South Africa's Minister of Defence vs the US Secretary of Defense

JohnStarr

Executive Member
Joined
May 21, 2018
Messages
7,114
Of course, as similar as Mswati and Ramaphosa's positions are, they are both heads of their respective countries.
Makes no sense...they are running the defence departments of their countries are they not? Simple question, don't divert or dodge.
 

Illegal Allien

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2018
Messages
167
Don't they both look after the respective armies of their countries? I'd kind of say they are similar.

Except she's a primary school teacher with zero experience and he's clearly got what it needs to succeed.
Should every country have the US as a template on who should do what? I gave examples of the Irish and French Defence ministers not having any military experience, one has a farming degree the other economics
 

splattie

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2011
Messages
317
Maybe you need a reminder of South African history and war of the last 100 years?

Boer War
WW1
WW2
Korean War
Cold War
Rhodesian War
Angolan / Mozambican War

Suggest you go read your history...
Maybe you should fact check yourself before responding.


The US has been in one or other war since 1775.
 

username and 23 others

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2020
Messages
165
We can compare qualifications till the cows come home, it will not change the fact that the so-called ministers are responsible for the loss of lives, destruction of businesses, loss of jobs, loss of investor confidence, cause of food and fuel shortages, etc. Effects that will be felt by all for years to come.

Imagine if this was nationwide? Imagine if ZA was invaded by enemies? How much more would the costs of lives, etc not have been...? And yet, not one will be fired. Not one will be held accountable. And these guys proclaim that they're public... servants? They have sworn to protect us. They have sworn to uphold the values "enshrined" in our constitution.

In other countries ministers would have stepped down and done the right and honourable thing. Not our "honourable" ministers. They are above the law. They are untouchables. They can do just what they want. They can do just what they do not want. They are a den of murderers and gangsters and thieves who only look out for themselves. Not one of them cares for the public they're meant to serve.

They deserve to be in front of a firing squad for their actions and inabillity to make decisions. Their priotity is themselves and themselves alone. Set up a vote of no confidence in these ministers and we all know what the result will be. Qualified or under-qualified does not give you morals, values, respect, honesty, self-sacrifice, pride in service to your fellow man and service delivery, upholding the rule of law.

They can rot in hell (because no one willl see a jail cell).
 

TheChamp

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 26, 2011
Messages
39,567
Makes no sense...they are running the defence departments of their countries are they not? Simple question, don't divert or dodge.
Don't divert or dodge? good one.

It makes perfect sense, you just prefer to deliberately confuse yourself.
 

JohnStarr

Executive Member
Joined
May 21, 2018
Messages
7,114
Don't divert or dodge? good one.

It makes perfect sense, you just prefer to deliberately confuse yourself.
No...it's a simple question and you diverted the answer to some half-hearted misdirection back at me.
Hope you feel cleverer for that ;-)
 

kolaval

Executive Member
Joined
May 13, 2011
Messages
6,687
Our Ministers of health have always been doctors, the government has never preferred a former military officer as a Defence Minister, General Siphiwe Nyanda was made a Minister of something else, I am sure they have their reasons for that.

Side question, could those reasons include crony-ism and or a fear of a military coop?

As I have already said our previous Finance Ministers were not finance people, If you want to make a point about appointing Ministers qualified in the applicable field it is fair enough,
Agreed. I think you and I will be better off for it.

wanting to use some other government s a standard could also be fair enough if that government was consistent in applying the standard.
You brought up the US minister of agriculture?
I gave an example in our own government, but more for the point of being qualified
 

Cosmik Debris

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 25, 2021
Messages
12,821
Maybe you should fact check yourself before responding.


The US has been in one or other war since 1775.

We are discussing the incompetency of the South African Minister of Defence. If you want to go back to 1775, South Africa was involved in one or other war since then too. My ancestors partook in most of them.

Need a list?

But what does that have to do with the incompetency of the SA Minister of Defence anyway? Nobody from those times is still alive? You're derailing the topic.
 

TheChamp

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 26, 2011
Messages
39,567
Side question, could those reasons include crony-ism and or a fear of a military coop?


Agreed. I think you and I will be better off for it.


You brought up the US minister of agriculture?
I gave an example in our own government, but more for the point of being qualified
I think it is exactly that, it's a matter of keeping the Defence force neutral and independent from politics, that's why it was a bad idea to have a politician being a Police Commissioner, it just blurs the lines.
 

Some Eejit

Active Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2018
Messages
71
Should every country have the US as a template on who should do what? I gave examples of the Irish and French Defence ministers not having any military experience, one has a farming degree the other economics

Regarding the Irish minister you cited; the former head of his party, who he previously worked under, used to hold the same position and later went on to be the country's Prime Minister. Guess what he was qualified as? A primary school teacher!
 

Cosmik Debris

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 25, 2021
Messages
12,821
I think it is exactly that, it's a matter of keeping the Defence force neutral and independent from politics, that's why it was a bad idea to have a politician being a Police Commissioner, it just blurs the lines.

The Defence Force is already supposed to be neutral and apolitical, as are the police. The Defence Act states the following with regard to political activities of members of the SANDF:

No SANDF member may stand as a candidate for a political party.
No SANDF Member may promote any political party, privately or publicly.
No SANDF member may officiate at a political meeting.
No SANDF member may wear the regalia of any political party, privately or publicly.
No SANDF member may attend a political meeting in uniform.
No SANDF member may express any opinion at a political meeting while in civilian clothing.

The sole political participation of an SANDF member is their right to attend a political meeting out of uniform and to cast a secret ballot at election time.
 

cr@zydude

Executive Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2008
Messages
9,623
An infantry corporal probably wouldn't have the education or training to explain it to a civilian MP. Part of the requirement being a four-star general should be the ability to interact and explain military concepts to civilian politicians.

Plenty of countries don't always choose ex-soldiers as Defence Minters, UK for example.

UK Minister of Defence - Ben Wallace - he served as a Captain of the Scots Guard. The two previous ministers had no military experience. Penny Mordaunt studied Drama, Gavin Williamson did a social science degree.

I believe that the US actually has a rule that the Defence Secretary should not have served in the military for a certain period before taking the job. Congress waives it when asked, but the idea was to prevent generals moving over into the post.
 

Pineapple Smurf

Pineapple Beer Connoisseur
Joined
Aug 2, 2016
Messages
37,210
Jinne, for **** sakes

viva ANC :love:

SARS is now issuing 'final demands' to taxpayers – how it works and how you  can protect yourself | MyBroadband Forum
 

Cosmik Debris

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 25, 2021
Messages
12,821
I believe that the US actually has a rule that the Defence Secretary should not have served in the military for a certain period before taking the job. Congress waives it when asked, but the idea was to prevent generals moving over into the post.

That was the norm before 1994 in the SADF as well. Members couldn't just leave and join the defence industry or occupy a political appointment the next day. A six months separation was required. After 1994 the requirement eventually fell away and many left and started work in the defence industry the next day.
 

ForceFate

Honorary Master
Joined
May 18, 2009
Messages
30,919
this, its like comparing Einstein with a petrol station attendant, different worlds entirely.
just goes to show you to be a minister of ANYTHING, all you really need is to be black and related in someway, shape or form to somebody important in the ANC.

nobody cares if you can/cant do your job, nobody checks if you show up to work, nobody cares if you know anything.
all that's important is your black (not hard) and your related to somebody in the ANC (can be tricky)

and yes, you too can be a "elite" minster or part of their entourage.
Never judge a person by the work they do.

Edit: You'd be surprised how many people do certain jobs out of desperation, and not because they lack the brain matter to go further.

A popular example is a gentleman called Frank Magwegwe.
 
Last edited:
Top