quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by ledvm:
Again…you have a lot learn.

Ian Smith had a plan. He had the influence. He had the respect…both white and black. All he lacked was time. And, time was the key ingredient. Carter denied him time. The monkey is squarely on Great Britain’s and Carter’s back.[/QUOTE

Nothing I said was false.

Not has it been.

It is clear you desire a racially pure one party system from both your post here and on domestic post.

You cannot be taught.

Ian Smith could be the greatest soldier I’m the world. He still led and supposed the racist regime that led to his downfall and the burning of his Nation State.

The plan was to have whites control a voting bloc to block legislation through mandatory quote of seats. That is not disputable. This is and was never acceptable. You would not have accepted such if you were in the majority.

Rhodesia refused to allow Blacks equal and just participation in Government for decade. This applied to minority party whites as well they forced into exile and prison Worse the condition was bf independence. The price was a war. They lost. Mugabe was snd us horrible. For everyone not in support of the RF, the White Majority did the same.

You know who else was a WWII blood and Guts soldier? Joachim Peiper, who was also a racist and an evil one at that.

War Service is not relevant to this conversation. The fact it blinds you in hero worship is a you problem.

This is a discussion about what is the cause of Rhodesia specifically, and Sub/Sahara Africa in general falling to nationalist/communist movements. Those were symptoms; reactions to the failure of slicks and political integration from colonial rule.

quote:

Originally posted by nute:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
Again…you have a lot learn.

Ian Smith had a plan. He had the influence. He had the respect…both white and black. All he lacked was time. And, time was the key ingredient. Carter denied him time. The monkey is squarely on Great Britain’s and Carter’s back.

Nothing I said was false.

Not has it been.

It is clear you desire a racially pure one party system from both your post here and on domestic post.

You cannot be taught.

Ian Smith could be the greatest soldier I’m the world. He still led and supposed the racist regime that led to his downfall and the burning of his Nation State.

The plan was to have whites control a voting bloc to block legislation through mandatory quote of seats. That is not disputable. This is and was never acceptable. You would not have accepted such if you were in the majority.

Rhodesia refused to allow Blacks equal and just participation in Government for decade. This applied to minority party whites as well they forced into exile and prison Worse the condition was bf independence. The price was a war. They lost. Mugabe was snd us horrible. For everyone not in support of the RF, the White Majority did the same.

You know who else was a WWII blood and Guts soldier? Joachim Peiper, who was also a racist and an evil one at that.

War Service is not relevant to this conversation. The fact it blinds you in hero worship is a you problem.

This is a discussion about what is the cause of Rhodesia specifically, and Sub/Sahara Africa in general falling to nationalist/communist movements. Those were symptoms; reactions to the failure of slicks and political integration from colonial rule.

The “we know what’s best for you so we are going to govern, at gun point if required” argument is indefensible. Just like the end justifies the means is indefensible if you are a Christian when voting for someone who is utterly amoral.

quote:

Originally posted by nute:
Rather twisted semantics there Lane, when tje UK wasn’t “governing them” but was seeking democracy so the populace could make their own decisions. Very different.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by nute:
Rather twisted semantics there Lane, when tje UK wasn’t “governing them” but was seeking democracy so the populace could make their own decisions. Very different.

Not different at all the USA and UK forced our will onto quite exceptionally well functioning countries…by force basically. IE: We know whats best for you and will force you into.

Go drive around Harare or Johannesburg and tell me what shining success that was. We should have left well enough alone and rewarded success with our support. After all the colonists of Zimbabwe did exactly what the UK wanted them to do…until they didn’t.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by nute:
Rather twisted semantics there Lane, when tje UK wasn’t “governing them” but was seeking democracy so the populace could make their own decisions. Very different.

Not different at all the USA and UK forced our will onto quite exceptionally well functioning countries…by force basically. IE: We know whats best for you and will force you into.

Go drive around Harare or Johannesburg and tell me what shining success that was. We should have left well enough alone and rewarded success with our support. After all the colonists of Zimbabwe did exactly what the UK wanted them to do…until they didn’t.

quote:

Originally posted by nute:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by nute:
Rather twisted semantics there Lane, when tje UK wasn’t “governing them” but was seeking democracy so the populace could make their own decisions. Very different.

Not different at all the USA and UK forced our will onto quite exceptionally well functioning countries…by force basically. IE: We know whats best for you and will force you into.

Go drive around Harare or Johannesburg and tell me what shining success that was. We should have left well enough alone and rewarded success with our support. After all the colonists of Zimbabwe did exactly what the UK wanted them to do…until they didn’t.

Really stretching the logic there Lane.

What the UK actually had was a requirement for majority rule. We didn’t force them to do it our way at all, they could have chosen any form of government they wanted, as long as the choosing was inclusive. The actual wording was that the terms of independence had to be acceptable to the population as a whole … not just the ruling single digit percentage of whites.

As someone who is often vocal about freedom and the never surrender Texas mindset I’m surprised you miss the irony of your support for the we know what’s best for you government model.

Yes Zim is a shithole, but it’s a shithole of their own making.

quote:

Originally posted by nute:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by nute:
Rather twisted semantics there Lane, when tje UK wasn’t “governing them” but was seeking democracy so the populace could make their own decisions. Very different.

Not different at all the USA and UK forced our will onto quite exceptionally well functioning countries…by force basically. IE: We know whats best for you and will force you into.

Go drive around Harare or Johannesburg and tell me what shining success that was. We should have left well enough alone and rewarded success with our support. After all the colonists of Zimbabwe did exactly what the UK wanted them to do…until they didn’t.

Really stretching the logic there Lane.

What the UK actually had was a requirement for majority rule. We didn’t force them to do it our way at all, they could have chosen any form of government they wanted, as long as the choosing was inclusive. The actual wording was that the terms of independence had to be acceptable to the population as a whole … not just the ruling single digit percentage of whites.

As someone who is often vocal about freedom and the never surrender Texas mindset I’m surprised you miss the irony of your support for the we know what’s best for you government model.

Yes Zim is a shithole, but it’s a shithole of their own making.

quote:

We, my country and yours, forced our will onto those countries…as well as Iraq. “We” had the “we know better” attitude and forced our will. It was the wrong decision.

quote:

Originally posted by nute:

quote:

We, my country and yours, forced our will onto those countries…as well as Iraq. “We” had the “we know better” attitude and forced our will. It was the wrong decision.

Sorry Lane, you are wrong. In the case of the UK we said if you want independence the terms must be acceptable to the majority, not just the white 5%. The majority could have subsequently come up with any constitution they want, there was no requirement to follow our particular system.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...before_majority_rule

I don’t dispute that the place is worse as a result.

quote:

Originally posted by nute:

quote:

We, my country and yours, forced our will onto those countries…as well as Iraq. “We” had the “we know better” attitude and forced our will. It was the wrong decision.

Sorry Lane, you are wrong. In the case of the UK we said if you want independence the terms must be acceptable to the majority, not just the white 5%. The majority could have subsequently come up with any constitution they want, there was no requirement to follow our particular system.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...before_majority_rule

I don’t dispute that the place is worse as a result.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
Well, Zimbabwe was the breadbasket of Africa. One of the few net exporters of food.

It went to needing food aid pretty quickly.

Don’t get me wrong, I wouldn’t tolerate a government that gave me no say, either… I can sympathize with the plight of the blacks in Rhodesia or South Africa.

What I don’t get is their tolerance of something worse… strongmen who steal everything.

quote:

Originally posted by nute:
You are wrong. We didn’t force them into anything.

Lack of support when needed is essentially force as they would have made it with the support of the UK of the USA. You may wish that weren’t so but it is.

A condition of independence was that the terms should be acceptable to the majority.

And that was totally unrealistic term. Politically correct for the West…but unrealistic in Africa.

If the majority wanted a totalitarian dictatorship, a communist utopia, to make Nkomo an absolute monarch … whatever they wanted, nothing imposed by us. They could also have stayed as they were, no one forced Smith to declare independence.

It was effectively a self governing white run state since the 20’s, 40 years later, exactly the same. The white 5% had over 40 years to build an inclusive society but they enjoyed the status quo and did nothing. But you swallow it hook line and sinker that the 5% have had a damascene conversion and would change it all, just need time

As to Zim being the shining star of the continent today, pure supposition.

Absolutely zero supposition. The country and cities were beautiful in the 70s. They were net exporters. The country was a huge success and the colonists did EXACTLY what the UK wanted them to do. Then the UK abandoned them over political correctness. USA was no better…shameful on our part.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by nute:
You are wrong. We didn’t force them into anything.

Lack of support when needed is essentially force as they would have made it with the support of the UK of the USA. You may wish that weren’t so but it is.

Lack of support is force?

A condition of independence was that the terms should be acceptable to the majority.

And that was totally unrealistic term. Politically correct for the West…but unrealistic in Africa.

Botswana?

If the majority wanted a totalitarian dictatorship, a communist utopia, to make Nkomo an absolute monarch … whatever they wanted, nothing imposed by us. They could also have stayed as they were, no one forced Smith to declare independence.

It was effectively a self governing white run state since the 20’s, 40 years later, exactly the same. The white 5% had over 40 years to build an inclusive society but they enjoyed the status quo and did nothing. But you swallow it hook line and sinker that the 5% have had a damascene conversion and would change it all, just need time

As to Zim being the shining star of the continent today, pure supposition.

Absolutely zero supposition. The country and cities were beautiful in the 70s. They were net exporters. The country was a huge success and the colonists did EXACTLY what the UK wanted them to do. Then the UK abandoned them over political correctness. USA was no better…shameful on our part.

Complete supposition, anything could have happened in those 50 years even with the 5% still in charge. Most likely would be a ruined economy as a result of insurgencies against the 5% / civil war.

We told Rhodesia do as we say or we will make sure you fail.

Later the USA did essentially the same to SA.

Both are essentially failed states today due to our short sightedness of what was feasible in Africa…do as we dictate or we will ensure failure.