https://x.com/will_tanner_1/st...856395016130731?s=46

A very good thread.

What part of the population was "more British than the British"? The 230,000 whites, or the almost 5 million blacks in 1970? I love the Zimbos but it was not sustainable, nor should it be, for there to be white rule indefinitely when there are 21 times more blacks.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
What part of the population was "more British than the British"? The 230,000 whites, or the almost 5 million blacks? I love the Zimbos but it is not sustainable, nor should it be, for there to be white rule indefinitely when there are 21 times more blacks.

A few points:
1) 5 million in 1980 is a bit hyperbolic
2) There was a plan and path in place for slow integration. Egalitarianism just didn’t like the slow part.
3) Had we backed Rhodesia…southern Africa would be a totally different (better) place today — prove that wrong

How dare an African majority refuse to give a minute to power over legislation.

Thst is why the last attempt at compromise failed.

You would not agree to a government thst fave Dems such power.

It was the failure of white colonialism
as much as black nationalism.

The sad part is since black rule the country has gone down the drain!

. . . same thing with a bunch of the Middle Eastern and Muslim countries.

There’s a real mistake in the below… actually several.
It is not “black nationalism”. The continuing progression of autocracy shows it is tribal, not national. Also, there were two pretty distinct Communist combatants with ZANU PF winning. Heath and his red tie supported Mugagbe over the ChiCom forces. Jimmy Carter, perhaps naively, did the same. It was more a victory of Russia than a colonial loss. H

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
How dare an African majority refuse to give a minute to power over legislation.

Thst is why the last attempt at compromise failed.

You would not agree to a government thst fave Dems such power.

It was the failure of white colonialism
as much as black nationalism.

Many of you may already know Zimbabwean Ben Freeth's hair raising tale.

If not, it's worth listening to.

Ben Freeth on identity politics run amok:

https://youtu.be/41ZFf4Ns66I?si=iEkI8vMyYihX66Lb


.

Really the problem wasn’t so much black participation as much as communist interference. Look at Zimbanbwe now and Kenya or Botswana.

The lack of individual rights and moving to a communist/socialist system without having a middle class in the first place amongst the black tribes resulted in some of the biggest abuses.

They went from a very successful agricultural sector to “redistribution” and famine.

I remember one of my first trackers there saying that while voting was great, at least Smith gave him a school, and he could read and write. He was very distressed by the lack of education his children and grandchildren were getting.

What our abandonment of Rhodesia did was change from white racists who we had some limited influence on to a black racist (Mugabe) who listened more to Russia and his own pocket.

Mugabe killed more blacks than Smith did with his tribal wars.

I think Smith knew long term that white rule was not going to work, but that if he could make a successful black middle class, he might be able to meld the two society groups into something better.

My experience with the black guys in Zimbabwe is that they are good, hard working folks who tend to defer to their own tribal leadership customs. They are quite willing to defer to authority that they recognize. Too bad that the folks in a role of leadership tended to be quite corrupt.

As to Dr. Easter’s comment- if Rhodesia had been left alone and with white rule, I suspect that it would be closer to no hunting with no game because they were a lot like us in their outlook- financial considerations first.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
How dare an African majority refuse to give a minute to power over legislation.

Thst is why the last attempt at compromise failed.

You would not agree to a government thst fave Dems such power.

It was the failure of white colonialism
as much as black nationalism.

quote:

I think Smith knew long term that white rule was not going to work, but that if he could make a successful black middle class, he might be able to meld the two society groups into something better.

Exactly. We should have backed him!

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

I think Smith knew long term that white rule was not going to work, but that if he could make a successful black middle class, he might be able to meld the two society groups into something better.

Exactly. We should have backed him!

Your journey down the X looney rabbit-hole continues.

Smith was a life-long racist leading a white supremacist government dedicated to oppressing the black majority in Rhodesia. Anybody that says anything else is either ignorant of history or a liar.

Smith said blacks would never be permitted in government. Look what that caused.

It is the failure of European rule as much as black nationalism.

We should not have backed him.

Again, the last compromise attempt would have permitted Whites a quota and legislative veto.

You would have not accepted those terms in forming a government nor I.

From 1987 reporting Whites lost the quota.

https://www.csmonitor.com/layo.../1987/0825/ozim.html

Ian Smith white government did not deserve nor should have been permitted to continue.

The fact is the European failed and not attempted at integrating a government that included and empowered blacks equally in government and society doomed them.

quote:

Smith said blacks would never be permitted in government.

That is purely untrue. There was a plan for slow integration into government.

quote:

Ian Smith white government did not deserve nor should have been permitted to continue.

Actually, we should have fought for them.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

I think Smith knew long term that white rule was not going to work, but that if he could make a successful black middle class, he might be able to meld the two society groups into something better.

Exactly. We should have backed him!

Your journey down the X looney rabbit-hole continues.

Smith was a life-long racist leading a white supremacist government dedicated to oppressing the black majority in Rhodesia. Anybody that says anything else is either ignorant of history or a liar.

Total bullshit. Ian was honored by the majority of the black population right up until he died.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Ian Smith white government did not deserve nor should have been permitted to continue.

Actually, we should have fought for them.

Impossible! That's like saying we should have pushed the moon mission on to Saturn. We were freshly out of Vietnam, the USSR was still in power and neighboring Mozambique was upsidedown concurrently.

Our was in Vietnam was not only 100% unpopular with the American public but actually wrong also. There is no way you could have convinced any single American we should go to a war in Rhodesia.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
Had we backed Rhodesia…southern Africa would be a totally different (better) place today — prove that wrong

Prove yourself right.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conjecture

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
. . . same thing with a bunch of the Middle Eastern and Muslim countries.

And of course America has become a glorious example as it is right now!

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Ian Smith white government did not deserve nor should have been permitted to continue.

Actually, we should have fought for them.

Impossible! That's like saying we should have pushed the moon mission on to Saturn. We were freshly out of Vietnam, the USSR was still in power and neighboring Mozambique was upsidedown concurrently.

Our was in Vietnam was not only 100% unpopular with the American public but actually wrong also. There is no way you could have convinced any single American we should go to a war in Rhodesia.

Not so sure about that. But at the very least we should have supported them. And damn sure not embargoed them.

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
Had we backed Rhodesia…southern Africa would be a totally different (better) place today — prove that wrong

Prove yourself right.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conjecture

I believe the answer is obvious but certainly a valid hypothesis.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Ian Smith white government did not deserve nor should have been permitted to continue.

Actually, we should have fought for them.

Impossible! That's like saying we should have pushed the moon mission on to Saturn. We were freshly out of Vietnam, the USSR was still in power and neighboring Mozambique was upsidedown concurrently.

Our was in Vietnam was not only 100% unpopular with the American public but actually wrong also. There is no way you could have convinced any single American we should go to a war in Rhodesia.

Not so sure about that. But at the very least we should have supported them. And damn sure not embargoed them.

No embargo is fine, it should have been obvious to anyone that the takeover by Mugabe would result as it did, maybe that's just 20th century hindsight.

But you'll have to introduce me to that American you may know that after 50k American dead in Vietnam would volunteer their finest and brightest to go fight in Rhodesia, especially during those times and under those circumstances and current events.

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Ian Smith white government did not deserve nor should have been permitted to continue.

Actually, we should have fought for them.

Impossible! That's like saying we should have pushed the moon mission on to Saturn. We were freshly out of Vietnam, the USSR was still in power and neighboring Mozambique was upsidedown concurrently.

Our was in Vietnam was not only 100% unpopular with the American public but actually wrong also. There is no way you could have convinced any single American we should go to a war in Rhodesia.

Not so sure about that. But at the very least we should have supported them. And damn sure not embargoed them.

No embargo is fine, it should have been obvious to anyone that the takeover by Mugabe would result as it did, maybe that's just 20th century hindsight.

But you'll have to introduce me to that American you may know that after 50k American dead in Vietnam would volunteer their finest and brightest to go fight in Rhodesia, especially during those times and under those circumstances and current events.

My father taught range management at Texas Tech University and then at Texas State Technical Institute in the very early 70’s. He got lots of young vets as students on their GI Bill program. Allan Savory, Rhodesian and father of the cell grazing system, was a frequent guest lecturer at TTU then. He and Dad got to be good friends. Many of those guys wanted to go over fight in the Rhodesian Military for that cause. I remember the discussions to this day. They all thought it wrong that we had been to Viet Nam where we weren’t really wanted and then turned our back on the good folks of Rhodesia. Not to mention that Rhodesia was an elite force similar to Israel.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Ian Smith white government did not deserve nor should have been permitted to continue.

Actually, we should have fought for them.

Impossible! That's like saying we should have pushed the moon mission on to Saturn. We were freshly out of Vietnam, the USSR was still in power and neighboring Mozambique was upsidedown concurrently.

Our was in Vietnam was not only 100% unpopular with the American public but actually wrong also. There is no way you could have convinced any single American we should go to a war in Rhodesia.

Not so sure about that. But at the very least we should have supported them. And damn sure not embargoed them.

No embargo is fine, it should have been obvious to anyone that the takeover by Mugabe would result as it did, maybe that's just 20th century hindsight.

But you'll have to introduce me to that American you may know that after 50k American dead in Vietnam would volunteer their finest and brightest to go fight in Rhodesia, especially during those times and under those circumstances and current events.

My father taught range management at Texas Tech University and then at Texas State Technical Institute in the very early 70’s. He got lots of young vets as students on their GI Bill program. Allan Savory, Rhodesian and father of the cell grazing system, was a frequent guest lecturer at TTU then. He and Dad got to be good friends. Many of those guys wanted to go over fight in the Rhodesian Military for that cause. I remember the discussions to this day. They all thought it wrong that we had been to Viet Nam where we weren’t really wanted and then turned our back on the good folks of Rhodesia. Not to mention that Rhodesia was an elite force similar to Israel.

Sending American troops to fight for a white minority government against a black majority opposition would have been wildly popular during our civil rights movement. Cassius Clay would have been one of the first to volunteer.

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Ian Smith white government did not deserve nor should have been permitted to continue.

Actually, we should have fought for them.

Impossible! That's like saying we should have pushed the moon mission on to Saturn. We were freshly out of Vietnam, the USSR was still in power and neighboring Mozambique was upsidedown concurrently.

Our was in Vietnam was not only 100% unpopular with the American public but actually wrong also. There is no way you could have convinced any single American we should go to a war in Rhodesia.

Not so sure about that. But at the very least we should have supported them. And damn sure not embargoed them.

No embargo is fine, it should have been obvious to anyone that the takeover by Mugabe would result as it did, maybe that's just 20th century hindsight.

But you'll have to introduce me to that American you may know that after 50k American dead in Vietnam would volunteer their finest and brightest to go fight in Rhodesia, especially during those times and under those circumstances and current events.

My father taught range management at Texas Tech University and then at Texas State Technical Institute in the very early 70’s. He got lots of young vets as students on their GI Bill program. Allan Savory, Rhodesian and father of the cell grazing system, was a frequent guest lecturer at TTU then. He and Dad got to be good friends. Many of those guys wanted to go over fight in the Rhodesian Military for that cause. I remember the discussions to this day. They all thought it wrong that we had been to Viet Nam where we weren’t really wanted and then turned our back on the good folks of Rhodesia. Not to mention that Rhodesia was an elite force similar to Israel.

Sending American troops to fight for a white minority government against a black majority opposition would have been wildly popular during our civil rights movement. Cassius Clay would have been one of the first to volunteer.

There were many blacks in Rhodesian Military. Ian remained a highly respected man with the black community until he died in 2007. He was so well liked and respected that Mugabe never bothered him.

The government was not acceptable and is the reason why European rule fail.

Had the European Africans had transitioned power to include Blacks equally in government and the public sphere, that government would have found international support. That government would not have been ripe to Black Nationalists movements.

Again, you would not have agreed to a government that guaranteed a minority x amount of seats in the legislature w legislative veto.

The failure was centuries in the making.

I am glad we did not get involved. I am glad we did not support the white regime.

The failure is multifaceted. The ruling whites carry a lot of the blame.

That upsets your colonialist sympathies.

Scott King is right again. The fact you knew a few war ready young men does not dictate what international policy should have been.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Ian Smith white government did not deserve nor should have been permitted to continue.

Actually, we should have fought for them.

Impossible! That's like saying we should have pushed the moon mission on to Saturn. We were freshly out of Vietnam, the USSR was still in power and neighboring Mozambique was upsidedown concurrently.

Our was in Vietnam was not only 100% unpopular with the American public but actually wrong also. There is no way you could have convinced any single American we should go to a war in Rhodesia.

Not so sure about that. But at the very least we should have supported them. And damn sure not embargoed them.

No embargo is fine, it should have been obvious to anyone that the takeover by Mugabe would result as it did, maybe that's just 20th century hindsight.

But you'll have to introduce me to that American you may know that after 50k American dead in Vietnam would volunteer their finest and brightest to go fight in Rhodesia, especially during those times and under those circumstances and current events.

My father taught range management at Texas Tech University and then at Texas State Technical Institute in the very early 70’s. He got lots of young vets as students on their GI Bill program. Allan Savory, Rhodesian and father of the cell grazing system, was a frequent guest lecturer at TTU then. He and Dad got to be good friends. Many of those guys wanted to go over fight in the Rhodesian Military for that cause. I remember the discussions to this day. They all thought it wrong that we had been to Viet Nam where we weren’t really wanted and then turned our back on the good folks of Rhodesia. Not to mention that Rhodesia was an elite force similar to Israel.

Sending American troops to fight for a white minority government against a black majority opposition would have been wildly popular during our civil rights movement. Cassius Clay would have been one of the first to volunteer.

There were many blacks in Rhodesian Military. Ian remained a highly respected man with the black community until he died in 2007. He was so well liked and respected that Mugabe never bothered him.

Apparently there weren't enough blacks in the Rhodesian Military to win.

We're of course not arguing about the virtue of Smith, the goodness and decency of the Rhodesian citizens not the guaranteed destruction of Zimbabwe under Mugabe. You and I are like minded.

But no! There was no way in Hell the USA was going to shift it's war efforts from Vietnam to Rhodesia and no way in Hell our Civil Rights movement would have tolerated a military intervention to support a minority white government in Africa.

We've wondered and talked about the quagmire of foreign fighters in regional wars. How many different Islamic states supplied foreign fighters to our War on Terror? The Chinese were involved against us in Vietnam, the USSR too, who else? Cambodia and Laos? DPRK Burma? Who knows. Id think dumping a division of US Marines and the 82nd Airborne in Bulawayo would draw tribal fighters from as far away as Egypt.

No gracias somebody very rightly said.

Oh and for the reasons discussed, it was not a normal western regime.

Count in Dr. Easter to want quota for his minority in Congress and white rule.

That is not a normal western government.

All who click on the link will notice all those people in nice clothes in the photo are white.

How refreshing to see, at last, sense and reason on AR in relation to Zimbabwe. The white population had their chance with Garfield Todd and instead rejected him and chose Ian Smith.

Without Smith there would have been no Mugabe. Why do you think Smith and his ranch were left unmolested by Mugabe throughout all the other land seizures that came?

Each night Robert Mugabe would kneel and says his prayers "God bless me, Comrade Bob, and God Bless 'Good Old Smithy' for without him there'd have been no me..."

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Ian Smith white government did not deserve nor should have been permitted to continue.

Actually, we should have fought for them.

Impossible! That's like saying we should have pushed the moon mission on to Saturn. We were freshly out of Vietnam, the USSR was still in power and neighboring Mozambique was upsidedown concurrently.

Our was in Vietnam was not only 100% unpopular with the American public but actually wrong also. There is no way you could have convinced any single American we should go to a war in Rhodesia.

Not so sure about that. But at the very least we should have supported them. And damn sure not embargoed them.

No embargo is fine, it should have been obvious to anyone that the takeover by Mugabe would result as it did, maybe that's just 20th century hindsight.

But you'll have to introduce me to that American you may know that after 50k American dead in Vietnam would volunteer their finest and brightest to go fight in Rhodesia, especially during those times and under those circumstances and current events.

My father taught range management at Texas Tech University and then at Texas State Technical Institute in the very early 70’s. He got lots of young vets as students on their GI Bill program. Allan Savory, Rhodesian and father of the cell grazing system, was a frequent guest lecturer at TTU then. He and Dad got to be good friends. Many of those guys wanted to go over fight in the Rhodesian Military for that cause. I remember the discussions to this day. They all thought it wrong that we had been to Viet Nam where we weren’t really wanted and then turned our back on the good folks of Rhodesia. Not to mention that Rhodesia was an elite force similar to Israel.

Sending American troops to fight for a white minority government against a black majority opposition would have been wildly popular during our civil rights movement. Cassius Clay would have been one of the first to volunteer.

There were many blacks in Rhodesian Military. Ian remained a highly respected man with the black community until he died in 2007. He was so well liked and respected that Mugabe never bothered him.

Apparently there weren't enough blacks in the Rhodesian Military to win.

It became them against the world…there was no way for them to win.

We're of course not arguing about the virtue of Smith, the goodness and decency of the Rhodesian citizens not the guaranteed destruction of Zimbabwe under Mugabe. You and I are like minded.

But no! There was no way in Hell the USA was going to shift it's war efforts from Vietnam to Rhodesia and no way in Hell our Civil Rights movement would have tolerated a military intervention to support a minority white government in Africa.

I agree 100% with the accuracy of this paragraph.

My intent is to point out the fallacy in that decision making process. It was as big of a blunder as was Iraq.

We should learn from our mistakes…not double down on them.

We've wondered and talked about the quagmire of foreign fighters in regional wars. How many different Islamic states supplied foreign fighters to our War on Terror? The Chinese were involved against us in Vietnam, the USSR too, who else? Cambodia and Laos? DPRK Burma? Who knows. Id think dumping a division of US Marines and the 82nd Airborne in Bulawayo would draw tribal fighters from as far away as Egypt.

They did not need boots on the ground…they needed someone to have their back in the world political arena and they damn sure didn’t need/deserve embargo.

No gracias somebody very rightly said.

We as Americans like to go around believing we are the force for good of the world. I see about as many blunders as successful outcomes from our efforts since WWII.

If we don’t study history and admit to our mistakes…we will continue down the road of failure after failure. Not backing Rhodesia was a mistake. We missed a chance to do good but also to acquire influence in a region while doing so. We let a beautiful nation fall into decline and forfeited our chance for regional influence to China.

Besides the above it is also a lesson in how fast a well built (at one time maybe the best infrastructure in the world) and well managed country can decline when that management is no longer maintained.

This thread is about a wake-up call that our post WWII decision making doesn’t have that good of a track record. We have not been the force for good for the world we believe we have. We have contributed to its decline.

I think this can be attributed to a failure to heed Eisenhowers warning -

“In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.”

The staggering wealth to be acquired through military action via the production and sales of war materials has seduced those who control it; the manipulation of misplaced ‘patriotism’ and psychological manipulation of American youth to ‘serve’ has created a nucleus of omnipotent oligarchs who control American foreign policy by controlling American politicians and public attitudes.

There’s no money in assisting a beleaguered Rhodesia, but there are fortunes to be made in destroying a Vietnam, an Iraq, an Afghanistan.

These is nowhere near the money to be made in health care compared to building a $13 billion aircraft carrier and spending $1.5 million/day to operate it.

They should have listened to Eisenhower; he was probably the last truly altruistic POTUS.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

I think Smith knew long term that white rule was not going to work, but that if he could make a successful black middle class, he might be able to meld the two society groups into something better.

Exactly. We should have backed him!

Your journey down the X looney rabbit-hole continues.

Smith was a life-long racist leading a white supremacist government dedicated to oppressing the black majority in Rhodesia. Anybody that says anything else is either ignorant of history or a liar.

Total bullshit. Ian was honored by the majority of the black population right up until he died.

Educate yourself, dumbass.

https://www.the-independent.co...mbabwe-a8754971.html

The majority he said would never be able to engage in politics.

There are not any black Zimbabwean/Rhodesians in the photo posted on Twitter to lead the discussion.

quote:

Originally posted by Tumbleweed:
I think this can be attributed to a failure to heed Eisenhowers warning -

“In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.”

The staggering wealth to be acquired through military action via the production and sales of war materials has seduced those who control it; the manipulation of misplaced ‘patriotism’ and psychological manipulation of American youth to ‘serve’ has created a nucleus of omnipotent oligarchs who control American foreign policy by controlling American politicians and public attitudes.

There’s no money in assisting a beleaguered Rhodesia, but there are fortunes to be made in destroying a Vietnam, an Iraq, an Afghanistan.

These is nowhere near the money to be made in health care compared to building a $13 billion aircraft carrier and spending $1.5 million/day to operate it.

They should have listened to Eisenhower; he was probably the last truly altruistic POTUS.

What happened to Rhodesia and South Africa had nothing to do with military industrial complex and everything to do with the racial politic complex in the US.

I don’t disagree that is sending troops or substantial aid was a nonstarter, but letting the USSR frame it in those terms was a failure.

We could have supported Rhodesia and used our input to mandate changes in a stepwise fashion, but by allowing the combloc to make it a racial issue here, that was not an opportunity.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

I think Smith knew long term that white rule was not going to work, but that if he could make a successful black middle class, he might be able to meld the two society groups into something better.

Exactly. We should have backed him!

Your journey down the X looney rabbit-hole continues.

Smith was a life-long racist leading a white supremacist government dedicated to oppressing the black majority in Rhodesia. Anybody that says anything else is either ignorant of history or a liar.

Total bullshit. Ian was honored by the majority of the black population right up until he died.

Educate yourself, dumbass.

https://www.the-independent.co...mbabwe-a8754971.html

Educate myself!? That is the trouble you idiot liberals…Reagan had it right: “It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so.”

I am well educated in subject matter.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

I think Smith knew long term that white rule was not going to work, but that if he could make a successful black middle class, he might be able to meld the two society groups into something better.

Exactly. We should have backed him!

Your journey down the X looney rabbit-hole continues.

Smith was a life-long racist leading a white supremacist government dedicated to oppressing the black majority in Rhodesia. Anybody that says anything else is either ignorant of history or a liar.

Total bullshit. Ian was honored by the majority of the black population right up until he died.

Educate yourself, dumbass.

https://www.the-independent.co...mbabwe-a8754971.html

Educate myself!? That is the trouble you idiot liberals…Reagan had it right: “It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so.”

I am well educated in subject matter.

Well, then properly respond to the statements/facts in the article. Smith was an avowed racist who was intent on perpetuating white rule over an overwhelming black majority as long as he possibly could. He wasn't somebody that the US should have backed. He was a terrible person with awful, hateful, backward ideas.

Based on the statements you've made about him so far, I would say that it appears you are completely uneducated about him, his politics and his administration.

Either that....or you agree with all of it.

Which?

When all of existence is measured by "Christianity" the results can be bizarre.

If you find yourself on a Continent without any Christians around you are entitled to "discover" it no matter how many millions of people live there or how many thousands of years they've been there, and "discovering" it gives you the Right to claim to own it and immediately kill anyone who disputes your claim merely because they and their family have been there for a hundred generations. Using poison, disease and starvation is completely acceptable if a substantial number of heretics disputes your claim. The survivors may be enslaved if that seems useful, but immediately shipping them elsewhere in "Christendom" is advisable to reduce those pesky rebellions.

On a smaller scale, should a Christian find themselves in a region where the inhabitants don't build or arrange their houses like a good Christian should, or conduct their civic affairs or interpersonal relationships in substantial accord with the Old Testament, poison, disease, starvation and/or enslavement, for their own good, of course, may/should proceed.

If a couple hundred years of "Christianity" fails to make the inhabitants act the way Christians think they should the fault, of course, is attributable to the genetic inferiority of those inhabitants because, obviously, it couldn't possibly be the fault of the Christians.

It is my considered opinion that if Jesus Christ had ever existed, and had been as concerned with the good of humanity as He is portrayed, and in fact had the ability to see what the future held, he almost certainly would have committed suicide forthwith to prevent the skeevy shit that was going to be done in His name.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

I think Smith knew long term that white rule was not going to work, but that if he could make a successful black middle class, he might be able to meld the two society groups into something better.

Exactly. We should have backed him!

Your journey down the X looney rabbit-hole continues.

Smith was a life-long racist leading a white supremacist government dedicated to oppressing the black majority in Rhodesia. Anybody that says anything else is either ignorant of history or a liar.

Total bullshit. Ian was honored by the majority of the black population right up until he died.

Educate yourself, dumbass.

https://www.the-independent.co...mbabwe-a8754971.html

Educate myself!? That is the trouble you idiot liberals…Reagan had it right: “It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so.”

I am well educated in subject matter.

Well, then properly respond to the statements/facts in the article. Smith was an avowed racist who was intent on perpetuating white rule over an overwhelming black majority as long as he possibly could. He wasn't somebody that the US should have backed. He was a terrible person with awful, hateful, backward ideas.

Based on the statements you've made about him so far, I would say that it appears you are completely uneducated about him, his politics and his administration.

Either that....or you agree with all of it.

Which?

He agrees with it. That is the whole point. He wants to see the “blacks” in the U.S. who do not see the world like him, do not vote like him, not engaged in politics.

That is why he a) will not respond to a direct question, and b) loves the White Rhodesian regime. He sees it as a model regime.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

I think Smith knew long term that white rule was not going to work, but that if he could make a successful black middle class, he might be able to meld the two society groups into something better.

Exactly. We should have backed him!

Your journey down the X looney rabbit-hole continues.

Smith was a life-long racist leading a white supremacist government dedicated to oppressing the black majority in Rhodesia. Anybody that says anything else is either ignorant of history or a liar.

Total bullshit. Ian was honored by the majority of the black population right up until he died.

Educate yourself, dumbass.

https://www.the-independent.co...mbabwe-a8754971.html

Educate myself!? That is the trouble you idiot liberals…Reagan had it right: “It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so.”

I am well educated in subject matter.

I know and have kitchen what you say about Ian Smith and his regime are false.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Ian Smith white government did not deserve nor should have been permitted to continue.

Actually, we should have fought for them.

Impossible! That's like saying we should have pushed the moon mission on to Saturn. We were freshly out of Vietnam, the USSR was still in power and neighboring Mozambique was upsidedown concurrently.

Our was in Vietnam was not only 100% unpopular with the American public but actually wrong also. There is no way you could have convinced any single American we should go to a war in Rhodesia.

Not so sure about that. But at the very least we should have supported them. And damn sure not embargoed them.

No embargo is fine, it should have been obvious to anyone that the takeover by Mugabe would result as it did, maybe that's just 20th century hindsight.

But you'll have to introduce me to that American you may know that after 50k American dead in Vietnam would volunteer their finest and brightest to go fight in Rhodesia, especially during those times and under those circumstances and current events.

My father taught range management at Texas Tech University and then at Texas State Technical Institute in the very early 70’s. He got lots of young vets as students on their GI Bill program. Allan Savory, Rhodesian and father of the cell grazing system, was a frequent guest lecturer at TTU then. He and Dad got to be good friends. Many of those guys wanted to go over fight in the Rhodesian Military for that cause. I remember the discussions to this day. They all thought it wrong that we had been to Viet Nam where we weren’t really wanted and then turned our back on the good folks of Rhodesia. Not to mention that Rhodesia was an elite force similar to Israel.

I thought you were the poorest kid in Texas growing up, subsisted on nothing but the grasshoppers and armadillos you could catch? Pulled yourself up by the bootstraps on the moccasins you made from roadkill jackrabbits.

Your Father was a college professor?

^^