Mandela throws out the race card, site erroneous fact

Mango: The UN Secretary Generals over the past 20 years have been from Peru, Egypt and now Ghana. You would classify Peru and/or Egypt amongst the wealthier countries in the world?

No, I didn't say they were wealthy.

Would you yourself classify Peru , Egypt and Ghana as wealthy?

It was at about at the point that these countries assumed the Secretary Genealship that many xenophobes in the US conservative movement started to vilify the UN, trying to intimidate it by withholding dues etc. Remember your bud, Jesse Helms, under Reagan about 20 years ago?

I think it was unintentional on your part, but thanks for strengthening my argument.

 

You have just entered the super-spin zone!

 

Maybe it's the other way around. Maybe our old allies are turning their backs on <i>us</i> just because they disagree with us. There are a LOT of other countries who think that our issues with Saddam are justified. All of them (yes, including the Bush administration) would like to see a non-war solution. But they all agree (even Russia is coming around) that something has to be done and that something may be the forcefull removal of Saddam.

On another note Glynch, notice how you will take any fact and twist it to support your point of view? I'm not criticizing you here. Everyone does it as it's just human nature. But it's not objective thinking.

I don't know what's going to happen but I'm willing to wait and see before I pass judgement.

 

I don't buy that those people were terrorists at all. And in any case, they were honored not for "terrorism", but for things like standing up for democracy, the Constitution, a strong republic, and individual rights. They are also honored for defeating a monarchy that didn't care about democracy. Washington stepped down voluntarily after 2 terms. There's no need to say more, we know why they are considered great people.

 

Funny how there was an uproar when I called Mandela a terrorist.

After they read his statements about his role in the sabotage in his country in the 60's the furor died down.

Mandela has done many great things, he has also done many bad things.

He is far from being a saint, and his view, like ours, is myopic.

DD

 

I'm sure the British considered the colonists terrorist when they threw a bunch of tea into Boston Harbor. Sometimes its just about perception.

 

Do you mean he's left his perpetual seat in the super-duper-mega-crazy-spin zone and has come back down closer to earth?

 

Throwing tea reminds me more of the rioting or of the smashing of store windows like anti- Globalisation protestors do. I don't remember anybody calling them terrorists. They were just protestors.

 

You don't remember, how old are you, 250. That's my point, its all about perception.

 

Pgabrial,

I concur, and admitted as much in an earlier post.

I just think that Mandela's time has passed and he is irrelevant now. A lot like Jimmy Carter here in the USA.

Some of his comments seem like the first signs of a bitter old man.

He has to be kidding when he says we are a racist country, one day after Bush says he is going to put more money then the rest of the world COMBINED into helping HIV in Africa.

I mean come on people. How much does the USA have to do? We have troubles in our own countries, and that money could be utilized within our own borders too, but we GENEROUSLY give it to help some very needy & sick people.

I think that is great, but it irks me that we seem to be the country that is always footing the bill.

Everytime the UN needs an army, where does it get the largest percentage of its' troops? Yep, the USA.

We are in a no win situation I guess, damned if we do, damned if we don't.

The rest of the world gets mad at us no matter what we do, and we have to read about leaders in other countries constantly criticizing our policies, yet never offering actual solutions, just bellyaching.

It gets me a bit upset....obviously.



DD

 

What are you talking about? I remember the ganti-globalization protests last year. I know England may have called them terrorists, that isn't my point. And I don't remember colonials going over to England and blowing randomly shooting English citizens. There IS a gray area, but you can still make distinctions.

 

I agree, Mandela's time has passed, I'm not going to defend this quote.

Sorry Mr. Clutch, I misunderstood what you were saying you didn't remember.

 

His statement in no way backs up your initial assertion that he was a terrorist. On the contrary, some excerpts you did not post:



"Four forms of violence were possible. There is sabotage, there is guerrilla warfare, there is terrorism, and there is open revolution. We chose to adopt the first method and to exhaust it before taking any other decision.

In the light of our political background the choice was a logical one. Sabotage did not involve loss of life, and it offered the best hope for future race relations. "



As you have conceded in later posts, his actions could be compared to those of our own freedom pioneering Boston Tea Party goers. Citing the South African government and judicial system as legit sources for deeming Mandela a terrorist is disingenuous on your part because you well know that oppressive, plundering, self-serving entities' opinions don't mean jack. They would have labelled him Lucifer himself if it helped them supress the black uprising and maintain power. I can't speak for others here, but I personally did not create much of an uproar over your incorrect statements because you did apologize. But then why start calling people out, especially when you already realize yourself that reasonable people would not think of him as a terrorist - whether it be 2003 or 1963?

 

Gimp,

That is just his statement, I am sure the government has a different view.

And the truth would be somewhere in the middle.

I don't know all that he did, only he does.

I guess it just irks me when people name call, and don't know all the facts. And it is a matter of perspective as to whether sabotage is terrorism.

I am sure the people that had their building blown up would have a different view, don't you?

DD

 

That is just his statement, I am sure the government has a different view.

But you cited HIS statement to support YOUR view.


I don't know all that he did, only he does. I guess it just irks me when people name call, and don't know all the facts.

You concede that you yourself don't know all that facts, and yet you name call.


I'm not trying to just give you a hard time for the purpose of competitive debate or anything, I actually agree with the vast majority of your posts. I'm just trying to figure out if you really do consider him a terrorist, are not entirely sure based on what you know, or in fact don't think he should be labelled one.

 

Gimp,

That is a good question. Do I think he is a terrorist?

He was convicted as one, but I would hardly call him a terrorist any longer.

I am just trying to point out that all he says needs to be taken with a BIG grain of salt.

Also, I did not name call....I said he was a convicted terrorist, and that is a matter of public record.

Semantics, I know..I know.

DD

 

Are you accusing gimp of being "anti-semantic"?

 

On another note Glynch, notice how you will take any fact and twist it to support your point of view? I'm not criticizing you here. Everyone does it as it's just human nature. But it's not objective thinking.

I appreciate your thoughts about human nature as it should always be taken into account. It isn't appicable here.

I originally said: I think that the problem is not that Kofi Annan is black, per se but that he is from a poor country and the Bush types are afraid he won't agree to always run the UN mainly for the benefit of the wealtheir countries.

Mango responded :

The UN Secretary Generals over the past 20 years have been from Peru, Egypt and now Ghana. You would classify Peru and/or Egypt amongst the wealthier countries in the world?

I then responded: It was at about at the point that these countries assumed the Secretary Genealship that many xenophobes in the US conservative movement started to vilify the UN, trying to intimidate it by withholding dues etc. Remember your bud, Jesse Helms, under Reagan about 20 years ago?

In other words Mango gave support to the theory that hatred of the US, which started roughly twenty years ago, was caused in part when the poorer countires such as those Mango listed assumed the Secretary Generalship.

If you had read my original post you would also have found I wrote:

.In addition these folks often have problems with the whole idea of the UN, as it is a force that could go against their belief that the US should be not constrained by world opinion. Much of this hate would apply to a white guy from Britain UN Secretary,who crossed the US which they believe is always entitled to do what it wants as it is always correct.

You would have then found that Mango was trying to argue with a minor point of my argument.

Perhaps many of you can't remember growing up in a country in which the UN was almost universally revered by American citizens, prior to the Reaganite period of roughly twenty years extending through the hatred and attempts to manipulate the UN of Bush II

I've wasted too much time responding to this post. I guess it is just human nature to do so when unjustly attacked.

 

Hey I luv Semetics, especially Semetic women!! Oh wait, you meant...uh...yeah...nevermind.

 

France and Russia weren't exactly giddy when Clinton and his administation attacked Iraq in 98'.