By Andrew Quinn

CAPE TOWN, South Africa (Reuters) - Former President Nelson Mandela Monday hailed South Africa's 10 years of peaceful multi-racial democracy as inspiration for a world he said was saddened and horrified by the U.S.-led war in Iraq.

The 85-year-old anti-apartheid icon, in a farewell address to parliament on the 10th anniversary of his inauguration as the country's first black president, urged South Africans to come together to meet their new challenges: poverty, unemployment and HIV (news - web sites)/AIDS.

"We live in a world where there is enough reason for cynicism and despair," said Mandela, a fierce critic of the U.S.-led war on Iraq, told parliament.

"We watch as two of the leading democracies, two leading nations of the free world, get involved in a war that the United Nations did not sanction," Mandela said, adding that the world had been horrified by reports of torture of Iraqi prisoners by U.S. and British forces.

"We see how the powerful countries, all of them so-called democracies, manipulate multilateral bodies to the great disadvantage and suffering of the poorer developing nations."

Mandela -- who stepped down in 1999 and wryly referred to himself as "a retired old pensioner" -- said South Africa had forged a path based on respect for human dignity.

"Historical enemies succeeded in negotiating a peaceful transition from apartheid to democracy exactly because we were prepared to accept the inherent capacity for goodness in the other," he said in a joint appearance with former President F.W. de Klerk, his fellow architect in South Africa's transformation.

BOWING OUT

Mandela, who turns 86 on July 18 and appears increasingly frail, said Monday's speech would be his last to parliament and aides say he plans to drastically cut back on his public schedule to concentrate on his family and writing projects.

Legislators in somber business suits and spectacular African traditional dress filled the ornate parliamentary hall with rhythmic clapping and a melodic chant of "Nelson Mandela" as the white-haired statesman made his way slowly out of the chamber.

"Your words of wisdom have not fallen on deaf ears," Agriculture Minister Thoko Didiza said in parliament's official thanks to its founding president.

Mandela said he believed the country was in good hands with his successor President Thabo Mbeki, who led the ruling African National Congress (ANC) to another landslide victory in elections in April, winning a second five-year term.

"His achievement as president and national leader is the embodiment of what our nation is capable of," Mandela -- who has been known to disagree with Mbeki in the past -- said before an audience that *******d Mbeki and his entire cabinet.

De Klerk, who shared a Nobel Peace prize with Mandela, said South Africa averted the racial bloodbath many feared only through tough negotiation.

"We all did the right thing: we came together," de Klerk said. "I call on all people to continue to work together and to take hands and to make our country a shining example to the rest of the world."

Mandela used his speech to highlight one of his main causes: the HIV/AIDS epidemic which infects about one of nine South Africans, making it the hardest hit country in the world.

"HIV/AIDS continues to threaten our future in a particularly frightening manner," Mandela said, adding poverty, unemployment and disease "blot out the landscape as we strive to give content to the democratic commitment of a better life for all."

"Our democracy must bring its material fruits to all, particularly the poor, marginalized and vulnerable. Our belief in the common good ultimately translates into a deep concern for those who suffer want and deprivation of any kind," he said.

Neson Madella is a complete moron.


Mandela said U.S. President George W. Bush covets the oil in Iraq "because Iraq produces 64 percent of the oil in the world. What Bush wants is to get hold of that oil." In fact Iraq contributes to only 5 percent of world oil exports.

This one is just funny:

"They do not care. Is it because the secretary-general of the United Nations is now a black man?" said Mandela, referring to Kofi Annan, who is from Ghana.





http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/01/30/sprj.irq.mandela/

ecch. ironically, that race card bullshit being brought up all the time by black people is making me increasingly racist. they should really use it when its needed, its all boy and no wolf now

I guess we should try and model America after South Africa, such a peaceful and economically sound nation.

I love this forum!

:rofl:

Mandela is an idiot. He's been given saithood by the press because of the time he spent in prison, and everyone should applaud his anti-aparthied efforts, but after that really there wasn't much left to the man. He did some good, but that doesn't make him a genius or a great world leader.

way to attack the messenger instead of actually arguing against the message, you right wing goons. typical.

he sure gave us our medicine.

Originally posted by Debaser
way to attack the messenger instead of actually arguing against the message, you right wing goons. typical.

Let';s see what happens the first tiem someone puts an article up here from foxnews.

Seriously though, if mandela's information is not credible, and his character is in question, then his words are more then likely fluff, at best.

Originally posted by jczeroman


Let';s see what happens the first tiem someone puts an article up here from foxnews.

Seriously though, if mandela's information is not credible, and his character is in question, then his words are more then likely fluff, at best.

Yeah because foxnews has a great reputation as being unbiased and fair while Mandela is well known throughout the world as a bad character. :rolleyes:

and oh, surprise surprise, you're STILL not arguing what he actually says.

please point out the facts he got wrong in his statement.

Originally posted by Debaser
way to attack the messenger instead of actually arguing against the message, you right wing goons. typical.


First off if you think I'm "right wing" you obviously argue with me without reading what I write.

Second, "Former President Nelson Mandela Monday hailed South Africa's 10 years of peaceful multi-racial democracy as inspiration for a world he said was saddened and horrified by the U.S.-led war in Iraq."

I don't think South Africa is that peaceful or in that good of shape as a country. Inspiration to Cuba or North Korea maybe but not to the US. Also as JC stated he was wrong about the amount of oil Iraq provides the world.

For you people who think what Mandela says is gold, read this:


Make Comment View Comments Printable Article Email Article


South Africa: The Downside of Liberation

By Michael Radu
FrontPageMagazine.com | February 6, 2003

Nelson Mandela, South Africa’s first black president, who is widely admired across the political spectrum more for his performance in office than for his beliefs, is now retired and thus free to express his long standing Marxist and often bizarre beliefs freely. He continually attacks U.S. "imperialism" and "arrogance" while voicing support for the likes of Libya, Iraq, and Cuba. This is not surprising. Despite the well deserved Nobel Peace Prize (shared with F.W. de Klerk) and his relatively moderate behavior while in office, Mr. Mandela did support violence in the past—a fact that is largely forgotten or trivialized. Indeed, in 1961 he was the founder of Umkhonto we Siswe ("Spear of the People"), ANC’s terrorist arm, and never during his long years in prison did he condemn that organization’s acts of indiscriminate terrorism. Moreover, throughout his career Mandela has remained close to regimes actively supporting terrorism – the former Soviet Union, Libya, Cuba.

There were good reasons for such fears, not the least being the decades old cohabitation of Mandela’s African National Congress (ANC) with, and its penetration by, the Communist Party of South Africa (SACP), one of the world’s most committed Stalinist parties. There were also the ANC’s close links with the militantly leftist (and SACP dominated) trade union federation, COSATU. However, most of those fears turned out to be exaggerated. Once in power, the ANC (the leadership of which has since passed from Mandela to Thabo Mbeki) understood, or was made to understand by the collapse of the Soviet bloc, that capitalism is not a "white" thing, but rather is the reason South Africa is the continent’s superpower, with half of sub-Saharan Africa’s GNP. Capitalism was the only way it could remain in that position.

And importantly, despite the rhetoric about black economic oppression under apartheid, the fact remains that a black middle and indeed upper class had developed in South Africa, the interests of which had little to do with the traditional socialism advocated by the ANC throughout its history.

Yes, Mandela implemented an aggressive affirmative action policy once he took office—which slowed down the economy. His government established a criminal law code on the European model – abolition of the death penalty, excessive rights for accused criminals, etc., with destructive results. South Africa today competes with civil war–torn Colombia for the dubious distinction of being the world’s most crime-ridden country. Interpol’s International Crime Statistics say it all: in 1999 South Africa had 121 murders and 119 rapes per 100,000 inhabitants, compared with Colombia’s 69 and 6 respectively (and the United States’ 5 and 32). The trends are no more encouraging considering that in 1994 the world’s average murder rate was 5.5 per 100,000, compared to South Africa’s 45. In such circumstances, and with a slow justice system, which only produces a 10 percent conviction rate, South Africa has seen the rise of vigilante groups filling the void left by an incompetent (affirmative action, again – one third of policemen are functionally illiterate) and violent police – who between 1997 and 2000 killed 1,550 people, compared with 2,700 killed by the apartheid regime in 30 years.

The high crime rates, and a decline in educational standards, led to a massive emigration of white professionals to the United States, UK, Canada, and Australia. A 1998 poll of 11,000 skilled professionals suggested that 74 percent wanted to emigrate – with then-president Mandela responding with "Good riddance" to them. The problem is that not just professionals leave South Africa – major corporations also moved out, including mining giant Anglo American Co. and South African Breweries, both of which are now headquartered in London.

Most South African companies, including the largest, which are in the mining and energy fields, have black shareholders, whose interests are the same as those of shareholders everywhere: maximizing profits. And the economy is doing relatively well, at least by African standards. Indeed, the nation experienced a 2.6 percent growth rate in 2001 and, according to the CIA, had a GNP of $412 billion that year ($9,400 per capita). However, the unemployment rate remains very high among the black majority - with a lack of education and an inflexible labor market being the primary causes.

It used to be fashionable to accuse the apartheid regime of racism when it tried to control immigration from the rest of Africa. The issue remains even now that South Africa’s president is black. The people most hostile to African immigrants, most of them illegal aliens, are South Africa’s blacks themselves, who see their jobs lost to cheap immigrant labor and their opportunities lost in competing with foreigners. (Sound familiar?) The result is that today South Africa is implementing increasingly draconian immigration restrictions for foreign Africans and considering even more.

South African companies are involved as investors or consultants in most sub-Saharan countries, continuing a process started during the apartheid regime. Since then Pretoria has refrained from exerting its natural influence, and its restraint has only made things worse in most of Africa. A clear instance is the situation in Congo (formerly Zaire and now officially the Democratic Republic of the Congo), where an all-African war pitting six different countries killed hundreds of thousands while Pretoria remained largely ineffective. Even closer to home, while the criminal regime in Harare goes its way in transforming the once-prosperous nation of Zimbabwe into a basket case, Pretoria has had little to say, despite the Zimbabwe regime’s open disdain for South Africa. Although Pretoria has a decisive say on what Zimbabwe does or does not do, it for elects to protect Robert Mugabe’s Stalinist clique.

When it comes to African opinions at the UN, Pretoria also prefers to side with the worst. Libya for chairmanship of the UN Human Rights Commission? Yes, said Pretoria, and so did the rest of the African bloc. Support Mugabe’s "right" to be invited to Lisbon for the EU-African Summit? Yes again, at the cost of billions of dollars in aid to Africa. Mandela’s ideological legacy seems to be alive in Pretoria’s international behavior.

None of this should come as a surprise. The once dominant South African National Defense Force (SANDF) is now only a shadow of its past self, largely as a result of budget cuts and affirmative action, which put former ANC terrorist thugs and gang members in charge and led to a massive exodus of white and colored (mixed race) officers.

Since elections in South Africa are largely decided by race, the ANC is, for all practical purposes, the only political party that matters, and the distribution of power is decided by intra-party debates, rather than be negotiations with the largely ineffective opposition.

President Mbeki has a problem with his own ANC party, specifically with Nelson Mandela’s former wife, Winnie. Mrs. Mandela is the loose cannon of the ANC. A convicted torturer and felon and thoroughly corrupt, she remains a very popular figure with black South African youths and was repeatedly elected to the ANC leadership. The disturbing thing here is not so much Winnie’s criminality, awful as it is, as the general decline of South Africa’s judiciary, which is becoming increasingly more "African" and less and less Western.

Finally, there are Mr. Mbeki’s autocratic style and personal beliefs – such as those regarding AIDS. South Africa has the world’s largest number of persons living with HIV/AIDS: 5 million of its 44 million citizens are HIV-positive. Only 42 million are infected worldwide (Anne-Marie O’Connor, "S. Africa Has Doubts on U.S. AIDS Proposal," Los Angeles Times, 1/30/03). But Mbeki has repeatedly stated that he did not believe the "thesis" that AIDS is caused by HIV, or that it is a virus at all. Until last week, he even resisted making available, at foreign subsidized prices, the anti-retroviral drugs that have proven effective in preventing mother-to-child transmission of HIV. (South Africa already has 660,000 AIDS orphans.) Considering that South Africa has the only real health care system in sub-Saharan Africa, such an attitude is nothing short of suicidal for the region.

Ultimately, it is South Africa that will decide the future of sub-Saharan Africa as a whole. But South Africa’s policy vis-à-vis the rest of the continent is still in flux, with many discouraging signs crushing hopes of a better future under its democratized rule. One must hope Pretoria will take the direction of common sense and free markets. South Africa has the responsibility for and would deservedly benefit from making the right choice. If it does not, Africa is doomed.



I hope you at least read some statistics from the artical, Mandela is by no means a great world leader.

Assuming he is simply because he speaks out against the war and Bush is typical left wing.

Originally posted by I_was_aborted



First off if you think I'm "right wing" you obviously argue with me without reading what I write.

Second, "Former President Nelson Mandela Monday hailed South Africa's 10 years of peaceful multi-racial democracy as inspiration for a world he said was saddened and horrified by the U.S.-led war in Iraq."

I don't think South Africa is that peaceful or in that good of shape as a country. Inspiration to Cuba or North Korea maybe but not to the US. Also as JC stated he was wrong about the amount of oil Iraq provides the world.

For you people who think what Mandela says is gold, read this:


Make Comment View Comments Printable Article Email Article


South Africa: The Downside of Liberation

By Michael Radu
FrontPageMagazine.com | February 6, 2003

Nelson Mandela, South Africa’s first black president, who is widely admired across the political spectrum more for his performance in office than for his beliefs, is now retired and thus free to express his long standing Marxist and often bizarre beliefs freely. He continually attacks U.S. "imperialism" and "arrogance" while voicing support for the likes of Libya, Iraq, and Cuba. This is not surprising. Despite the well deserved Nobel Peace Prize (shared with F.W. de Klerk) and his relatively moderate behavior while in office, Mr. Mandela did support violence in the past—a fact that is largely forgotten or trivialized. Indeed, in 1961 he was the founder of Umkhonto we Siswe ("Spear of the People"), ANC’s terrorist arm, and never during his long years in prison did he condemn that organization’s acts of indiscriminate terrorism. Moreover, throughout his career Mandela has remained close to regimes actively supporting terrorism – the former Soviet Union, Libya, Cuba.

There were good reasons for such fears, not the least being the decades old cohabitation of Mandela’s African National Congress (ANC) with, and its penetration by, the Communist Party of South Africa (SACP), one of the world’s most committed Stalinist parties. There were also the ANC’s close links with the militantly leftist (and SACP dominated) trade union federation, COSATU. However, most of those fears turned out to be exaggerated. Once in power, the ANC (the leadership of which has since passed from Mandela to Thabo Mbeki) understood, or was made to understand by the collapse of the Soviet bloc, that capitalism is not a "white" thing, but rather is the reason South Africa is the continent’s superpower, with half of sub-Saharan Africa’s GNP. Capitalism was the only way it could remain in that position.

And importantly, despite the rhetoric about black economic oppression under apartheid, the fact remains that a black middle and indeed upper class had developed in South Africa, the interests of which had little to do with the traditional socialism advocated by the ANC throughout its history.

Yes, Mandela implemented an aggressive affirmative action policy once he took office—which slowed down the economy. His government established a criminal law code on the European model – abolition of the death penalty, excessive rights for accused criminals, etc., with destructive results. South Africa today competes with civil war–torn Colombia for the dubious distinction of being the world’s most crime-ridden country. Interpol’s International Crime Statistics say it all: in 1999 South Africa had 121 murders and 119 rapes per 100,000 inhabitants, compared with Colombia’s 69 and 6 respectively (and the United States’ 5 and 32). The trends are no more encouraging considering that in 1994 the world’s average murder rate was 5.5 per 100,000, compared to South Africa’s 45. In such circumstances, and with a slow justice system, which only produces a 10 percent conviction rate, South Africa has seen the rise of vigilante groups filling the void left by an incompetent (affirmative action, again – one third of policemen are functionally illiterate) and violent police – who between 1997 and 2000 killed 1,550 people, compared with 2,700 killed by the apartheid regime in 30 years.

The high crime rates, and a decline in educational standards, led to a massive emigration of white professionals to the United States, UK, Canada, and Australia. A 1998 poll of 11,000 skilled professionals suggested that 74 percent wanted to emigrate – with then-president Mandela responding with "Good riddance" to them. The problem is that not just professionals leave South Africa – major corporations also moved out, including mining giant Anglo American Co. and South African Breweries, both of which are now headquartered in London.

Most South African companies, including the largest, which are in the mining and energy fields, have black shareholders, whose interests are the same as those of shareholders everywhere: maximizing profits. And the economy is doing relatively well, at least by African standards. Indeed, the nation experienced a 2.6 percent growth rate in 2001 and, according to the CIA, had a GNP of $412 billion that year ($9,400 per capita). However, the unemployment rate remains very high among the black majority - with a lack of education and an inflexible labor market being the primary causes.

It used to be fashionable to accuse the apartheid regime of racism when it tried to control immigration from the rest of Africa. The issue remains even now that South Africa’s president is black. The people most hostile to African immigrants, most of them illegal aliens, are South Africa’s blacks themselves, who see their jobs lost to cheap immigrant labor and their opportunities lost in competing with foreigners. (Sound familiar?) The result is that today South Africa is implementing increasingly draconian immigration restrictions for foreign Africans and considering even more.

South African companies are involved as investors or consultants in most sub-Saharan countries, continuing a process started during the apartheid regime. Since then Pretoria has refrained from exerting its natural influence, and its restraint has only made things worse in most of Africa. A clear instance is the situation in Congo (formerly Zaire and now officially the Democratic Republic of the Congo), where an all-African war pitting six different countries killed hundreds of thousands while Pretoria remained largely ineffective. Even closer to home, while the criminal regime in Harare goes its way in transforming the once-prosperous nation of Zimbabwe into a basket case, Pretoria has had little to say, despite the Zimbabwe regime’s open disdain for South Africa. Although Pretoria has a decisive say on what Zimbabwe does or does not do, it for elects to protect Robert Mugabe’s Stalinist clique.

When it comes to African opinions at the UN, Pretoria also prefers to side with the worst. Libya for chairmanship of the UN Human Rights Commission? Yes, said Pretoria, and so did the rest of the African bloc. Support Mugabe’s "right" to be invited to Lisbon for the EU-African Summit? Yes again, at the cost of billions of dollars in aid to Africa. Mandela’s ideological legacy seems to be alive in Pretoria’s international behavior.

None of this should come as a surprise. The once dominant South African National Defense Force (SANDF) is now only a shadow of its past self, largely as a result of budget cuts and affirmative action, which put former ANC terrorist thugs and gang members in charge and led to a massive exodus of white and colored (mixed race) officers.

Since elections in South Africa are largely decided by race, the ANC is, for all practical purposes, the only political party that matters, and the distribution of power is decided by intra-party debates, rather than be negotiations with the largely ineffective opposition.

President Mbeki has a problem with his own ANC party, specifically with Nelson Mandela’s former wife, Winnie. Mrs. Mandela is the loose cannon of the ANC. A convicted torturer and felon and thoroughly corrupt, she remains a very popular figure with black South African youths and was repeatedly elected to the ANC leadership. The disturbing thing here is not so much Winnie’s criminality, awful as it is, as the general decline of South Africa’s judiciary, which is becoming increasingly more "African" and less and less Western.

Finally, there are Mr. Mbeki’s autocratic style and personal beliefs – such as those regarding AIDS. South Africa has the world’s largest number of persons living with HIV/AIDS: 5 million of its 44 million citizens are HIV-positive. Only 42 million are infected worldwide (Anne-Marie O’Connor, "S. Africa Has Doubts on U.S. AIDS Proposal," Los Angeles Times, 1/30/03). But Mbeki has repeatedly stated that he did not believe the "thesis" that AIDS is caused by HIV, or that it is a virus at all. Until last week, he even resisted making available, at foreign subsidized prices, the anti-retroviral drugs that have proven effective in preventing mother-to-child transmission of HIV. (South Africa already has 660,000 AIDS orphans.) Considering that South Africa has the only real health care system in sub-Saharan Africa, such an attitude is nothing short of suicidal for the region.

Ultimately, it is South Africa that will decide the future of sub-Saharan Africa as a whole. But South Africa’s policy vis-à-vis the rest of the continent is still in flux, with many discouraging signs crushing hopes of a better future under its democratized rule. One must hope Pretoria will take the direction of common sense and free markets. South Africa has the responsibility for and would deservedly benefit from making the right choice. If it does not, Africa is doomed.



I hope you at least read some statistics from the artical, Mandela is by no means a great world leader.

Assuming he is simply because he speaks out against the war and Bush is typical left wing.


surprise surprise, YOU GUYS ARE STILL NOT DISCOUNTING MANDELA'S STATEMENT. you guys are still attacking his character and its off topic. i never said he was a great leader did i? all i said was "hey you guys just ignored what he said and just attacked the messenger" so what do I get in response? you telling me that I'm wrong for assuming that mandela's a great leader and reasons why his character should be attacked---what the fuck does that have to do with my original point?!

god damn you guys are the worse debaters, evar.

Originally posted by Debaser



surprise surprise, YOU GUYS ARE STILL NOT DISCOUNTING MANDELA'S STATEMENT. you guys are still attacking his character and its off topic. i never said he was a great leader did i? all i said was "hey you guys just ignored what he said and just attacked the messenger" so what do I get in response? you telling me that I'm wrong for assuming that mandela's a great leader and reasons why his character should be attacked---what the fuck does that have to do with my original point?!

god damn you guys are the worse debaters, evar.


I guess what you do not understand is that Mandela's statements are mostly opinion. Therefore I'm arguing his integrity because I feel as if that has a lot to do with his opinion. I don't see whats so hard to understand about that.

Originally posted by I_was_aborted



I guess what you do not understand is that Mandela's statements are mostly opinion. Therefore I'm arguing his integrity because I feel as if that has a lot to do with his opinion. I don't see whats so hard to understand about that.

"hey the u.s. is fucked up, they didn't go to the u.n."
"hey you suck, your country sucks"
"hey you pretty much dodged what he said"
"hey man, don't you get it? he really does suck and his country really does suck"
"hey, you still are dodging what he said"
"meh, its just an opinion, no need to respond at all"

great fucking debate thread.
i hate this place.

Now is a time when everyone is taking shots at the US. I guess I just don't take it well when someone who can hardly run his own country throwing out ideas how the US should be run.

You are simply and anti-Bush left winger who will go along with whatever makes Bush looks bad and makes the war in Iraq look bad. In doing that you are no better than the Republicans you trash talk.

Originally posted by I_was_aborted
Now is a time when everyone is taking shots at the US. I guess I just don't take it well when someone who can hardly run his own country throwing out ideas how the US should be run.

You are simply and anti-Bush left winger who will go along with whatever makes Bush looks bad and makes the war in Iraq look bad. In doing that you are no better than the Republicans you trash talk.

You still can't mount any decent arguements on the points at hand. All you can do is attack character and misdirect the arguement into irrelevent topics.

What exactly do you want me to argue? That the US should be in Iraq? That we were right for going around the UN? That it was the right thing for us to do? I guess I could fall into your liberal war argument trap but I was trying to avoid it. The matters surrounding the war are also opinion, some think we were right for going around the UN and taking matters into our own hands. When was the last time the UN took initiative and actually enforced its rules with a little force? The arguement will never be settled because some believe the war was right, some believe it was wrong and there is no evidence to prove either as being 100% the right decision.

Originally posted by I_was_aborted
What exactly do you want me to argue? That the US should be in Iraq? That we were right for going around the UN? That it was the right thing for us to do? I guess I could fall into your liberal war argument trap but I was trying to avoid it. The matters surrounding the war are also opinion, some think we were right for going around the UN and taking matters into our own hands. When was the last time the UN took initiative and actually enforced its rules with a little force? The arguement will never be settled because some believe the war was right, some believe it was wrong and there is no evidence to prove either as being 100% the right decision.

fine, here's my general feelings about this war.

argue against these FACTS:

1. there is no connection between saddam and al quaeda
2. iraq had no wmd's and no capability of directly threatening the u.s.
3. the united states as squandered all international goodwill by going over the head of the U.N.
4. hundreds of troops are dying (thousands of iraqi's are dying)
5. the u.s. rushed into iraq ill-prepared

I know there were good intentions buried somewhere in the invasion of iraq. Liberating the people from a brutal dictator is a worthy cause (too bad this war was sold to the public by scaring them with wmds).

And what about Al-quada? Didn't Al-quaeda crash those planes? Isn't it Al-quaeda what we should be focusing on? Isn't it stupid to concentrate on this war in Iraq when Iraq has nothing to do with Al-quaeda? Why don't we do anything about Saudi Arabia--most of the hijackers were Saudi Arabian, hell, Osama Bin Laden is a Saudi!!

Originally posted by Debaser

You still can't mount any decent arguements on the points at hand. All you can do is attack character and misdirect the arguement into irrelevent topics. well, yeah it can be 100% correct what he's saying. The other thing is it's also important to know from whom the message is coming. have you read this part of the article:

Originally posted by if you are

Mandela said he believed the country was in good hands with his successor President Thabo Mbeki, who led the ruling African National Congress (ANC) to another landslide victory in elections in April, winning a second five-year term.
....
Mandela used his speech to highlight one of his main causes: the HIV/AIDS epidemic which infects about one of nine South Africans, making it the hardest hit country in the world.


see, Mandela says South Africa is in good hands of Thabo Mbeki, who was openly questioning the link between HIV and AIDS, while being the president of one of the hardest hit countries in the world.

Around here we have such saying: you better clean up in front of your house before you start critisizing your neighbour's lawn.

Originally posted by RopeyLopey

see, Mandela says South Africa is in good hands of Thabo Mbeki, who was openly questioning the link between HIV and AIDS,


Maybe he's talking about Magic Johnson.

*also that is not a new crazy idea there.

http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/INGLES-2/HIV.html

The health organizations still officially state that "HIV is the probable cause of aids". because really its still unproven. so to question it is not so far-fetched as you think. like I said, look at Magic Johnson as evidence.

This is exactly what I was expecting and I aree with you to an extent. We were lied to about the reasons behind the Iraq war. I disagree with that and I think its bullshit too. Also it is horrible that the government did at one time portray Iraq as being linked to Al Qaeda.

1. there is no connection between saddam and al quaeda

True, however Iraq a highly unstable country with a dictator who definately would like to see harm fall onto America. The attacks on 9/11 set a precident that we should take care of severe threats before they get a chance to strike. Based on the shitty intel the government had they decided to do so.

2. iraq had no wmd's and no capability of directly threatening the u.s.

First off I believe the governments intel said otherwise. Not to mention they did find some illegal long range missles and other chemical/biological weapons related things which were illegal according to the United Nations. There was the possiblility for a very significant thread. Also he was a threat the the middle eat and surrounding areas.

3. the united states as squandered all international goodwill by going over the head of the U.N.

I believe the UN is losing power and control. They do not properly enforce their resolutions and laws. The UN can not and will never be able to handle ALL of the worlds problems. At least we tried to work with them for a while until France and Germany promised vetos. (possibly to insure lucrative oil deals and contacts)

4. hundreds of troops are dying (thousands of iraqi's are dying)

Hundreds of Americans also die because of hunger, violence, rape, disease.....I hear noone trying to fix these problems. I haven't seen very many people concerned with Americans losing their lives due to things going on inside our own country. I believe people use this loss of life as some form of leverage against the government. All war is loss of life and I did not hear one talk about "war" or "war on terrorism" until after 9/11 when we were attacked. We are merely fighting back, not only at Al Qaeda but at the idea of terrorism and fear being used to control political stability, religious laws and poor uneducated people.

5. the u.s. rushed into iraq ill-prepared

I think we were prepared, I just think we have dropped the ball after we removed Saddam. It has been handled horribly since the declaration that major combat has ended.

I don't agree with everything I said, I am partially playing devil's advocate. I hope you see that its possible to support the war without supporting the government's way of doing it as well. I think we should put more pressure on Saudia Arabia, also other parts of the middle east. The situation has been handled very poorly since the end of major combat but I do believe that somewhere in the middle of this shit storm some good can come from this.

Originally posted by I_was_aborted
This is exactly what I was expecting and I aree with you to an extent. We were lied to about the reasons behind the Iraq war. I disagree with that and I think its bullshit too. Also it is horrible that the government did at one time portray Iraq as being linked to Al Qaeda.

1. there is no connection between saddam and al quaeda

True, however Iraq a highly unstable country with a dictator who definately would like to see harm fall onto America. The attacks on 9/11 set a precident that we should take care of severe threats before they get a chance to strike. Based on the shitty intel the government had they decided to do so.

2. iraq had no wmd's and no capability of directly threatening the u.s.

First off I believe the governments intel said otherwise. Not to mention they did find some illegal long range missles and other chemical/biological weapons related things which were illegal according to the United Nations. There was the possiblility for a very significant thread. Also he was a threat the the middle eat and surrounding areas.

3. the united states as squandered all international goodwill by going over the head of the U.N.

I believe the UN is losing power and control. They do not properly enforce their resolutions and laws. The UN can not and will never be able to handle ALL of the worlds problems. At least we tried to work with them for a while until France and Germany promised vetos. (possibly to insure lucrative oil deals and contacts)

4. hundreds of troops are dying (thousands of iraqi's are dying)

Hundreds of Americans also die because of hunger, violence, rape, disease.....I hear noone trying to fix these problems. I haven't seen very many people concerned with Americans losing their lives due to things going on inside our own country. I believe people use this loss of life as some form of leverage against the government. All war is loss of life and I did not hear one talk about "war" or "war on terrorism" until after 9/11 when we were attacked. We are merely fighting back, not only at Al Qaeda but at the idea of terrorism and fear being used to control political stability, religious laws and poor uneducated people.

5. the u.s. rushed into iraq ill-prepared

I think we were prepared, I just think we have dropped the ball after we removed Saddam. It has been handled horribly since the declaration that major combat has ended.

I don't agree with everything I said, I am partially playing devil's advocate. I hope you see that its possible to support the war without supporting the government's way of doing it as well. I think we should put more pressure on Saudia Arabia, also other parts of the middle east. The situation has been handled very poorly since the end of major combat but I do believe that somewhere in the middle of this shit storm some good can come from this.

...and that is why i want bush to be voted out this election. :)

So do I but I'm not about to jump on every bandwagon bashing him unless they have sound ground to stand on. Mandela does not. ;)

Originally posted by I_was_aborted
So do I but I'm not about to jump on every bandwagon bashing him unless they have sound ground to stand on. Mandela does not. ;)

im just personally so sick of poor, irrelevent & faulty arguements that everybody else on this board use. On the pro-bush side, Tweedy is the only exception. I'm tired of everytime somebody posts a bush criticism, everybody jumps on the opposing bandwagon with crap ass statements that don't disprove the original post.

Originally posted by Debaser

The health organizations still officially state that "HIV is the probable cause of aids". because really its still unproven. so to question it is not so far-fetched as you think. like I said, look at Magic Johnson as evidence.
Is this reason good enough to refuse to supply the anti-retroviral drugs AZT or Nevirapine to pregnant women to prevent mother-to-child transmission, even though 5,000 HIV-positive babies are born every month?

Originally posted by RopeyLopey

Is this reason good enough to refuse to supply the anti-retroviral drugs AZT or Nevirapine to pregnant women to prevent mother-to-child transmission, even though 5,000 HIV-positive babies are born every month?

no, of course not.

Originally posted by jczeroman



Seriously though, if mandela's information is not credible, and his character is in question, then his words are more then likely fluff, at best.
i love how you admit ad hominem arguments are logical and whats more, a legitimate form of argumentation.

Originally posted by Debaser


Yeah because foxnews has a great reputation as being unbiased and fair while Mandela is well known throughout the world as a bad character. :rolleyes:


That is my point. Fox News is NOT balanced or fair, and peopel on here don't accept news from that source. Likewise Mandella is giving incedulous information. I am merely applying the same standard to mandella that people should apply to foxnews.

Originally posted by Debaser
and oh, surprise surprise, you're STILL not arguing what he actually says.

please point out the facts he got wrong in his statement.

Like Iraq is responsible for 64% of the worlds oil? Or that Bush is a racist?

Originally posted by jczeroman

Like Iraq is responsible for 64% of the worlds oil? Or that Bush is a racist?

haha, thats fuckin funny. those points were things YOU brought into this thread to argue about! you still are ignoring the first post.

besides iraq is 2nd only behind saudi arabia in the entire world in oil reserves. you are confusing his word "produce" with "export."

Originally posted by Why Am I So Ugly?

i love how you admit ad hominem arguments are logical and whats more, a legitimate form of argumentation.

Yes, that is exactly what I said.

Ad Hominem is a stupid way to approach a naked debate. However, if a group like fox news is continually uncredible, then it is likely that their information isn't goign to change (it's nto impossible). I read mandella's statement and it's wrong. I used that evidence to support my point that mandella is an idiot, which is not ad hominem, but exactly the opposite. Here is my post, so you can see for yourself:

"Neson Madella is a complete moron."

In this statement I am giving the thesis of my argument.

"Mandela said U.S. President George W. Bush covets the oil in Iraq "because Iraq produces 64 percent of the oil in the world. What Bush wants is to get hold of that oil." In fact Iraq contributes to only 5 percent of world oil exports.

This one is just funny:

"They do not care. Is it because the secretary-general of the United Nations is now a black man?" said Mandela, referring to Kofi Annan, who is from Ghana.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast...rj.irq.mandela/"

I then cite two supporting facts to justify my thesis.

Mandella's argument from the posted article on Iraq are:

"We watch as two of the leading democracies, two leading nations of the free world, get involved in a war that the United Nations did not sanction," Mandela said, adding that the world had been horrified by reports of torture of Iraqi prisoners by U.S. and British forces.

"We see how the powerful countries, all of them so-called democracies, manipulate multilateral bodies to the great disadvantage and suffering of the poorer developing nations."

These statements reasonate with the same kind of tone that he used earlier on, clearly one of ignorance for the real issues.

If everyone wasted their time researching what every nut said abotu such and such global event, we wouldn't get anything done. People like Madella have plenty of authority in other areas of intersts. I give his statements on the war about as much credit as I do those of Tim Robbins or Rush Limbaugh.

Originally posted by Debaser

besides iraq is 2nd only behind saudi arabia in the entire world in oil reserves. you are confusing his word "produce" with "export."

Not true. Check <s>your</s> the sources.

Originally posted by jczeroman


Not true. Check <s>your</s> the sources.

http://www.aneki.com/oil.html

http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/oil.html


let me state again. Mandela's point was "iraq gots hella oil". and he's right. quit arguing semantics.

Originally posted by jczeroman



These statements reasonate with the same kind of tone that he used earlier on, clearly one of ignorance for the real issues.


Boy that sure is a fancy way of dismissing his statement without actually dismissing it.

"We watch as two of the leading democracies, two leading nations of the free world, get involved in a war that the United Nations did not sanction"

TRUE.


"We see how the powerful countries, all of them so-called democracies, manipulate multilateral bodies to the great disadvantage and suffering of the poorer developing nations."

maybe the big words in this last statment confused you.

powerful countries = U.S. & G.B.

multilateral bodies = U.N.

poorer developing nations = there are so many to name...how about the poor saps under brutal rule of the oil rich saudi royal family that has invested millions of dollors into U.S. oil companies?

Originally posted by Debaser


What you're asking us to do is here is argue with Mandela's assertion that basically boils down to "The Iraq war is bad." The statements in the original posts are nothing that hasn't been said in numerous debates even on this board alone concerning the war. So why use Mandela's words as a segue to tread old ground once again? Simply, naming Mandela was supposed to imply a sort of greater value or integrity to the typical old anti-war stance. That implication, however, makes Mandela's integrity fair game.

If you wanna debate the war because you think its bad, we'll debate the war. If you wanna debate the war because Nelson Mandela says its bad, thats a different story. If you're gonna name drop to support tired arguments, expect your name dropping to be scrutinized.

Originally posted by Corganist


What you're asking us to do is here is argue with Mandela's assertion that basically boils down to "The Iraq war is bad." The statements in the original posts are nothing that hasn't been said in numerous debates even on this board alone concerning the war. So why use Mandela's words as a segue to tread old ground once again? Simply, naming Mandela was supposed to imply a sort of greater value or integrity to the typical old anti-war stance. That implication, however, makes Mandela's integrity fair game.

If you wanna debate the war because you think its bad, we'll debate the war. If you wanna debate the war because Nelson Mandela says its bad, thats a different story. If you're gonna name drop to support tired arguments, expect your name dropping to be scrutinized.

I didn't even name drop anybody. I didn't start this thread. I'm just attacking dumb responses. I already posted my reasons why i think this war is bad about 10 posts ago and it doesn't name drop anybody.

Originally posted by Debaser


I didn't even name drop anybody. I didn't start this thread. I'm just attacking dumb responses. I already posted my reasons why i think this war is bad about 10 posts ago and it doesn't name drop anybody.

But you have been implying that people are dodging the questions by responding about Mandela instead of what he said. I was just responding to that. When I said "If you're gonna name drop..." I meant anyone generally. Sorry if you thought I meant you in particular.

The point is, if someone asserts something is right because Nelson Mandela said it, then its perfectly okay to show that Nelson Mandela is full of crap. It doesn't disprove the validity of what he said, but its not meant to. Its just meant to get the debate down to its own merits alone, without merely relying on the opinions of so-called great leaders. If someone thinks the war is bad, they should say why instead of saying "Nelson Mandela thinks its bad too."

Originally posted by Corganist


But you have been implying that people are dodging the questions by responding about Mandela instead of what he said. I was just responding to that. When I said "If you're gonna name drop..." I meant anyone generally. Sorry if you thought I meant you in particular.

The point is, if someone asserts something is right because Nelson Mandela said it, then its perfectly okay to show that Nelson Mandela is full of crap. It doesn't disprove the validity of what he said, but its not meant to. Its just meant to get the debate down to its own merits alone, without merely relying on the opinions of so-called great leaders. If someone thinks the war is bad, they should say why instead of saying "Nelson Mandela thinks its bad too."

Whether or not it is meritous to argue about the source, I still think they are doing so only because they cannot argue against the accusation that the United States was wrong to not seek U.N. approval. Hence, they are dodging.

Originally posted by Debaser


I still think they are doing so only because they cannot argue against the accusation that the United States was wrong to not seek U.N. approval. Hence, they are dodging.

The only thing they're dodging is a debate that's been repeatedly carried out on these boards for over a year now. I mean, haven't we debated that already? What's new to say? What you're basically doing is the equivlant of using a Mandella pro-abortion speech, then using his arguments as a reason to start another abortion debate all over again. I think it's safe to say everyone interested in politics/world affairs has made their stance on both issues known, over and over and over again. Arguing about Mandella's character and his credibility were the only relevant things to comment on in this thread.

Originally posted by Debaser


Whether or not it is meritous to argue about the source, I still think they are doing so only because they cannot argue against the accusation that the United States was wrong to not seek U.N. approval. Hence, they are dodging.

You must have not payed much attention to the pre-war Iraq situation. I believe we went after UN approval and actually gave it quite a bit of time until we saw all action was going to be blocked by countries who were already benefitting and locked into very lucrative contracts with Iraq. (France, Germany and I believe Russia?) If any military action was going to take place it was not going to be by the United Nations.

Originally posted by I_was_aborted


You must have not payed much attention to the pre-war Iraq situation. I believe we went after UN approval and actually gave it quite a bit of time until we saw all action was going to be blocked by countries who were already benefitting and locked into very lucrative contracts with Iraq. (France, Germany and I believe Russia?) If any military action was going to take place it was not going to be by the United Nations.

Exactly. We really did give the world plenty of time. The idea that the UN is somehow above pretty greed is stupid. People give the UN and the International Community a lot more credit then is deserved.

Originally posted by jczeroman


People give the UN and the International Community a lot more credit then is deserved.

Probably not after the Oil-for-Food scandal plays out. But, considering that people are still screaming about the U.S.'s supposed "going around the U.N.," it will probably be ignored or muted on the other side.

The US went to the UN, didn't like the answer, and went it's own way. The UN doesn't control the world. It isn't a governmental body.

Originally posted by I_was_aborted
I hope you at least read some statistics from the artical, Mandela is by no means a great world leader.

I did - here's an interesting one:

Originally posted by I_was_aborted
Interpol’s International Crime Statistics say it all: in 1999 South Africa had 121 murders and 119 rapes per 100,000 inhabitants, compared with Colombia’s 69 and 6 respectively (and the United States’ 5 and 32).

Interpol's International Crime Statistics page also says this:

Warning: These statistics cannot be used as a basis for comparison between different countries.

Not only that, they don't seem to actually *have* a 1999 report for either Colombia or the US, either on their website or in hard copy. So where these numbers are coming from I don't know. Now check this out:

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs/hosb601.pdf

Page 10 shows a list of recorded homicides for a number of years, and their number for South Africa per 100,000 is quite a bit lower - possibly because the Interpol report doesn't seem to have a separate number for attempted murder, manslaughter etc. This number is actually an average over 5 years with steadily decreasing numbers, which means 2 things: the crime rate was actually improving (at half the rate of the US) and that the final number for 1999 would have actually been lower.

Of course it took me longer to research that one statistic than it did for whoever to write it into his article, which is why it helps to establish a level of credibility and go from there. But hey - with references to Communism and Cuban terrorists this seemed like a special kind of article from the outset.

Of course it was one sided. Just aboust as one sided as the article about Mandela. I think that was my point. Its all mostly opinion which has two sides to which there is no real truth.

Originally posted by I_was_aborted
Of course it was one sided. Just aboust as one sided as the article about Mandela. I think that was my point. Its all mostly opinion which has two sides to which there is no real truth.

You <i>think</i> that was your point? How does providing a one-sided, unreliable article prove that another article is unreliable? If you want to go against certain points you address them directly, not provide another article which has made-up statistics and say 'well these are made up, so hey so is everything'. Plus you said 'I hope you read the statistics'. Come on, you'll have to do better than this

So are you telling my that South Africa is a fine country with a declining crime rate, econimically stable, good living conditions and a bright future? I think its arguable is my point. Mandela was not a great leader. He did some good things for his country and some things bad. But by no means does his opinion in how the US handled the situation mean anything to me. I know the government has handled the situation poorly before going into Iraq but we did appeal to the UN.

I think Mandela was wrong in criticizing the US going around the UN. We tried that, it didn't work. The UN is not a governing council which runs the world.

Well that's fine, but don't say 'Mandela sucks here's why' and produce an article like that. Sure he's not the greatest leader the world's ever known, but most people seem to think that, on balance, South Africa is better now than it was before he came to power, and it's not like things went into great decline when he got into office. I don't see how this affects his integrity or people's ability to react objectively to comments he makes.

http://www.theunjustmedia.com/slovo2%20jpg.jpg

Originally posted by DeviousJ
I don't see how this affects his integrity or people's ability to react objectively to comments he makes.


If only most people were able to react objectively...

Originally posted by RopeyLopey

Is this reason good enough to refuse to supply the anti-retroviral drugs AZT or Nevirapine to pregnant women to prevent mother-to-child transmission, even though 5,000 HIV-positive babies are born every month?

I'm just starting on this thread, but to start, this one will take quick:

These medications are available to all South Africans who need it, free of charge.

The only problem that there was with it before, is 5000 HIV positive babies are born every month, sure, but in about 10 years, we have 5000 South African orphans, every month.

We're not all so backward here as to not have a reason for decisions.

Your comments are by far, more unfounded then any of Mandela's in that one speech.
The opinions (yes, opinions, in a debate try stick to facts) on South Africa are completely baseless and wrong.

He is a fucking amazing leader, who COMLPETELY turned this backward country around. And you say he’s done ‘a few good things’ for us, and some bad?

Bear in mind, unlike a lot of the world, South Africa has only has a democratic government for 10 years now. Are you aware of what this place was like prior to 1994? We’re talking complete racial segregation here. Nelson Mandela took over, and changed EVERYTHING. Is this a hard concept to understand? He REVOLUTIONISED on entire country.

Sure, not everything is sorted out, but it’s been only ten years. This country has a decreasing crime rate, yes, an increasing economy, yes, a bright future, yes, for all South Africans. When he came in, it could have easily turned out to be a Zimbabwe, with reversed racism against white people, but the special thing about Nelson Mandela is his desire to do what is right. I know this concept is hard to grasp with your political experience, but this is a world leader who HAS NO ALTERIOR MOTIVE. Weird, hey?

I really think you should find out more specifics and details as to his achievements before you start to questions the credibility of someone who the rest of the world considers to be not only extremely credible, but also extremely successful as a leader.

For example, yes, he was one of the founders of the spear of the Nation, Umkonto We Sizwe, but when it was established one of their ideals was to only attack government buildings etc, and never human lives. The more radical approach was adopted AFTER HE WAS PUT IN JAIL. And you complain about him not speaking out against these violent acts which were a REACTION to the white government violence. Then whole world ignores South Africa and it’s people, and the extremity of the crime against the black people here, and you have a problem with him not speaking out aginst people who decide to fight back?

That is an ignorant comment / assumption.

Anyway, I’m done.

Haha, took this too personally? Guess you shouldn’t have been so defensive about your country when another great man attacks it!

Originally posted by DeviousJ
most people seem to think that, on balance, South Africa is better now than it was before he came to power, and it's not like things went into great decline when he got into office. . You should ask some of the white people there.

Originally posted by Nimrod
You should ask some of the white people there.

I'm a white South African.

It's a million times better.

Better? Yes its better. Nice and safe? Fuck no. Hell....just from you I hear about crazy crime all the time and how the police laugh when you try to report it.

My point wasn't that Mandela was a BAD leader. He just wasn't the best leader ever and his country is still fucked up, even though its better than it was. My point was that people could talk all day about things that are wrong with South Africa. Mandela used this time to bash American policy when in fact he should still be worried about his own countries problems, especially when not everything he said was correct.

Originally posted by I_was_aborted
Better? Yes its better. Nice and safe? Fuck no. Hell....just from you I hear about crazy crime all the time and how the police laugh when you try to report it.

My point wasn't that Mandela was a BAD leader. He just wasn't the best leader ever and his country is still fucked up, even though its better than it was. My point was that people could talk all day about things that are wrong with South Africa. Mandela used this time to bash American policy when in fact he should still be worried about his own countries problems, especially when not everything he said was correct.

In general, I think he’s worried about peace, everywhere, for everyone.

I think he should spend less time worrying about his country, since he retired 5 years ago.

Hey, I understand your frustration regarding the possible general image of Africa as a place of doom, poverty and fear, and that you easily start up on this. However, the way you're defending your country/Mandela/politics of Mbeki can possibly make more damage than benefit.

see, we have had Vaclav Havel, who's to the Czech Republic something like Mandela to South Africa is. The guy was awesome, he's done a great job regarding the general image of my country in the world and we all should be thankful for all he's done. However, this doesn't mean the guy can't make any mistake and that whatever he says is alright. He may have been a great regarding our foreign affairs politics, but quite frankly, regarding our local political scene, his influence wasn't the best. Even now when he's out of the presidential office, some of his speeches don't help us at all.

And I guess the same goes to Mandela. yeah all praise for what he's achieved, but this doesn't mean that whatever he says now we all should take for granted and not be critically thinking about it.

Regarding the Mbeki and AIDS myth, yes I guess that what he'd said has been a bit misinterpreted in world press, since most of the authors aren't in touch with South African realities. It's obvious he was trying to put in play economic factors as well, since it's really hard to pay huge amount of money for anti-retroviral drugs ( especially if it's true that 10% of South African population is now HIV-positive) while at the same time you have to pay South African 24 billions' debt by the World Bank. I would have fully agreed with forgiving at least a certain part if not the whole debt in exchange for investing the money into the fight against AIDS.
However, it's not cool that even though you suddenly can get the anti-retroviral drugs from Brazil and India for quater of their original price, you still actually deny your own people an access to them. you say:
Originally posted by ^Agony_Imp^

These medications are available to all South Africans who need it, free of charge.

well yeah, but I guess you must be aware about the way how it has happened. It was actually some activist group, which won a lawsuit against the government on mother-to-child transmission, where the High Court found that the government was violating its constitutional obligation to improve access to health care services and to safeguard the rights of children.

It wasn't Mbeki coming out on his own and improving the access just like that. He's had do be obliged to do that, instead.

Originally posted by ^Agony_Imp^

The only problem that there was with it before, is 5000 HIV positive babies are born every month, sure, but in about 10 years, we have 5000 South African orphans, every month.

So you would have rather let the kids die with their mothers, is it correct?

Originally posted by ^Agony_Imp^

We're not all so backward here as to not have a reason for decisions.
well, obviously you're not and hats off to all the progress you've done since 1994. You know critique of SOME of the actions or speeches of your leaders doesn't necessarily mean we're disdaining ALL their success. I really hope I'll visit your beautiful country one day and I am convinced I'd have a great time, but you know this doesn't mean I have to agree with EVERYTHING what's going on there.