Mbeki's Timeframes
Jack
attaching timeframes to his promises.
A year ago he stated the the Zim problem would be sorted by June 2004.
Makes Me Think
Jack
Ferdi Greyling
Big difference. He is in controll of his own cabinet and can thus be
held accountable when the departments misses deadlines.
In the Zim case he had to go - apparently - on what Bob promised him.
Will you be prepared to rely on what Bob promises regarding loosening
his grip on power?
On Wed, 26 May 2004 16:57:52 +0200, "Jack" <j_du...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Peter H.M. Brooks
"Jack" <j_du...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c92b92$ok6$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
> Much has been made in the press and by other commentators regarding Mbeki
> attaching timeframes to his promises.
> A year ago he stated the the Zim problem would be sorted by June 2004.
>
this week so that he can keep his promise.
--
'Happiness lies in conquering one's enemies, driving them in front of
oneself, in taking their property, in savouring their despair, in outraging
their wives and daughters.' - Genghis Khan
Rod
president of SA and I didn't go out on a limb based on it.
Mbeki is and did.
Rod
"Ferdi Greyling" <NoS...@tome.com> wrote in message
news:i2d9b0l44hfairo12...@4ax.com...
Grantland
>No, I certainly wouldn't rely on what Bob says but then again I'm not the
>president of SA and I didn't go out on a limb based on it.
>Mbeki is and did.
mBeki does that often. <deadpan>
>Do you like Kipling?
Only in private. <deadpan>
G
zakanaka
> held accountable when the departments misses deadlines.
>
> In the Zim case he had to go - apparently - on what Bob promised him.
>
> Will you be prepared to rely on what Bob promises regarding loosening
> his grip on power?
Yes he has got very centralised control of his cabinet, almost Stalinist
control. He HAD to go on what Bob promised him? Well well, what does that
tell you? Is Bob his boss ? Promises promises. Anyone who knows Bob should
know that the man cannot be trusted or relied on. What a joke, what a fool.
I rest my case
Rod
Mbeki is Bob's poodle
Rod
"zakanaka" <lala...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c92p7a$om1$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
Steve Hayes
wrote:
>
>"Jack" <j_du...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:c92b92$ok6$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
>> Much has been made in the press and by other commentators regarding Mbeki
>> attaching timeframes to his promises.
>> A year ago he stated the the Zim problem would be sorted by June 2004.
>>
>So, what's the problem? The invasion of Zimbabwe is presumably scheduled for
>this week so that he can keep his promise.
But I don't think the interrogators have come back from training at Aub Garum
in Iraq yet.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Jordan
> Big difference. He is in controll of his own cabinet and can thus be
> held accountable when the departments misses deadlines.
>
> In the Zim case he had to go - apparently - on what Bob promised him.
>
> Will you be prepared to rely on what Bob promises regarding loosening
> his grip on power?
>
Of course not ... and that is exactly why Mbeki is such an idiot for
doing just that.
But of course this is not the truth of the matter at all. Mbeki has no
problem with what is happening in Zimbabwe. Mebki has no problem with
human rights abuse, in fact he is really silent on the genocide taking
place in Darfur. In a years time he will blame the "West" for failing to
stop it (like they did with Rwanda). This is all very predictable.
Jordan
> "Jack" <j_du...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:c92b92$ok6$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
>
>>Much has been made in the press and by other commentators regarding Mbeki
>>attaching timeframes to his promises.
>>A year ago he stated the the Zim problem would be sorted by June 2004.
>>
>
> So, what's the problem? The invasion of Zimbabwe is presumably scheduled for
> this week so that he can keep his promise.
>
Invasion? That is the childish "option" raised by that sanctimonious SOB
Aziz Pahad as well. Grow up Brookes. All one needs to do to reign in
Mugabe is to put the squeeze on Beit Bridge (like Vorster did to Smith).
Jordan
>
>
> But I don't think the interrogators have come back from training at Aub Garum
> in Iraq yet.
>
What exactly is your point?
Richard Bonnage
"Jordan" <J...@nadroj.net> wrote in message
news:c93pth$9ii$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
this does not appear politically correct. It would of course entail our
President
admitting his brother Bob another African president is unfit to rule, by
means
of insanity. That would open questions as to why he reselected our minister
of health who seems to have similar agendas as big Bob, he starves them,
and she ensures their demise by disease.
Richard Bonnage
African,
Arab or other assorted third world countries. African on African conflict
is the legacy of colonial rule, Western greed or Western power mongering.
This definition is subject to change, dependant on the amount of Western
aid the particular country is receiving or applying for.
This is a rather cynical opinion, but my experience has taught me to be
cynical about African politics.
Richard.
Ferdi Greyling
<<>No, I certainly wouldn't rely on what Bob says but then again I'm
not the
>president of SA and I didn't go out on a limb based on it.
>Mbeki is and did.>>
Say you were president of SA, what would you have done regarding Bob?
Ferdi Greyling
<bon...@icon.co.za> wrote:
<<>The African definition of human rights abuse is Western countries
on
>African,
>Arab or other assorted third world countries. African on African conflict
>is the legacy of colonial rule, Western greed or Western power mongering.
>This definition is subject to change, dependant on the amount of Western
>aid the particular country is receiving or applying for.
>This is a rather cynical opinion, but my experience has taught me to be
>cynical about African politics.
>Richard.>>
Some logic fir you:
South Africa is in Africa. It is therefore African. Human rights in
South Africa is expfressed in the SA bill of rights. The SA bill of
vrights is thus an African expression of human rights.
Have you ever read it?
It is the 1st part of the constitution.
Ferdi Greyling
Hey Steve, I missed your position on the treatment of the Boeremag
trialists in jail.
Would you mind posting it again?
On Thu, 27 May 2004 01:34:12 GMT, haye...@hotmail.com (Steve Hayes)
wrote:
Richard Bonnage
>
> Some logic fir you:
>
> South Africa is in Africa. It is therefore African. Human rights in
> South Africa is expfressed in the SA bill of rights. The SA bill of
> vrights is thus an African expression of human rights.
Your logic is faultless, it's just the reasoning that's flawed.
>
Please explain the South African position on Zimbabwe, or are you
saying it only applies in SA. As someone already wrote if Mbeki
wanted to do something for human rights he could turn off the supplies
to Zim. It was done before and it's proved pretty effective in
persuading our Northern neighbours to change.
But admit it Mbeki doesn't give a s#$t about civil liberties or human
rights.
> Have you ever read it?
> It is the 1st part of the constitution.
Ahhh our famous constitution, doesn't it also say something about
racial discrimination. Then the government legislate against the
white male getting work. They even produced two matrix last
year showing how many whites you're allowed to employ on
government tenders, and how much more they will pay Black
tenderers. That's not racist is it Ferdi, because it favours Blacks.
They've taken what the old government did and reversed it, but
that's not racist, that's empowerment.
And is it not a human right to be supplied medicine to fight disease,
or has the government no obligation to try and reduce AIDs. Is
this aspect not covered in your human rights section of the
constitution.
Your constitution is so much scrap paper now Ferdi the government
don't have to ignore it, they can change it when and where they
want to.
Isn't it about time you stopped flogging a dead horse?
Richard
>
>
Rod
> On Wed, 26 May 2004 20:11:07 +0200, "Rod" <rd...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Say you were president of SA, what would you have done regarding Bob?
A Much Better Job !
Rod
Steve Hayes
Told George Bish that Osama bin Laden lived there.
Let his taxpayers pay for regime change....
Steve Hayes
>
>Hey Steve, I missed your position on the treatment of the Boeremag
>trialists in jail.
>
>Would you mind posting it again?
Ag man, let them listen to whatever radio station they bleddy well like.
Unless and until they are found guilty, of course. Then they have to listen to
what the correcter in chief decides.
conciliator
"Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za> wrote in message
news:c92fqq$5cq$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
>
> "Jack" <j_du...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:c92b92$ok6$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
> > Much has been made in the press and by other commentators regarding
Mbeki
> > attaching timeframes to his promises.
> > A year ago he stated the the Zim problem would be sorted by June
2004.
> >
> So, what's the problem? The invasion of Zimbabwe is presumably
scheduled for
> this week so that he can keep his promise.
>
Ferdi Greyling
No doubt. But what would the things be that you will be doing?
Ferdi Greyling
wrote:
<<>>Say you were president of SA, what would you have done regarding
Bob?
>
>Told George Bish that Osama bin Laden lived there.
>
>Let his taxpayers pay for regime change....>>
The Guardian had a story the other day that UK spooks seem to think
they have all been on a ride organised by Iran.
They say Iran fed Chalabi false info who fed it to Bush and Cheney who
got the US to whack Saddam and pave the way for a Shia state in Iraq.
Maybe one should not trust Bush all that much. He may end up bombinhg
Tanzania by mistake.
Ferdi Greyling
<bon...@icon.co.za> wrote:
<<>> Some logic fir you:
>>
>> South Africa is in Africa. It is therefore African. Human rights in
>> South Africa is expfressed in the SA bill of rights. The SA bill of
>> vrights is thus an African expression of human rights.
>
>Your logic is faultless, it's just the reasoning that's flawed.
>>
>
>Please explain the South African position on Zimbabwe, >>
I posted to you abou human rights. You ask about policy towards
Zimbabwe.
It is another thing.
(The US has a bill of rights. It respects human rights as a state.
Yet, what is it's position towards Saudi Arabia?)
<<>Ahhh our famous constitution, doesn't it also say something about
>racial discrimination. Then the government legislate against the
>white male getting work.>>
Sect 9 should be read in conjunction (among other things) with sect
36. Basic stuff, is'nt it?
<<Your constitution is so much scrap paper now Ferdi the government
>don't have to ignore it, they can change it when and where they
>want to.>>
Have they?
The ANC was governing with a 2/3 majority for a year before the
election and changed nothing.
They have to the letter followed every pronouncement of the
constitutional court for 10 years now.
They have declared publically they do not want to change the
constitution.
<<Isn't it about time you stopped flogging a dead horse?>>
Which horse? The "OhMyGodTheANCHasA2/3MajorityThey Gonna
ChangeTheConstitution!!" horse?
Your arm hurt yet from the flogging?
Or is it just that you don't like it when you are pointed to your
illogical statement.
(Like that it is perfectly logical but not reasonable.
That is like saying yes the wall is white but you would like to point
out that it is black)
Ferdi Greyling
What?!! No concern over their rights????
Maybe they should join the landless movement, hey?
On Thu, 27 May 2004 18:30:38 GMT, haye...@hotmail.com (Steve Hayes)
wrote:
>On Thu, 27 May 2004 12:05:12 +0200, Ferdi Greyling <NoS...@tome.com> wrote:
Slow Eddy
Pandora Greyling lifted the lid of the box when the curiosity became too
intense, and out flew those dragons and bats ...
If I were president of SA, this is what I would've done regarding Bob:
1. I would've summoned him for a "friendly" chat, putting the face-saving
part of the dealings with him onto a definite and short timescale. Bob
would've ignored the opportunity to put things right, but you have to go
through at least the forms of diplomacy.
2. I would've then put the big squeeze on him, after consulting with George
and Tony on the matter. First of all, just a few "problems and bottlenecks"
at the borders, and travel advisories against Zim; then denouncement in
clear terms in public, making it absolutely clear that the diplomatic
window of opportunity was now closed; then I would've sharply cut Bob's oil
supplies, and at the same time put the defence forces on standby just in
case Bob tried some bad craziness in response to this. Just to aggravate
his fuel problems I would've asked our airforce to keep scrambling his,
without going so far as to start a war.
3. If that was ineffective I'd have talked to George and Tony about possible
escalation of the pressure...
I would not have just sat to one side watching the currency plummet to below
its natural value, or the economy failing to grow at the 7% it should've
grown at. I would not have put out the message to foreign investors that
this is just another third-world blocked drainpipe with a government more
interested in preserving myths than in dealing with present realities.
So aren't you weeping great tears at how sad it is that during the crisis we
didn't have a President Eddy to sort this mess out properly?
--
Slow Eddy
Richard Bonnage
> On Thu, 27 May 2004 19:04:40 +0200, "Richard Bonnage"
> <bon...@icon.co.za> wrote:
>
> <<>> Some logic fir you:
> >>
> >> South Africa is in Africa. It is therefore African. Human rights in
> >> South Africa is expfressed in the SA bill of rights. The SA bill of
> >> vrights is thus an African expression of human rights.
> >
> >Your logic is faultless, it's just the reasoning that's flawed.
> >>
> >
> >Please explain the South African position on Zimbabwe, >>
>
> I posted to you abou human rights. You ask about policy towards
> Zimbabwe.
> It is another thing.
From your answer are you saying that human rights stop at our
border and do not apply to the citizens of Zimbabwe. Do you
believe our governments failure to try to stop the human rights
violations in that country is valid because it is not an internal
problem?
I notice you didn't comment on Mbeki's failure to make
adequate supplies of medicine available to combat the
effects of HIV / AID's for the last 10 years. Is that not
a human rights violation.
>
> (The US has a bill of rights. It respects human rights as a state.
> Yet, what is it's position towards Saudi Arabia?)
It's weird how you only see human rights violations as applied
to the Western world. Selective reasoning?
>
> <<>Ahhh our famous constitution, doesn't it also say something about
> >racial discrimination. Then the government legislate against the
> >white male getting work.>>
>
> Sect 9 should be read in conjunction (among other things) with sect
> 36. Basic stuff, is'nt it?
>
> <<Your constitution is so much scrap paper now Ferdi the government
> >don't have to ignore it, they can change it when and where they
> >want to.>>
>
> Have they?
> The ANC was governing with a 2/3 majority for a year before the
> election and changed nothing.
>
> They have to the letter followed every pronouncement of the
> constitutional court for 10 years now.
>
> They have declared publically they do not want to change the
> constitution.
Well that's it then, we can rest assured now, Mbeki publicly
declared they don't want to change the constitution. Well
I'm sure the foreign investment will start flooding in, now
that the sovereignty of property ownership is assured.
If you believe that you have no use for drugs.
>
> <<Isn't it about time you stopped flogging a dead horse?>>
>
> Which horse? The "OhMyGodTheANCHasA2/3MajorityThey Gonna
> ChangeTheConstitution!!" horse?
>
No the "ANC can do no wrong horse" you should know it Fergi
you're normally riding it.
> Your arm hurt yet from the flogging?
>
No I've got a strong arm from all the exercise flogging the
natives when they get uppity.
> Or is it just that you don't like it when you are pointed to your
> illogical statement.
I'm never sure where you're pointing Fergi except straight up the
ANC's arse. You should take your head out and try and get an
objective view of our country sometime.
>
> (Like that it is perfectly logical but not reasonable.
>
> That is like saying yes the wall is white but you would like to point
> out that it is black)
Great logic Fergi do you have any more gems like that, at least your
humor is, as always, unsurpassable.
>
>
>
>
>
Steve Hayes
>
>What?!! No concern over their rights????
>
>Maybe they should join the landless movement, hey?
Was that a right or wasn't it?
Does one have a right not to listen to a radio programme?
What does the constitution say?
zakanaka
Now you are asking the same stupid question Azziz Phad asks. Are you another
clone?
How about listening to what Thabo's own brother has to say on this matter.
He lived and worked as a journalist in Zimbabwe. He knows zanupf backwards
and knows how corrupt they are and how much they do lie. If you follow the
news, he has, on many occasions suggested what should be done.
>
>
zakanaka
What a load of crap you talk. The SA bill of rights is NOT an African
expression. It's South African. If it was African, why are millions of
Africans being slaughtered by their own leaders corrupt regimes?
Jordan
>
> It's weird how you only see human rights violations as applied
> to the Western world. Selective reasoning?
>
Exactly
Richard Bonnage
"Steve Hayes" <haye...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:40b78732...@news.saix.net...
>
> Does one have a right not to listen to a radio programme?
>
At one time the most powerful radio transmitter in the world
was in Cairo it was a short wave transmitter with the main lobe
on Africa and the Middle East. It was paid for, and maintained
by the Brits. To broadcast news and educational programmes
to countries that were thought to have censored world news. Later
the Yanks started broadcasting The Voice of America but some
of their programmes didn't seem too impartial. They also had another
huge transmitter in the East (in India I think) which used to transmit
cultural programmes as well.
Some countries thought that the media should transmit, what the
government wanted the people should listen to. Some Eastern
countries are still like that, it's quite funny to be watching a movie
on TV and have an "ad" break that expounds the virtues of being
a good Muslim, with a prayer thrown in. I suppose it saves you
traipsing of to Church or Mosque or whatever.
Richard.
Richard Bonnage
"zakanaka" <lala...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c98189$5kr$3...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
>
> "Ferdi Greyling" <NoS...@tome.com> wrote in message
> news:r4fbb094bolgobch4...@4ax.com...
> > On Thu, 27 May 2004 09:03:47 +0200, "Richard Bonnage"
> > <bon...@icon.co.za> wrote:
>
> The SA bill of
> > vrights is thus an African expression of human rights.
> What a load of crap you talk. The SA bill of rights is NOT an African
> expression. It's South African. If it was African, why are millions of
> Africans being slaughtered by their own leaders corrupt regimes?
>
>
Ferdi's mind is a cauldron of selective reasoning, he doesn't appear
able to understand that his beloved country could be party to
any violations of human rights. You have to understand that human
rights are entrenched in the constitution and therefore that ensures
that our position on any issues are correct.
Fergi would hate to think he wasted his time being an observer
to this documents formulation, and it is only smoke and mirrors
that is ignored when ever our government deems prudent.
Ferdi thinks corrupt regimes left Africa with Smith and De Klerk,
still he's very humorous.
Richard.
zakanaka
"Richard Bonnage" <bon...@icon.co.za> wrote in message
news:c999n5$jla$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
He's surely a clone of some idiology which demands poor eyesight and blind
faith. It's a sad situation and will probably take at least a generation for
it to come right.
>
>
Buster
"Ferdi Greyling" <NoS...@tome.com> wrote in message
news:khheb056l938prejm...@4ax.com...
Richard Bonnage
What great terminology "poor eyesight and blind faith" I
think that term may get frequent future use from myself.
I can think of many instances in my work where this
will describe exactly some of my teams failings.
Richard.
> >
>
>
zakanaka
>
> "zakanaka" <lala...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:c99clf$sju$2...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
> >
> > "Richard Bonnage" <bon...@icon.co.za> wrote in message
> > news:c999n5$jla$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
> > >
> > > "zakanaka" <lala...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > news:c98189$5kr$3...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
> > > >
> > > > "Ferdi Greyling" <NoS...@tome.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:r4fbb094bolgobch4...@4ax.com...
> > > > > On Thu, 27 May 2004 09:03:47 +0200, "Richard Bonnage"
> > > > > <bon...@icon.co.za> wrote:
>
> > He's surely a clone of some idiology which demands poor eyesight and
blind
> > faith. It's a sad situation and will probably take at least a generation
> for
> > it to come right.
> >
> > >
> What great terminology "poor eyesight and blind faith"
I have checked and it doesn't, thank god, fall within the parameters of
political correctness. Just make sure there isn't copyright protection
before considering frequent use.
zakanaka
"Buster" <Bus...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:c99fhr$9gi$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
> Confusion reigns supreme in Ferdis mind!
Nicely spotted mate !
Jordan
> "Richard Bonnage" <bon...@icon.co.za> wrote in message
>>
>>Zakanaka
>>Ferdi's mind is a cauldron of selective reasoning, he doesn't appear
>>able to understand that his beloved country could be party to
>>any violations of human rights. You have to understand that human
>>rights are entrenched in the constitution and therefore that ensures
>>that our position on any issues are correct.
>>Fergi would hate to think he wasted his time being an observer
>>to this documents formulation, and it is only smoke and mirrors
>>that is ignored when ever our government deems prudent.
>>Ferdi thinks corrupt regimes left Africa with Smith and De Klerk,
>>still he's very humorous.
>>Richard.
>
>
> He's surely a clone of some idiology which demands poor eyesight and blind
> faith. It's a sad situation and will probably take at least a generation for
> it to come right.
>
You have to have some pity. I mean there he was a few weeks ago selling
him with a "team" working on stories as if it was a virtue when all
along no self respecting editor in his right mind let him operate on his
own without a side kick or to keep an eye on him and a LARGE amount of
editorial oversight. The guy is a loose canon.
zakanaka
"Jordan" <J...@nadroj.net> wrote in message
news:c99oo7$978$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
Probably works in the President's office
>
Steve Hayes
wrote:
>Ferdi's mind is a cauldron of selective reasoning, he doesn't appear
>able to understand that his beloved country could be party to
>any violations of human rights. You have to understand that human
>rights are entrenched in the constitution and therefore that ensures
>that our position on any issues are correct.
>Fergi would hate to think he wasted his time being an observer
>to this documents formulation, and it is only smoke and mirrors
>that is ignored when ever our government deems prudent.
>Ferdi thinks corrupt regimes left Africa with Smith and De Klerk,
>still he's very humorous.
If I want to know what Ferdi thinks, I'll ask him. He is of age, and can speak
for himself.
One of the problems with this newsgroup is that there are too many people who
are too eager to give other people's opinions. Are they too lazy to form and
articulare their own?
Jordan
>
>
> If I want to know what Ferdi thinks, I'll ask him. He is of age, and can speak
> for himself.
>
> One of the problems with this newsgroup is that there are too many people who
> are too eager to give other people's opinions. Are they too lazy to form and
> articulare their own?
>
And none of the problems on this newsgroup has any source with the likes
of you? Very African Steve. It is everyone else's fault.
Ferdi Greyling
<notmyrea...@sillyboy.co.ru> wrote:
<<>If I were president of SA, this is what I would've done regarding
Bob:
>1. I would've summoned him for a "friendly" chat, putting the face-saving
>part of the dealings with him onto a definite and short timescale. Bob
>would've ignored the opportunity to put things right, but you have to go
>through at least the forms of diplomacy.>>
So you would have made the talk public?
What if Bob talks only on condition the negotiation is "not done in
the media" ?
<<>2. I would've then put the big squeeze on him, after consulting
with George
>and Tony on the matter. First of all, just a few "problems and bottlenecks"
>at the borders, and travel advisories against Zim; then denouncement in
>clear terms in public, making it absolutely clear that the diplomatic
>window of opportunity was now closed; then I would've sharply cut Bob's oil
>supplies, >>
Is'nt it allready cut for all practical purposes? Hence all those
queue's at the petrol stations.
And what if Bob says if you do that, then he cuts the electricity line
that runs over Zim territiory between Cahora Bassa dam and SA?
<<and at the same time put the defence forces on standby just in
>case Bob tried some bad craziness in response to this. Just to aggravate
>his fuel problems I would've asked our airforce to keep scrambling his,
>without going so far as to start a war.>>>
In other words raise the possibility of an invasion of Zim.
Will that not strengthen Bob?
Give him reason to declare martial law, suspend the constitution and
"prepare for the imminent invasion" etc?
<<>3. If that was ineffective I'd have talked to George and Tony about
possible
>escalation of the pressure...>>
... and in the meantime millions of Zimbabweans steam across the
border to SA and becomes the problem of an overtretched SA system.
And the western banks and companies run from the SA economy as fast as
they can "before regional war breaks out".
<<>I would not have just sat to one side watching the currency plummet
to below
>its natural value, >>
But it regained all value again didn't it?
And now people say it seems Zim did not have much to do with the
crash.
<<or the economy failing to grow at the 7% it should've
>grown at.>>
I was told the other day that there are 2 million Zimbabweans in SA
and that is one of the reasons our economy strains.
What if your actions bring another 2 million AND have the investors
fleeing?
<<ould not have put out the message to foreign investors that
>this is just another third-world blocked drainpipe with a government more
>interested in preserving myths than in dealing with present realities.
>
>So aren't you weeping great tears at how sad it is that during the crisis we
>didn't have a President Eddy to sort this mess out properly?>>
The point that I am making is that there is not a lot that Mbeki CAN
do.
You can invade. We will probably get clobbered AND Bob will suspend
his constitution.
We can assasinate Bob. If we fail, same as above will happen and if we
succeed (or if we fail) we will have killed all hopes of democracy and
good society in the region. Plus they might take our leaders out,
next!
We can cut off his water and lights. That will have a price tag. The
ones we can speculate on is the cutting of our power and the streaming
of millions into SA as Zim really colapses. There may also be
unforseen effects.
Not much you can do.
What Mbeki could have doen, was communicate better with his own voters
so we can know what he thinks about the issue.
And he could have defined the democracy/human rights ideal of Nepad
better in terms of specifically Zimbabwe. He could have said - gently
if he wants - "Bob, for you own good and your people, that is not the
way to go. We implore you to stop."
In these two thing Mbeki fucked up.
But I really believe there is not much he could have done more without
violating the sovereign state principle that is at the root of good
regional government (democracy requires that the population of a state
can be free to pick their own leader without interference from
neighbours who may not like the leader, for example) or without paying
the price of creating a chaotic reaction in OUR society hurting our
economy and morally killing Nepad.
At the end Zimbabwe is a sovereign state, Bob is a dictator that will
cling to power at all cost and he is our neighbour.
It is a bad combination that we will probably have to live with.
But why does the Zimbabwean opposition not do more? They surely have
the example of the UDF in SA under PW Botha?
Ferdi Greyling
wrote:
So why don't you give an answer?
I take it you have one....?
Or are you a clone of the parrot in the pet shop?
Ferdi Greyling
<bon...@icon.co.za> wrote:
<<>From your answer are you saying that human rights stop at our
>border and do not apply to the citizens of Zimbabwe. Do you
>believe our governments failure to try to stop the human rights
>violations in that country is valid because it is not an internal
>problem?>>
Surely you understand that the SA constitution applies only to SA?
Otherwise Bob can say his laws apply in SA as well and your property
can be taken?
<<I notice you didn't comment on Mbeki's failure to make
>adequate supplies of medicine available to combat the
>effects of HIV / AID's for the last 10 years. Is that not
>a human rights violation.>>
Did you contribute to making those supplies available? You DO believe
in human rights, do you?
<<>> (The US has a bill of rights. It respects human rights as a
state.
>> Yet, what is it's position towards Saudi Arabia?)
>
>It's weird how you only see human rights violations as applied
>to the Western world. Selective reasoning?>:>
OK let me explain to you. (I really thought you will get it.)
You say SA has a bill of rights and for it to be real it must apply to
Zim as well.
I say no it is not so and give you thye example of the US and Saudi
Arabia. The whole world (probably including you) see the US as a state
where human rights are enshrined, a sort of example. Yet they are
friendly with the Saudis (where there is little human rights and
democracy). What does that illustrate?
That a country's human rights record is not measured by the human
rights in the countries it has to have international relationships
with.
Thus US/Saudi and SA/Zim.
Get it now?
<<> Have they?
>> The ANC was governing with a 2/3 majority for a year before the
>> election and changed nothing.
>>
>> They have to the letter followed every pronouncement of the
>> constitutional court for 10 years now.
>>
>> They have declared publically they do not want to change the
>> constitution.
>
>Well that's it then, we can rest assured now, Mbeki publicly
>declared they don't want to change the constitution. Well
>I'm sure the foreign investment will start flooding in, now
>that the sovereignty of property ownership is assured.
>If you believe that you have no use for drugs.>>
So you are arguing as follows: The fact that the ANC have had a 2/3
majority for about two years, have not used it to change the
constitution and that the president has said they do not want to
change the constitution is proof that they want to change the
constitution?
Is that what you are saying?
<<> <<Isn't it about time you stopped flogging a dead horse?>>
>>
>> Which horse? The "OhMyGodTheANCHasA2/3MajorityThey Gonna
>> ChangeTheConstitution!!" horse?
>>
>No the "ANC can do no wrong horse" you should know it Fergi
>you're normally riding it.>>
Tell me where.
Is it not time you stop riding the Boerestaat horse? I mean you guys
are never really going to set up a all white racist state in SA, are
you?
(Do you like that? )
Instead of insulting me and jumping on the "let's label him an ANC
flunkie" horse, rather answer my argument with a counter argument.
You of course know what you are doing here. You are tagging me as a
"die hard ANC supporter" (which I am not, by the way) and thereby you
are saying all that I say in this argument may therefore be
disregarded. It is a classic fallacy and has been pointed out as such
in Greece about 3000 BC allready.
<<> Or is it just that you don't like it when you are pointed to your
>> illogical statement.
>
>I'm never sure where you're pointing Fergi except straight up the
>ANC's arse. You should take your head out and try and get an
>objective view of our country sometime.>>
You see - instead of arguing you turn to the raging shouting of
insults.
I pointed out your illogical thinking and (he,he) you respond with an
emotional rage hoping to insult me.
<<> (Like that it is perfectly logical but not reasonable.
>>
>> That is like saying yes the wall is white but you would like to point
>> out that it is black)
>Great logic Fergi do you have any more gems like that, at least your
>humor is, as always, unsurpassable.>>
Anything to get out the corner, heh Dickie?
Jordan
> On Fri, 28 May 2004 06:02:38 +0200, "zakanaka" <lala...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> So why don't you give an answer?
> I take it you have one....?
>
Hellooooooooooooo?
He directed you to what Moeletsi Mbeki has stated in the past on the issue.
zakanaka
> On Fri, 28 May 2004 06:02:38 +0200, "zakanaka" <lala...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> So why don't you give an answer?
> I take it you have one....?
One ?. I have many. Some of these are:
STOP supporting Mugabe.
Stop using the South African Foreign Affairs Department as a defacto
Zimbabwean Foreign Affairs Department .
Stop lobbying on world forums such as the UN human rights forum to
stiffle/silence debate on human rights abuses in Zimbabwe.
Stop using South African taxpayers money to prop up Mugabe.
Cut off electricity supplies if Zimbabwe hasn't paid the money they owe. Why
should poor South Africans have to pay increased prices to subsidise
Zimbabwe's bad credit facility
Start speaking out about the horrendous human rights abuses taking place in
Zimbabwe.
Release the report compiled by the High court judges who went to Zimbabwe to
observe the last presidential elections.
Start telling the truth about what's going on in Zimbabwe
Do not send SA troops into Zimbabwe because the Zimbabweans will take them
to the cleaners.
I can go on and on..........................
>
> Or are you a clone of the parrot in the pet shop?
Quite frankly, I like parrots and I would have to say that they are
obviously far more articulate and intelligent than some of your postings.
LOL
Ferdi Greyling
<bon...@icon.co.za> wrote:
<<>> <<>> Some logic fir you:
>> >>
>> >> South Africa is in Africa. It is therefore African. Human rights in
>> >> South Africa is expfressed in the SA bill of rights. The SA bill of
>> >> vrights is thus an African expression of human rights.
>> >
>> >Your logic is faultless, it's just the reasoning that's flawed.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Please explain the South African position on Zimbabwe, >>
>>
>> I posted to you abou human rights. You ask about policy towards
>> Zimbabwe.
>> It is another thing.
>
>From your answer are you saying that human rights stop at our
>border and do not apply to the citizens of Zimbabwe.>>
No.
I am saying SA is an African country. It has an enshrined bill of
rights protecting human rights. It is therefore an African expression
of enshrined human rights.
That will make a lie of any statement that there is not enshrined
human rights in Africa.
Our constitution, by the way, does not apply in Zimbabwe. Just as
their constitution does not apply to us.
Our concern for human rights will of course include Zimbabwe. That is
why Thabo Mbeki is conducting a diplomatic campaign to try to get Bob
Mugabe to fall into line with real democracy and human rights. Mbeki's
campaign is not working. He is fucking it up. But that is another
issue. That calls for a discussion of why it is not working. In other
words why the CONCERN WITH THE SITUATION IN ZIM that Mbeki has and has
repeatedly expressed, IS NOT SUCCESSFULLY TURNED INTO EFFECTIVE
POLICY.
In other words why is there policy failure.
It is a discussion on failure of policy.
<< Do you
>believe our governments failure to try to stop the human rights
>violations in that country is valid because it is not an internal
>problem?>>
What would YOU have done if you were president of SA.
<<>I notice you didn't comment on Mbeki's failure to make
>adequate supplies of medicine available to combat the
>effects of HIV / AID's for the last 10 years. Is that not
>a human rights violation.>>
In the first place - Mbeki has been president for only a little more
than 5 years now. Not 10.
The Aids thing flared up only in his term.
There was Aids before and neither the NP govt nor Mandela's govt took
it serious enough.
Medicine are being given now, by the way .
Is it a human rights violation? Not to give medicine?
The question here is if the provision of free medical care is an
expression of the right to life, I guess. Ideally it is. But in
practical terms SA's hospitals do NOT give unlimited free medical aid
because we cannot afford it.
The same position, by the way applies in all western countries, even
the richest ones like the US.
Keeping the above in mind, it probably would have been a violation of
human rights by Mbeki if he deliberately withheld Aids medicine from
Aids sufferers in SA if he could have supplied it. And if he knew the
disease was killing people.
But Mbeki did not believe there was such a thing as Aids did he?
Did he fuck up with Aids? Yes. Big time.
But I do not think it was a deliberate violation of the human rights
of his voters.
Because he did not think the disease even existed and because - along
with TB, malaria, cancer and any other bad disease you can think of -
the SA system has serious discrepancies when it comes to free medical
care. The biggest one probably being money.
The country cannot provide it.
Or are you willing to pay about 90% of your income in taxes?
Ferdi Greyling
wrote:
<<>The SA bill of
>> vrights is thus an African expression of human rights.
>What a load of crap you talk. The SA bill of rights is NOT an African
>expression. It's South African. If it was African, why are millions of
>Africans being slaughtered by their own leaders corrupt regimes?>>
OK
You are right. South Africa is not in Africa.
zakanaka
> On Fri, 28 May 2004 20:15:55 +0200, "Richard Bonnage"
> <bon...@icon.co.za> wrote:
>
> <<>From your answer are you saying that human rights stop at our
> >border and do not apply to the citizens of Zimbabwe. Do you
> >believe our governments failure to try to stop the human rights
> >violations in that country is valid because it is not an internal
> >problem?>>
>
> Surely you understand that the SA constitution applies only to SA?
> Otherwise Bob can say his laws apply in SA as well and your property
> can be taken?
the SA constitution and it's application in terms of South Africa's foreign
policy.
>
> <<I notice you didn't comment on Mbeki's failure to make
> >adequate supplies of medicine available to combat the
> >effects of HIV / AID's for the last 10 years. Is that not
> >a human rights violation.>>
Are you asking a question? If you are intellient enough, you might work out
the answer. It's very obvious.
Ferdi Greyling
<bon...@icon.co.za> wrote:
<<>Zakanaka
>Ferdi's mind is a cauldron of selective reasoning, he doesn't appear
>able to understand that his beloved country could be party to
>any violations of human rights. You have to understand that human
>rights are entrenched in the constitution and therefore that ensures
>that our position on any issues are correct.
>Fergi would hate to think he wasted his time being an observer
>to this documents formulation, and it is only smoke and mirrors
>that is ignored when ever our government deems prudent.
>Ferdi thinks corrupt regimes left Africa with Smith and De Klerk,
>still he's very humorous.
>Richard.>>
Dickie....dickie.... don't think with that part.....
Ferdi Greyling
wrote:
<<>On Fri, 28 May 2004 16:02:16 +0200, Ferdi Greyling
<NoS...@tome.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>What?!! No concern over their rights????
>>
>>Maybe they should join the landless movement, hey?
>
>Was that a right or wasn't it?
>
>Does one have a right not to listen to a radio programme?
>
>What does the constitution say?>>
Ah but it is not merely a matter of rightwing clowns listening to the
radio, is it Steve?
It is about having the same concern for all regardless of who they
are, is it not?
And you are bigger than turning it into a mere side remark about
"listening to the radio".
Let me ask you this: If those Boeremag dudes were to be slapped about
a bit in jail, will you - Steve Hayes - defend them as passionately as
you will defend the Landless People when they get slapped around by
the police in a cell?
Will you be as outraged?
Because the principle say police must not slap people around in jail.
Ferdi Greyling
wrote:
<<>Confusion reigns supreme in Ferdis mind!>>>
Do you even know that you are mixing up the remarks of more than one
person here??
Ferdi Greyling
wrote:
<<>"Buster" <Bus...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>news:c99fhr$9gi$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
>> Confusion reigns supreme in Ferdis mind!
>
>Nicely spotted mate ! >>
OK now go slap the wife and drink another beer.
Ferdi Greyling
wrote:
<<>Does one have a right not to listen to a radio programme?
>
>What does the constitution say?>>
Dunno. What does the happy clappies say God say?
Ferdi Greyling
wrote:
Ah! Good. Now you are starting to argue instead of just pissing
insults!
<<>> So why don't you give an answer?
>> I take it you have one....?
>
>One ?. I have many. Some of these are:
>STOP supporting Mugabe.>>
You mean emotionally? And who do you mean?
By the way guess who said this just about exactly a year ago:
<<<<It is that the longer
the problems of Zimbabwe remain unresolved, the more entrenched
poverty will
become. The longer this persists, the greater will be the degree of
social
instability, as the poor try to respond to the pains of hunger. The
more
protracted this instability, the greater will be the degree of
polarisation and
generalised social and political conflict.
To respond to this, the state will inevitably have to emphasise issues
of law
and order, even as it has ever fewer means to address the needs of the
people.
As it responds in this manner, the less will it have the possibility
to address
anything else other than the issue of law and order. The more it does
this, the
greater will be the degree of the absence of order and stability.>>>
Thabo Mbeki.
You can read the whole "letter" at this address:
http://www.anc.org.za/ancdocs/anctoday/2003/text/at18.txt
It is interesting in that he goes some way in criticising Bob as the
man who is undoing the liberation Zimbabweans thought they achieved 20
years ago.
Mbeki does not go far enough, no doubt about that, but this letter
does go some way in convincing one that he is not an ardent supporter
of Bob.
It may be wrong to look at the Zim issue with the belief that Mbeki
supports Bob. He tolerates him, yes.
.
Mbeki sure as hell does not oppose Bob enough, but I do not think that
means he supports him.
<<Stop using the South African Foreign Affairs Department as a defacto
>Zimbabwean Foreign Affairs Department .>>
Examples?
<<>Stop lobbying on world forums such as the UN human rights forum to
>stiffle/silence debate on human rights abuses in Zimbabwe.>>
Examples? Details?
I would like to read it.
<<>Stop using South African taxpayers money to prop up Mugabe.>>
Examples?
<<>Cut off electricity supplies if Zimbabwe hasn't paid the money they
owe. Why
>should poor South Africans have to pay increased prices to subsidise
>Zimbabwe's bad credit facility>>
And have them cut of our supply that apparently goes over their
territory from Cahora Bassa?
And have about 5 millions poor Zimbabweans fleeing intyo SA where we
will have to absorb them into our welfare system (what there is of
it)?
How do you think that will ripple effect on crime in SA?
<<Start speaking out about the horrendous human rights abuses taking
place in Zimbabwe.>>
Agree
<<>Release the report compiled by the High court judges who went to
Zimbabwe to
>observe the last presidential elections.>>
Agree
<<>Start telling the truth about what's going on in Zimbabwe>>
Don't we know that allready?
<<>Do not send SA troops into Zimbabwe because the Zimbabweans will
take them
>to the cleaners.>>
Indeed. It will be a supremely stupid move.
What you are saying seem to me that the SA govt should 1. Communicate
better and more on it's position, view and vision on Zimbabwe so we
can all clearly know what they think and how the reason and should 2.
Take care to criticize the violations that is happening in Zimbabwe
and say clearly that we disagree with that.
If this is what you are saying, then I agree with you. And if you had
taken care to read my postings, you would have known that.
The core of what I am saying is: Apart from better communication and a
much clearer position on the immorality of Bob's dictatorship, there
is actually not much that SA can do.
As you said: Do not invade.
I will add to that the following: Take care not to completey crash the
infrastructure and economic system in Zim (as far as one can take that
sort of care and not in the process actually help the crumbling
along!) because that will have effect on SA. One effect will probably
be a huge influx of poor and desperate Zimbabweans into SA.
And what do you think the chances are of warlords springing up in Zim
if it were to cpmpletely crash?
Bob will not go without a fight.
What will his generals do?
And a dragging civil war as a result? What will that do to SA and the
region's economy?
<<>Quite frankly, I like parrots and I would have to say that they are
>obviously far more articulate and intelligent than some of your postings.
>LOL>>
You like parrots and you laugh in public at your own jokes? Do you
perhaps live alone....?
Ferdi Greyling
Tell me, are you Richard?
If so, why are you posting under false names?
On Sun, 30 May 2004 12:31:11 +0200, "zakanaka" <lala...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
zakanaka
your own research. I'm not interested in wasting my time by answering
questions where you should already know the answers. If you look at my past
posts, you'll find all the answers you are looking for.news:i8ejb09q8k0qsiv94...@4ax.com...
Jordan
>
> Ah! Good. Now you are starting to argue instead of just pissing
> insults!
>
Any chance you now doing the same?
Jordan
>
> Let me ask you this: If those Boeremag dudes were to be slapped about
> a bit in jail, will you - Steve Hayes - defend them as passionately as
> you will defend the Landless People when they get slapped around by
> the police in a cell?
>
> Will you be as outraged?
>
Ferdi, Ferdi, Ferdi. Steve Hayes is just as one eyed as you are. The
answer is of course he won't. Human rights is seen by him as a mere tool
to protect "his" activists and to hell with the rest. Now that has been
obvious to most around here for yonks, you not to you? Steve Hayes also
claims to be a christian as well. You want to ask him about that?
Ferdi Greyling
You truly are a dork.
Are you just to lazy to think or is an inability?
Did you merely make emotional statements that springs from prejudice?
Or do you actually have examples?
Who fuckin cares?
Don't bother to answer. I know what the answer will look like. More of
the same sloppy ship.
Too lazy to think, so it will be a revert to the insult.
It was not nice knowing you. I am glad you go to the killfile.
Maybe you are even a Zimbabwean. Then you and Bob deserve each other.
Enjoy him As he no doubt will enjoy you.
Cheers.
On Sun, 30 May 2004 13:27:03 +0200, "zakanaka" <lala...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
zakanaka
JordanK
> You truly are a dork.
>
> Are you just to lazy to think or is an inability?
> Did you merely make emotional statements that springs from prejudice?
> Or do you actually have examples?
> Who fuckin cares?
>
> Don't bother to answer. I know what the answer will look like. More of
> the same sloppy ship.
> Too lazy to think, so it will be a revert to the insult.
>
> It was not nice knowing you. I am glad you go to the killfile.
>
> Maybe you are even a Zimbabwean. Then you and Bob deserve each other.
> Enjoy him As he no doubt will enjoy you.
>
> Cheers.
>
Isn't this just typical of the likes of theat slimeball Ferdi. Takes a
cheap shot and then slams the door. Typical.
zakanaka
"JordanK" <J...@dippy.net> wrote in message
news:c9d04d$84n$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
He just a dork
>
Richard Bonnage
> No.
> I am saying SA is an African country. It has an enshrined bill of
> rights protecting human rights. It is therefore an African expression
> of enshrined human rights.
> That will make a lie of any statement that there is not enshrined
> human rights in Africa.
>
Ferdi by what parameters do you define "enshrined" writing something
on a piece of paper does not mean it is enshrined. That it is documented
on a bill of rights, or a constitution does not ensure that the spirit of
the contents shall be adhered too.
> Our constitution, by the way, does not apply in Zimbabwe. Just as
> their constitution does not apply to us.
>
Absolutely but what I'm saying is, we don't exert any pressure on our
neighbours to rectify the blatant violations of human rights in their
country. This indicates to me we are only interested in human rights
when it is politically expedient.
> Our concern for human rights will of course include Zimbabwe. That is
> why Thabo Mbeki is conducting a diplomatic campaign to try to get Bob
> Mugabe to fall into line with real democracy and human rights. Mbeki's
> campaign is not working. He is fucking it up. But that is another
> issue. That calls for a discussion of why it is not working. In other
> words why the CONCERN WITH THE SITUATION IN ZIM that Mbeki has and has
> repeatedly expressed, IS NOT SUCCESSFULLY TURNED INTO EFFECTIVE
> POLICY.
> In other words why is there policy failure.
> It is a discussion on failure of policy.
>
What exactly has Mbeki done to exert pressure on Bob? What is our policy
in regards to Zimbabwe, internal policies. I have heard Mbeki state that it
is not our policy to interfere with Zimbabwe's internal affairs. This would
lead me to believe that he's not interested.
> << Do you
> >believe our governments failure to try to stop the human rights
> >violations in that country is valid because it is not an internal
> >problem?>>
>
>
>
> What would YOU have done if you were president of SA.
>
Thankfully that would never arise because I'm the wrong colour,
and then I wouldn't have anything to moan about. But I would
advised Bob to resign due to ill health, and offered assistance
if he complied. When he didn't comply as he obviously wouldn't
cut of his supplies lines.
>
>
>
> <<>I notice you didn't comment on Mbeki's failure to make
> >adequate supplies of medicine available to combat the
> >effects of HIV / AID's for the last 10 years. Is that not
> >a human rights violation.>>
>
> In the first place - Mbeki has been president for only a little more
> than 5 years now. Not 10.
> The Aids thing flared up only in his term.
> There was Aids before and neither the NP govt nor Mandela's govt took
> it serious enough.
>
Correct but the effects of ARV's weren't really proven much before 10 years
ago, although there were various AID's cocktails that were being tried.
Ruben
Sher was a world renowned AID's researcher in the late 80's early 90's did
the
new government in '94 avail themselves of his experience.
> Medicine are being given now, by the way .
>
True they have now started dispensing ARV's do you have the stats
on how many AID's patients are receiving them. Last I heard it wasn't
but a fraction of the affected total.
> Is it a human rights violation? Not to give medicine?
IMHO yes.
> The question here is if the provision of free medical care is an
> expression of the right to life, I guess. Ideally it is. But in
> practical terms SA's hospitals do NOT give unlimited free medical aid
> because we cannot afford it.
> The same position, by the way applies in all western countries, even
> the richest ones like the US.
Sorry Ferdi but here you are definitely wrong, in the UK everyone
including many non citizens are entitled to free ARV's.
>
> Keeping the above in mind, it probably would have been a violation of
> human rights by Mbeki if he deliberately withheld Aids medicine from
> Aids sufferers in SA if he could have supplied it. And if he knew the
> disease was killing people.
>
> But Mbeki did not believe there was such a thing as Aids did he?
>
I don't know, but I cannot see anyone including Mbeki believing what
he said about HIV / AID's. How do we know his position wasn't
dictated by some political agenda.
> Did he fuck up with Aids? Yes. Big time.
>
> But I do not think it was a deliberate violation of the human rights
> of his voters.
> Because he did not think the disease even existed and because - along
> with TB, malaria, cancer and any other bad disease you can think of -
> the SA system has serious discrepancies when it comes to free medical
> care. The biggest one probably being money.
>
> The country cannot provide it.
>
> Or are you willing to pay about 90% of your income in taxes?
What about the billions spent on arms or the R300,000,000 on
a Presidential jet, why should this money not have been spent
on health and education.
Richard.
>
>
>
Richard Bonnage
snip
>
> Dickie....dickie.... don't think with that part.....
GOOD ONE Ferdi.
Fergi 1 dickie 0
>
>
>
>
Richard Bonnage
> On Sat, 29 May 2004 09:53:29 +0200, "Buster" <Bus...@nospam.com>
> wrote:
>
> <<>Confusion reigns supreme in Ferdis mind!>>>
>
> Do you even know that you are mixing up the remarks of more than one
> person here??
>
Ferdi
Today I have to admit you're in top form.
Dickie
Richard Bonnage
Don't you know nuffinck, us right wingers, kick the dog,
klap the gardener, slick a brandy an coke and F*#&
the wife. You'll never be a real man if you don't know
how to act.
Dickie
Richard Bonnage
"Steve Hayes" <haye...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:40b8618a...@news.saix.net...
>
> If I want to know what Ferdi thinks, I'll ask him. He is of age, and can
speak
> for himself.
>
> One of the problems with this newsgroup is that there are too many people
who
> are too eager to give other people's opinions. Are they too lazy to form
and
> articulare their own?
>
Don't you form an opinion of other people after reading what they have
written
Steve?
I don't think it is possible to give someone else's opinion. I always
believe when
someone posts they are giving their own opinion. I was giving my own
unqualified
opinion ( I'm not a psychiatrist ) on Fergi's views, rightly or wrongly. I'm
sure
Fergi is a nice guy I just don't agree with a lot of his views. But they are
his views
and I can respect that, I just don't have to agree with them.
Dickie
(Fergi has given me a new name, I wish I could say a woman had given it to
me.)
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
> http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
> E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop
uk
Steve Hayes
Um, yes, of course.
Were the BM people slapped about in jail?
I only read about the radio station, and I think there was something about
cockroaches.
Why are you so concerned about the Landless whatevers?
Your reasoning is way too complex for me, I'm afraid.
Someone said that what was happening in Zimbabwe would happen here in 10 years
or some interval. I opened the newspaper on that day and there was a report
about it happening to these landles people.
The report dikd not mention the Boermag, and I don't recall seeing anything
about the Boeremag on that partlicular day.
Are you saying that it should haver happened to the boremag and not to the
other lot, or that it's ok to happen to the landles lot but not to the
boeremag, or that the paper should have said that it should have happened to
the boeremag.
Blame the original poster.
It didn't happen.
It won't happen.
Not to the boeremag, not to the landles, not to anyone, not now, not in ten
years time, not ever.
There, does that make you happier?
Would you like me to say it isn't happening in Zimbabwe either? Not now, not
ever, not to the boeremag, the landless, the landfill, the wabenzi, the Abu
Garams, Milosevic, Pinochet, Michael Jackson, Saddam Hussein or Mumia (dunno
who Mumia is, but someone wants to free him/her) ?
I'll gladly say it for you if it gets you to stop going on and on asking
stupid questions about something I didn't say.
If it's so important to you, ask the editor of the Sunday Independent why they
didn't publish a story about the boeremag on the day that someone wrote in
this newsgroup that South Africa will be like Zimbabwe in ten yours time.
Neither I, nor any member of my immediate family, is an employee of the Sunday
Independent, nor of any of its subsidiary or holding companies, and we are not
eligible to enter your competition.
Steve Hayes
wrote:
>
>"Steve Hayes" <haye...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:40b8618a...@news.saix.net...
>> On Sat, 29 May 2004 08:13:49 +0200, "Richard Bonnage" <bon...@icon.co.za>
>> wrote:
>
>>
>> If I want to know what Ferdi thinks, I'll ask him. He is of age, and can
>speak
>> for himself.
>>
>> One of the problems with this newsgroup is that there are too many people
>who
>> are too eager to give other people's opinions. Are they too lazy to form
>and
>> articulare their own?
>>
>
>Don't you form an opinion of other people after reading what they have
>written
>Steve?
Yes I do. But I regard it as generally inadvisable to share that opinion with
others in an interavtive forum, especially when I haven't met the person. I
prefer to discuss the opinions themselves rather than the opinion holders. The
later makes for very boring discusions, and arguments based on them are
arguments ad hominem, which is a dishonest debating technique.
I have a very low opinion of people who habitually engage in ad hominem
arguments.
>I don't think it is possible to give someone else's opinion. I always
>believe when
>someone posts they are giving their own opinion. I was giving my own
>unqualified
>opinion ( I'm not a psychiatrist ) on Fergi's views, rightly or wrongly. I'm
>sure
>Fergi is a nice guy I just don't agree with a lot of his views. But they are
>his views
>and I can respect that, I just don't have to agree with them.
No one says you have to agree with his view. I don't agree with his views a
lot of the time. But don't presume to tell other people what Ferdi's views
are, as you did in the paragraph I was referring to.
Richard Bonnage
> On Sun, 30 May 2004 12:27:32 +0200, Ferdi Greyling <NoS...@tome.com>
wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 28 May 2004 18:40:22 GMT, haye...@hotmail.com (Steve Hayes)
> >wrote:
> >
> ><<>On Fri, 28 May 2004 16:02:16 +0200, Ferdi Greyling
> ><NoS...@tome.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
>
> If it's so important to you, ask the editor of the Sunday Independent why
they
> didn't publish a story about the boeremag on the day that someone wrote in
> this newsgroup that South Africa will be like Zimbabwe in ten yours time.
> Neither I, nor any member of my immediate family, is an employee of the
Sunday
> Independent, nor of any of its subsidiary or holding companies, and we are
not
> eligible to enter your competition.
>
Do you think that SA will decline in social and economic standards towards
the African norms in the next few decades.?
Richard
Richard Bonnage
> On Sun, 30 May 2004 21:21:07 +0200, "Richard Bonnage" <bon...@icon.co.za>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Steve Hayes" <haye...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:40b8618a...@news.saix.net...
> >> On Sat, 29 May 2004 08:13:49 +0200, "Richard Bonnage"
<bon...@icon.co.za>
> >Don't you form an opinion of other people after reading what they have
> >written
> >Steve?
>
> Yes I do. But I regard it as generally inadvisable to share that opinion
with
> others in an interavtive forum, especially when I haven't met the person.
I
> prefer to discuss the opinions themselves rather than the opinion holders.
The
> later makes for very boring discusions, and arguments based on them are
> arguments ad hominem, which is a dishonest debating technique.
>
> I have a very low opinion of people who habitually engage in ad hominem
> arguments.
If I knew what that meant, I might not do it myself. My intention was not
to attack the person, but to disagree with his views.
Richard
Slow Eddy
> On Thu, 27 May 2004 21:45:14 +0000, Slow Eddy
> <notmyrea...@sillyboy.co.ru> wrote:
>
> <<>If I were president of SA, this is what I would've done regarding
> Bob:
>>1. I would've summoned him for a "friendly" chat, putting the face-saving
>>part of the dealings with him onto a definite and short timescale. Bob
>>would've ignored the opportunity to put things right, but you have to go
>>through at least the forms of diplomacy.>>
>
> So you would have made the talk public?
> What if Bob talks only on condition the negotiation is "not done in
> the media" ?
>
Do you imagine that if I were President I would allow Mugabe to dictate
terms? I wouldn't be concerned with his response if it wasn't a
rectification of the problems he has created in his country and is
contaminating the country I have the care of with. Yes, the talk would be
public. Very reassuring to the South African public and international
investors.
What we have from our non-Eddyian President is several years of grace,
allowing Mugabe to find a face-saving way out. (Just for arguments sake, I
give the kindest interpretation of the inaction we've seen regarding
Zimbabwe). No plan B. When softly softly doesn't help you just throw up
your hands and hope people believe you meant business.
> <<>2. I would've then put the big squeeze on him, after consulting
> with George
>>and Tony on the matter. First of all, just a few "problems and
>>bottlenecks" at the borders, and travel advisories against Zim; then
>>denouncement in clear terms in public, making it absolutely clear that the
>>diplomatic window of opportunity was now closed; then I would've sharply
>>cut Bob's oil supplies, >>
>
> Is'nt it allready cut for all practical purposes? Hence all those
> queue's at the petrol stations.
>
No. There's nothing active and external about what's happened. It's just a
natural consequence of the Zanu mismanagement of Zim, and it's taken a long
time for this to happen. I'm rewinding the clock to the moment where
decisive action instead of hand-washing was called for. Put definite,
attributable pressure on at that time and you have a whole different
situation to just leaving Zimbabwe to rot away slowly.
> And what if Bob says if you do that, then he cuts the electricity line
> that runs over Zim territiory between Cahora Bassa dam and SA?
>
Let him know that that would be taken as a declaration of war. As stated,
I'd have had the good sense to consult with George and Tony, or Bill and
Tony throughout this incident. To reassure potential investors as much as
for any other reason. Declaration of war means cruise missile war, stealth
bomber war, even. (If I'd been President, Simonstown would be back in the
possession of the Royal Navy by now).
> <<and at the same time put the defence forces on standby just in
>>case Bob tried some bad craziness in response to this. Just to aggravate
>>his fuel problems I would've asked our airforce to keep scrambling his,
>>without going so far as to start a war.>>>
>
> In other words raise the possibility of an invasion of Zim.
> Will that not strengthen Bob?
> Give him reason to declare martial law, suspend the constitution and
> "prepare for the imminent invasion" etc?
>
So sitting back and tacitly assenting to what's gone on has not strengthened
him?
Reconnaissance probes without an outright declaration of war are, in any
case, something you raise a diplomatic protest about. It's not usually a
cause for immediate preparation for war. Plenty of room for lying about
your intentions in the correct kind of action. (But hopefully the rumours
about this would've been reassuring to South Africans and potential
investors. My hunch is that this kind of action would've greatly emboldened
and heartened the opposition in Zim, too.)
>
> <<>3. If that was ineffective I'd have talked to George and Tony about
> possible
>>escalation of the pressure...>>
>
> ... and in the meantime millions of Zimbabweans steam across the
> border to SA and becomes the problem of an overtretched SA system.
>
Like that hasn't happened? Only now what we have is a lot of permanent
migrants who know there's no hope of their country ever being restored to
the condition it was in before Mugabe started destroying it. Zimbabweans
streaming across in a situation of more intense and unambiguous pressure
(you know; the kind of pressure that contains no hope for Mugabe in it)
would've had a mind to going home, fixing Mugabe, then fixing the country.
Plenty of recruits for guerilla or conventional training in my scenario;
abandoned people in the scenario that has played out. Just think. If it had
come to that Zimbabwe could've been liberated by an army of Zimbabweans
instead of South African invaders.
Leaving the war talk, receiving those refugees in a decent and humane way,
instead of treating them like animals, as we've done, would've been more
than just the decent thing to do. It would've shown a clear difference
between South Africa and Zimbabwe to anyone confused about this; it
would've shown clearly the difference between a South African solution and
a Mugabe problem to any Zimbabwean still confused by Mugabe. It's always
been a given that they were going to come, so the question is not how to
make them just vanish - inconvenience that they are to some - but how to
treat them. Expect more Zimbabwean refugees in the future. Expect this
government to do little more than hand them back to their persecutors when
they arrive. Watch them become a problem instead of a valuable addition to
our country.
> And the western banks and companies run from the SA economy as fast as
> they can "before regional war breaks out".
>
The western banks and companies haven't come here. They've as good as been
driven out. I talk in a relative sense, now. This country was ripe for big
investments with the potential for big returns back then, but only a thin
trickle of capital has come here. Part of the reason for that is that the
way Zimbabwe has been dealt with has sent the wrong kinds of signals to the
investor community. People tend to judge you by the friends you keep. And
then there's the question of what domestic investors have been prepared to
take risks on too. That we haven't done badly economically does not mean
that we've done well. We haven't done particularly well.
> <<>I would not have just sat to one side watching the currency plummet
> to below
>>its natural value, >>
>
> But it regained all value again didn't it?
> And now people say it seems Zim did not have much to do with the
> crash.
>
If you pretend that history runs back only five years or so, yes, our
currency has "regained all its value". And perhaps 5 to the pound was an
unrealistic value. In 1997, it was 7 to the pound, and that seemed as bad
as things could possibly get.
I can recall a time where you got three dollars for every rand, but that was
long ago, and the flows of capital were subject to all sorts of
restrictions back then. (Mind you, you still can't take more than a lousy
million out today:-) )
Leaving Zim to just rot has done us no good. Sorting Zim out would've given
us credibility domestically as well as internationally.
> <<or the economy failing to grow at the 7% it should've
>>grown at.>>
>
> I was told the other day that there are 2 million Zimbabweans in SA
> and that is one of the reasons our economy strains.
> What if your actions bring another 2 million AND have the investors
> fleeing?
>
What if my actions got rid of Mugabe, turned Zim into a real democracy,
opened it up for investment and development instead of autocracy and decay?
Not possible? You have a vastly inflated impression of Mugabe's power and
his hold on power if you think that. In the time we're talking about,
Mugabe was already not a popular man. Respectful consultations with the
opposition during the course of this operation would've undermined rather
than strengthened Mugabe, for instance.
Putting the squeeze on Mugabe with a will would've ultimately gotten rid of
him. No question about it. Getting rid of Mugabe would've opened up at
least the possibility of realizing the massive potential of Zimbabwe.
Realizing Zimbabwe's potential would've generated growth in the region
instead of decay.
My policy as President would've been imperial. That's not to say I'd have
gone and colonized Zim once the misrulers were disposed of, just that I'd
have encouraged a "Wider Union" party or faction. So at the end we'd have
had 13 million Zimbabweans here instead of just two.
> <<ould not have put out the message to foreign investors that
>>this is just another third-world blocked drainpipe with a government more
>>interested in preserving myths than in dealing with present realities.
>>
>>So aren't you weeping great tears at how sad it is that during the crisis
>>we didn't have a President Eddy to sort this mess out properly?>>
>
>
> The point that I am making is that there is not a lot that Mbeki CAN
> do.
>
Not so. There wasn't a lot Vorster could do about Smith, but he fed him to
the Poms easy as anything.
> You can invade. We will probably get clobbered AND Bob will suspend
> his constitution.
> We can assasinate Bob. If we fail, same as above will happen and if we
> succeed (or if we fail) we will have killed all hopes of democracy and
> good society in the region. Plus they might take our leaders out,
> next!
> We can cut off his water and lights. That will have a price tag. The
> ones we can speculate on is the cutting of our power and the streaming
> of millions into SA as Zim really colapses. There may also be
> unforseen effects.
>
The law of unforeseen consequences always applies, but a phased pressure and
at least not applauding the son-of-a-bitch could've achieved everything an
invasion could've. It's not as if Mbeki would've had to have acted alone.
The great powers would've backed whatever he chose to do with more than
words. It's not as if Zim is one of those many ignored and forgotten little
patches of misery that blight this earth.
> Not much you can do.
>
There wasn't much you could do about apartheid South Africa, but people did
something anyway. Then much to everyone's surprise, apartheid was
overthrown. If something needs to be done, it must be done. "Not much you
can do" is the kind of hopeless shrugging that would be better reserved for
places where the outcome of any action doesn't matter. Like Israelistine.
> What Mbeki could have doen, was communicate better with his own voters
> so we can know what he thinks about the issue.
> And he could have defined the democracy/human rights ideal of Nepad
> better in terms of specifically Zimbabwe. He could have said - gently
> if he wants - "Bob, for you own good and your people, that is not the
> way to go. We implore you to stop."
>
> In these two thing Mbeki fucked up.
>
> But I really believe there is not much he could have done more without
> violating the sovereign state principle that is at the root of good
> regional government (democracy requires that the population of a state
> can be free to pick their own leader without interference from
> neighbours who may not like the leader, for example) or without paying
> the price of creating a chaotic reaction in OUR society hurting our
> economy and morally killing Nepad.
>
I tell you what effect the inaction on Zim has had on this insignificant
little sample of one. Having never felt completely welcome in this country,
I now feel very dispensible. The holes in the red carpet are now tatters.
If I had investment capital, I'd be looking for a safer place to invest it.
If I had kids I'd be looking for some country where they could grow up as
just citizens.
> At the end Zimbabwe is a sovereign state, Bob is a dictator that will
> cling to power at all cost and he is our neighbour.
>
"Sovereign state". That's just a statement of fact, not of principle. There
are plenty of sovereign states there's a great clamour to interfere with,
so sovereignty is something which is selectively sacred. The sovereignty of
a place like Israel is not particularly sacred to many people, for
instance.
Zimbabwe is a landlocked state, highly dependent on South Africa. As
Rhodesia it got a squeeze from South Africa and when that happened it was
done for. Militarily, Zimbabwe is not capable of surviving the combined
strength of SA, the US, and various EU nations, if it comes to that.
> It is a bad combination that we will probably have to live with.
>
> But why does the Zimbabwean opposition not do more? They surely have
> the example of the UDF in SA under PW Botha?
--
Slow Eddy
conciliator
> On Fri, 28 May 2004 20:15:55 +0200, "Richard Bonnage"
> <bon...@icon.co.za> wrote:
>
> <<>> <<>> Some logic fir you:
> >> >>
> >> >> South Africa is in Africa. It is therefore African. Human rights
in
> >> >> South Africa is expfressed in the SA bill of rights. The SA bill
of
> >> >> vrights is thus an African expression of human rights.
> >> >
> >> >Your logic is faultless, it's just the reasoning that's flawed.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >Please explain the South African position on Zimbabwe, >>
> >>
> >> I posted to you abou human rights. You ask about policy towards
> >> Zimbabwe.
> >> It is another thing.
> >
> >From your answer are you saying that human rights stop at our
> >border and do not apply to the citizens of Zimbabwe.>>
>
> I am saying SA is an African country. It has an enshrined bill of
> rights protecting human rights. It is therefore an African expression
> of enshrined human rights.
> That will make a lie of any statement that there is not enshrined
> human rights in Africa.
Apart from South Africa, would you kindly point out to us ignoramusses
which other country in Africa is so serious about human rights as S.A.
is? Certainly not Zimbabwe.
> Our constitution, by the way, does not apply in Zimbabwe. Just as
> their constitution does not apply to us.
But the constitution surely applies to S.A. citizens, and if they are
not fairly treated in another country, the S.A. government should take
up their case with the foreign government concerned. If any (civilised)
other country in the world learns of the fact that their citizens are
not treated fairly in a foreign country, they take up their case to
ensure that they are fairly treated. The S.A. government's position in
the case of the alleged mercenaries jailed in Zimbabwe seems to be
:"Sorry, it's all happening in a foreign country, and there is nothing
we can do."
But, at the same time, a Minister of this government has admitted that
they "tipped off" the Zimbabwe government that these so called
mercenaries were on their way! Now, why weren't they prevented from
leaving, and charged in this country?
> Our concern for human rights will of course include Zimbabwe. That is
> why Thabo Mbeki is conducting a diplomatic campaign to try to get Bob
> Mugabe to fall into line with real democracy and human rights.
If you believe that, then I suppose you believe in Father Christmas as
well?
> Mbeki's campaign is not working. He is fucking it up. But that is
another
> issue.
At least you got that right. But you should have added that Mbeki isn't
too worried about that either. He wouldn't care to upset his buddy too
much. After all, how serious can you reprimand someone when you walk
around with him holding hands??
<rest snipped>
conciliator
> On Fri, 28 May 2004 06:07:24 +0200, "zakanaka" <lala...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> <<>The SA bill of
> >> vrights is thus an African expression of human rights.
> >expression. It's South African. If it was African, why are millions
of
> >Africans being slaughtered by their own leaders corrupt regimes?>>
>
> OK
> You are right. South Africa is not in Africa.
But can't you get it through your skull that South African laws, or Bill
of Rights, is only applicable IN South Africa?
conciliator
>
> You truly are a dork.
>
> Are you just to lazy to think or is an inability?
> Did you merely make emotional statements that springs from prejudice?
> Or do you actually have examples?
> Who fuckin cares?
>
> Don't bother to answer. I know what the answer will look like. More of
> the same sloppy ship.
> Too lazy to think, so it will be a revert to the insult.
>
> It was not nice knowing you. I am glad you go to the killfile.
>
> Maybe you are even a Zimbabwean. Then you and Bob deserve each other.
> Enjoy him As he no doubt will enjoy you.
>
> Cheers.
And who was it that accused someone of "pissing insults?"
conciliator
Only because he has run out of arguments. Notice that every time he has
no reply, he starts asking stupid questions, or responds as above.
conciliator
"Richard Bonnage" <bon...@icon.co.za> wrote in message
news:c9eiqa$o3q$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
It's Latin and means "to the man; addressed to the feelings or
prejudices of the hearer or reader.
conciliator
And may we safely assume you include yourself in that definition, as
you're pretty good at it some times.
conciliator
As long as you don't klap the wife and........... ooops - out of line.
:>)
Richard Bonnage
"conciliator" <avoi...@home.com> wrote in message
news:p7KdnRziOYd...@is.co.za...
>
> "Richard Bonnage" <bon...@icon.co.za> wrote in message
> news:c9eiqa$o3q$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
> >
> > "Steve Hayes" <haye...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:40bac25e....@news.saix.net...
> > > On Sun, 30 May 2004 21:21:07 +0200, "Richard Bonnage"
> <bon...@icon.co.za>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >"Steve Hayes" <haye...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > >news:40b8618a...@news.saix.net...
> > > >> On Sat, 29 May 2004 08:13:49 +0200, "Richard Bonnage"
> > <bon...@icon.co.za>
>
> >
>
> prejudices of the hearer or reader.
>
I hated Latin at school and was forced to endure 4 years
of it, in that time as you can see I learned nothing.
Richard
>
>
>
Steve Hayes
wrote:
>Do you think that SA will decline in social and economic standards towards
>the African norms in the next few decades.?
I've no idea.
There's a guy in our church who is an, um, I'm not sure what you call them,
econometrist, econometrician, who does that kind of thing for a living.
If I remember, I'll ask him next time I see him, and let you know what he
says.
Sometimes journalists ask him questions like that, so if you keep an eye on
the busines pages, you may spot something. His name's Azar Jammine.
Disclaimer: My failure to mention the Boeremag in this article has no fiscal,
economic or other significance.
Richard Bonnage
> On Mon, 31 May 2004 08:11:47 +0200, "Richard Bonnage" <bon...@icon.co.za>
> wrote:
>
> >Do you think that SA will decline in social and economic standards
towards
> >the African norms in the next few decades.?
>
> I've no idea.
>
> There's a guy in our church who is an, um, I'm not sure what you call
them,
> econometrist, econometrician, who does that kind of thing for a living.
>
> If I remember, I'll ask him next time I see him, and let you know what he
> says.
>
of years ago I would be interested to hear what your acquaintance says.
The Wits guy said something on the lines of the poor will continue to
have babies, the rich will get richer and the country will start an
inextricable slide towards an ever increasing financial decline.
> Sometimes journalists ask him questions like that, so if you keep an eye
on
> the business pages, you may spot something. His name's Azar Jammine.
>
> Disclaimer: My failure to mention the Boeremag in this article has no
fiscal,
> economic or other significance.
Are you saying the Boeremag does not signify anything?, I hope ET goes home
if he doesn't he may come and pay you a visit.
conciliator
> On Mon, 31 May 2004 08:11:47 +0200, "Richard Bonnage"
<bon...@icon.co.za>
> wrote:
>
> >Do you think that SA will decline in social and economic standards
towards
> >the African norms in the next few decades.?
>
> I've no idea.
>
> There's a guy in our church who is an, um, I'm not sure what you call
them,
> econometrist, econometrician, who does that kind of thing for a
living.
>
> If I remember, I'll ask him next time I see him, and let you know what
he
> says.
>
> Sometimes journalists ask him questions like that, so if you keep an
eye on
> the busines pages, you may spot something. His name's Azar Jammine.
Last time I heard Azar was Chief Economist for Standard Bank.
conciliator
Bet you 100 to 1 you remember amo, amas amat! Normally one of the first
thing kids learn when they start on the long road to learning Latin.
Moira de Swardt
> > I hated Latin at school and was forced to endure 4 years
> > of it, in that time as you can see I learned nothing.
> Bet you 100 to 1 you remember amo, amas amat! Normally one of the first
> thing kids learn when they start on the long road to learning Latin.
Amazingly I found how much Latin I remembered when I started studying
classical Greek.
Moira, the Faerie Godmother
Ferdi Greyling
<bon...@icon.co.za> wrote:
<<>Ferdi by what parameters do you define "enshrined" writing
something
>on a piece of paper does not mean it is enshrined. That it is documented
>on a bill of rights, or a constitution does not ensure that the spirit of
>the contents shall be adhered too.>>
Enshrine means in the constitution - which is a legal framework - the
rights gets a certain protection.
It is there. There is even a table of untouchable rights that may nog
be traded off against other rights. Any bill of rights is at times a
web of trading off rights, like the right to free speech and the right
to dignity. Keeping the one may mean subjecting to other one.
A supreme court was also created to guard those rights. The
constitutional court has the right to check all legislation the
parliament makes against the bill of rights and to send it back to
parliament if it fails the check. And it does that and parliament
listens.
<<>Absolutely but what I'm saying is, we don't exert any pressure on
our
>neighbours to rectify the blatant violations of human rights in their
>country. This indicates to me we are only interested in human rights
>when it is politically expedient.>>
Elsewhere I posted why I think it is not actually possible to force
Zimbabwe to change it's ways.
Mbeki has allready indicated (in his round about and convoluted way)
that he does not agree with what is happening in Zimbabwe.
The problem remains - how do you solve it?
Can you solve it?
What can SA do without - for example - in the process giving Bob the
justification to declare full marshall law and suspend the
constitution?
Also remember that it will serve no purpose to take steps that will
have millions more Zimbabweans stream into SA looking for help. Or to
take steps 5that will make what remains of a society structure in Zim
to collapse completely.
If you answer this by saying Mbeki can be much more clear in his
condemnation of the eroding of rights that Bob is doing, I fully agree
with you. Mbeki has the unfortunate manner of communicating crap with
his voters etc.
But merely stating that the Zim position is not what one would like to
see does not constitute "doing something about" Zimbabwe.
I say there is actually not anything we can do that will not fuck
things up more or even completely.
<<
>What exactly has Mbeki done to exert pressure on Bob? What is our policy
>in regards to Zimbabwe, internal policies. I have heard Mbeki state that it
>is not our policy to interfere with Zimbabwe's internal affairs. This would
>lead me to believe that he's not interested.>>
It is not our business to interfere internally with Zimbabwe as it is
not the business of any other country to interfere internally with our
state.
I would have disagreed with the US air force bombing Pretoria and the
industrial parts of Jhb because PW Botha was not acceptable to the US.
I will disagree with our air force bombing Harare (do we still have a
bomber?) because we do not like Bob's pilitics. And so on.
<<What would YOU have done if you were president of SA.
>>
>Thankfully that would never arise because I'm the wrong colour,
>and then I wouldn't have anything to moan about. But I would
>advised Bob to resign due to ill health, and offered assistance
>if he complied. When he didn't comply as he obviously wouldn't
>cut of his supplies lines.>>
A lot of things indicate that Mbeki (and Obasanjo) did suggest that to
Bob.
(The were some interesting scenes at times. Like Bob sitting stiffly
between the two at a press conf and they doing all the talking and
talking about sorting out the problems etc and Bob's body language
saying he is hugely on the defensive. )
THe problem is Bob does not want to go. He refuses and he is a clever
politician.
When it comes to cutting supply lines one must consider the following:
That will probably hit the ordinary Zimbabweans and not the govt. It
may give Bob opportunity to be more repressive - he will see it and
paint it as an attack on Zimbabwe. Remember he still seem to have the
support of the police and the army and a substantial amount of people.
Maybe not the majority but in SA we know how long a leader can remain
with minority support and controll of the army, don't we?
Many more Zimbabweans will stream across our borders if we take
negative steps.
Remember that Bob will get his supplies (and the suplies for his
cabinet, police and army) from other sources - Libia, Malasia and it
seems of late Equitorial Guinee (who has oil).
So the cutting of supplies may be a complicated thing. It may work but
it may go horribly wrong.
I always remember the feeling among whites in SA against those that
boicotted us. Sanctions does tend to make the patriotism rise. One
must also just for a second reflect of all those predictions of a year
ago that Iraqi's will welcome the US army with roses.
What supplies were you thinking of?
<<Sorry Ferdi but here you are definitely wrong, in the UK everyone
>including many non citizens are entitled to free ARV's.>>
They have more money.
If by giving them that medicine the state creates the situation that
free medicine is a basic right, then UK citizens can abviously claim
all other medical treatment as well, but the UK of course does not
have a constitution and bill of rights so it may be different there.
<<> But Mbeki did not believe there was such a thing as Aids did he?
>>
>I don't know, but I cannot see anyone including Mbeki believing what
>he said about HIV / AID's. How do we know his position wasn't
>dictated by some political agenda.>>
Possible but we must work with the knowable, must we not?
And the knowable in this case is that he did not believe the Aids
thing.
<< Or are you willing to pay about 90% of your income in taxes?
>
>What about the billions spent on arms or the R300,000,000 on
>a Presidential jet, why should this money not have been spent
>on health and education.>>
I have heard it asked why this money was not spent on subsidising poor
students at Wits. And why not on police? And why not on maths
teachers? etc etc.
THe obvious answer is that in a modern state there is a state network
and a variety of infrastructure for govt. and a jet for the president
is one.
Anyway, how much does the ARV treatment costs? Did a quick cehck on
the net and some AIDS site seem to indicate between 7 and 10 billion
rand per year for treating all sufferers.
The jet would then have covered about three weeks.
Ferdi Greyling
wrote:
<<>Disclaimer: My failure to mention the Boeremag in this article has
no fiscal,
>economic or other significance. >>
When lack of principle is shown up, ridicule it, hey Steve?
I suspect you can remind yourself of what company you keep in this.
Richard Bonnage
> THe problem is Bob does not want to go. He refuses and he is a clever
> politician.
>
politics. He doesn't want to relinquish power and is probably looking
for a suragate to continue once his age or health prohibit him from
retaining office.
One wonders why he doesn't retire to enjoy his ill gotten gains for
the few remaining years he has. Power is the most addictive drug
and he just can't quit.
> When it comes to cutting supply lines one must consider the following:
> That will probably hit the ordinary Zimbabweans and not the govt. It
> may give Bob opportunity to be more repressive - he will see it and
> paint it as an attack on Zimbabwe. Remember he still seem to have the
> support of the police and the army and a substantial amount of people.
> Maybe not the majority but in SA we know how long a leader can remain
> with minority support and controll of the army, don't we?
You're not having a dig at our previous government are you?, it must be
remembered that they built a very strong financial infrastructure even
if 99% of the wealth was in the hands of whites. Big Bob has destroyed
his country's economy, for blacks and whites a like.
> Many more Zimbabweans will stream across our borders if we take
> negative steps.
> Remember that Bob will get his supplies (and the suplies for his
> cabinet, police and army) from other sources - Libia, Malasia and it
> seems of late Equitorial Guinee (who has oil).
>
I understand Libya and EG but why should Malaysia provide assistance
to Zimbabwe?
> So the cutting of supplies may be a complicated thing. It may work but
> it may go horribly wrong.
Agreed we have enough immigrants looking for work, we certainly don't
need more. Although I've always personnally found Zimbabwiens to be
very hard working and honest. Well at least while I was working up there.
>
> I always remember the feeling among whites in SA against those that
> boicotted us. Sanctions does tend to make the patriotism rise. One
> must also just for a second reflect of all those predictions of a year
> ago that Iraqi's will welcome the US army with roses.
The roses have wilted somewhat, you're right about adversity binding
a country. I remember visiting the UK at the start of the Falklands
the queues of long haired yobbo's, sick, lame and lazy all trying
to enlist to fight the enemy. Normally the only time they left the dole
queue was to sit in the pubs.
Yes but the frigates etc., would have helped.
There is never a correct or right answer to any countries problems,
but we seem to perpetuate certain historical problems. That have
arisen in other African countries, with disastrous effects.
Hassling the farmers, affirmative action, corruption, crime etc., etc.
>
>
>
>
>
Steve Hayes
>Elsewhere I posted why I think it is not actually possible to force
>Zimbabwe to change it's ways.
>
>Mbeki has allready indicated (in his round about and convoluted way)
>that he does not agree with what is happening in Zimbabwe.
>The problem remains - how do you solve it?
>Can you solve it?
>What can SA do without - for example - in the process giving Bob the
>justification to declare full marshall law and suspend the
>constitution?
>Also remember that it will serve no purpose to take steps that will
>have millions more Zimbabweans stream into SA looking for help. Or to
>take steps 5that will make what remains of a society structure in Zim
>to collapse completely.
>
>If you answer this by saying Mbeki can be much more clear in his
>condemnation of the eroding of rights that Bob is doing, I fully agree
>with you. Mbeki has the unfortunate manner of communicating crap with
>his voters etc.
>
>But merely stating that the Zim position is not what one would like to
>see does not constitute "doing something about" Zimbabwe.
>
>I say there is actually not anything we can do that will not fuck
>things up more or even completely.
I agree with you for the most part.
Sorting out Zimbabwe the way George Bush has been sorting out Afghanistan and
Iraq is not likely to have any better results than he has had.
On the other hand, the SA government and some other groups have tried to
pretend that things in Zimbabwe are not as bad as they really are.
SA observers of the 2000 elections were told not to report evidence that the
elections were not free and fair, and to give a false report.
It wouildn't hurt, and might help, if Mbeki made an unequivocal statement that
there were unacceptable human rights violations in Zimbabwe.
--
Steve Hayes
Do remind me.
Let me remind you that you keep company with Jordan in this.
Ferdi Greyling
<bon...@icon.co.za> wrote:
<<>There is never a correct or right answer to any countries problems,
>but we seem to perpetuate certain historical problems. That have
>arisen in other African countries, with disastrous effects.
>Hassling the farmers, affirmative action, corruption, crime etc., etc.>>
It is the fabric of the times we live in. Any leader must deal with
that, must manage THOSE things.
I happen to think that Mbeki is not doing so badly. I look around me
and I see a country that is quite frankly run better than before. The
perspective I look from - white - complicates things because it brings
in some negatives in a land where 70% of the people are black. Also
because I grew up when power and privelage was with the whites.
But those negatives does not grow from the management of the country.
Ferdi Greyling
wrote:
<<>It wouildn't hurt, and might help, if Mbeki made an unequivocal
statement that
>there were unacceptable human rights violations in Zimbabwe. >>
Which is what I said.
But that will be for OUR benefit. Not Zimbabwe's.
It will not sway Bob or help Zimbabweans.
It will not be much more than a verbal expression of the values we
want to see in the thinking of OUR govt.
Values that are expressed all around us in SA, anyway.
But it never hurts to verbalise for the citizens.
Steve Hayes
Yes, it will help our citizens, especially those who are asking who we were
willing to accept the help, and welcome the expressions of solidarity of those
who supported us in lour struglle for freedom and human rights, and yet we are
apparently reluctant to do the same for others.
It will also help Zimbabweans who are suffering under harsh repression, and
feel betrayed by South Africa.
If it doesn't lead Bob to repent, it may at least lead some of his henchmen to
have second thoughts.
It would counter the propaganda put out by the ZANU-PF media that South Africa
hates Zimbabweans, and that Zimbabweans are unwelcome in South Africa.
It might make things a bit easier for Zimbabwean refugees in South Africa.
Jordanian
Why are you falling out with your Steve now? You are two peas in a pod.
Both do the same. In fact both do the same that they criticise other for.
