GLASGOWOODS Posted December 7, 2013 Share Posted December 7, 2013 Churchill also had very distasteful attitudes to Ghandi and others... He even talked about having De Gaulle bumped off. Pity he didn't bump De Gaulle off... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted December 7, 2013 Share Posted December 7, 2013 He may have been very old, but he was also very wise. Just because something is unattainable because self interest, vested interest & pure greed prohibit it happening doesn't mean that it should be ignored. Personally I have no real axe to grind with America. As 'top dog' it simply does what the top dog has always done, takes advantage. When Britain, France, Spain etc were in positions of power they behaved no better, why should we expect the USA to do better? Obviously they made a bit of a rod for their own back with all that John Wayne boloney which a lot of people fell for. Still they are really no worse than the last lot & may turn out to be better than the next lot. Nelson Mandella was a much respected man who had every right to state his views. It always amuses me when America makes pronouncements as to which countries should or should not have nuclear capability. As the only country in the world to have used an Atomic bomb not once, but twice, upon a civilian population you would think they should be the last to comment. Doesn't stop them though does it? If Nelson wished to comment therefore I feel it acceptable that he should do so. Many may compare Mandela to the second coming of Jesus Christ and god only knows he's getting more coverage on the media here that if the real JC were to show up again his ratings wouldn't be anywhere near as high as Mandela's. Obama is shedding copious tears over his passing needless to say. But Mandela was human with all the shortcomings of the human species. He made many wise pronouncements but then again he made many stupid biased ones as regards the US and Israel. I can only assume that his sympathies lay with the Muslem world and therefore not surprised that that he never made any adverse comments about the inequities and cruelties practiced towards women and girls in that society. In other words he only saw what he wanted to see He rose to attain leadership of country that had practiced inequties for decades and retired leaving it a "rainbow coalition" and ostensibly democratic. South Africa today is a nation that is riddled with corruption, mismanagement and crime. Let's not try to camouflage that fact under a smoke screen ---------- Post added 07-12-2013 at 23:12 ---------- Were that true then it could only have happened with the agreement of America. Israel knows that without American backing it would be in trouble. I wouldn't say that. The Jews through centuries of persecution have become quite adaptable to survival. I've always believed that on the IQ level the average Jew is a few notches above the rest of us in that department Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjw47 Posted December 7, 2013 Share Posted December 7, 2013 Harleyman. Were I to say that you were not in the first flush of youth, no spring chicken, not wet behind the ears, knocking on a bit, would I be 'in the ballpark' to use an American expression? Should that be correct, how in hell could you believe that any man, or woman ,could possibly be perfect? We are all wanting, every single one of us has imperfections, it is what makes us human. There has never been, nor will there ever be, a perfect human. Given that, accept that, with all the constraints, Mandella was an extraordinary human being & worth listening to. As to his sympathy for Muslims he probably did have some, aren't we all sympathetic to decent people? That did not mean that he agreed with aggressive fundamentalist Muslims in the same way that few agree with fundamentalist Christians. You spoke respectfully of him in another thread, don't mess with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parvo Posted December 7, 2013 Share Posted December 7, 2013 South Africa today is a nation that is riddled with corruption, mismanagement and crime. Let's not try to camouflage that fact under a smoke screen ---------- Post added 07-12-2013 at 23:12 ---------- t Sounds like its getting to the state of most other countries around the world then. RIP Mandela he deserves the accolades, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted December 8, 2013 Share Posted December 8, 2013 Harleyman. Were I to say that you were not in the first flush of youth, no spring chicken, not wet behind the ears, knocking on a bit, would I be 'in the ballpark' to use an American expression? Should that be correct, how in hell could you believe that any man, or woman ,could possibly be perfect? We are all wanting, every single one of us has imperfections, it is what makes us human. There has never been, nor will there ever be, a perfect human. Given that, accept that, with all the constraints, Mandella was an extraordinary human being & worth listening to. As to his sympathy for Muslims he probably did have some, aren't we all sympathetic to decent people? That did not mean that he agreed with aggressive fundamentalist Muslims in the same way that few agree with fundamentalist Christians. You spoke respectfully of him in another thread, don't mess with that. I respected Mandela as I respected other movers and shakers like Ghandi but that doesn't mean to say that every utternace of Mandela should take on biblical proportions. He sometimes said things that were patently innacurate and wrong and his prejudices showed. Those particular remarks may agree with the sentiments of the anti-American, anti-Semitic lobby of course and that's quite understandable ---------- Post added 08-12-2013 at 00:36 ---------- Sounds like its getting to the state of most other countries around the world then. RIP Mandela he deserves the accolades, Nobody said he doesn't but like any other notable person in history he's not above criticism when it might be applicable Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vague_Boy Posted December 8, 2013 Share Posted December 8, 2013 1) Prior to the US invasion of Iraq, Mandela declared that former President George W. Bush’s primary motive was ‘oil’ Spot on. Astonishingly, ten years later, some people still haven't managed to put 2 and 2 together. 1. Saddam's links with Al-Qaeda. Nonexistent. In fact, according to the CIA, Saddam rejected overtures from Al-Qaeda because he didn't trust them. Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qaeda and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al-Qaeda to provide material or operational support LINK [bBC News, 9 September 2006] 2. Weapons of Mass Destruction. Fictitious. Bush knew Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction On April 23, 2006, CBS’s “60 Minutes” interviewed Tyler Drumheller, the former CIA chief of clandestine operations for Europe, who disclosed that the agency had received documentary intelligence from Naji Sabri, Saddam’s foreign minister, that Saddam did not have WMD. “We continued to validate him the whole way through,” said Drumheller. “The policy was set. The war in Iraq was coming, and they were looking for intelligence to fit into the policy, to justify the policy.” 3. Links to 9/11. Nonexistent. President George Bush has said there is no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in the 11 September attacks. The comments - among his most explicit so far on the issue - come after a recent opinion poll found that nearly 70% of Americans believed the Iraqi leader was personally involved in the attacks. LINK [bBC News, 18 September, 2003] I wouldn't be surprised if quite a few British people still believe it to be true, even now. Every justification for invading Iraq has been shown to be false. So why were the US so keen to invade? Mandela had it worked out 10 years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjw47 Posted December 8, 2013 Share Posted December 8, 2013 Spot on. Astonishingly, ten years later, some people still haven't managed to put 2 and 2 together. 1. Saddam's links with Al-Qaeda. Nonexistent. In fact, according to the CIA, Saddam rejected overtures from Al-Qaeda because he didn't trust them. LINK [bBC News, 9 September 2006] 2. Weapons of Mass Destruction. Fictitious. Bush knew Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction 3. Links to 9/11. Nonexistent. LINK [bBC News, 18 September, 2003] I wouldn't be surprised if quite a few British people still believe it to be true, even now. Every justification for invading Iraq has been shown to be false. So why were the US so keen to invade? Mandela had it worked out 10 years ago. In fairness, so did most of us. I gave that as the reason at the time & remember that there were few who disagreed with me. It was a commonly held view, apart from the gung ho, jingoistic clowns who believe any old tripe peddled out by whoever happens to be in charge at the time. As to WMD both the US & UK were supplying Iraq with weapons for years during their war with Iran. Didn't we keep the bloody receipts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McDoodle Posted December 8, 2013 Share Posted December 8, 2013 In fairness, so did most of us. I gave that as the reason at the time & remember that there were few who disagreed with me. It was a commonly held view, apart from the gung ho, jingoistic clowns who believe any old tripe peddled out by whoever happens to be in charge at the time. As to WMD both the US & UK were supplying Iraq with weapons for years during their war with Iran. Didn't we keep the bloody receipts? Someone once said about Saddam. "Hes a ******* but hes our *******" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spilldig Posted December 8, 2013 Share Posted December 8, 2013 Cannot see a problem here. Mandella's views seem perfectly reasonable to me. As to Blair he should be tried for war crimes alongside his mate George W. With regard to him squirming out of stuff it's par for the course with that guy. What really sickened me about the Iraq situation was that America stated quite clearly that they didn't require our physical help only our political backing. Blair however insisted that we contribute troops. No doubt this was to secure his place in the history books which he claims to have no interest in. As far as I'm concerned, the blood of every British serviceman & woman killed or maimed in Iraq, together with the innocent Iraqis killed & injured, is on Blair's hands. How that man sleeps at night I have no idea, although I suppose the money helps. I believe he took up catholicism, and that didn't surprise me at all. I think it was to get forgiveness and absolve himself. As you say sickening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjw47 Posted December 8, 2013 Share Posted December 8, 2013 Someone once said about Saddam. "Hes a ******* but hes our *******" And in fairness, whilst that might not be a totally decent & honourable view to take, it does have the merit of being both pragmatic & honest. Look at Saudi Arabia for instance. Have you seen their record on human rights? Our best mates those lads, & I'm sure it has nothing to do with oil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.