America's chickens coming home to roost

[boet faas]

I have done some study into american foreign policy and found that most of the time when they interfered with a sovereign states policy they did not take into account the dangerous consequences of their actions. For instance, they applied pressure on SA to end apartheid by apposing sanctions, I believe only because of our nuclear weapons program and nothing else so they can have a moderate goverment in place under their control without the fear of them becoming a major player in world events. What those Einsteins forgot to account for was what will become of all the knowledge, technology and expertise of the newclear program? Well according to Al J Venter's, "how SA built 6 atom bombs", all that went to foreign rogue states. Not on purpose though, it just happened that way as those rogue states at the time were of virtualy no significance and economic trading partners of SA. Those rogue states are what America has to deal with today, including Iran and Pakistan which in turn involves al-queda and hezbolla which it turns out are becoming more and more part of the A-bomb eqaution. What are your thoughts on this?

[Skutatos]

I'd like to know more about these "Newclear" weapons.

[boet faas]

From your post i think you don't believe me. Anyway that doesn't change facts. The short of it is that SA started with a civillian newclear project in the 1950's and by the 80's we had 6 neclear bombs of the gun barrel type, the same as what used on Hiroshima. What makes it intersting that all rogue states are now studying the SA method as it was accomplished under sanctions and in halve the time any one else did it. On top of that did we manage to develope new technologies for the process so advanced that we tried to sell it in the US market. By the time SA kicked communism out of Africa and nailed the final nail in the soviet coffin the cold war ended which immediately removed the thread of a communist war in southern africa, SA was able to negotiate the end of Apartheid. But the US wanted a full dismantling of our military nuclear capability as a further prerequisite before suspending sanctions against us. We complied in good will but our trading partners at the time, Iran and Pakistan bought much of the technology from the SA companies involved as there were no embargo of any kind on it and they had to do something to survive. The Iranian intercontinental missile is an eact replica of the RSA-1,2,3 series missiles as well as the Israeli shavit 1,2,3 missile range. SA and Israel developed it together.

[FlintHillBilly]

Is it me or is the title irrelevant to what your trying to get across...:cantbeli:

[BlisteringFreakachu]

That looks like something Sarah Palin would say.

[boet faas]

Is it me or is the title irrelevant to what your trying to get across...:cantbeli:
I think it is just you. Not exactly rocket science. The point is the mere fact that Iran and Pakistan have nuclear capabilities was becuase the the US was so hasty in getting SA to quit its nuclear program that they did not cover all the aspects of the consequences. And now the world is in a virtual state of emergency because of the stand-off between the US and Iran.

[Bushranger]

I was under the impression the US, UK etc got all weapons grade material including what ever bombs SA had out before the 94 hand over to the black govt. I understand what your trying to get at just dont think you have put it across to good.

[Laconian]

So you're saying we shouldn't trust anyone we deal with on the world stage, ally or foe and just be prepared to nuke the snot out of whomever crosses us? That sounds good.

You make the assumption that "the US" never changes administrations, domestic or foreign policy plans, and has an all-seeing eye, able to view with 20/20 clarity beforehand, what will happen in the event of any/every contingency.

Have you had to make an important decision, ever? In the moment, not just looking back where the consequences involved more than just resetting to the beginning of the current level?

[p$ycho+log!cal]

this thread made my eyes bleed..enuff for me


can't touch this,,,,, new new new new, new new, new new, newclear!

[boet faas]

I was under the impression the US, UK etc got all weapons grade material including what ever bombs SA had out before the 94 hand over to the black govt. I understand what your trying to get at just dont think you have put it across to good.
The IAEA oversaw the dismantling of our nuclear facilities and bombs but that was where it ended. I am not aware of the UK or the US in need of anything SA had as the fissile material was of an outdated version to what the west had. The research and technology and the companies that harnessed these were sold on the open market. Surely if the US is so concerned with countries acquiring nuiclear weapons they would have paid more attention to what happens after the dismantling? But yet again they were so over eager to bud in where they don't belong they forgot to plan it through. SA were never a rogue state and considered themselves part of the west, so keeping our technology intact under strict regulations would have been a better option than the current situation. One thing is for sure, once Iran has acquired nuclear capabilities the US and the rest of the western world is in dire straits.

[Hippo]

successful troll is successful

[boet faas]

The US cannot and should not dictate to any country what they should do. This attitude harbours resentment and that resentment boils over to what the US faces today. 911 is a case in point. That was a big chicken coming home to roost because of failed foreign policy. Iran's missile capabilities and subsequent nuclear aspirations is a case in point. I believe Iran is already producing nuclear warheads. Their missile technology is too advanced for them not to have that capabilities yet. Iraq will come haunt the US like ghosts from the past. The damage that these foreign policy blunders create is so enormous that it is impossible to quantify.

[SOG]

I read this entire thread and am still confused.

[boet faas]

Can somebody please explain to why you find this so confusing? It is easy, you enforce foreign policy on another country but make a mistake. That mistake evolves, turns around and bites you in the back. Hence "America's chickens coming home to roost. Is the obvious examples not enough proof of that?

[SoCalEMT]

I like chicken.

Just sayin'

[2Sheds_Jackson]

I'd say that I reject the basic premise of the thread. Of course the US anticipates the dangerous consequences to her actions - that's why we have a large military and lots of folks running around with pointy, blowy-uppy things.

Secondly, the drive to rid SA of nuclear and chemical weapons was conducted by a broad coalition of nations under the auspices of the United Nations, not just the US. SA had undertaken clandestine development of both chemical and nuclear weapons, and had not signed the NPT. Nearly the entire planet had agreed that doing so was contrary to the interests of civilization.

What I've read of Pakistan’s nuclear program makes no mention of any collaboration with players from SA's nuclear program. They speak of covert sources primarily within Europe, the US, Israel and China. Maybe SA was involved - maybe not - but they certainly didn't need to be.

The idea of a consequence-free foreign policy is foolish - such a policy is no policy at all. Obviously, a nation such as the US which has sacrificed so much blood and treasure all over the globe is well aware that there's a cost, and we obviously accept it.

[sinophile]

Can somebody please explain to why you find this so confusing? It is easy, you enforce foreign policy on another country but make a mistake. That mistake evolves, turns around and bites you in the back. Hence "America's chickens coming home to roost. Is the obvious examples not enough proof of that?

I bet you weren't complaining when the US was intervening in Angola in support of UNITA. :slap:

[Calanen]

Unfortunate turn of phrase, 'chickens come home to roost' made more recently famous by that loon Ward Churchill in respect of 9/11. To this end, Ward Churchill supporters wear felt chicken hats at his speeches. No really, they do. This photo was taken at a Ward Churchill speech:

http://img505.imageshack.us/img505/4209/wardchurchillchickenhatsb2.jpg


The question is sir, do you have any poultry themed headgear?

[boet faas]

I bet you weren't complaining when the US was intervening in Angola in support of UNITA. :slap:
The type of support the US provided Unita was clandestine CIA support in the form of two chicken **** CIA opratives that arrived in a Scesna plane twice a year. They brought with them money and brown pants. That is hardly any support. They had a reputation for fleeing quick and fast leaving people behind they promised they would take with them to safety as soon as things got to hot in their vicinity. That's American style.

[boet faas]

That is just it. There were no drive to rid SA of any nuclear or biological weapons, not on paper anyway. The US went about it under the auspices of ending Apartheid. Giving support for a "TERRORIST" organization with clear ties with their nemises the Soviets and with strong communist links. The US, which coincidently, is the owner of the UN decided that it was more in their interest to sanction SA than find another way of solving the problem. My case in point is that the sanctions created an atmosphere whereby SA created advanced military technology without which the US cannot win their wars today and nuclear technology. Then the US got what they wanted and instilled a goverment more to their liking and forgot about SA and are finding out now that that was a mistake, just as what the sanctions were.

[Henry's Fork]

The type of support the US provided Unita was clandestine CIA support in the form of two chicken **** CIA opratives that arrived in a Scesna plane twice a year. They brought with them money and brown pants. That is hardly any support. They had a reputation for fleeing quick and fast leaving people behind they promised they would take with them to safety as soon as things got to hot in their vicinity. That's American style.

So then, you are giving back the 50+ million dollars that the US gave to UNITA in 1989 alone?

Here is more of that so called American style, just for you......:slap::backhand::bash:

[Calanen]

The type of support the US provided Unita was clandestine CIA support in the form of two chicken **** CIA opratives that arrived in a Scesna plane twice a year


Did they wear Chicken hats though? And more importantly, do you - I think you are dodging the question...

[PALADIN]

Did they wear Chicken hats though? And more importantly, do you - I think you are dodging the question...

What about tinfoil?

[Calanen]

What about tinfoil?

The chicken hats can come with an optional tinfoil lining accessory.

[boet faas]

The American public are such fools for their political propaganda. Are you even aware that all America did by handing Savimbi all that money was to make one man extremely wealthy and gave him a good life. When was the last time an African leader used foreign aid to better the life of his people? That financial support did little to help Unita, as far as reality is concerned you might just as well have taken that money and gone to Vegas. Savimbi was as corrupt as ever and the Americans knew that, but still they helped finance his expensive life style. The only real help America provided was when they supplied Unita with stinger missiles. SA provided the military expertise and hardware that stopped the Soviet advance in Angola. Nobody has come forward yet with a fact based reply to contradict what I am saying.

[Rudolph]

The American public are such fools for their political propaganda. Are you even aware that all America did by handing Savimbi all that money was to make one man extremely wealthy and gave him a good life. When was the last time an African leader used foreign aid to better the life of his people? That financial support did little to help Unita, as far as reality is concerned you might just as well have taken that money and gone to Vegas. Savimbi was as corrupt as ever and the Americans knew that, but still they helped finance his expensive life style. The only real help America provided was when they supplied Unita with stinger missiles. SA provided the military expertise and hardware that stopped the Soviet advance in Angola. You guys better do your homework if you want to keep track of your miserable track record in Africa. Nobody has come forward yet with a fact based reply to contradict what I am saying. Why dont you just admit to your failures or contradict it and lets move on to how you can learn from it and realy try to make the world a better place for all instead of acting like cowboys. Because if this carries on for another 50 years there is not going to be much of a world left to play cowboy with.

hi,

I really don't want to see you get banned. Please keep in mind that this is a Western forum primarily, and outright accusing the USA of something which has already happened is no way to make friends here. You'll find there are many critics of the current and older US administrations here, but your angle in starting the conversation is all wrong.

As you know Reagan supported us if only for his anti-communistic views. They did lie to us in having us start the Angolan War, but that was Carter's fault. I'm sure some SA scientists have worked overseas in rogue states, and they should've been more closely monitored like CBW expert Wouter Basson still is (even though the US advised Mandela to assassinate him, apparently). Most of the advanced nuclear and laser technology were destroyed but I've read about some things that got out to China and other less desirable states.

We both know apartheid could not end while the Cold War was on, but there was public pressure on the American government to punish South Africa for what was seen, and still is, as purely racial policies, although research suggest general white South Africans' attitude changed dramatically from the 1970's when they started interacting more with non-whites at university level and such. Fact is that communism screwed us over and kept us locked up and made the world look at us like we're some backward, racist state with no desire to ever allow democracy. Yet as soon as the Berlin Wall fell the peace treaty was signed and the rest is history.

Groetnis.

[boet faas]

I'd say that I reject the basic premise of the thread. Of course the US anticipates the dangerous consequences to her actions - that's why we have a large military and lots of folks running around with pointy, blowy-uppy things.

Secondly, the drive to rid SA of nuclear and chemical weapons was conducted by a broad coalition of nations under the auspices of the United Nations, not just the US. SA had undertaken clandestine development of both chemical and nuclear weapons, and had not signed the NPT. Nearly the entire planet had agreed that doing so was contrary to the interests of civilization.

What I've read of Pakistan’s nuclear program makes no mention of any collaboration with players from SA's nuclear program. They speak of covert sources primarily within Europe, the US, Israel and China. Maybe SA was involved - maybe not - but they certainly didn't need to be.

The idea of a consequence-free foreign policy is foolish - such a policy is no policy at all. Obviously, a nation such as the US which has sacrificed so much blood and treasure all over the globe is well aware that there's a cost, and we obviously accept it.
With this you assume that SA were the antagonists? What did America do for Israel when she was virtualy overran by her Arab enemies in the Yom Kippur war that were financed by the Soviets? What did America do when the Warsaw pact invaded Czechoslovakia? A blatant unbridled military action against a sovereign state? The answer is, absolutely nothing. SA took notice of these events and realised that her enemies are not as much the proxy forces on the ground as the real agressor who backed and financed these operations in her back yard, the Soviets. SA developed nuclear and biological weapons as a deterrent because that was what was put against her in the bush of Angola by the Cubans and the Soviets. Luckily for SA when the Biological stuff were used the wind changed and it affected the Cubans and Angolans. SA then developed a Biological agent that would be activated by skin pigments of dark colour so if they had to counter with biological weapons it would not have an effect on white skins if the wind changed. We prepared ourselves for the fact that no support would come when we faced to be overran by our enemies. The Soviets had no bussiness in Africa and the US knew that and were fully prepared to accept the outcome should the Soviets have taken over Southern Africa. The point is we did not develop these weapons so we could hold the world hostage like North Korea and Iran. We did so entirely as a measure of deterrance, but the US treated us like a rogue state when in actual fact all we did was fight the good fight against communist expansion. That was the wrong move as is evident in world affairs today.

[LaoSexMachine]

With this you assume that SA were the antagonists? What did America do for Israel when she was virtualy overran by her Arab enemies in the Yom Kippur war that were financed by the Soviets? What did America do when the Warsaw pact invaded Czechoslovakia? A blatant unbridled military action against a sovereign state? The answer is, absolutely nothing. Why? Probably because they did not have oil! SA took notice of these events and realised that her enemies are not as much the proxy forces on the ground as the real agressor who backed and financed these operations in her back yard, the Soviets. SA developed nuclear and biological weapons as a deterrent because that was what was put against her in the bush of Angola by the Cubans and the Soviets. Luckily for SA when the Biological stuff were used the wind changed and it affected the Cubans and Angolans. SA then developed a Biological agent that would be activated by skin pigments of dark colour so if they had to counter with biological weapons it would not have an effect on white skins if the wind changed. We prepared ourselves for the fact that no support would come when we faced to be overran by our enemies. The Soviets had no bussiness in Africa and the US knew that and were fully prepared to accept the outcome should the Soviets have taken over Southern Africa. The point is we did not develop these weapons so we could hold the world hostage like North Korea and Iran. We did so entirely as a measure of deterrance, but the US treated us like a rogue state when in actual fact all we did was fight the good fight against communist expansion. That was the wrong move as is evident in world affairs today.


Operation Nickle Grass. WTF is this hole chicken coming home to roost BS?

[boet faas]

hi,

I really don't want to see you get banned. Please keep in mind that this is a Western forum primarily, and outright accusing the USA of something which has already happened is no way to make friends here. You'll find there are many critics of the current and older US administrations here, but your angle in starting the conversation is all wrong.

As you know Reagan supported us if only for his anti-communistic views. They did lie to us in having us start the Angolan War, but that was Carter's fault. I'm sure some SA scientists have worked overseas in rogue states, and they should've been more closely monitored like CBW expert Wouter Basson still is (even though the US advised Mandela to assassinate him, apparently). Most of the advanced nuclear and laser technology were destroyed but I've read about some things that got out to China and other less desirable states.

We both know apartheid could not end while the Cold War was on, but there was public pressure on the American government to punish South Africa for what was seen, and still is, as purely racial policies, although research suggest general white South Africans' attitude changed dramatically from the 1970's when they started interacting more with non-whites at university level and such. Fact is that communism screwed us over and kept us locked up and made the world look at us like we're some backward, racist state with no desire to ever allow democracy. Yet as soon as the Berlin Wall fell the peace treaty was signed and the rest is history.

Groetnis.

Hi Rudolph,

Thanks for the advise. I am trying to raise the temperature a little so I can get somebody to argue the case with me. I would think that it would be highly unethical if somebody raised a subject that were contrary to popular believe and that somebody got banned for it. Especially if it is a Western forum. I am Pro West dont get me wrong, the ideology of the free, I am just not convinced that the Americans have a lid on things as they should have, and I would like for people to argue this with me. I will however pipe down a little as I do enjoy this forum allot.

[Connaught Ranger]

Luckily for SA when the Biological stuff were used the wind changed and it affected the Cubans and Angolans. SA then developed a Biological agent that would be activated by skin pigments of dark colour so if they had to counter with biological weapons it would not have an effect on white skins if the wind changed. We prepared ourselves for the fact that no support would come when we faced to be overran by our enemies.

WoW!!! Skin Colour codeded bio weapons, how bizare :roll:

[Calanen]

The American public are such fools for their political propaganda.

There has never been a 'wise' general public, not in any country.

What does it matter really though? Let's say you convince everyone here that the US to blame for the mess South Africa is in - what next? Isnt the problem still the same? Or let's say you say that no one is to blame, or everyone is - how does that change the reality of the situation today?

The problems that South Africa have I believe are incapable of being fixed. And even if they can be fixed, convincing people on the internetz that it is America's fault will bring you not one yard closer to fixing them.

The best advice I could give to people like yourself is, leave South Africa and find a calm place elsewhere in the world to make your fortune.

The old days of SA glory are gone, and things will never be the same again. No matter who is to blame.

[Rudolph]

WoW!!! Skin Colour codeded bio weapons, how bizare :roll:

Sounds very smart, if true (doubtful myself), but that would've posed a bit of a problem for our UNITA allies and our Namibian and South African soldiers who were not white. What about white Portuguese soldiers with dark skin? Recce 5? 32 Batallion? Rubbish.

[boet faas]

Sounds very smart, if true (doubtful myself), but that would've posed a bit of a problem for our UNITA allies and our Namibian and South African soldiers who were not white. What about white Portuguese soldiers with dark skin? Recce 5? 32 Batallion? Rubbish.

It is not rubbish at all. That was part of the Project coast experiments for what Wouter Basson got into trouble for. It was never utilised and i am sure they would have made contingency in the case of it being used. But it is factual and were experimented with at Laboratory level by Wouter Basson.

[Rudolph]

There has never been a 'wise' general public, not in any country.

What does it matter really though? Let's say you convince everyone here that the US to blame for the mess South Africa is in - what next? Isnt the problem still the same? Or let's say you say that no one is to blame, or everyone is - how does that change the reality of the situation today?

The problems that South Africa have I believe are incapable of being fixed. And even if they can be fixed, convincing people on the internetz that it is America's fault will bring you not one yard closer to fixing them.

The best advice I could give to people like yourself is, leave South Africa and find a calm place elsewhere in the world to make your fortune.

The old days of SA glory are gone, and things will never be the same again. No matter who is to blame.

Good post. But most of us are staying. This is home...

[boet faas]

There has never been a 'wise' general public, not in any country.

What does it matter really though? Let's say you convince everyone here that the US to blame for the mess South Africa is in - what next? Isnt the problem still the same? Or let's say you say that no one is to blame, or everyone is - how does that change the reality of the situation today?

The problems that South Africa have I believe are incapable of being fixed. And even if they can be fixed, convincing people on the internetz that it is America's fault will bring you not one yard closer to fixing them.

The best advice I could give to people like yourself is, leave South Africa and find a calm place elsewhere in the world to make your fortune.

The old days of SA glory are gone, and things will never be the same again. No matter who is to blame.

I am not putting blame on anyone for SA problems apart from the ANC. All I am doing is putting forth facts on failed US foreign policy and how it aggravates world events. Iran is a case in point. Their handling of the Iran situation in return will have another set of consequences for the future. So they'd better get it right this time. I am strongly of the opinion that the US should take more responsibility for failed foreign policy just because of the serious consequences of it. And I think the US should blame themselves for Iran acquiring nuclear technology.

[Calanen]

Good post. But most of us are staying. This is home...

I understand. But eventually, the reality of the situation, like say for the White Farmers in Zimbabwe, however much it is home - means that it's time to leave. If you reach that point - put sentimentality out of your mind and go. Home can be wherever you have friends and safety.

[Calanen]

I am not putting blame on anyone for SA problems apart from the ANC. All I am doing is putting forth facts on failed US foreign policy and how it aggravates world events. Iran is a case in point. Their handling of the Iran situation in return will have another set of consequences for the future. So they'd better get it right this time. I am strongly of the opinion that the US should take more responsibility for failed foreign policy just because of the serious consequences of it. And I think the US should blame themselves for Iran acquiring nuclear technology.

Ok you can be angry at the USA for their foreign policy - but how does that change anything? I have my own view about US foreign policy, and think its a lot more complicated than people give them credit for. Plans within plans, secrets within secrets.

The few classified things I have seen made me think that the general public has absolutely no idea what is going on, none. It's just all an elaborate illusion. And more than that - the general public would not want to know the truth anyway.

The question is - how does it change your reality to blame the USA?

[boet faas]

Ok you can be angry at the USA for their foreign policy - but how does that change anything? I have my own view about US foreign policy, and think its a lot more complicated than people give them credit for. Plans within plans, secrets within secrets.

The few classified things I have seen made me think that the general public has absolutely no idea what is going on, none. It's just all an elaborate illusion. And more than that - the general public would not want to know the truth anyway.

The question is - how does it change your reality to blame the USA?

It will ultimately change everyones reality when people realise that more damage is being done than good when foreign policy fails. By creating awareness people might realise that 911 might have been averted if proper planning were done by officials in place of making world altering decisions. It is just so strange to me that the US wants to spent hundreds of billions of dollars in military operations in Iraq and Afganistan for some obscure reason while in Africa innocent people by the thousands are being raped, murdered, mutilated and burned alive for diamonds and other metals. But the US has got such a large hand in the instability of those regions that helping the real people in need does not feature in their foreign policy. And if you realy want to get angry at the good heart of American foreign policy just wait until you find out more about the US's involvement in the DRC.

[Laconian]

I admit I know next to nothing about Africa. Boet, what do you want? The US to admit that it bollocksed up in it foreign policy in re Africa? OK, I'm big enough to say we screwed the pooch and Africa is all our fault. Happy? But there are no perfect solutions to any problem that involves an ever-changing arena, like international relations.

But where does the rest of the civilized world fit in?

[Rudolph]

I admit I know next to nothing about Africa. Boet, what do you want? The US to admit that it bollocksed up in it foreign policy in re Africa? OK, I'm big enough to say we screwed the pooch and Africa is all our fault. Happy? But there are no perfect solutions to any problem that involves an ever-changing arena, like international relations.

But where does the rest of the civilized world fit in?

To have better relations with the whole of Africa, the USA had to publically be completely against South Africa - never mind the strategic interests here, etc. That is understood wholeheartedly. What's the use of blaming them for everything? Blame the Soviet Union and ignorant self-proclaimed liberals, if anything. They think the Rwandan genocide is still better than not being able to vote. We are the ones living here. We understand Africa and Africans better than any professor or academic who's ever written about this contitent without setting their foot here. The Afrikaner remains a unique European/African product, and I forsee hardship for us here, but after that we'll still be here to continue our lives in this unique country.

Boet, we've never had it easy. The English took over the country from the Dutch twice. We were betrayed by the local tribes, and massacred at times. But we also gave them good at times. What catastrophe will ever match the poverty, genocide and war that the Boer Wars affected our people with? We were largely without property, illiterate, skill-less... but made one hell of a comeback. Remember when our forefathers weren't allowed to own property at all? The settlers had to fight the Dutch government for that right.

Right now we have some of the poorest people in the continent, the highest AIDS rate, crime rate, yet also some of the smartest people, the richest and largest middle-class, the best universities on the continent, a flourishing arms industry, more minerals that anyone could ever want, the Cape route, 45 million people of all races...

That's my positive post for the day.

[boet faas]

That is where you are wrong, there are perfect solutions for Africa. US foreign policy kills Africans by the thousands but I geuss they make up for it when they send food and medicine to still their conscience. Us foreign policy screwed the civilians of Sierro Leone when a UN brokered peace deal placed the murderers back into power to keep on murdering. US foreign policy screwed the DRC when George H W Bush hailed Moboto Sese Seko as a friend of America becuase he supplies casserite at bargain prices to the US at a great human cost to the DRC through his corrupt and murderous practises. Foreign policy screwed Burundi when a 100000 Hutus were killed because Africa does not feature on the foreign policy. It is for these reason that organizations such as Al-Quada gets access to Africans and their rich recourses to fund their terrorist activities.

[Rudolph]

That is where you are wrong, there are perfect solutions for Africa. US foreign policy kills Africans by the thousands but I geuss they make up for it when they send food and medicine to still their conscience. Us foreign policy screwed the civilians of Sierro Leone when a UN brokered peace deal placed the murderers back into power to keep on murdering. US foreign policy screwed the DRC when George H W Bush hailed Moboto Sese Seko as a friend of America becuase he supplies casserite at bargain prices to the US at a great human cost to the DRC through his corrupt and murderous practises. Foreign policy screwed Burundi when a 100000 Hutus were killed because Africa does not feature on the foreign policy. It is for these reason that organizations such as Al-Quada gets access to Africans and their rich recourses to fund their terrorist activities.

We also supported Zaire, UNITA, and any dictator who was willing to work with the apartheid government. Knowing full well the atrocities they were committing. Iran supplied us oil when no one else would, did we approve of their internal policies?

[boet faas]

The difference is that our dealings with them did not cause world catastrophes. Iran at the time of our dealings were not even a player in world events apart from the fact that they held the US embassy hostage for a while. So that argument is void. UNITA was fighting a war, a war that we did not start, or aggravate but had to respond to in order protect our interests, and **** happens in wars. All sides in Angola were responsible for atrocities but that was not our war. We dont own the UN to make those kinds of decisions so that argument is also void. As for Zaire, I am not sure what endeavors we had with them or what atrocities they committed. But with each example I mentioned above, the US had a direct responsibility to bring change becuase of the senior role they play in the UN and when you play that, I am the boss game, you take responsibility for it. The UN is the onlyn body in the world that can actualy make these changes and make them stick and it is their responsibility. So how can the US, which owns the UN, set themselves apart from those responsibilities beacuase it is not part of their foreign policy. That is corrupt.

[sinophile]

...the US had a direct responsibility to bring change becuase of the senior role they play in the UN and when you play that, I am the boss game, you take responsibility for it. The UN is the onlyn body in the world that can actualy make these changes and make them stick and it is their responsibility. So how can the US, which owns the UN, set themselves apart from those responsibilities beacuase it is not part of their foreign policy. That is corrupt.

I'm not clear on what the US could have done to have positively impacted the torrent of corruption, tribalism, immature leadership and tragically AIDS that ended SA's ascension to world power status after the fall of aparthied. How was the US to have weathered these storms to the benefit of SA?

Frankly there are limits to the effects of US intervention and perhaps its enough SA didn't fall to the Soviets.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

I for one am filled with patriotic pride to witness the godlike power that some believe the US wields. It would seem that as long as the US does things right, everything will be just fine. Bad people doing bad things aren't to blame - only the US could be to blame for failing to stop them. All other world bodies are powerless, nobody is responsible for themselves - there are no other players involved - it's just the grand puppetmaster of planet Earth, the USA, waking up in the morning, eating a high-cholesterol breakfast, and deciding what it feels like doing today. Besides being a darned tidy way of looking at things, it certainly absolves everybody else of having to lift a hand to fix things, or be accountable when the go wrong.

But consider that if the US does indeed wield such world-shaking power, then I dare say that it must be doing something right, and on balance, not enough of these alleged chickens are coming home to roost for it to matter much. It wouldn't really make much sense to criticize the foreign policy that's created and continues to feed the world's 800lb gorilla, now would it? I'd hope that anybody trying to sell this worldview should be smart enough to realize that such a fiction violates it's own premise.

[SoftLion]

I for one am filled with patriotic pride to witness the godlike power that some believe the US wields. It would seem that as long as the US does things right, everything will be just fine. Bad people doing bad things aren't to blame - only the US could be to blame for failing to stop them. All other world bodies are powerless, nobody is responsible for themselves - there are no other players involved - it's just the grand puppetmaster of planet Earth, the USA, waking up in the morning, eating a high-cholesterol breakfast, and deciding what it feels like doing today. Besides being a darned tidy way of looking at things, it certainly absolves everybody else of having to lift a hand to fix things, or be accountable when the go wrong.

But consider that if the US does indeed wield such world-shaking power, then I dare say that it must be doing something right, and on balance, not enough of these alleged chickens are coming home to roost for it to matter much. It wouldn't really make much sense to criticize the foreign policy that's created and continues to feed the world's 800lb gorilla, now would it? I'd hope that anybody trying to sell this worldview should be smart enough to realize that such a fiction violates it's own premise.

As they say, quoted for truth

[Rudolph]

I for one am filled with patriotic pride to witness the godlike power that some believe the US wields. It would seem that as long as the US does things right, everything will be just fine. Bad people doing bad things aren't to blame - only the US could be to blame for failing to stop them. All other world bodies are powerless, nobody is responsible for themselves - there are no other players involved - it's just the grand puppetmaster of planet Earth, the USA, waking up in the morning, eating a high-cholesterol breakfast, and deciding what it feels like doing today. Besides being a darned tidy way of looking at things, it certainly absolves everybody else of having to lift a hand to fix things, or be accountable when the go wrong.

But consider that if the US does indeed wield such world-shaking power, then I dare say that it must be doing something right, and on balance, not enough of these alleged chickens are coming home to roost for it to matter much. It wouldn't really make much sense to criticize the foreign policy that's created and continues to feed the world's 800lb gorilla, now would it? I'd hope that anybody trying to sell this worldview should be smart enough to realize that such a fiction violates it's own premise.

I demand to have our AIDS ridden chicken back!! Oh, wait...

[wilhelm]

Believe it or not, there was a part of Project Coast that looked at biological weapons that were effective according to skin pigmentation. Whether this was funded beyond academic analysis only I'm unsure, bit Wouter Basson himself has confirmed this project within a project....

[Connaught Ranger]

It is not rubbish at all. That was part of the Project coast experiments for what Wouter Basson got into trouble for. It was never utilised and i am sure they would have made contingency in the case of it being used. But it is factual and were experimented with at Laboratory level by Wouter Basson.

More than likely never used because it did not work outside the strictly controlled laboratory testing conditions.:roll:

Many things work well in labs but are not very practical in the real world.

Connaught Ranger.

[Calanen]

More than likely never used because it did not work outside the strictly controlled laboratory testing conditions.:roll:

Many things work well in labs but are not very practical in the real world.

Connaught Ranger.

And many things do work well in the real world after working well in labs. Otherwise they wouldnt bother having labs.

[Rudolph]

And many things do work well in the real world after working well in labs. Otherwise they wouldnt bother having labs.

You get race specific medicine, so it's not all bad.

[Rudolph]

And many things do work well in the real world after working well in labs. Otherwise they wouldnt bother having labs.

I guess if anyone was gonna accomplish that at the time, it would be doctor Wouter Basson.

Translated from:

Magnus Malan: My Lewe Saam met die SA Weermag, 2006.

P. 412.

"During the Basson trial testimony was also given from an overseas delegation who reported to pres. Mandela in the presence of National Intelligence-personnel, as to South Africa's capabilities in terms of chemical and biological study.
"It's said the delegation indicated that South Africa surpassed even the USA in this field, but he could not with any certainty confirm that they had also surpassed the Soviet Union.
"It's assumed that on this delegation's recommendation the President, against state regulations, reappointed dr. Wouter Basson to a job in the civil service."

Brilliant man. He is credited for our CBW program and still receives a salary of R50,000 per month from the military and is also a top surgeon in private practise.

[boet faas]

I for one am filled with patriotic pride to witness the godlike power that some believe the US wields. It would seem that as long as the US does things right, everything will be just fine. Bad people doing bad things aren't to blame - only the US could be to blame for failing to stop them. All other world bodies are powerless, nobody is responsible for themselves - there are no other players involved - it's just the grand puppetmaster of planet Earth, the USA, waking up in the morning, eating a high-cholesterol breakfast, and deciding what it feels like doing today. Besides being a darned tidy way of looking at things, it certainly absolves everybody else of having to lift a hand to fix things, or be accountable when the go wrong.

But consider that if the US does indeed wield such world-shaking power, then I dare say that it must be doing something right, and on balance, not enough of these alleged chickens are coming home to roost for it to matter much. It wouldn't really make much sense to criticize the foreign policy that's created and continues to feed the world's 800lb gorilla, now would it? I'd hope that anybody trying to sell this worldview should be smart enough to realize that such a fiction violates it's own premise.

The reason people think the US wields godlike power is because they own the UN. And nothing in this world is done without strict permission from the UN. The US went to war in Iraq without thorough authorisation from the UN, again an example of how much power they do yield. I would just like to see this power being put to better use. I am just wondering if the US would have accepted the same resolutions from the UN as what they placed on Sierra Leone and the blind eye they turned on Burundi. I do realise that the US does not specifically want to sacrifice the lives of US soldiers for African intervention as nobody else wants to, but if you are in a position of power where you are capable of directing major change, then that should be used to great effect and Africa unfortunately are not seeing the better effect of that. And I am wondering why?

[Calanen]

And I am wondering why?


Because America has better things to do, like saving itself from collapsing.

And nobody really appreciates America's help - let's see how they go when it is not around to provide that help.

[Laconian]

I missed the part where the US began ownership of the UN and the world began to respect and adhere to what the UN says. Since the UN was formed there have been probably a hundred wars launched w/o approval of the UN. How many of those were successfully brought to peaceable conclusion as a direct result of the UN brokering the peace? So by your reasoning the US, because it is the parent corporation of the UN, is responsible for all of this?

[Rudolph]

I missed the part where the US began ownership of the UN and the world began to respect and adhere to what the UN says. Since the UN was formed there have been probably a hundred wars launched w/o approval of the UN. How many of those were successfully brought to peaceable conclusion as a direct result of the UN brokering the peace? So by your reasoning the US, because it is the parent corporation of the UN, is responsible for all of this?

The days of the West ruling the UN is long gone, has been for since the Cold War days. The UN is a joke in any case, just look how many dictatorships have been/and are members. What about the appointment of South Africa on the Security Council? Or Zimbabwe on what... sustainable development? What happened to cleaning your own backyard first?

[boet faas]

I missed the part where the US began ownership of the UN and the world began to respect and adhere to what the UN says. Since the UN was formed there have been probably a hundred wars launched w/o approval of the UN. How many of those were successfully brought to peaceable conclusion as a direct result of the UN brokering the peace? So by your reasoning the US, because it is the parent corporation of the UN, is responsible for all of this?

Then I suppose it is easier to say that the US uses the UN to get what they want legally that would otherwise be illegal?

[LRPV]

I believe the current situation is that without a Security Council seat and veto, the UN would have chucked the US out the door. The UN is becoming a discredited organisation run by cartels of dictators and discredited regimes. The one vote per country chicken has hatched...

[tea drinker]

I like chicken.

Just sayin'

Colonel Sanders is happy.... p-)

[boet faas]

Colonel Sanders is happy.... p-)

That bloke read "roast" and not roost.

[boet faas]

Is it just me or is the average American not aware of just how involved the US is with world events? The US is the one country people love to hate.

[Erik2a4]

Is it just me or is the average American not aware of just how involved the US is with world events? The US is the one country people love to hate.

What's an "average American?"

There's 305 million of us.

Look, if you're having a bad day, go to the gym.

[sinophile]

Is it just me or is the average American not aware of just how involved the US is with world events? The US is the one country people love to hate.

You're are poorly informed. Let me help you. The UN routinely votes against the US (most recently on Cuba and the UN's own budget). In fact its even worse then you know. For example:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/TradeandForeignAid/images/bg1186tab1.gif

http://www.heritage.org/Research/TradeandForeignAid/images/bg1186tab2.gif



(2) You have enough problems in SA. Why don't you post on an SA forum about solutions to this:


New virus from Arenaviridae family in South Africa and Zambia - Update
13 October 2008 -- The results of tests conducted at the Special Pathogens Unit, National Institute for Communicable Diseases (NICD) of the National Health Laboratory Service in Johannesburg, and at the Special Pathogens and Infectious Disease Pathology branches of the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta, USA, provide preliminary evidence that the causative agent of the disease which has resulted in the recent deaths of 3 people from Zambia and South Africa, is a virus from the Arenaviridae family.
Analysis continues at the NICD and CDC in order to characterize this virus more fully. CDC and NICD are technical partners in the Global Outbreak Alert and Response Network (GOARN).
Meanwhile, a new case has been confirmed by PCR in South Africa. A nurse who had close contact with an earlier case has become ill, and has been admitted to hospital. Contacts have been identified and are being followed-up.

[California Joe]

Is it just me or is the average American not aware of just how involved the US is with world events? The US is the one country people love to hate.

The UN has about as much credibility as the IOC at this point. Christ, even if we decided to do something grand and humanitarian everywhere we'd end up looking like bigger assholes. The average American thinks we should be more involved in a positive way in the world. Because we, as a people tend to see a problem, or a genocide and think. "That's f*cked up, we should put a stop to that, we're America goddamnit, that's what we do." Then politicians and UN concerns and international clusterf*cks get involved and it gets pushed off to a new administration.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

I understand. But eventually, the reality of the situation, like say for the White Farmers in Zimbabwe, however much it is home - means that it's time to leave. If you reach that point - put sentimentality out of your mind and go. Home can be wherever you have friends and safety.

There is considerably more whites in South Africa then there was in Zimbabwe.

The key for South Africa is to be able to get through the current generation of leaders. Once the old guard of the ANC leaves things should start to getting better.

The biggest problem I see that South Africa faces is the inclusion of the wider population into the economy and the combating of AIDS.

Education is also very important. The better educated society is, the better judgment's that they can make when voting in elections and when actually in office.

[Bia]

I think it is just you. Not exactly rocket science. The point is the mere fact that Iran and Pakistan have nuclear capabilities was becuase the the US was so hasty in getting SA to quit its nuclear program that they did not cover all the aspects of the consequences. And now the world is in a virtual state of emergency because of the stand-off between the US and Iran.
You're wrong.

And possibly insane.

[Calanen]

The biggest problem I see that South Africa faces is the inclusion of the wider population into the economy and the combating of AIDS.


AIDS is not as problematic as rampant crime on the streets, armed robberies, carjackings, muggings - it is one of the most dangerous places on the planet outside of warzones. People in certain parts of South Africa live under siege.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

As I said. Bring the wider population into the economy and you will see crime rates drop dramatically.

You can have as many police on the streets as you want. But if the conditions that cause crime are still there so will crime.

[Calanen]

As I said. Bring the wider population into the economy and you will see crime rates drop dramatically.

You can have as many police on the streets as you want. But if the conditions that cause crime are still there so will crime.

And how do you do that? There will always be crime if people think they can get away with it.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

Crime is a factor of life unfortunately.

Take Australia for example. Excluding the booze culture violence. Which suburbs generally have the higher rate of crime? Suburbs with high unemployment and low socio-economic conditions?

You will find more people in Cessnock Gaol from places like Windale, Macquarie Fields ect then you would from place like Rose Bay or McMahons Point.

[Kilgor]

And how do you do that? There will always be crime if people think they can get away with it.

Zero tolerance worked in New York.

Much crime is opportunity.

[richyrichard]

From your post i think you don't believe me. Anyway that doesn't change facts. The short of it is that SA started with a civillian newclear project in the 1950's and by the 80's we had 6 neclear bombs of the gun barrel type, the same as what used on Hiroshima. What makes it intersting that all rogue states are now studying the SA method as it was accomplished under sanctions and in halve the time any one else did it. On top of that did we manage to develope new technologies for the process so advanced that we tried to sell it in the US market. By the time SA kicked communism out of Africa and nailed the final nail in the soviet coffin the cold war ended which immediately removed the thread of a communist war in southern africa, SA was able to negotiate the end of Apartheid. But the US wanted a full dismantling of our military nuclear capability as a further prerequisite before suspending sanctions against us. We complied in good will but our trading partners at the time, Iran and Pakistan bought much of the technology from the SA companies involved as there were no embargo of any kind on it and they had to do something to survive. The Iranian intercontinental missile is an eact replica of the RSA-1,2,3 series missiles as well as the Israeli shavit 1,2,3 missile range. SA and Israel developed it together.

I think the main problem with South Africa is who is running things, not policy. If South Africa was still run by whites, everything would be fine. One cannot put nuclear weapons in the hands of kaffir and expect an intelligent response.

___________________________
www.richard-t-osborne.com (http://www.richard-t-osborne.com)
www.lonewolfsurvivalist.com (http://www.lonewolfsurvivalist.com)

[richyrichard]

As I said. Bring the wider population into the economy and you will see crime rates drop dramatically.

You can have as many police on the streets as you want. But if the conditions that cause crime are still there so will crime.


Crime is caused by criminals, meaning those who are ****e to crime, regardless of the environment, social conditions, or whether someone bumped their head as a child.

You can educate a criminal and all you will get is an educated criminal. You can socialize a criminal and all you will get is a socialized criminal. You can pour $10 million dollars into a ghetto, and all you will get is a $10 million dollar ghetto.

___________________________
www.richard-t-osborne.com (http://www.richard-t-osborne.com)
www.lonewolfsurvivalist.com (http://www.lonewolfsurvivalist.com)

[boet faas]

What's an "average American?"

There's 305 million of us.

Look, if you're having a bad day, go to the gym.

If you somehow feel offended because you are an under average American maybe you should be on a couch and not on the web.

[boet faas]

As I said. Bring the wider population into the economy and you will see crime rates drop dramatically.

You can have as many police on the streets as you want. But if the conditions that cause crime are still there so will crime.

The economy is owned by the wider population. SA has strict BBBEE policies (Broad based black economic empowerment). But it is so corrupt that most tenders are awarded to Zimbabweans and other Africans. I am personally aware of a multi million Rand deal that went down the drain and left numerous SA companies with a lot of debt because the Zimbos got the contract, got some money and ducked. BBBEE is supposed to be for the upliftment of SA previous disadvantaged but the foreigners are pegging the big bucks out of it. According to law, it is only SA citizens that are allowed to benefit, but because of the corrupt nature of it this doesnt happen.

http://www.ioljobs.co.za/article_view.php?fArticleId=3324745

[Walker-69]

Edit: OOPS, sorry, I was replying to the first page, I didn't realize that there were five more pages of discussion!!!! My bad my bad my bad!!!

[boet faas]

You're are poorly informed. Let me help you. The UN routinely votes against the US (most recently on Cuba and the UN's own budget). In fact its even worse then you know. For example:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/TradeandForeignAid/images/bg1186tab1.gif

http://www.heritage.org/Research/TradeandForeignAid/images/bg1186tab2.gif



(2) You have enough problems in SA. Why don't you post on an SA forum about solutions to this:

New virus from Arenaviridae family in South Africa and Zambia - Update
13 October 2008 -- The results of tests conducted at the Special Pathogens Unit, National Institute for Communicable Diseases (NICD) of the National Health Laboratory Service in Johannesburg, and at the Special Pathogens and Infectious Disease Pathology branches of the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta, USA, provide preliminary evidence that the causative agent of the disease which has resulted in the recent deaths of 3 people from Zambia and South Africa, is a virus from the Arenaviridae family.
Analysis continues at the NICD and CDC in order to characterize this virus more fully. CDC and NICD are technical partners in the Global Outbreak Alert and Response Network (GOARN).
Meanwhile, a new case has been confirmed by PCR in South Africa. A nurse who had close contact with an earlier case has become ill, and has been admitted to hospital. Contacts have been identified and are being followed-up.


The fact remains that most of those issues voted against were probably some or other mediocre issue and does not include all msjor issues in particular the ones I deal with. Here is an intersting stat:

"The U.S. pays 22 percent of the U.N.'s operating budget, the largest of any county, yet this should not be our only reason for pushing reform," Coleman said.
"At the end of day, we need a credible institution that has ability to lead an international response to global problems like nuclear proliferation, the horrifying spread of HIV-AIDS, economic and political rebuilding in war-torn regions, and worldwide poverty."
CNN State Department Correspondent Andrea Koppel, CNN's Evan Glass on Capitol Hill and Lauren Rivera at the U.N. contributed to this story.

There is no way you will convince me that the US does not own the UN. They don't fork out this amount of money because they think it is for a good cause, not even the US would be that naive. The UN is owned and paid for. The US cracks the whip in the UN and their dealings with African conflicts leaves allot to be desired.
http://i.cnn.net/cnn/images/1.gif

[Rudolph]

This thread has just been killed...

PLEASE refrain from racists comments.

[Rudolph]

There is considerably more whites in South Africa then there was in Zimbabwe.

True. At the current, there are still 18 times more whites now, than there were at the height in Rhodesia. And many live in areas they populated first, since there were no tribes preciding over but small areas of the land.


The key for South Africa is to be able to get through the current generation of leaders. Once the old guard of the ANC leaves things should start to getting better.

One guy mentioned something interesting yesterday, that Mandela's generation of ANC leaders all have university degrees, while the next generation which are now leading, like Zuma, are the "burn down schools" (literally-that was an policy) generation which are largely clueless when it comes to running proper government because they chose no education, over what was offered back then.


Education is also very important. The better educated society is, the better judgment's that they can make when voting in elections and when actually in office.

At least by 1985, the number of black students earning a university degree per year had risen to over 20,000.

But after kicking out the normal educated people, they have replaced them by ministers will little or no education, and now....

SA education gets an 'F': (http://wrs.yahoo.com/_ylt=A1f4bVfMTvRIhw4BRWV3hAx.;_ylu=X3oDMTExZ281dWU3BHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMQRjb2xvA3VrbAR2dGlkAwRsA1dTMQ--/SIG=145egdj3o/EXP=1224056908/**http%3A//www.iol.co.za/index.php%3Ffrom=rss_Education%26set_id=1%26click_id=105%26art_id=vn20080407103924874C899355)

"After fourteen years of so-called equal education, the government has produced less. We have a major problem in our schools," he said.

By tracking the 2005 group of grade 10s over time, the report shows that only slightly more than half of these pupils wrote the SCE two years later and only 34,4 percent of the original group passed grade 12.

Less than 8 percent of the original group qualified to attend university and only 2,4 percent of them passed mathematics at higher grade."

"Kane-Berman noted that a recent international study comparing the reading skills of 4th graders in 40 countries placed South Africa last, behind Morocco, Kuwait, Qatar and Indonesia."

[boet faas]

Just an interesting fact that came to my intention. The UN world food programme are not aiding white pensioners in Zimbabwe who are also desolate and hungry because they say it is not politically correct. Who are the major backers of the WFP? It is the UK, Europe and the US.
http://www.helpendehand.co.za/?p=182

This is a Non profit organization in SA out te help the thousands of white people without income in absolute poverty. The SA government's racial policies deny these people the even the most crude public services because they are not covered under their policies. Now it seems that the UN got in on the act of discriminating against white Africans. The article is unfortunately in Afrikaans so I will translate and come back with it.

[Erik2a4]

If you somehow feel offended because you are an under average American maybe you should be on a couch and not on the web.

I was allowing you the opportunity to recategorize your argument since you tend to use a lot of fallacies. While trying to get you to "lighten up."

Case in point, using an ad hominem attack: doesn't help your case.

However, since you love to stereotype an entire nation of people and a foreign policy of more than 30 years, I will do the same: you certaintly sound like another Botha and a very angry calvinist. Obviously no one is going to change your mind, and you aren't going to change anyone else's mind. So there's no point in having an "argument."

Rudolph, good comments.

[richyrichard]

This thread has just been killed...

PLEASE refrain from racists comments.

If the problem in SA is race-based, then the solution must be race-based. Those who settled and developed SA must reclaim control over it. There is no other solution.

[Rudolph]

If the problem in SA is race-based, then the solution must be race-based. Those who settled and developed SA must reclaim control over it. There is no other solution.

It's not gonna happen. The West and Europe tried to economically cripple South Africa through sanctions, which caused considerable job losses amongst the black population, which would have lead to much more unrest (what many had hoped for, no doubt), so a peaceful hand-over was necessary, especially since the Cold War had ended.

We now just have to make the best of what is left.

[boet faas]

I was allowing you the opportunity to recategorize your argument since you tend to use a lot of fallacies. While trying to get you to "lighten up."

Case in point, using an ad hominem attack: doesn't help your case.

However, since you love to stereotype an entire nation of people and a foreign policy of more than 30 years, I will do the same: you certaintly sound like another Botha and a very angry calvinist. Obviously no one is going to change your mind, and you aren't going to change anyone else's mind. So there's no point in having an "argument."

Rudolph, good comments.
If you are hinting to PW Botha I will take that as a compliment, as far as Calvinism is concerned not a chance, to Amish for me. I just find it strange that Europeans and other people get what I am on about but Americans steer away from the issue with loads of sideline comments and they don't understand etc. Is it to close for comfort to see that some foreign policy blunders are coming back to haunt you?

Where did Iran get its nuclear technology from? Mostly from Pakistan and the AQ Khan network. Where did Pakistan get it from? Mostly from 200 or so technicians and scientists that found themselves without a job within 2 months because the US wanted a hasty disarmement. Now if you are willing to concede that Iran, Iraq, 911 and terrorism is not chickens coming home to roost then you must go do your research again. The foreign policy blunder of not winning hearts and minds of the Afghans after the Soviets left created Al-Qaeda and subsequently 911. Current world affairs are at a dangerous junction because if these mistakes. The reason why I think the US is solely responsible for all the SA missile and nuclear technology falling in the wrong hands are because after the UN were willing to stop sanctions the US intervened and said they will still embargo SA under economic sanctions if they dont dismantle all this technology very fast. SA complied and did most of it in a year or less but the technicians and scientists were without a job within two months. Maybe it was inexperience or maybe the US were naive but they screwed up big time because of today. What will the 10 odd thousand American casulties of war say if they find out it could actually been avoided if their leaders did a bit more home work. I would be p****d.

[Jobu]

Taking nukes away from some racists in SA was a blunder because 20 years later some other nutjobs in another country decided to start building 'em?


LOL, okay dude.

[boet faas]

It's not gonna happen. The West and Europe tried to economically cripple South Africa through sanctions, which caused considerable job losses amongst the black population, which would have lead to much more unrest (what many had hoped for, no doubt), so a peaceful hand-over was necessary, especially since the Cold War had ended.

We now just have to make the best of what is left.
I agree. But we cannot solve any of the problems with racial policies still part of the everyday SA and with corruption and incompetence as great as it is. The crime solution for instance is to mount police in Casspirs for their own protection and to go seek out to these violent criminals in the slumps where they hide and pic them out, but the new government does not want a recollection of a hardline crime fighting unit back in the township as this will remind them of Apartheid and also the police are to scared because they will have to go to a gunfight taking a Swiss army knife. Also tribalism. A Zulu policeman will hardly arrest a couple of Zulu trouble makers because of fear of retribution. It is a vicious circle of scenarios that the current government will never be able to overcome.

And I still believe that FW and his Lieutenants could have done more to retain more power in the negotiations.

[boet faas]

Taking nukes away from some racists in SA was a blunder because 20 years later some other nutjobs in another country decided to start building 'em?


LOL, okay dude.

The truth is sometime stranger that fiction. Huh dude?

[Indiana Jones]

I think the main problem with South Africa is who is running things, not policy. If South Africa was still run by whites, everything would be fine. One cannot put nuclear weapons in the hands of kaffir and expect an intelligent response.


You do realize that "Kaffir" is a fairly serious slur in Saffie parlance, I presume ?

[boet faas]

You do realize that "Kaffir" is a fairly serious slur in Saffie parlance, I presume ?
In SA you can get killed for using that word, but the origins are actually Muslim based. The Muslim refers to heathen as a Kaffir. Not entirely sure where our ancestors picked up on that but it stuck as the black tribes were considered to be heathen by our ancestors they were referred to as Kaffirs.

If anyone has played Assassins Creed, they will hear how the Muslims in there shout Kaffir when they see the assassin.

[Jobu]

The truth is sometime stranger that fiction. Huh dude?

Uh, no dude.

Maybe you haven't come to this realization yet but the world is not a static place dictated by America's past foreign policy actions. Other countries would be building nukes, and indeed will be building nukes, no matter what happened in South Africa 20 years ago.

Who's to say they might not be even more advanced in their efforts today had SA been allowed to keep their nukes?

And think of it like this, would you want Zuma or Mbeki in control of a nuclear arsenal today? I sure wouldn't.

[boet faas]

Uh, no dude.

Maybe you haven't come to this realization yet but the world is not a static place dictated by America's past foreign policy actions. Other countries would be building nukes, and indeed will be building nukes, no matter what happened in South Africa 20 years ago.

Who's to say they might not be even more advanced in their efforts today had SA been allowed to keep their nukes?

And think of it like this, would you want Zuma or Mbeki in control of a nuclear arsenal today? I sure wouldn't.
I dont agree. What you are saying is not factual. You need to understand the complexities involved with building nukes and delivery systems. If they did not get anything from SA they would still have been searching as SA was the only place in the world where that type of technology were eccessible. It is not to say they would never have acquired it although that does have some truth in it, but they would certainly not have had it today. Maybe another 20 to 30 years I think. And maybe you just need to catch a bit of a wake up, because the static environment the world is in today is most certainly because of Americas past foreign policy failures.

I also dont want the current SA powers to have nukes, but then again I also dont want them to have power. My point is that the whole debacle of them in power and us without nukes and Iran and Pakistan with nukes etc. are just wrong.

[Jobu]

If they did not get anything from SA they would still have been searching as SA was the only place in the world where that type of technology were eccessible. It is not to say they would never have acquired it although that does have some truth in it, but they would certainly not have had it today. Maybe another 20 to 30 years I think.



I'd like to see what you base this claim on.

Simple fact is nobody knows if they would be further advanced today or not. Nor do we know what an irresponsible South African government, whether it be the racists prior or the corrupt ANC present, would have done with their nuclear "secrets."

A case can be made that other nations would be far more advanced today in their efforts at building nukes because the morons in SA government would have been selling and trading their nuclear expertise.

The only fact here is this:

SA was not trusted with a nuclear arsenal.


Whether or not other nations that are building them can be trusted in the future does not change that.

[boet faas]

I'd like to see what you base this claim on.

The only fact here is this:

SA was not trusted with a nuclear arsenal.


Whether or not other nations that are building them can be trusted in the future does not change that.
How do you know SA were not trusted with a nuclear arsenal? Yet again you vomit stuff with which you have no knowledge about whatsoever. SA did not produce nukes to hold the world hostage, they produced it as a deterrence. That is factual. Iran doesn't have a Soviet army massed on her borders with nukes and biological weapons why are they into it? To hold the world hostage, that is factual. SA could not rely on the west to help keep Communist expansion at bay, they had to rely on themselves, just as the US has to rely on itself for their economy, nobody will help out if the SHTF. That was what the US based their economy on for a long time.

SA had most of the East-bloc countries on her borders trying to overthrow her to get access to the mineral wealth and strategic sea routes. What would the US do. I'll tell you what they did. They went into a nuke arms race to get to commies of her back. So get your facts straight dude.

[Jobu]

How do you know SA were not trusted with a nuclear arsenal?



Were they allowed to keep their nukes?

No? I guess they weren't trusted.

[boet faas]

Were they allowed to keep their nukes?

No? I guess they weren't trusted.
Yet again it is not about guesses, it is about facts. It was not a question of allowed or not, it was a question of choice with incentives. Why is only the us trusted with nukes or the West for that matter? Who decides? What do they base that decision on? Nobody but the US made such a big hooha about our nukes. It is all about the strategic balance that the US wants to head. Own selfish interests.

[Rudolph]

You gotta admit though, it's very clear that the USA did trust the previous government. They allowed us to have nuclear technology until after the 1989 peace treaty was signed, and it was only in January 1990 that they informed pres. De Klerk of their wish for us to disarm, or else... Remember, the ANC was still classified as a terrorist organization in the USA and Europe during the 1980's. But they had no illusion that the ANC would win the election and knowing their background and communist influence, they couldn't take a chance. Some info leaked out, that is logical to assume. But I've seen no facts. I saw a documentary on the Pakistan nuclear program on Carte Blanche and they trained their top scientist in the Netherlands. He did have a factory in South Africa making components, but so did he in many other countries.

[boet faas]

But I've seen no facts. I saw a documentary on the Pakistan nuclear program on Carte Blanche and they trained their top scientist in the Netherlands. He did have a factory in South Africa making components, but so did he in many other countries.
Then you must be reading the wrong books. Charles V. Pick a senior bloke at Globalsecurity.org made the connection between the Pakistani Shaheen-II delivery system and the SA\Israeli Jericho 2 system. And out of nowhere Pakistan produced a flawless nuke and delivery system on its first attempt. They are a sketchily industrialised hird world country. That technology had to come from somewhere. Somewhere where the delivery systems were exact replicas. That is more than enough facts. Circumstantial but highly suspect. And nowhere else in the world were anybody busy proliferating or working on this type of technology apart from Iraq. But there were fundamental differences between what Saddam produced and Pakistan.

[Rudolph]

^^^

I must still read Al J. Venter's book. I know he's a respected journalist.

[Rudolph]

SA has shown how to build 'the bomb' (http://www.thestar.co.za/?fSectionId=&fArticleId=vn20080518091408671C106473)

18 May 2008, 09:38
By James Mitchell

"If al-Qaeda or any other revolutionary group or rogue state were to consider building the bomb, they would almost certainly have to walk the same path South Africa did in the 1970s and 1980s to achieve that objective."

This assertion sets the tone for a soon-to-be published examination of how South Africa built six atom bombs and then abandoned its nuclear weapons programme.

Indeed, that's the title of a new book - the third by local writer Al J Venter to deal with the vexed issue of nuclear weapons proliferation.

The old South African regime always insisted it would resist threats to national survival with all the force at its command. So what force was available to Pretoria, and how would it have been utilised?

South Africa's nuclear deterrence strategy was developed with some sophistication and "based on three phases", the final aim of which was to obtain Western assistance in the case of an overwhelming military threat.

The first phase was a "strategic uncertainty during which the regime's nuclear capability would be neither acknowledged nor denied", writes Venter.

If the country were threatened militarily, it would move to phase two.

The government would covertly acknowledge the existence of its nuclear weapons to leading Western governments, particularly to the United States.

If phase two failed to persuade the international community to come to South Africa's assistance, the government would move to phase three: it would publicly acknowledge its capability or demonstrate it with an underground test.

This policy required a credible nuclear weapon. And, according to Armscor officials, credibility required deliverability.

"If the nuclear devices were only test devices, the Western powers might not take South Africa's threat seriously enough to intervene on its behalf."

Venter describes the six devices that were eventually constructed as "clumsy and over-large", noting that "some pundits have described them as 'museum pieces'".

They were "gun-type" weapons, in which a large slug of uranium was fired into a uranium sphere to achieve critical mass, and were of the same type as the "Little Boy" atom bomb dropped by the US on Hiroshima in August 1945.

The "elegance of design" so beloved by engineers was sometimes lacking. Indeed, there was more than a whiff of 'n boer maak 'n plan. But the devices were certainly deliverable, initially by the squadron of modified British-built Buccaneer strike aircraft operated by the South African Air Force (SAAF).

Much more was in the pipeline than the first basic, air-droppable gravity bombs. Development of smaller implosion-type devices was under way.

An airborne, stand-off glide bomb was being constructed, plus surprisingly sophisticated ballistic missiles - the latter with more than a little Israeli assistance. (Any doubts about the existence of these delivery systems can be allayed by a visit to the SAAF Museum, near Pretoria, where the last surviving missile remains on display.)

Venter describes in his book - due out next week from Ashanti Publishing - how South Africa's nuclear capability was developed in obsessive, near-total secrecy from a relatively small industrial and scientific base. Quickly, too - in half the time it took, say, Pakistan.

Despite equivocation - continuing to this day - it now seems clear a nuclear device was tested in the South Atlantic Ocean on September 22, 1979. As much was admitted by Aziz Pahad, the deputy foreign minister, in 1997.

Although he later retracted his statement, it was too late, the claim having been confirmed by the US embassy in Pretoria, whose operatives consistently sought to spy on the South African efforts.

It was further confirmed by Tyler Drumheller, a retired CIA operative - once based in this country - who wrote just two years ago: "We had operational successes, most importantly regarding Pretoria's nuclear capability. My sources collectively provided incontrovertible evidence that the apartheid government had, in fact, tested a nuclear bomb in the South Atlantic in 1979, and that they had developed a delivery system with assistance from the Israelis."

Venter writes that there remains doubt about whether there was ever a serious likelihood of the weapons being used.

If so, it occurred in the latter stages of the 1987 fighting in Angola, when forces led by Soviet General Konstantin Shaganovitch battled Jonas Savimbi's Unita and its South African allies.

"In the course of this, the event which presumably triggered the potential nuclear alert was a succession of intercepts of Angolan radio traffic which made mention of several unsuccessful attempts to fire shells loaded with poison gas at both the South Africans and the Unita fighters."

That scare led to the renewed, and successful, efforts to make peace in Angola and then South West Africa. In retrospect, this was the high point of confrontation: what followed was an easing of tension leading to President FW de Klerk's momentous decision to unban the ANC and release Nelson Mandela.

With that, he had removed the need for nuclear weapons and, indeed, these were dismantled, giving South Africa the unique distinction of being the only country to voluntarily renounce its nuclear defence capability. (One day, perhaps, the story may come out of just how much US pressure was applied to Pretoria to ensure that the ANC was unable to take over a nuclear-armed country.)

The relevance of South Africa's achievement to revolutionary groups such as al-Qaeda is made clear in pages - illustrated in the book - from a since-disabled Internet website.

These offered insight into possible weapons and delivery systems that terrorist networks like al-Qaeda might wish to obtain.

"Islamic fundamentalists, in particular, would be most interested to learn how South Africa did it," writes Venter."

Significant here is a series of lectures posted on to an international al-Qaeda jihadi website between October 2005 and January 2006 titled Nuclear Preparation Encyclopedia.

Though exposure lasted only months, there were 60 000 hits before it was disabled. What did appear provides a glimpse of the mindset of some of these zealots.

The pages "point to what might take place sometime in the future when this movement - never wanting for funds from its oil-rich backers - manages to recruit specialists who could take them the distance.

What has not been lost on any Western strategists is that, while he still strode tall throughout parts of Asia and much of the Middle East, AQ Khan was responsible for several Pakistani nuclear physicists visiting Osama bin Laden at his Afghan hideout.

"The frightening amorality of Khan, Pakistan's 'father of the Islamic bomb' who also happily dealt with 'rogue state' North Korea, set the tone for those in this country who were willing to pass on South African nuclear know-how to countries such as Libya and Iran."

It has been objected that, for groups such as al-Qaeda, the preferred route would be to purchase "second-hand" nukes, said to have "gone missing" when the Soviet Union fell apart. Other scare stories involved so-called "suitcase bombs" and atomic munitions supposedly buried within the continental US by Soviet agents at the height of the Cold War.

It seems, though, that the "missing nukes" story is more hype than reality, while the uranium cores of either "suitcase bombs" or buried atomic munitions would have decayed by now.

Thus, the central thesis of Venter's book remains: if revolutionaries or rogue states want to go nuclear, they will most likely follow the South African path. Most frightening: they do not seek such weapons for deterrence, but to use.

[sinophile]

This thread is going in circles.

[boet faas]

This thread is going in circles.
It is not going in circles, all of this is evidence of how serious the US should have taken the dismantling programme in SA but did not. SA is where it all started in 1989 and the problems the US is facing right now is as a result of a string of failures in their foreign policy on SA. They were to overeager and did not do their homework.

[SoCalEMT]

I believe I was made promises of chicken.

Thanks

[boet faas]

I believe I was made promises of chicken.

Thanks
This is not Kabul fried chicken (KFC). All you will find here is big bad ghosts from the past that haunts. Scared yet?

[Laconian]

It is not going in circles, all of this is evidence of how serious the US should have taken the dismantling programme in SA but did not. SA is where it all started in 1989 and the problems the US is facing right now is as a result of a string of failures in their foreign policy on SA. They were to overeager and did not do their homework.


That would've been 3 Presidents and their administrations ago. If you want to use that as a starting point for all of the world's current ills, go ahead. It doesn't change a thing. Just as the US is culpable for all that has come from this 9you say), so were France, England, the US (to a lesser extent) culpable for the rise of facism and then WWII, because of the position it put Germany in to elect Hitler to power. WWII made the US into a superpower, so all of this isn't our fault, either. What did that change? Nothing.

You're not getting a national apology. You're not getting restitution.

[SoCalEMT]

All you will find here is big bad ghosts from the past that haunts. Scared yet?

You mean that stripper in Dallas in 98'? Nah, I got checked out...all clean. Now, it's 13:00 and I'm hungry. Chicken?

KTHXBAI

[boet faas]

You mean that stripper in Dallas in 98'? Nah, I got checked out...all clean. Now, it's 13:00 and I'm hungry. Chicken?

KTHXBAI

Lol, you sure there's no critters about?

[boet faas]

That would've been 3 Presidents and their administrations ago. If you want to use that as a starting point for all of the world's current ills, go ahead. It doesn't change a thing. Just as the US is culpable for all that has come from this 9you say), so were France, England, the US (to a lesser extent) culpable for the rise of facism and then WWII, because of the position it put Germany in to elect Hitler to power. WWII made the US into a superpower, so all of this isn't our fault, either. What did that change? Nothing.

You're not getting a national apology. You're not getting restitution.
Lac' we are not talking about WWII and Hitler and that BS. That's for another topic. Maybe you would have been a bit more p****d if it influenced you directly. Awareness is all I am saying. I am not interested in apologies. Don'T you see the link in what happened in 1989 and what is happening now. One day when Iran fires that 1st nuke at Israel and America retaliates and Russia in turn retaliates on the US and you find yourself in the hot seat when that nukes hits your town. Maybe then you might think Iran should never have acquired that kind of technology. And maybe then you might start thinking where it all started, right in your back yard when the very people that were charged to protect you failed you beacause they did not do their homework.

[tea drinker]

This is not Kabul fried chicken (KFC). All you will find here is big bad ghosts from the past that haunts. Scared yet?
Yeah, what's the matter... CHICKEN?

[Calanen]

It is not going in circles, all of this is evidence of how serious the US should have taken the dismantling programme in SA but did not. SA is where it all started in 1989 and the problems the US is facing right now is as a result of a string of failures in their foreign policy on SA. They were to overeager and did not do their homework.


SA is not the centre of the universe, or even the centre of the globe.

SA is as it is, like Zimbabwe is where it is - because new governments got in and fubared the place. And that is not America's fault.

America has done so much good for the world which people overlook, and constantly criticise them for. Americans give more charity to the rest of the world from individuals, not government, than anyone anywhere. The US military is always around to deliver goods and supplies to people affected by disaster. How often does the Chinese navy sail around delivering aid? Not very often.

America and its allies prevented the Third Reich from remaining in Western Europe, and the USSR from remaining in Eastern Europe. That's a few billion people that got to lives their lives in freedom in large part because of the USA. The USA also picked up most of the financial bill for WW2 - even though the USSR contributed more people.

The freedom given to American people is most often used doggedly by the Left to run down their own country, and for the the remainder of the world to say how evil the USA is. In the running of governments, I see far more institutionalised evil in the countries that criticise the USA - in their sham courts, sham legislatures, and corrupt police forcs, and brutal treatment of dissent. Yet these places are most listened to when they criticise the USA, and they should have zero credibility.

After all that America has done for this planet - time and again - people still have their hands out and say, 'Well what have you done for us lately?'

[Bulletproof]

I was expecting something about chicken and thanksgiving... But no!

[boet faas]

SA is not the centre of the universe, or even the centre of the globe.
That is not entirely accurate. If you look at the world geographically from West to East SA is directly in the middle. That kinda makes it trhe centre of the globe I think.


America has done so much good for the world which people overlook, and constantly criticise them for.

I am not in one of those places where the good will of the American nation is to prevelant. I am not saying I dislike America, if was not for them I believe SA would have been more like Rwanda today than SA. Our multitudes are not to keen on law and order as what is obvious. They have done allot of good in this world. I am merely raising the point that thay are facing a very dangrous situation with Iran and their terrorist links because they made a blunder in SA in 1989. Is that link not obvious?

[Eat a bullet]

I was expecting something about chicken and thanksgiving... But no!
Of course not. What kind of a douchebag eats chicken? Turkey has more meat for Thanksgiving.

[Eat a bullet]

They have done allot of good in this world. I am merely raising the point that thay are facing a very dangrous situation with Iran and their terrorist links because they made a blunder in SA in 1989. Is that link not obvious?
I don't know, how ****ty is South Africa?