Nelson Mandela describes US as 'threat to world peace.'

Enlightenment · Post by **Enlightenment** » 2002-09-12 03:23am

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/2251067.stm

Shut up, Azeron.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2002-09-12 08:55am

Lol premepting there?

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2002-09-12 09:10am

Mandela needs to get his own country straight before trying to get involved on the international scene.

Besides, for someone who spent most of his life inprisoned by an opressive regime, he should be more open to the idea of removing Sadam and his cronies.

Cpt_Frank · Post by **Cpt_Frank** » 2002-09-12 09:17am

Besides, for someone who spent most of his life inprisoned by an opressive regime, he should be more open to the idea of removing Sadam and his cronies.

The very fact that he is not should tell you something about him.

Post by **Colonel Olrik** » 2002-09-12 09:40am

How many people would, once achieving power, embrace and forgive enemies who kept them in prison for thirty years? two, three?

The Man has the right to speak of whatever he wants.
And deserves to be listened.

The only sad part was him leaving the presidency. South Africa is a far worse place since that happened.

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2002-09-12 11:03am

Mandela is just joining the new international sport: "Bash America!" It's fun and safe and even dictators and impotent leaders of impovrished nations can play. One of my favorite examples was the meeting regarding slavery and racial justice held in South Africa IIRC where the US was bashed for its slave days TWO HUNDRED YEARS AGO, yet slavery is ALIVE AND WELL in the Sudan and other AFRICAN nations....makes you wonder why we should even care what happens to the rest of the world since these same bashers are the ones lining up for that US Aid welfare check.

Tsyroc · Post by **Tsyroc** » 2002-09-12 11:19am

Stravo wrote: <snip> that US Aid welfare check.

We should have cut that shit out a long time ago.

MGraham · Post by **MGraham** » 2002-09-12 12:28pm

Wicked Pilot said:Mandela needs to get his own country straight before trying to get involved on the international scene.

Just because someones life is not perfect does not mean that they do not have a valid argument. The same goes for nations.

I believe everything Mandela said is valid. The problem with our country is not that america is evil but that our country was co-opted by private interests that do not represent the will of the people or democracy.

Why are we going after Iraq so harshly yet leaving Saudi Arabia alone? The later is the country where most of the terrorist who attacked our country came from not to mention that it is a "kingdom" which is just a fancy name for heriditary dictatorship and the former is a nation that has been paralized by our bombing and subsequent economic sanctions. I find Saudi Arabia to be much more of an imediate threat than Iraq could be for another 10 years.

If bush is going to use the argument that we have to bring democracy to the Iraqi people then he should explain why we don't have to bring democracy to the Saudi people.

I make no claims that Hussein is a good person or even a valid leader, but I am saying that we should hold the same standard for the whole world. If we were willing to say that we would defend every state that desired to become a true democracy then that would be great, but using the democracy argument when it is financially or politically convienent is hypocrytical.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-09-12 12:35pm

Saddam Hussein is an asshole. The problem is, he's been an asshole for 20 years, so why is it suddenly an emergency to get him now?

A little more cynicism would greatly benefit the American people. George W. Bush's war on Al-Queda is stalled, and everyone knows it. He can't find the fuckers, he doesn't have a clue where they are, and all he's done is drive them out of Afghanistan to different hiding places around the world. He also has serious problems on the home front; the economy is in trouble, the telecom and IT industries are downright hemorrhagic, unemployment is rising, the stock market is tanking, and he refuses to take anything more than window-dressing actions to punish or rein in the perpetrators of corporate fraud because he's one of them, not one of us.

So in the midst of all this trouble, all of a sudden he decides that after ten years of leaving Saddam alone, it's time to go kick some ass in Iraq. Now, as I've said before, it's true that Saddam Hussein is an asshole. But it's also true that the world is full of other assholes that the US doesn't give a shit about, and even this particular asshole was considered a back-burner issue until Dubya suddenly decided that he needed to distract the voters before the upcoming mid-term elections.

Doesn't anybody read between the lines any more?

Mr. B · Post by **Mr. B** » 2002-09-12 12:47pm

Mandela is by far a better man than ol' GWB. To say he has no right to Criticize america because there are other problems in Africa and in S. Africa is going off track. Those problems are deeper and harder to fix than any American knows.

And he knows that the War against Iraq is just an attempt to keep the American People waving their flags and ignoring the economic and political problems in America. Not to mention the fact that the war on terror has stalled to the point that it is no longer newsworthy to the press that we need another enemy, an easier enemy to fight, to keep the public in the dark.

It is times like this that makes me wish Bill Maher was still on TV.

Vendetta · Post by **Vendetta** » 2002-09-12 12:49pm

Darth Wong wrote:Saddam Hussein is an asshole. The problem is, he's been an asshole for 20 years, so why is it suddenly an emergency to get him now?

Cause daddy couldn't do it first time.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2002-09-12 01:05pm

I've considered that viewpoint as well, though the only nagging question is how long has this been planned for?

The whole timing of it obviously has the elections in mind (rumor is that it's going to occur shortly after), but could it have been planned out much earlier?

Vendetta · Post by **Vendetta** » 2002-09-12 01:13pm

I'm not sure about it being planned, but as much as the coming elections, Bush wants the eyes of the American people looking outwards suspiciously, not suspiciously examining the mandate he claims to hold.

If he can keep the 'us and them' attitude up, party politics will essentially go on the back burner.

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2002-09-12 01:25pm

Darth Wong wrote:Saddam Hussein is an asshole. The problem is, he's been an asshole for 20 years, so why is it suddenly an emergency to get him now?

A little more cynicism would greatly benefit the American people. George W. Bush's war on Al-Queda is stalled, and everyone knows it. He can't find the fuckers, he doesn't have a clue where they are, and all he's done is drive them out of Afghanistan to different hiding places around the world. He also has serious problems on the home front; the economy is in trouble, the telecom and IT industries are downright hemorrhagic, unemployment is rising, the stock market is tanking, and he refuses to take anything more than window-dressing actions to punish or rein in the perpetrators of corporate fraud because he's one of them, not one of us.

So in the midst of all this trouble, all of a sudden he decides that after ten years of leaving Saddam alone, it's time to go kick some ass in Iraq. Now, as I've said before, it's true that Saddam Hussein is an asshole. But it's also true that the world is full of other assholes that the US doesn't give a shit about, and even this particular asshole was considered a back-burner issue until Dubya suddenly decided that he needed to distract the voters before the upcoming mid-term elections.

Doesn't anybody read between the lines any more?

However the current administration's obsession with Sadaam could also be explained by the policy that has emerged of preemptive strikes against terrorist threats vs. the US. Bush's policy is to take the fight to the terrorists BEFORE they can launch any strikes against us. I know that I'm deathly afraid of what would happen if that psycopath got his hands on weapons of mass destruction.

I happen to agree with that policy, I can see the other side's argument about the current domestic issues, and I'm sure that this also plays a part, even a major part, considering his ties to these companies, and "Invisible Mna" Dick Cheney who has dropped off the face of the earth right afer the whole Enron crisis exploded and who I might add is vehemntly opposing the opening of records of his meetings with the energy people a year ago when trying to achieve a new energy policy for the US. Smells like a rat to me. But I don't believe that it is the sole driving factor. We have enemies, enemies who hate us and want to destroy us. Bush realizes that we have to hit them first before they hit us.

Evil Jerk · Post by **Evil Jerk** » 2002-09-12 01:31pm

We have enemies, enemies who hate us and want to destroy us. Bush realizes that we have to hit them first before they hit us.

And attacking Iraq solves this?
Maybe you forget that the people who organized such things as 9/11 weren't countries, they were people hiding in caves sponsored by wealthy people all over the Middle East.

Attacking Iraq will not solve terrorism, it solves the U.S. leadership's personal agendas and make them APPEAR to be fighting the terrorist problem when in reality they couldn't even catch Bin Laden.

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2002-09-12 02:18pm

Evil Jerk wrote:
We have enemies, enemies who hate us and want to destroy us. Bush realizes that we have to hit them first before they hit us.
And attacking Iraq solves this?
Maybe you forget that the people who organized such things as 9/11 weren't countries, they were people hiding in caves sponsored by wealthy people all over the Middle East.

Attacking Iraq will not solve terrorism, it solves the U.S. leadership's personal agendas and make them APPEAR to be fighting the terrorist problem when in reality they couldn't even catch Bin Laden.

Whereas NOT attacking Iraq and elminating them as a potential nuclear bomber is NOT fighting terrroism?!

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2002-09-12 02:27pm

Stravo wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:Saddam Hussein is an asshole. The problem is, he's been an asshole for 20 years, so why is it suddenly an emergency to get him now?

A little more cynicism would greatly benefit the American people. George W. Bush's war on Al-Queda is stalled, and everyone knows it. He can't find the fuckers, he doesn't have a clue where they are, and all he's done is drive them out of Afghanistan to different hiding places around the world. He also has serious problems on the home front; the economy is in trouble, the telecom and IT industries are downright hemorrhagic, unemployment is rising, the stock market is tanking, and he refuses to take anything more than window-dressing actions to punish or rein in the perpetrators of corporate fraud because he's one of them, not one of us.

So in the midst of all this trouble, all of a sudden he decides that after ten years of leaving Saddam alone, it's time to go kick some ass in Iraq. Now, as I've said before, it's true that Saddam Hussein is an asshole. But it's also true that the world is full of other assholes that the US doesn't give a shit about, and even this particular asshole was considered a back-burner issue until Dubya suddenly decided that he needed to distract the voters before the upcoming mid-term elections.

Doesn't anybody read between the lines any more?
However the current administration's obsession with Sadaam could also be explained by the policy that has emerged of preemptive strikes against terrorist threats vs. the US. Bush's policy is to take the fight to the terrorists BEFORE they can launch any strikes against us. I know that I'm deathly afraid of what would happen if that psycopath got his hands on weapons of mass destruction.

I happen to agree with that policy, I can see the other side's argument about the current domestic issues, and I'm sure that this also plays a part, even a major part, considering his ties to these companies, and "Invisible Mna" Dick Cheney who has dropped off the face of the earth right afer the whole Enron crisis exploded and who I might add is vehemntly opposing the opening of records of his meetings with the energy people a year ago when trying to achieve a new energy policy for the US. Smells like a rat to me. But I don't believe that it is the sole driving factor. We have enemies, enemies who hate us and want to destroy us. Bush realizes that we have to hit them first before they hit us.

Saddam Hussein is not a psychopath. Psychopaths tend to be unable to hold office for years (with the exception of Hitler). Even if he were to acquire nuclear weapons, he would not use them against the U.S. simply because it would mean the destruction of the entire Arab world.

Making claims that the latest evildoer-of-the-week "has or may have sometime in the near future nuclear weapons" seems to be a trend in recent years. Even dirt-poor, starving, disorganized terrorists sects seem to be capable of making million dollar nuclear weapons these days!

THe Bush doctrine of preemptive strikes is pretty scary; what if India decides to follow suit and launch a "preemptive strike" against Pakistan? Or Israel against the Palestinians?

As for Iraq hating the United States, well, given the fact that our stated goal is the destruction of their country, what the hell do you expect?It's too bad, too; Iraq was one of the most prosperous, liberal countries in the Middle East. Ten years of sanctions and bombing have made it otherwise.

Evil Jerk · Post by **Evil Jerk** » 2002-09-12 02:27pm

Stravo wrote:
Evil Jerk wrote:
We have enemies, enemies who hate us and want to destroy us. Bush realizes that we have to hit them first before they hit us.
And attacking Iraq solves this?
Maybe you forget that the people who organized such things as 9/11 weren't countries, they were people hiding in caves sponsored by wealthy people all over the Middle East.

Attacking Iraq will not solve terrorism, it solves the U.S. leadership's personal agendas and make them APPEAR to be fighting the terrorist problem when in reality they couldn't even catch Bin Laden.
Whereas NOT attacking Iraq and elminating them as a potential nuclear bomber is NOT fighting terrroism?!

I understand that Saddam is a potential threat.
On the other hand, the U.S. has been content to leave him be for years, and new policy or not, if this war is being fought for the wrong reasons it could be very ugly. Attacking Iraq at the wrong time might even provoke more terrorism.

In any case, it remains to be seen whether they are truly willing to take out Saddam, instead of just rolling up to his front door and going away like last time.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2002-09-12 02:38pm

http://www.africancrisis.org/photos7.asp

www.africancrisis.org

Pictures do tell a thousand words:

********

Let's take a peek at history by looking at some
publications which are now almost 30 years old.

Below is a Liberation Magazine called The Zimbabwe Review. It is the mouthpiece of the ANC (African National Congress - of Zimbabwe)

Take a look above where I drew some big red arrows. There you will see they had offices in Cuba and East Germany. They like communists...

They advise their black readers to listen to Radio Berlin. Read the paragraph which is headed "Keeps you up to date on". Note it mentions "peace, national liberation and social liberation" - in other words... Communism...

Africa's Bin Laden

Joshua Nkomo led ZAPU which was sponsored by Russia. Robert Mugabe led Zanu(PF) which was sponsored by China. Nkomo authorised the shooting down of civilian airliners. In the late 1970's his terrorists used hand-held missile launchers to shoot down two Rhodesian airways Viscount turbo-prop planes, each containing about 50 holiday-makers. The heat-seeking missiles struck the aircraft engines. The one plane crashed into the bush and hit a gully and broke into pieces. Everyone was killed. The other crash- landed in the African bush. The civilians survived their ordeal. However, the terrorists knew the flight paths and had estimated where the plane would crash and they had a team on the ground which went to the plane. They found the survivors and KILLED THEM ALL!!

Then Mr Nkomo appeared on BBC TV with a huge smile, literally jumping out of his skin from sheer delight, taking responsibility for this cold-blooded slaughter of innocent civilians.

But in Africa, terrorism can be good for a political career. It sort of proves that you are fit to rule... Africa's Bin Laden went on to greater things. In the 1980's after a power struggle with Robert Mugabe, he was promoted to the Vice-President of Zimbabwe. He held this position until he died.

******************

All of the African "liberators" including Mandela are fucking COMMUNISTS.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2002-09-12 02:46pm

Yeah, Robert Mugabe is a filthy piece of Marxist shit. Read this article:

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/afr ... ory=116087

Scary stuff.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2002-09-12 03:04pm

Darth Wong wrote:Saddam Hussein is an asshole. The problem is, he's been an asshole for 20 years, so why is it suddenly an emergency to get him now?

A little more cynicism would greatly benefit the American people. George W. Bush's war on Al-Queda is stalled, and everyone knows it. He can't find the fuckers, he doesn't have a clue where they are, and all he's done is drive them out of Afghanistan to different hiding places around the world. He also has serious problems on the home front; the economy is in trouble, the telecom and IT industries are downright hemorrhagic, unemployment is rising, the stock market is tanking, and he refuses to take anything more than window-dressing actions to punish or rein in the perpetrators of corporate fraud because he's one of them, not one of us.

So in the midst of all this trouble, all of a sudden he decides that after ten years of leaving Saddam alone, it's time to go kick some ass in Iraq. Now, as I've said before, it's true that Saddam Hussein is an asshole. But it's also true that the world is full of other assholes that the US doesn't give a shit about, and even this particular asshole was considered a back-burner issue until Dubya suddenly decided that he needed to distract the voters before the upcoming mid-term elections.

Doesn't anybody read between the lines any more?

So I guess Desert Strike, Desert Thunder and Desert Fox and the weekly bombing raids and SEAD missions since Dec 16 1998 don't exist?

The United States, United Kingdom and Iraq have been actively fighting a war since Dec 16 1998, and have been at war with Iraq since Jan 16 1991. Talk of a final attack on Iraq actually predates September 11; the administration began openly talking about it before even Kabul had fallen.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2002-09-12 03:23pm

Sea Skimmer wrote: So I guess Desert Strike, Desert Thunder and Desert Fox and the weekly bombing raids and SEAD missions since Dec 16 1998 don't exist?

The United States, United Kingdom and Iraq have been actively fighting a war since Dec 16 1998, and have been at war with Iraq since Jan 16 1991. Talk of a final attack on Iraq actually predates September 11; the administration began openly talking about it before even Kabul had fallen.

Shit, I remember when we smoked a bunch of ChiCom technicians
who were laying fiber-optic cabling for Iraq's Air Defense System....

They light us up on radar, we shoot at them, they shoot back...

Phil Skayhan · Post by **Phil Skayhan** » 2002-09-12 04:23pm

It is absolutely correct to see Bush's push for action against Iraq before the mid-term election has some political motivations. The Democrats in Congress have been asking the President to lay out his case before them and he should and will this week. However, they want to wait until after the elections before voting on a resolution endorsing the President's plan.

If they do decide to vote on the resolution before the elections, it could be an important factor in the voters' mind as to which way the candidate voted.
Those in Congress who plan to oppose the resolution are apparently afraid of this.

Azeron · Post by **Azeron** » 2002-09-12 06:29pm

I think this can mean only one thing

South Africa has formally joined the axis of evil and must be invaded.

Evil Jerk · Post by **Evil Jerk** » 2002-09-12 06:35pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:So I guess Desert Strike, Desert Thunder and Desert Fox and the weekly bombing raids and SEAD missions since Dec 16 1998 don't exist?

The United States, United Kingdom and Iraq have been actively fighting a war since Dec 16 1998, and have been at war with Iraq since Jan 16 1991. Talk of a final attack on Iraq actually predates September 11; the administration began openly talking about it before even Kabul had fallen.

You mean the war where they abandoned Iraq once they got what they wanted?
You mean the piecemeal bombing attacks which have only made the people suffer while Saddam lives it up on free propaganda?

Sure, they've TALKED about invading again, but that's all it was, talk.
Now it's convenient to attack Iraq full on, so they do.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Nelson Mandela describes US as 'threat to world peace.'

Nelson Mandela describes US as 'threat to world peace.'

Mandela and his ilk are just old broke down MARXISTS!

Political Motivations