Mandela speaks

[lord dolf vader]

japan isnt about to invade any soverign nations without a declaration of war. or u.n. mandate.

[AKIron]

Originally posted by GScholz
Eh ... you serious? If you were trying to make a point, I'm afraid the only point you made was that of your own ignorance. Norway spends 2% of it's GNP on foreign aid, and I'm sure most of those nations you mentioned spend a significant amount of their GNP on helping others, unless they are in need of help themselves. Hell even SOVIET Russia sent aid when there was a major natural disaster. I remember reading about an An-22 that went down during a major airlift operation bringing aid to Mexico. How much does the USA spend on foreign aid in percent of your GNP? ... and NO, sending Carrier Battlegroups does not count as aid.

The US is the leader in foreign aid. Who cares about your low GNP? This doesn't even include the mountainous resources that the US spends on making the world a safer place with it's political and military influence.

[midnight Target]

Originally posted by Batz

The real question is what has he done to "earn" respect and why should we think his comments have any meaning what so ever.

Lots of people have been prisoners and political prisoners and survived. There is nothing inherently "unique" in his life, especially on that continent.

I have fought against white domination, and I have fought against black domination. I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve. But if needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die.

In prison Mandela never compromised his political principles and was always a source of strength for the other prisoners.

During the 'seventies he refused the offer of a remission of sentence if he recognised Transkei and settled there.

In the 'eighties he again rejected PW Botha's offer of freedom if he renounced violence.

It is significant that shortly after his release on Sunday 11 February 1990, Mandela and his delegation agreed to the suspension of armed struggle.

Mandela has honorary degrees from more than 50 international universities and is chancellor of the University of the North.

He was inaugurated as the first democratically elected State President of South Africa on 10 May 1994 - June 1999

Nelson Mandela retired from Public life in June 1999. He currently resides in his birth place - Qunu, Transkei.

"especially on that continent"...

[Batz]

honorary degrees and rhetoric? They are a dime a dozen.......

even on that continent.

He was much more then your "ebony and ivory" peace nik.

Thats why he was in jail so long. His refusal to renounce violence, most of which was targeted at other black africans.

When he was finally released he gave in and renounced the "armed struggle".

[hazed-]

Originally posted by rc51
mandellas is a silly little man no one really cares what he thinks

yeah silly little man.

suffered years of imprisonment and no doubt a fair amount of torture to stand for what he believed in.Sacrificed his own life for the sake of all the black people in south Afrika.
Eventually the pressure was too much and South Africa bent to international will.Mandella rose from th proverbial pit to lead a new country.Was well aware of the racial tentions and did more than any politician ive seen to allieviate white and blacks concerns.Take the Rugby world cup for instance.Even though it was a policy for the rugby team to have no black players during apartheid and so was a very 'visible' icon of the anti-black country mandella realised it was an oppertunity for forgiveness as well as a new pride for SA. He wore the shirt of the team when he adressed the people, a small thing but if you speak to SA's about it it truelly meant something to them at that delicate time in their history. Imagine it happening in America or Britain if we were like SA?.  He continues to strive for peace and understands more than most what true suffering is.

yeah silly little man.........Rc51 just what is it you have done in your life that makes you the clever Big man that can judge a man like Mandella?

I for one admire him. I'd listen to him before I'd listen to half the politicians of this world. A man who has the strength and resolve to do what he did for his people is a rare human being.Why should a man with such a sense of wrong and right suddenly become someone who we shouldnt listen to, just maybe he might have a point. We can never be sure of ANYONES motives in a war. That includes our own leaders.We can only hope they are truelly doing what they are doing for our safety rather than some sort of profit.

rc51? silly little man...

[GRUNHERZ]

Hazed his current comments are rediculous and show a great deal of ignorance if not outright hatred towards this country. He should be ashamed of himself for saying those things. It seems he is plainly ignorant of the issues and facts or he is senile - either way he has no business commenting seriously on this topic.  Where on earth did he get the 64% Iraq oil figure for example? That is outrageous enough to destroy all credibility he has when speaking on Iraq.
 

Nice to see we agree bounder. As for my loosing all respect for him on account of these remarks and his recent behavior - well lets just say I left that pretty open and non commital the way I wrote it. I recognize the importance of what he did and the personal hardships he endured - but I think he should choose his commentary more carefully and limit it to affairs he has knowlede about. Clearly Iraq is not one of those. Seems to me he is simply falling into lockstep with the mindless left wing euro intellecual  psychotic fear of Bush...

[hazed-]

Originally posted by Suave
Why is so much of the world so bent on protecting a murderous dictator ?

No one wants Saddam to live one second on the face of this earth.He is OBVIOUSLY a tyrant and mass murderer of the worst kind. BUT does it mean its ok to kill thousands of innocent Iraqis to get rid of him?
His people are indocrinated by his propaganda.Hell most even think his war against the west was for his religion.They are being used as pawns.Just because they are fooled into believing Saddam is a good muslim doesnt mean they deserve death.

Then theres the question of the huge power vacuum that will appear with his removal.Will he be replaced by an even more radical leader bent on revenge for his thousands of dead civilain inevitable casualites of a full scale war.
You might propose putting a leader in place who the west can trust? Take another look at your history books for gods sake.Look at what happened to the leader we trusted and put in charge of the Philippines.He turned out to be a tyrant in the vain of Saddam Hussain!!

What most people here are worried about is the fact that DO WE HAVE THE RIGHT to attack Iraq? Have we the proof he had anything to do with Al Quieda? Did he help plan and execute the sept 11th attack? IS he Truelly building these weapons and does he intend to use them?

From what I know of him he is capable of using these weapons without any remorse but I have seen many programmes about the Iraqi people and I do not want to destroy them or their country. If we attack what is essentially PART of the Arab world without a just reason it will be veiwed by arabs worldwide as an attack on their beliefs! We cannot afford a muslim vs christian world war and this is what is at risk.

So to you I say YES we need to do something about Saddam Hussein and Osama and all like them.Yes I will do everything i can to help my country in the war on these people. BUT I want to see the evidence.I want to know that we are right and the cause JUST. The whole world should also be made aware of the reasons we choose to fight or they will decide for themselves.

At the moment many countries are suspicious of the US/UK's motives and i dont blame them. What have we shown them to prove our cause?

I'll tell you........6 shells with chemical weapon warheads.

I worry that our governments are not able to prove anything.I fear the long term results of this war if it comes.

I have a hope. I feel for some reason that our prime minister Tony Blair and Americas president George Bush have information that absolves their decision if they choose war. They probably cannot disclose it without risking the lives of those who have aquired the intelligence. I hope this is so. I will back my prime minister and country and the Americans. The simple fact of the matter is I am disgusted by the Sept 11th attack. I feel after witnessing this act that my whole view of the human race was forever tarnished by it and theres no small amount of desire for utter revenge.I just want to deal out that revenge against those who deserve it not just those who live in whatever country these evil scum hide in.

This is why people are worried, its not the hope to protect Saddam. I suspect the majority of people in the world would agree Saddam is evil but would not agree to destoying a country to rid the world of him. Civilisation BEGAN in these countries centuries ago, lets hope in waging a war there we dont end civilisation in a world religious war. It is unlikely I think but then I would imagine people thought the last 2 world wars were unlikely before they happened.

[hazed-]

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Hazed his current comments are rediculous and show a great deal of ignorance if not outright hatred towards this country. He should be ashamed of himself for saying those things. It seems he is plainly ignorant of the issues and facts or he is senile - either way he has no business commenting seriously on this topic.  Where on earth did he get the 64% Iraq oil figure for example? That is outrageous enough to destroy all credibility he has when speaking on Iraq.
 

Grun I need to read fully what he said recently of course before i decide but i was merely commenting on the will of the man compared to those in here who would call a man like this 'small' .

[GRUNHERZ]

Read It Here Hazed

[miko2d]

Our socialist leaders - republican and democratic alike, do not really beleve in democracy, let alone free market. That freedom is essential to prosperous society and lack of it will lead to weakness.

 They think it can only be brought in on invader's bayonets. Of course the history of US provides plenty of examples - starting with liberation of colonies by french troops and all later american liberation campaigns.

 But in reality, evil regimes do sometimes fall and get replaced with democratic ones even without american help. Such process is happening even in theocratic Iran and communist China. It happened in Soviet Union. It can and will eventually happen in Iraq.

 American's insistence of pushing those worthy values down everybody's throats before they are ready are likely to make it worse, not better for spread of democracy.

 Nobody invaded US to make it abandon slavery or give vote to women - even though some countries had those advances way before.

 Saddam may be SOB, but his country is the only secular arab state in the region and the closest one to the US before 1990. His rule may be oppressive but you can openly buy and own automatic weapons there, which is hardly an indication of popular opposition to the regime.
 Considering that the country consists of at least three mutually-hating groups - shia, suni and kurds, the democratisation of Iraq right now would bring the same results as the one in Ygoslavia, only more savage.

 Left alone, Irak will most likely develop into democratic state. With US intervention, the chances are much smaller. It is likely to split into three parts at war and US will have to take over the duty of oppressing shia muslims and kurds instead of Hussein or be responcibe for unleashing the civil war.

 24 million kurds in surrounding countries are going to be involved, Turkey and Iran (mostly shia) along with them

 miko

[hazed-]

The problem with that report is it does not quote his entire speach.The context is lost when only a few lines are quoted. I'll admit it doesnt sound like a rational attack on the US and UK but then I dont have an idea of the context. 65% of the worlds oil sounds like he is severely misinformed but then again what was Iraqs contribution BEFORE the gulf war?

He could possibly be refering to what iraq produced before Desert Storm and the sanctions presently imposed by our nations and in place for more than 8 years. Anyone have any idea of what they produced and exported before the gulf war?

Could our nations be intent on stopping all oil produced by this country? what sort of money are we talking about? millions? Billions even?

When you see the trouble a few million in government expenditure can cause a political party in power it makes you wonder to what extent that political power would go to, to gain such huge funds. Now consider, if people in our own country wonder and suspect motives what do you think people of nations not involved will think?

[Batz]

Miko,

You should punt that reply up on a new thread. Maybe then those opposed to to action against Iraq will have a real arguement to stand on.

I agree that its far more likely that the result of this action may de-stablize Iraq. The kurds arent likely to be satisfied in remaining apart of Iraq proper. Iran has a vested interest in seeing the Shi'ites become self governing or even becoming a part of Iran.

I dont think the "Balkanization" of Iraq will happen the day after Saddam is removed. But as the various factions get a good taste of liberty they may not settle for a just a "part".

Thats the real threat. Not American imperialism or Bush's desire to "steal" oil.

To convince me of that the Invasion of Iraq is necessary the President would need to provide real evidence that Saddam has WMDs.

Without that I fear we may end up making things worse in the long run.

[bounder]

Originally posted by Gunthr
Hello Bounder,

Hi Gunthr

If you refer to Saddam Hussain, you will hear convincing evidence to answer your question when US Sec of State Powell addresses the United Nations - in a week or so.

[/B]
What question? Sorry, I really don't know what question you're reffering to.

Regarding your qualifier: "Especially with our record of installing them or endorsing them, and butressing their regimes against their people, with funds for the police and military."

Past foreign policy is irrelevent. Its irritating to hear this rationale for non-support of Bush's policy towards Iraq repeated so often. If you don't like how Bush is handling Iraq, please choose another argument.

[/B]

You say that past foreign policy is irrelevant. But you don't go on to say why.

Its irritating to hear this rationale for non-support of Bush's policy towards Iraq

A few points about that:
Needing a reason not to support something erroneously infers a default state of support, which is not the case.

Citing history is not a 'rationale'. It is an attempt to understand the present. Indeed it is central to understanding the present, without history you cannot grasp the processes, only the events. And it is the processes, the things beyond our immediate control, that really shape the world.

Americans, whatever their political views, ALL expect the President to protect our families and loved ones from outside threats. That expectation willl not be set aside because someone thinks that American foreign policy has not been consistent over the years. The issue is security. [/B]

Security is a very big issue indeed. I would argue that a full scale invasion of Iraq, followed by total disarmament and the installation of a transition government will do little to increase our security here in the UK. It's very difficult to say what the results of such an action will be, but I confidently predict a further radicalisation of pan-Arab opinion against percieved 'western' injustices if this war goes ahead as planned.

I simply don't believe we are any more or less secure than we were 2, 5 10 or 20 years ago. Heck, I'd feel a lot more secure if I was in the USA, umpteen carrier battle groups and a nuclear arsenal that could glass the whole planet. Now that's security.

[X2Lee]

Originally posted by GScholz
... and NO, sending Carrier Battlegroups does not count as aid.

I guess that would depend on whether YOU were liberated from murders and rapists in your own house by those carriers.

Not to side with either of you  

[AKIron]

Originally posted by GScholz
GNP percentage means everything. It shows how much you're giving of the total of what you've got. The USA, a country of 284 million citizens, will increase its foreign aid to $16 billion by 2006, that's 0.108 of your GNP. Norway, a country of 4.5 million citizens, has budgeted $1.8 billion for foreign aid in 2003. The average Norwegian (and Swede btw.) gives 6.9 times as much to help others than the average American.

Not much in the mood to argue but I will say this. If in need what would you rather receive, 100% of the resources from someone that has nothing or 5% of the resources from someone that has everything? This isn't one of those gifts where it's the thought that counts.