Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: neolib who wrote (122608)	6/29/2005 5:40:24 PM
From: Ish	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793896

<<I was a white living in Rhodesia during the 1970's.>> Son of a bitch, you have an interesting history there. Do you think the country will ever be able to feed it's self again or will the slaughter go on and on?

To: neolib who wrote (122608)	6/29/2005 10:16:11 PM
From: bela_ghoulashi	Respond to of 793896

"Well, they have peace of sorts now. The whites that are left are well under 1%. The guy that runs the show is a despot, but he's black." The post I was questioning led me to believe you had first-hand experience of some kind of great success story, of "what exactly works", wherein "all parties are somehow included, or accommodated". Clearly that is not the case.

To: neolib who wrote (122608)	6/30/2005 12:08:39 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 793896

Damn natives started a terrorist war (simply how the week fight the strong) No, guy. The weak fight the strong with irregular wars; the side that prefers terrorism over a guerilla war is the side that has no care for the life of civilians. Anytime you have a force that has true democratic aims, no matter how weak they are you can see their aversion to killing innocent people. The Americans revolutionaries were very weak when they began to fight in 1775; the British complained bitterly that they shot at them from behind trees in a most unlawful fashion; but you never saw George Washington sending in incendiaries to burn down towns that sympathized with the British, to terrorize the population into compliance.

To: neolib who wrote (122608)	6/30/2005 12:42:47 AM
From: Hoa Hao	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793896

"Does any of this remind you of another little war???" No. If you wish to see every conflict through Rhodesian tinted glasses, you won't see clearly. Iraq is not Vietnam, not Rhodesia, not Malaysia, not the Philipines during the Huks, not South Africa, not Korea in 1950, not anything but Iraq. Was it the deaths or the sanctions and pressure from the west which liberated Rhodesia?? "If the whites of Rhodesia had shown a strong commitment to racial justice in the 1940's and on, I suspect that Zimbabwe would be a stellar example (positively) in Africa. There are some lessons for the USA's meddling in Iraqi that might be gleaned from such histories." Let me see if I have this right. Your (probably) lilly white A$$ was oppressing Black people in Rhodesia, and some how that has bearing on the US liberating Iraq from a dictator, Saddam; rebuilding the country, and allowing the people of Iraq to vote?? You Are a Liberal; all mixed up.

To: neolib who wrote (122608)	6/30/2005 5:44:12 AM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793896

Does any of this remind you of another little war??? Not exactly. Should it? I might be reminded of South Africa, but South Africa seems to have turned out very differently than Rhodesia, oddly enough. Not the world's best country, but not the worst, either. If your argument is that colonialism sucks for the colonies, well, no argument here. I favor liberation and self-determination for all. But, err, are there any colonies left in 2005? I am drawing a blank here.

To: neolib who wrote (122608)	6/30/2005 10:09:41 AM
From: Bridge Player	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793896

You say RHodesia had a "nice law and order government, a good economy, i.e. a stable, safe and prosperous nation in Africa". Did the blacks in the country have the vote? Did they have representation in their government? Did they have freedom to own property, to have legal rights, to advance their personal situation? Hmmm. I think not. They rebelled and fought because they wanted those freedoms. Just like Bush wants those freedoms for Iraq. Perhaps you could recognize some parallels here?