Carter Blasts Israeli Oppression

[_JS]

And could it be any more obvious on how wrong Js is as to what Sirs thinks?

Prove it. Have the fortitude to debate the issue or move along. Or as we say in the south - shit or get off the pot (apologies ladies).

Your lack of logic and inability to actually engage in sensible debate are annoyances to say the least. As far as can be seen, I've nailed your trifling "point" to the ground.

[sirs]

And could it be any more obvious on how wrong Js is as to what Sirs thinks?

Prove it. Have the fortitude to debate the issue or move along. Or as we say in the south - shit or get off the pot (apologies ladies).

Oh I see, prove a negative, prove I don't support apartheid?  Or disprove this bizarre deductive reasoning of yours that because I don't agree or support Mandela's ideology or tactics  ---> sirs must support Apartheid.  That's the "lack of logic" that currently exists here, Js.  Not mine

[_JS]

No, prove that Mandela's support of Qadaffi was with malign intent or somehow supported terrorism. Prove that Mandela has harmed his people or that socialism as Mandela supported it was terrible.

Show something, other than a blanket statement that links Carter to Mandela to Qadaffi like it is a Kevin Bacon movie.

[domer]

Or, embracing the sinister, I note that in geo-politics, as in politics generally, one can only approximate the ideal and be glad to have company in a revolutionary struggle with an imperfect ally who is loyal and outspoken and only partly evil. It is important to note the US's own embrace of this modus operandi with fellas like the shah, Pinochet et al., which can spread out almost immeasurably.

[sirs]

prove that Mandela's support of Qadaffi was with malign intent or somehow supported terrorism. Prove that Mandela has harmed his people or that socialism as Mandela supported it was terrible.

Um, excuse me but the current illoigical accusation I'm dealing with is how supposedly "sirs supports apartheid"

[_JS]

You don't?

[domer]

... because you oppose/condemn Mandela, the only viable leader who could bring it down, and did.

[Plane]

... because you oppose/condemn Mandela, the only viable leader who could bring it down, and did.

And in the Principle (which we all know to be true) of you are either for us or against us , if you do not support Mandella you must therefore be a supporter of Aparthied!


I swear Sirs , it is so simple .

[sirs]

And in the Principle (which we all know to be true) of you are either for us or against us , if you do not support Mandella you must therefore be a supporter of Aparthied!

I swear Sirs , it is so simple .

It would appear so, Plane     

[domer]

Well, by your own logic, it seems, Mandela can't be condemned for aligning for a while with Qaddafi for the reasons already stated, and others.

[Plane]

Well, by your own logic, it seems, Mandela can't be condemned for aligning for a while with Qaddafi for the reasons already stated, and others.

That is right, no one can be criticised at all unless they are "other".

Everyone on the correct side can do what they want.

[_JS]

This is barely worth replying to any longer, but clearly by Sirs own logic of condemning Mandela by associating him with Qadaffi, the logic can be used to turn the tables on Sirs himself.

It has nothing to do with "us versus them" Plane and if anyone is engaging in that it would be (drum roll) Sirs again who does so with Presidents Carter and Bush in this same debate.

Then he offers absolutely no defence of any of his comments.

My hope was to actually have some sort of history-based debate, but alas it was never to be.

The clear intent here was to brood over the current president's historical legacy, regardless of any real debate.

[Plane]

"The clear intent here was to brood over the current president's historical legacy, regardless of any real debate."



How much does it depend on what happens next?


The wisest of us all can fail in his best plans , and the least deserveing can luck out.


Supposeing that things go as well as they possibly could , Bush will be remembered as a liberator .

If they go as badly as they possibly could , he will seem as a Casandra.

[Xavier_Onassis]

There were only two viable sides in the Republic of South Africa:
Mandela's ANC and the Pik Botha Apartheid government. No one else was likely to even have a chance.

Mandela got aid from Libya and Cuba to carry out the sort of raids against strategic targets like refineries and mines that caused Botha to cede for a graceful transformation. Mandela and his successors have always stressed the nonracial nature of their movement. Botha and Mandela were both far wiser than the majority of African leaders and colonialists were, and they are both to be complemented. Their Nobel Prizes were richly deserved.

Namibia and Botswana were also graceful transformations. The years of destructive terror in Mozambique and Angola were looming in everyone's mind as how badly a decolonization could go. The ANC trained in both countries, and saw firsthand. The Whites needed no extra scaring.

The important thing was that this was a DIPLOMATIC transformation, not a military one, which is why it is so commendable.

Sirs slander of Mandela is undeserved and bogus.

[sirs]

This is barely worth replying to any longer, but clearly by Sirs own logic of condemning Mandela by associating him with Qadaffi, the logic can be used to turn the tables on Sirs himself.

It has nothing to do with "us versus them" Plane and if anyone is engaging in that it would be (drum roll) Sirs again who does so with Presidents Carter and Bush in this same debate.

Then he offers absolutely no defence of any of his comments.

My hope was to actually have some sort of history-based debate, but alas it was never to be.

The clear intent here was to brood over the current president's historical legacy, regardless of any real debate.

Kinda hard to have such a debate when it's predicated on the bogus accusation of how I supposedly support apartheid.  And you'll also note you touched on just this 1 aspect of Carter's miserable legacy, as if that was all that held him back from greatness.  This was a mere component of many that produced one of our worst presidents ever to have served.  But you are correct in 1 aspect, I wasn't interested in debating African history, near to the interest I had in debating Carter's Presidential history specifically