ade Ojo for his interest in the film. 

   "I have adopted him as my father and Governor Babatunde Fashola as my uncle," Afolayan said. 

   The filmmaker whose third movie Phone Swap is about to be released in Europe has commenced shoot of the movie even though he is still far off his projected $2 million budget. 

   "I have not been able to raise half of that budget. I'm still looking for more money and more partners and support. But camera must roll," he said. 

  According to Afolayan, Ilara-Mokin where 70 per cent of the shoot will take place was chosen because the town boasts of the right architecture and ambiance for a historical film.  

    He also said this gesture of Ade Ojo will save him a lot of money unlike his previous efforts — Irapada, Figurine and Phone Swap — where he had to move cast and crew from one location to another. 

  "I got a call from him one Monday morning, and by Friday, we were in Ilara-Mokin to see the place and the moment we got there, we found all we wanted there and even more. I mean you need to come and see the sheer size of the university and golf course. I dare say that the golf course and resort is the best in Africa. He is even planning a film village as part of the theatre and film studies programme of the Elizade University. We are working with the university on the proper take off of the project," Afolayan told newsmen. 

    Toyota will bring to three the number of major partners that Afolayan have secured so far for the film, which is set prior to Nigeria's independence. Afolayan named the Lagos State Government and top clothier Deola Sagoe as the other partners in the production of October 1. 

  Lagos State is in for October 1 as part of Governor Raji Fashola administration's resolve to support the film industry. 

    The Permanent Secretary, Special Duties, Lagos State, Dr. Aderemi Desalu, said the state's involvement is part of its Nollywood Upgrade project that is designed to promote the building of local cinema, build capacity for the industry and partner filmmakers with ideas and projects that will portray Lagos and Nigeria in positive light. 

    Desalu stated that the state, through the initiative, would not only promote local cinema but will support production of films from script to screen.

  The clothier Deola Sagoe will be wearing three caps on the film project. Not only is she a partner, the notable fashion designer will also be providing period costumes. The delectable clothier will also feature as Funmilayo Kuti, mother of the legendary Fela Anikulapo Kuti in the movie. 

   Sagoe, who said she was excited about the film project, will be featuring alongside a number of notable Nigeria and foreign actors including Sadiq Daba who is best known as a broadcaster and as Bitrus in the defunct television drama series Cock Crow at Dawn, Kayode 'Aderupoko' Olaiya, Kanayo. O. Kanayo, Bimbo Manuel and Femi Adebayo. 

   Others are Nick Rhys, David Bailie, Fred Ackerman, Lawrence Stubbings and David Reese. The Golden Effect Production regulars such as Bose Oshin, Pat Nebo and Yinka Edwards are on the project as Production Manager, Production Designer and Director of Photography respectively. 

   Daba is making a big return to the screen as Waziri in October 1. His last major effort on screen as an actor was when he featured in the M-net short film project, A Place Called Home. 

    The Kano-born actor, television producer and presenter, who retired from the Nigerian Television Authority (NTA) after 35 years of meritorious service, said he was happy to be back on the turf. "I always tell people who ask me that the only thing that can get me back on the screen as an actor is if I find a very serious production and a good script. This is undoubtedly a good script, a good story and the director is someone who is serious and focused. I gave him (Afolayan) my words the moment I read the script. This is the kind of stories we should be telling. Stories that unite us as a people."

  On how he arrived at such a broad based cast, Afolayan said he drew up the list after an extensive audition exercise. "We had over 2000 people who stormed our office in Ikeja to audition for the different characters in the movie. But the folks on set now including the crew members are the best of them all and so far I am not disappointed. I never even get because I don't attach sentiment to my work," he explained. 

  Written by the award winning scriptwriter, Tunde Babalola, who wrote The Michael Power film script and The Meeting as directed by Mildred Okwo, October 1 is promoted as a psychological thriller detailing the activities of a northern police detective, Dan Waziri who was posted to the western region to unravel the mystery behind a series of female murders in the community.   He soon discovers that the prime suspect is Aderopo, the prince of the community. 

    Waziri, however, does not have plenty of time as he is expected to bring the Prince to book before the Nigerian flag is raised on October 1.

Afolayan said he had to commence shoot of the movie because he could no longer tie down most of the foreign and Nigerian based actors who had other commitments.

  "I kept delaying them and pushing shoot forward because I was looking for a foreign co-producer and I wanted to raise the $2 million budget before I could commence shooting but it looks as though I will wait a long time because it is difficult to get a mainstream distribution deal. It's a clique thing and you have to belong to be able to secure such a deal. Also, I wanted to secure the budget, but it appears I will wait until God knows when. So I have to begin with what has come in so far but we are still looking for more money and talking to some companies who are showing interest. But we need money to shoot this film, which I'm aiming to premiere at one of the biggest international festival. I want to be the first to put Nigeria's name on the list of films in competition in any of those festivals. My film Figurine was invited to screen at Rotterdam Film Festival. It was about the first Nigerian film to be invited to screen there. But that is just screening the film. It is a different ball game if it is in official competition.  I will say with all modesty that this is a film that can compete on the international stage. It will get us an Oscar nomination," he enthused. 

  Afolayan expressed optimism that October 1 will be something totally different from anything he has ever done as a filmmaker. 

   "We have a good script written by the internationally acclaimed Tunde Babalola. We have a good cast and crew and so we are looking at turning out nothing but the best. I just need the right funds and support in place and I will give Nigeria and the continent something to cheer about for a long time. At least if we must attend a festival next year, lets go there because we have a film showing in or out of competition. So, I still need money. We have not gotten near our 2 million dollars budget yet. We need money," he said. 


Funmi Tofowomo Okelola

-The Art of Living and Impermanence

http://www.cafeafricana.com

http://www.indigokafe.com


RE: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Don Ohadike- Eight Years After

Oga Segun:

 

You are right many of us dropped our "foreign" names. I did change my name from William Swaniker Akurang-Parry to Kwabena Opare-Akurang when I was in form three in secondary school. In fact, I was not the only one in the class who dropped what you describe as a "Hebrew" or "Western" names. Many of my classmates did. We were influenced by a young radical teacher who taught us African literature - African Writers Series of Chinua Achebe, Ferdinand Oyono, Mongo Beti, Alan Paton, Camara Laye, Ngugi W'Thiongo, etc. that truly and effectively empowered and conscientized us to  believe in our Africanity. My father never forgave me for changing the family name and on his death bed in 1998, his last message was that since I was his eldest son, I had to carry the family name: Akurang-Parry. Thus, I made a posthumous compromise with him: I use Kwabena instead of  William Swaniker with Akurang-Parry, the family name. The family name has a long history of its own! 

 

Kwabena 


From: usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com [usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com] on behalf of Segun Ogungbemi [seguno2013@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, August 31, 2013 8:58 PM
To: usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Don Ohadike- Eight Years After

There are many of us who had a similar experience and got our names changed to African names. My parents gave me an Hebrew name found in the Bible and as I grew up in knowledge I changed it to what gives me meaning and proper identification with my Yoruba root. 
Today, nothing pleases me more than projecting my indigenous traditional identity and values. 
Ogun agbe yin o. Aase

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 31, 2013, at 8:26 PM, Osiadi@aol.com wrote:

Thank you Kwabena my brother. I agree with you. Such oral histories are invaluable and undiluted. I tell you what rude awakenings I got when I arrived the United States eons ago. I enrolled at Howard Univrsity in the Department of African Studies with a major in social anthropology and minor in polical science. The chairman of the department was Professor Chike Onwuachi of blessed memory. The first class was the Anthropology of African World. When the professor walked into the class, I stood up. But I noticed no other student stood. I sat down quietly, somewhat embarrassed. This was my first rude awakening.
 
I always sat in the front because of my height. Now, it was time for us to introduce ourselves. I was the fifth in the front row. I introduced myself as 'John Osia.' The fine young lady who had just introduced herself asked me openly whether or not I was an American or a British, to which I replied in the negative. She retorted with a mocking question: why are you John? My friend,  I found myself stuttering in an attmept to explain how I was "John." This was a second rude awakening. Indeed when I got back to where I was living in Northeast Washington, I had sleepless night trying to sort out what happened to me in class. I solved the second rude awakening. I wrote to my parish priest in my village to update my baptismal register and card by adding KUNIRUM because that was my African name. That name meant much to my parents and my culture. I emphasized that from there and then I must be addressed as Kunirum not John, full stop.
 
Since there was no second introduction in the next class, I raised up my hand  and the professor acknowledged me. He said : yes John. I stood up and said politely in clear unequvocative Englisdh that I would like the class to know that my name, given to me by my parents  was KUNIRUM and that was the name I wanted to be known and addressed as. That 'John' was my baptismal name which came to me 12 years after my existence as KUNIRUM. Our professor was so happy that he openly invited me to have dinner with his family a week later. When I went to the dinner the professor welcomed me and said "you are perfect for African Studies...Africans should never be ashamed to project their Africaness anywhere." Thanks again Kwabena

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "USA Africa Dialogue Series" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usaafricadialogue+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "USA Africa Dialogue Series" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usaafricadialogue+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Obama Says U.S. Should Take Action In Syria, Will Seek Congress' Authorization For Use Of Force

Obama Says U.S. Should Take Action In Syria, Will Seek Congress' Authorization For Use Of Force

 

President Barack Obama addressed the crisis in Syria on Saturday, saying he has decided the United States should take military action against regime targets, but that he will seek authorization from Congress before taking action.

"I will seek authorization for the use of force from the American people's representatives in Congress," Obama said during a press conference in the White House Rose Garden.

Obama said any action would "be designed to be limited in duration and scope."

Obama referenced an Aug. 21 attack at the start of his remarks, saying "this menace must be confronted."

"The world watched in horror as men, women and children were massacred in Syria in the worst chemical attack of the 21st century," Obama said.

"This attack is an assault on human dignity," Obama said, saying it "risks making a mockery" of the use of chemical weapons.

"Make no mistake -- this has implications beyond chemical warfare," Obama said.

Protesters could be heard outside of the White House before Obama came out to make his statement. AFP reports there were about 100 anti-war protesters and some 50 supporters of the Syrian opposition facing off outside of the White House on Saturday.

According to Reuters, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said the House will consider a measure on Syrian military action the week of Sept. 9, when lawmakers return from recess.

Boehner, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.), Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) and Conference Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.) released the following statement after Obama's remraks:

Under the Constitution, the responsibility to declare war lies with Congress. We are glad the president is seeking authorization for any military action in Syria in response to serious, substantive questions being raised. In consultation with the president, we expect the House to consider a measure the week of September 9th. This provides the president time to make his case to Congress and the American people.

Below, the full text of Obama's remarks on Syria:

Good afternoon, everybody. Ten days ago, the world watched in horror as men, women and children were massacred in Syria in the worst chemical weapons attack of the 21st century. Yesterday the United States presented a powerful case that the Syrian government was responsible for this attack on its own people.

Our intelligence shows the Assad regime and its forces preparing to use chemical weapons, launching rockets in the highly populated suburbs of Damascus, and acknowledging that a chemical weapons attack took place. And all of this corroborates what the world can plainly see -- hospitals overflowing with victims; terrible images of the dead. All told, well over 1,000 people were murdered. Several hundred of them were children -- young girls and boys gassed to death by their own government.

This attack is an assault on human dignity. It also presents a serious danger to our national security. It risks making a mockery of the global prohibition on the use of chemical weapons. It endangers our friends and our partners along Syria's borders, including Israel, Jordan, Turkey, Lebanon and Iraq. It could lead to escalating use of chemical weapons, or their proliferation to terrorist groups who would do our people harm.

In a world with many dangers, this menace must be confronted.

Now, after careful deliberation, I have decided that the United States should take military action against Syrian regime targets. This would not be an open-ended intervention. We would not put boots on the ground. Instead, our action would be designed to be limited in duration and scope. But I'm confident we can hold the Assad regime accountable for their use of chemical weapons, deter this kind of behavior, and degrade their capacity to carry it out.

Our military has positioned assets in the region. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs has informed me that we are prepared to strike whenever we choose. Moreover, the Chairman has indicated to me that our capacity to execute this mission is not time-sensitive; it will be effective tomorrow, or next week, or one month from now. And I'm prepared to give that order.

But having made my decision as Commander-in-Chief based on what I am convinced is our national security interests, I'm also mindful that I'm the President of the world's oldest constitutional democracy. I've long believed that our power is rooted not just in our military might, but in our example as a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. And that's why I've made a second decision: I will seek authorization for the use of force from the American people's representatives in Congress.

Over the last several days, we've heard from members of Congress who want their voices to be heard. I absolutely agree. So this morning, I spoke with all four congressional leaders, and they've agreed to schedule a debate and then a vote as soon as Congress comes back into session.

In the coming days, my administration stands ready to provide every member with the information they need to understand what happened in Syria and why it has such profound implications for America's national security. And all of us should be accountable as we move forward, and that can only be accomplished with a vote.

I'm confident in the case our government has made without waiting for U.N. inspectors. I'm comfortable going forward without the approval of a United Nations Security Council that, so far, has been completely paralyzed and unwilling to hold Assad accountable. As a consequence, many people have advised against taking this decision to Congress, and undoubtedly, they were impacted by what we saw happen in the United Kingdom this week when the Parliament of our closest ally failed to pass a resolution with a similar goal, even as the Prime Minister supported taking action.

Yet, while I believe I have the authority to carry out this military action without specific congressional authorization, I know that the country will be stronger if we take this course, and our actions will be even more effective. We should have this debate, because the issues are too big for business as usual. And this morning, John Boehner, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Mitch McConnell agreed that this is the right thing to do for our democracy.

A country faces few decisions as grave as using military force, even when that force is limited. I respect the views of those who call for caution, particularly as our country emerges from a time of war that I was elected in part to end. But if we really do want to turn away from taking appropriate action in the face of such an unspeakable outrage, then we must acknowledge the costs of doing nothing.

Here's my question for every member of Congress and every member of the global community: What message will we send if a dictator can gas hundreds of children to death in plain sight and pay no price? What's the purpose of the international system that we've built if a prohibition on the use of chemical weapons that has been agreed to by the governments of 98 percent of the world's people and approved overwhelmingly by the Congress of the United States is not enforced?

Make no mistake -- this has implications beyond chemical warfare. If we won't enforce accountability in the face of this heinous act, what does it say about our resolve to stand up to others who flout fundamental international rules? To governments who would choose to build nuclear arms? To terrorist who would spread biological weapons? To armies who carry out genocide?

We cannot raise our children in a world where we will not follow through on the things we say, the accords we sign, the values that define us.

So just as I will take this case to Congress, I will also deliver this message to the world. While the U.N. investigation has some time to report on its findings, we will insist that an atrocity committed with chemical weapons is not simply investigated, it must be confronted.

I don't expect every nation to agree with the decision we have made. Privately we've heard many expressions of support from our friends. But I will ask those who care about the writ of the international community to stand publicly behind our action.

And finally, let me say this to the American people: I know well that we are weary of war. We've ended one war in Iraq. We're ending another in Afghanistan. And the American people have the good sense to know we cannot resolve the underlying conflict in Syria with our military. In that part of the world, there are ancient sectarian differences, and the hopes of the Arab Spring have unleashed forces of change that are going to take many years to resolve. And that's why we're not contemplating putting our troops in the middle of someone else's war.

Instead, we'll continue to support the Syrian people through our pressure on the Assad regime, our commitment to the opposition, our care for the displaced, and our pursuit of a political resolution that achieves a government that respects the dignity of its people.

But we are the United States of America, and we cannot and must not turn a blind eye to what happened in Damascus. Out of the ashes of world war, we built an international order and enforced the rules that gave it meaning. And we did so because we believe that the rights of individuals to live in peace and dignity depends on the responsibilities of nations. We aren't perfect, but this nation more than any other has been willing to meet those responsibilities.

So to all members of Congress of both parties, I ask you to take this vote for our national security. I am looking forward to the debate. And in doing so, I ask you, members of Congress, to consider that some things are more important than partisan differences or the politics of the moment.

Ultimately, this is not about who occupies this office at any given time; it's about who we are as a country. I believe that the people's representatives must be invested in what America does abroad, and now is the time to show the world that America keeps our commitments. We do what we say. And we lead with the belief that right makes might -- not the other way around.

We all know there are no easy options. But I wasn't elected to avoid hard decisions. And neither were the members of the House and the Senate. I've told you what I believe, that our security and our values demand that we cannot turn away from the massacre of countless civilians with chemical weapons. And our democracy is stronger when the President and the people's representatives stand together.

I'm ready to act in the face of this outrage. Today I'm asking Congress to send a message to the world that we are ready to move forward together as one nation.

Thanks very much.

 

 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visithttp://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visithttp://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email toUSAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue- 
unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "USA Africa Dialogue Series" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email tousaafricadialogue+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visithttps://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 31, 2013, at 11:11 PM, "K. Gozie Ifesinachukwu" <kgifesi@austin.rr.com> wrote:

Obama Says U.S. Should Take Action In Syria, Will Seek Congress' Authorization For Use Of Force

 

President Barack Obama addressed the crisis in Syria on Saturday, saying he has decided the United States should take military action against regime targets, but that he will seek authorization from Congress before taking action.

"I will seek authorization for the use of force from the American people's representatives in Congress," Obama said during a press conference in the White House Rose Garden.

Obama said any action would "be designed to be limited in duration and scope."

Obama referenced an Aug. 21 attack at the start of his remarks, saying "this menace must be confronted."

"The world watched in horror as men, women and children were massacred in Syria in the worst chemical attack of the 21st century," Obama said.

"This attack is an assault on human dignity," Obama said, saying it "risks making a mockery" of the use of chemical weapons.

"Make no mistake -- this has implications beyond chemical warfare," Obama said.

Protesters could be heard outside of the White House before Obama came out to make his statement. AFP reports there were about 100 anti-war protesters and some 50 supporters of the Syrian opposition facing off outside of the White House on Saturday.

According to Reuters, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said the House will consider a measure on Syrian military action the week of Sept. 9, when lawmakers return from recess.

Boehner, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.), Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) and Conference Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.) released the following statement after Obama's remraks:

Under the Constitution, the responsibility to declare war lies with Congress. We are glad the president is seeking authorization for any military action in Syria in response to serious, substantive questions being raised. In consultation with the president, we expect the House to consider a measure the week of September 9th. This provides the president time to make his case to Congress and the American people.

Below, the full text of Obama's remarks on Syria:

Good afternoon, everybody. Ten days ago, the world watched in horror as men, women and children were massacred in Syria in the worst chemical weapons attack of the 21st century. Yesterday the United States presented a powerful case that the Syrian government was responsible for this attack on its own people.

Our intelligence shows the Assad regime and its forces preparing to use chemical weapons, launching rockets in the highly populated suburbs of Damascus, and acknowledging that a chemical weapons attack took place. And all of this corroborates what the world can plainly see -- hospitals overflowing with victims; terrible images of the dead. All told, well over 1,000 people were murdered. Several hundred of them were children -- young girls and boys gassed to death by their own government.

This attack is an assault on human dignity. It also presents a serious danger to our national security. It risks making a mockery of the global prohibition on the use of chemical weapons. It endangers our friends and our partners along Syria's borders, including Israel, Jordan, Turkey, Lebanon and Iraq. It could lead to escalating use of chemical weapons, or their proliferation to terrorist groups who would do our people harm.

In a world with many dangers, this menace must be confronted.

Now, after careful deliberation, I have decided that the United States should take military action against Syrian regime targets. This would not be an open-ended intervention. We would not put boots on the ground. Instead, our action would be designed to be limited in duration and scope. But I'm confident we can hold the Assad regime accountable for their use of chemical weapons, deter this kind of behavior, and degrade their capacity to carry it out.

Our military has positioned assets in the region. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs has informed me that we are prepared to strike whenever we choose. Moreover, the Chairman has indicated to me that our capacity to execute this mission is not time-sensitive; it will be effective tomorrow, or next week, or one month from now. And I'm prepared to give that order.

But having made my decision as Commander-in-Chief based on what I am convinced is our national security interests, I'm also mindful that I'm the President of the world's oldest constitutional democracy. I've long believed that our power is rooted not just in our military might, but in our example as a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. And that's why I've made a second decision: I will seek authorization for the use of force from the American people's representatives in Congress.

Over the last several days, we've heard from members of Congress who want their voices to be heard. I absolutely agree. So this morning, I spoke with all four congressional leaders, and they've agreed to schedule a debate and then a vote as soon as Congress comes back into session.

In the coming days, my administration stands ready to provide every member with the information they need to understand what happened in Syria and why it has such profound implications for America's national security. And all of us should be accountable as we move forward, and that can only be accomplished with a vote.

I'm confident in the case our government has made without waiting for U.N. inspectors. I'm comfortable going forward without the approval of a United Nations Security Council that, so far, has been completely paralyzed and unwilling to hold Assad accountable. As a consequence, many people have advised against taking this decision to Congress, and undoubtedly, they were impacted by what we saw happen in the United Kingdom this week when the Parliament of our closest ally failed to pass a resolution with a similar goal, even as the Prime Minister supported taking action.

Yet, while I believe I have the authority to carry out this military action without specific congressional authorization, I know that the country will be stronger if we take this course, and our actions will be even more effective. We should have this debate, because the issues are too big for business as usual. And this morning, John Boehner, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Mitch McConnell agreed that this is the right thing to do for our democracy.

A country faces few decisions as grave as using military force, even when that force is limited. I respect the views of those who call for caution, particularly as our country emerges from a time of war that I was elected in part to end. But if we really do want to turn away from taking appropriate action in the face of such an unspeakable outrage, then we must acknowledge the costs of doing nothing.

Here's my question for every member of Congress and every member of the global community: What message will we send if a dictator can gas hundreds of children to death in plain sight and pay no price? What's the purpose of the international system that we've built if a prohibition on the use of chemical weapons that has been agreed to by the governments of 98 percent of the world's people and approved overwhelmingly by the Congress of the United States is not enforced?

Make no mistake -- this has implications beyond chemical warfare. If we won't enforce accountability in the face of this heinous act, what does it say about our resolve to stand up to others who flout fundamental international rules? To governments who would choose to build nuclear arms? To terrorist who would spread biological weapons? To armies who carry out genocide?

We cannot raise our children in a world where we will not follow through on the things we say, the accords we sign, the values that define us.

So just as I will take this case to Congress, I will also deliver this message to the world. While the U.N. investigation has some time to report on its findings, we will insist that an atrocity committed with chemical weapons is not simply investigated, it must be confronted.

I don't expect every nation to agree with the decision we have made. Privately we've heard many expressions of support from our friends. But I will ask those who care about the writ of the international community to stand publicly behind our action.

And finally, let me say this to the American people: I know well that we are weary of war. We've ended one war in Iraq. We're ending another in Afghanistan. And the American people have the good sense to know we cannot resolve the underlying conflict in Syria with our military. In that part of the world, there are ancient sectarian differences, and the hopes of the Arab Spring have unleashed forces of change that are going to take many years to resolve. And that's why we're not contemplating putting our troops in the middle of someone else's war.

Instead, we'll continue to support the Syrian people through our pressure on the Assad regime, our commitment to the opposition, our care for the displaced, and our pursuit of a political resolution that achieves a government that respects the dignity of its people.

But we are the United States of America, and we cannot and must not turn a blind eye to what happened in Damascus. Out of the ashes of world war, we built an international order and enforced the rules that gave it meaning. And we did so because we believe that the rights of individuals to live in peace and dignity depends on the responsibilities of nations. We aren't perfect, but this nation more than any other has been willing to meet those responsibilities.

So to all members of Congress of both parties, I ask you to take this vote for our national security. I am looking forward to the debate. And in doing so, I ask you, members of Congress, to consider that some things are more important than partisan differences or the politics of the moment.

Ultimately, this is not about who occupies this office at any given time; it's about who we are as a country. I believe that the people's representatives must be invested in what America does abroad, and now is the time to show the world that America keeps our commitments. We do what we say. And we lead with the belief that right makes might -- not the other way around.

We all know there are no easy options. But I wasn't elected to avoid hard decisions. And neither were the members of the House and the Senate. I've told you what I believe, that our security and our values demand that we cannot turn away from the massacre of countless civilians with chemical weapons. And our democracy is stronger when the President and the people's representatives stand together.

I'm ready to act in the face of this outrage. Today I'm asking Congress to send a message to the world that we are ready to move forward together as one nation.

Thanks very much.

 

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "USA Africa Dialogue Series" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usaafricadialogue+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
Vida de bombeiro Recipes Informatica Humor Jokes Mensagens Curiosity Saude Video Games Car Blog Animals Diario das Mensagens Eletronica Rei Jesus News Noticias da TV Artesanato Esportes Noticias Atuais Games Pets Career Religion Recreation Business Education Autos Academics Style Television Programming Motosport Humor News The Games Home Downs World News Internet Car Design Entertaimment Celebrities 1001 Games Doctor Pets Net Downs World Enter Jesus Variedade Mensagensr Android Rub Letras Dialogue cosmetics Genexus Car net Só Humor Curiosity Gifs Medical Female American Health Madeira Designer PPS Divertidas Estate Travel Estate Writing Computer Matilde Ocultos Matilde futebolcomnoticias girassol lettheworldturn topdigitalnet Bem amado enjohnny produceideas foodasticos cronicasdoimaginario downloadsdegraca compactandoletras newcuriosidades blogdoarmario arrozinhoii sonasol halfbakedtaters make-it-plain amatha