Utter bullshyte. Back up what you say with evidence.
-
Question of the day ~ Does SA need new regulations around the sale of alcohol?
Utter bullshyte. Back up what you say with evidence.
There was a negotiated settlement. The fall of the Soviet Union caused a drastic reduction in Western support for the SA NP government which led De Klerk and Co to face a dilemma, either continue with more uprisings which would be put down - the ANC was not a significant military opposition - but the increasing brutality of the put-downs would be counterproductive to
SA's image abroad, suffer increasing sanctions or negotiate a peaceful
transition. The ANC was given SA on a platter. There was no win, hence no
purge. If the Nats wanted they could have continued for many years but they chose the easier way and obviously the more moral way as apartheid was immoral. However, just because apartheid was immoral it did not mean that the people who replaced the apartheid government - the new regime would be automatically moral. Case in point - the 'liberation' of Eastern Europe by the Red Army from Nazi Germany. That was of course an unconditional surrender, in SA we had a negotiated agreement - an agreement most whites supported in the 199x referendum where they
gave De Klerk the mandate to open talks with the ANC/legalise them etc.
As for the Nats, they were not angels but Mandela inherited a RICH country with excellent infrastructure (airports, roads, rail-links, harbours), industry with built in redundancy (Mossgas, Daimmler-Benz/Perkins investments, etc)
and well developed mines with well trained police and a top class health system. The ANC government in turn chose not to expand and capitalise on these things too well, they drove many educated whites (and coloureds and Indians and even blacks) out of SA and instead of uplifting the poor to a higher level chose to bring everyone down to a much lower common denominator. If the remaining few whites are not living in shacks it's because there aren't enough black graduates to replace them yet - but it's not for lack of trying although ironically SA was (is to some extent) so prosperous because of a skilled and educated workforce and a pioneering spirit which has led countries like Canada, the US and Australia to dominate the world economically.
Now we see the gradual undoing of all that was good, while rightfully we've abolished apartheid and discrimination we also abolished rule of law, personal responsibility, accountability, system of health, infrastructure, many redundacies in the industry (eg backup power plants which Eskom and municipalities demolished) etc etc.
Take what is good and preserve it - enlarge it, let it flourish, eliminate the bad and do it all for the citizens and not for cheap populism and personal enrichment.
BandwidthAddict
Expert Member
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2005
- Messages
- 2,343
Larry, Larry, Larry.
So what was your point?
Does any of this prevent a Zim situation?
Zim 2.0 will happen not because of the good points in the New SA, but will happen because of the bad points.
How about this. You feel so strongly about New SA's good future but let us see if you can provide reason for your convictions: Show us that you understand the situation in New SA by listing the current socio-economic danger points and how you think they will be neutralised in the near future to prevent Zim 2.0.
I don't think you can do it. I think you are all about feelings and hopes and dreams and desires but little reason. Prove me wrong.
So what was your point?
Does any of this prevent a Zim situation?
Zim 2.0 will happen not because of the good points in the New SA, but will happen because of the bad points.
How about this. You feel so strongly about New SA's good future but let us see if you can provide reason for your convictions: Show us that you understand the situation in New SA by listing the current socio-economic danger points and how you think they will be neutralised in the near future to prevent Zim 2.0.
I don't think you can do it. I think you are all about feelings and hopes and dreams and desires but little reason. Prove me wrong.
Last edited:
Difference between a conservative and a liberal, a mugging.
R13...
Honorary Master
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2008
- Messages
- 42,861
I was answering a question by MaryJane, your blindness!
And balstrome you're a <insert banning word here>!
charlie_82
Expert Member
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2007
- Messages
- 2,993
Some people have families and children man. Who wants to tell their innocent 5yr old to look behind his/her shoulder every minute of the day?
Schools aren't safe, the streets aren't safe, our homes aren't safe.
It's just a matter of time before you or someone you know is hijacked, or mugged, or stabbed, or raped etc etc.
I don't think it's fair to judge why people leave this country.
I know I would leave in a heartbeat if I could. Because someday I want to have kids and I want them to be able to ride their bikes down the street without fear. To play in the park with their friends without fear. These are basic human rights!
Who are you to judge??
John or Doubting?
Chicken Boo
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2009
- Messages
- 991
783 charges? srsly?
Hoof-Hearted
Expert Member
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2007
- Messages
- 1,113
Mandela is history and his use has expired... let the old man enjoy his last days... he brought us a peaceful transition... so just be grateful
But the worst was using Zuma's name in the same post as Mandela... SHAMEFUL !!
Adolf Hitler took an impoverished, jobless, raped Germany and made it a world power. He took four million men off the streets and had them employed. He envisioned a perfect world. Can you really blame him for that? Of course, his methods were despicable and he will unfortunately be remembered only for that.
You kidding me. He destroyed Germany and made half of it subordinate to the Soviet Union. It was a close call for Germany after WW2, many influential people were of the opinion that Germany should become a backward agricultural power and only Soviet aggression prevented that - but if the Russians weren't such Bolsheviks, Germany would probably have been broken up after all prior to the 19th century Germany as a country didn't exist.
Actually if you look at how Hungary of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and Turkey were treated - Germany got off lightly in Versailles. Anyway I think Hitchen's was of the opinion that Britain should have let Hitler have his way and butcher half of Europe. I'm sure the Jews appreciate that type of reasoning, not to mention that Japan attacked and occupied British colonies in Asia anyway. Stupid history revisionists.
After WWI, Germany was in shambles. Hitler took it from there to a power that terrified the entire world. His dobermann, Nazi, Hitler posters instilled fear all over the globe. That's remarkable.
And as for the Jews, America sent boatloads of Jewish refugees back to the gas chambers, because America believed Hitler was going to take over the entire world and they really didn't want to house what Hitler viewed as the scum of the earth. Go Yankees.
And as for the Jews, America sent boatloads of Jewish refugees back to the gas chambers, because America believed Hitler was going to take over the entire world and they really didn't want to house what Hitler viewed as the scum of the earth. Go Yankees.
Not fear but more disgust and hate. The Nazis had to resort to hardcore civilian executions and even then they couldn't control occupied territories, they were loosing both men and senior commanders in assassination attempts like crazy. They were disrupted at every step. If you read about German control of occupied territories you'd see that there were numerous places Germans couldn't go and despite murderous tactics they never managed to break peoples' spirits. The most murderous of commanders often ended up assassinated by the resistance. As said Germany after WW1 got off lightly compared to Turkey and Hungary. Austria also got off badly. Germany just had their egos injured and instead of peaceful reconstruction they chose to start a second more murderous war. Well done.
USA accepted many Jewish (and other) immigrants throughout its history and
Roosevelt was itching to give it to Hitler. Some say the US navy even provoked the Japanese to attack them on numerous occasions as a pretext.
I don't want to argue this as this is off topic but Hitchen's has a warped view of history. I don't think I can trust his views.
Last edited:
Of course... when they needed cheap labour, due to the end of slavery, they imported impoverished Europeans. They took all the useful Jews and <insert nationality here> after they had a large enough labour pool.
However, there is no condoning what he did. and I have to agree with the resistance thing... though their methods were more terrible than what most history books will tell you... believe me... I know.
Link?
and then as Peter pointed out he destroyed it. Now that was really remarkable
Wrong, Alan. The Yanks destroyed it. They abandoned their isolationism because Europe was getting raped. Had they not interfered, Germany would control the entire Eurasian continent today. And it would probably have enjoyed the level of infrastructure Germany has today. Two continents, free of poverty and unemployment and war. And don't try and point out his methods, I know. What I'm trying to say is that what he intended was a perfect world.
A perfect world
. With every non desirable race murdered en mass. The guy was a megalomaniac who cared only for himself. He didn't give a **** about anybody else. Certainly not the German people. The "Eurasians" would be at best second class citizens used for cheap labour.