[BDiddy]

I have two main issues with this speech:

"We have not had world wars in 57 years, and it is because of the United Nations."

Funny, I would have thought that two nuclear countries scaring the out of each other would have had something to do with that.

"To want to decide for the people in Iraq what they should do with their government and with their leadership?"

Since when have the people of Iraq had any say in their government and leadership?

[Troll]

Originally posted by BDiddy:
I have two main issues with this speech:

Well, you're a bit late to the party

Originally posted by BDiddy:
Funny, I would have thought that two nuclear countries scaring the out of each other would have had something to do with that.

Actually, it wasn't just two countries. A number of countries including Mandela's own country have had nuclear weapons. It would be your opinion that the UN wasn't responsible for the peace. I'd give the UN credit for giving those countries an outlet.

Originally posted by BDiddy:
Since when have the people of Iraq had any say in their government and leadership?

Mandela's people had no say in their government and they didn't need Dubya to help them out. When he speaks of them resolving their problems, I think you have to give him a little more credit for knowing what he's talking about than you appear to be.

[theolein]

Originally posted by Troll:
I spent two years studying international relations with Winnie Mandela. Winnie managed to pass IR I after three attempts and followed me up to IR II where she got stuck for a few years after I moved on. Given that I usually arrived to class late, and she came in late for security reasons, we wound up sitting next to each other in the last available seats quite a lot. I had visions of being mown down in some assassination attempt. I don't know her well though. She probably wouldn't even recognise me and that's the way I'd like it to stay!!

Winnie seems to have taken the attitude that South Africa owes her for her work during the struggle. That consequently, she is above the law. Nelson dumped her not because of the things she'd been involved in during apartheid or his incarceration but because of what she did after apartheid had died. Nelson didn't have trouble with the law so much as the law had trouble with him. Getting involved in the murder of young black children, embezzling money, defrauding the state and private companies is not comparable with the reasons for Nelson's incarceration. Nothing un-classy about dumping a wife who went from being a freedom fighter to the Godfather.

Here, ou, jy is werklyk ooral gewees!

Winnie suffered a lot in the years that Nelson was in prison, including banning harrasment by the cops and other troubles. It was hard, no mistake. But one shouldn't forget that she wasn't alone. She had the support of the whole black community. But during the riots of the 80's, when the black townships were practically no go areas and blacks who were suspected of being police informers were "necklaced" (A car tire was shoved around there bodies, gasoline was poured over them and set alight) Winnie Mandela went on record as saying this was the right thing to do. Not only that but a young boy was murdered in her house in Soweto by her supporters and she covered it up. I remember it quite well. I was at university at the time.

After Nelson was released Winnie was given a lot of power in the ANC. She abused that power and was finally divorced by Nelson because of what she had become, but more importantly because of what she had lost: her honesty and her integrity.

[BDiddy]

Originally posted by Troll:
Actually, it wasn't just two countries. A number of countries including Mandela's own country have had nuclear weapons. It would be your opinion that the UN wasn't responsible for the peace. I'd give the UN credit for giving those countries an outlet.

These nations with nuclear capabilities were covered under a security blanket by either the US or USSR. They would never have made a move w/o their "master's" consent. Otherwise Israel would have gone nuclear some time ago, and Cuba would have leveled the East Coast of the USA (IMO). They didn't need the UN. Old fashioned fear prevented a third world war. PLUS, Russia was a member of the Security Council. The UNSC could never take an official stance on anything because either Russia or the US would veto it.

Originally posted by Troll:
Mandela's people had no say in their government and they didn't need Dubya to help them out. When he speaks of them resolving their problems, I think you have to give him a little more credit for knowing what he's talking about than you appear to be.

I grant you this, however, I wasn't arguing the point that a repressed people need or don't need the United States to help. I was simplying saying that Mandela said that the Iraqi people could choose their government and leadership, and this is completely untrue. Sure, Iraq had elections. I believe in the most recent election Saddam won with 100% of the vote. As I understand it, if you voted against Saddam you got shot. As a matter of fact, IIRC, you voted at gunpoint in Iraq.

[Troll]

Originally posted by theolein:
I remember it quite well. I was at university at the time.

That means you were there when I was!

[Troll]

Originally posted by BDiddy:
These nations with nuclear capabilities were covered under a security blanket by either the US or USSR.

Hmmm, whose security blanket was South Africa under? I don't think they would agree that they couldn't act without their master's consent.

Originally posted by BDiddy:
Mandela said that the Iraqi people could choose their government and leadership, and this is completely untrue.

I don't see the part where he says that. Where is it? The part you quoted doesn't say that: " To want to decide for the people in Iraq what they should do with their government and with their leadership?"

[BDiddy]

Originally posted by Troll:
Hmmm, whose security blanket was South Africa under? I don't think they would agree that they couldn't act without their master's consent.

Acutally, S.Africa was in the middle of some civil unrest at the time that socialism came to Africa. The anti-apartheid dissidents begged for soviet support. Naturally, the U.S. gov't backed the current government to thwart communism. Eventually, the U.S gave up on SAfrica and took to Congo.

Originally posted by Troll:

I don't see the part where he says that. Where is it? The part you quoted doesn't say that: " To want to decide for the people in Iraq what they should do with their government and with their leadership?"

Open your eyes, you just typed it all down! By definition, if the US 'wants to decide FOR the people' then they are taking the power AWAY from the people, thus arguing that the people had the power in the first place. "What they should do with" also implies that they have control over "their government" and "their leadership."

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by BDiddy:
These nations with nuclear capabilities were covered under a security blanket by either the US or USSR. They would never have made a move w/o their "master's" consent. Otherwise Israel would have gone nuclear some time ago, and Cuba would have leveled the East Coast of the USA (IMO).

Interesting.

Cuba is/was a nuclear power? Are you sure you don't mean the Soviets? Cuba Crisis? Russian missiles?

They didn't need the UN. Old fashioned fear prevented a third world war. PLUS, Russia was a member of the Security Council. The UNSC could never take an official stance on anything because either Russia or the US would veto it.

I'm pretty sure Simey could blast that last point into oblivion, if he were so inclined.

Iraq resolutions? 1990? Hey, that's even relevant to the situation today! Except that today, the world doesn't agree with US policy, so history doesn't matter.

-s*

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by BDiddy:
Acutally, S.Africa was in the middle of some civil unrest at the time that socialism came to Africa. The anti-apartheid dissidents begged for soviet support. Naturally, the U.S. gov't backed the current government to thwart communism. Eventually, the U.S gave up on SAfrica and took to Congo.

So Apartheid kept going much longer than it would have, had the country been left alone, simply because it was convenient for US policy at the time?

And "naturally" so?

Even if this is so, I find it astounding that you can type it like that without screaming bloody revolution in your own country.

-s*

[theolein]

Originally posted by BDiddy:
Acutally, S.Africa was in the middle of some civil unrest at the time that socialism came to Africa. The anti-apartheid dissidents begged for soviet support. Naturally, the U.S. gov't backed the current government to thwart communism. Eventually, the U.S gave up on SAfrica and took to Congo.



Open your eyes, you just typed it all down! By definition, if the US 'wants to decide FOR the people' then they are taking the power AWAY from the people, thus arguing that the people had the power in the first place. "What they should do with" also implies that they have control over "their government" and "their leadership."

This is not true, or at least highly simplified.

The real story:

The South African Communist Party was founded into 1921. What is highly ironic is that originally many white Afrikaaners in SA supported the party because they felt it would support them in there fight to reserve jobs for whites in place of blacks. There was a big strike in the 20's in South Africa where the South African Air Force actually bombed striking communist miners. The SCAP only lost power when it became a platform for all races in the face of Afrikaaner nationalism. Socialism, soviet style, came to Africa in a big wave when African States started getting their independance after WWII. That is what frightened the west and the reason why South Africa was tolerated openly for so long, and covertly (especially in the fields of bioweapons) for much longer.

The story of South Africa's nuclear weapons is a long one. Basically South Africa developed the weapons on their own, plus medium range missiles to deliver them. Soviet and American spy satellites discovered the test center more or less at the same time and BOTH of them made a huge stink at the UN (it was more important back then) about it, and SA closed the center. A little while later, a spy satellite spotted a huge flash in the southern Atlantic ocean, and although it has never been conclusively proven, it is assumed that that was the first and only live test of a South African nuclear weapon. Both the USSR and the USA were worried about SA nuclear weapons as SA was not in any way directly a proxy of either of them and it meant a huge sway in the balance of power in Southern Africa. The South Africans now had a weapon, which they could use as a weapon of last resort against any enemy. They put themselves essentially in the position that Israel is today. Posessing a nuclear arsenal which would assuerdly be used if there was a danger of the country falling.

Thank god, F. De Klerk, the last apartheid PM, decided to dismantle them and the new government unilaterally scrapped the programme in cooperation with UN weapons inspectors.

What does this have to do with US support you ask? Well, the ANC did ask for western support, it wasn't overtly communist at the time, but that overt support by western governments was denied. The SACP asked the Soviets for support and they were given training and weapons and eventually became the ANC's military wing, Umkonto We Siswe, or spear of the nation. The western governments that did support the ANC, Sweden was one were singled out for special hatred by South African agents, and in the TRC Amnesty commision in the 90's a South African Agent, Willem de Kok, claimed that it was the South Africans who assasinated the Swedish premier, Olaf Palme in 1988. South Africa's Apartheid regime was not being controlled by anyone in the west or east, which is one of the reaons they eventually fell.

The US suppported the civil war in Angola, supplying the right wing Unita rebels in their fight against the socialist MPLA government up until the Soviet block fell, whereupon the US simply ditched Unita which however carried on fighting for almost a decade. This is very similar to what happened in Afghanistan where the support dried up as soon as the Soviets left. And you know who was in Afghanistan, fighting the Soviets after having been trained by the CIA.

For the record the US didn't "give up" on South Africa and move on to the Congo. The US tried for years after the fall of apartheid to badger the SA government into delivering it's simple and easily mounted helmet mounted sighting system for jets to the USA, which thankfully the SA government refused to do. The US has never had much influence in the Congo. The three wars of attempted seccesion by the southern province of Katanga were stopped by the UN intervention in the first one, and troops of the organisation of African Unity in the second two. The later wars, where the Congo lost it's dictator Mobuto Sesseko and after the massacres in Rwanda were a mixture of civil wars with various parties supported by Uganda and Rwanda. The last one has officialy ended and that is why the French have peacekeepers there right now.

[theolein]

Originally posted by Troll:
That means you were there when I was!

Wits or UCT?

[Troll]

Originally posted by BDiddy:
"What they should do with" also implies that they have control over "their government" and "their leadership."

No need to get nasty. Earlier when we were talking about the same quote, you conceded that Mandela had as little (if not less) control over his leadership and government as Iraqis do. You said you concede that but

"I was simplying saying that Mandela said that the Iraqi people could choose their government and leadership, and this is completely untrue."

All I was pointing out was that he didn't say that. Which brings us back to the original point. That the Iraqis had as much control over their government as Mandela had over his. Voting is not the only way you can control your destiny. Mandela is saying that it wasn't up to the USA to decide for Iraqis what should be done with the leadership and government of Iraq. The UN deciding would have been a different thing though.

[Troll]

Originally posted by theolein:
Wits or UCT?

WITS! Me and Winnie down on East Campus. Sounds Simon and Garfunkelish no?

[Troll]

Originally posted by theolein:
This is not true, or at least highly simplified.

The real story:

Debunking the Myth - a bestseller by Theolein.

Good post!

[BDiddy]

Originally posted by Troll:
No need to get nasty. Earlier when we were talking about the same quote, you conceded that Mandela had as little (if not less) control over his leadership and government as Iraqis do. You said you concede that but

"I was simplying saying that Mandela said that the Iraqi people could choose their government and leadership, and this is completely untrue."

All I was pointing out was that he didn't say that. Which brings us back to the original point. That the Iraqis had as much control over their government as Mandela had over his. Voting is not the only way you can control your destiny. Mandela is saying that it wasn't up to the USA to decide for Iraqis what should be done with the leadership and government of Iraq. The UN deciding would have been a different thing though.

I agree with you there...

[BDiddy]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
So Apartheid kept going much longer than it would have, had the country been left alone, simply because it was convenient for US policy at the time?

And "naturally" so?

Even if this is so, I find it astounding that you can type it like that without screaming bloody revolution in your own country.

-s*

I never said that the U.S. wasn't partly responsible for the full effects of apartheid. Please, try to keep things in my original context, which was about the UN lack of involvement in the Cold War.

[BDiddy]

Originally posted by theolein:
This is not true, or at least highly simplified.

The real story:

The South African Communist Party was founded into 1921. What is highly ironic is that originally many white Afrikaaners in SA supported the party because they felt it would support them in there fight to reserve jobs for whites in place of blacks. There was a big strike in the 20's in South Africa where the South African Air Force actually bombed striking communist miners. The SCAP only lost power when it became a platform for all races in the face of Afrikaaner nationalism. Socialism, soviet style, came to Africa in a big wave when African States started getting their independance after WWII. That is what frightened the west and the reason why South Africa was tolerated openly for so long, and covertly (especially in the fields of bioweapons) for much longer.

The story of South Africa's nuclear weapons is a long one. Basically South Africa developed the weapons on their own, plus medium range missiles to deliver them. Soviet and American spy satellites discovered the test center more or less at the same time and BOTH of them made a huge stink at the UN (it was more important back then) about it, and SA closed the center. A little while later, a spy satellite spotted a huge flash in the southern Atlantic ocean, and although it has never been conclusively proven, it is assumed that that was the first and only live test of a South African nuclear weapon. Both the USSR and the USA were worried about SA nuclear weapons as SA was not in any way directly a proxy of either of them and it meant a huge sway in the balance of power in Southern Africa. The South Africans now had a weapon, which they could use as a weapon of last resort against any enemy. They put themselves essentially in the position that Israel is today. Posessing a nuclear arsenal which would assuerdly be used if there was a danger of the country falling.

Thank god, F. De Klerk, the last apartheid PM, decided to dismantle them and the new government unilaterally scrapped the programme in cooperation with UN weapons inspectors.

What does this have to do with US support you ask? Well, the ANC did ask for western support, it wasn't overtly communist at the time, but that overt support by western governments was denied. The SACP asked the Soviets for support and they were given training and weapons and eventually became the ANC's military wing, Umkonto We Siswe, or spear of the nation. The western governments that did support the ANC, Sweden was one were singled out for special hatred by South African agents, and in the TRC Amnesty commision in the 90's a South African Agent, Willem de Kok, claimed that it was the South Africans who assasinated the Swedish premier, Olaf Palme in 1988. South Africa's Apartheid regime was not being controlled by anyone in the west or east, which is one of the reaons they eventually fell.

The US suppported the civil war in Angola, supplying the right wing Unita rebels in their fight against the socialist MPLA government up until the Soviet block fell, whereupon the US simply ditched Unita which however carried on fighting for almost a decade. This is very similar to what happened in Afghanistan where the support dried up as soon as the Soviets left. And you know who was in Afghanistan, fighting the Soviets after having been trained by the CIA.

For the record the US didn't "give up" on South Africa and move on to the Congo. The US tried for years after the fall of apartheid to badger the SA government into delivering it's simple and easily mounted helmet mounted sighting system for jets to the USA, which thankfully the SA government refused to do. The US has never had much influence in the Congo. The three wars of attempted seccesion by the southern province of Katanga were stopped by the UN intervention in the first one, and troops of the organisation of African Unity in the second two. The later wars, where the Congo lost it's dictator Mobuto Sesseko and after the massacres in Rwanda were a mixture of civil wars with various parties supported by Uganda and Rwanda. The last one has officialy ended and that is why the French have peacekeepers there right now.

Good post... but that was not my argument... you took my statement way out of context. I was arguing how the chess match between the US and USSR was more responsible for ww3 not developing than the UN was.

[BDiddy]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Interesting.

Cuba is/was a nuclear power? Are you sure you don't mean the Soviets? Cuba Crisis? Russian missiles?

I'm pretty sure Simey could blast that last point into oblivion, if he were so inclined.

Iraq resolutions? 1990? Hey, that's even relevant to the situation today! Except that today, the world doesn't agree with US policy, so history doesn't matter.

-s*

Why does everyone want to take my post out of context? Please, try to read all of my posts before going off on a tangent! Your statement about Cuba is very true, and it backs up my point!! The fear between the US and USSR is what prevented a nuclear exchange, not some UN resolution. As far as the Iraq resolutions, once again, that is out of context. I was talking about the Cold War.

[theolein]

Originally posted by BDiddy:
Good post... but that was not my argument... you took my statement way out of context. I was arguing how the chess match between the US and USSR was more responsible for ww3 not developing than the UN was.

This thread is about Nelson Mandela and South Africa and the various influences on the country. It is not about the USA. There are more than enough threads for that. This thread and my posts should have shown by now that South Afrca, while theoretically in the western camp was a rogue country, more so than even my posts got to show. It was not a product of, nor did it have all that much to do with the cold war. The problems in South Africa were home grown, and "fertilized" to a certain extent by covert support of the various parties by the superpowers.

You had a dig at Mandela because you felt he insulted your president. While you have the right to feel that I don't feel that you have provided convincing counter arguments as to why Mandela's statements were so wrong. He was angry at the time and said what a lot of people felt. I suspect he was especially angry because the US/UK were running roughshod over the UN and were insulting their older allies and were using instruments of war without a broad international consensus. He was angry because people would die who had nothing to do with their government.

[theolein]

Originally posted by Troll:
WITS! Me and Winnie down on East Campus. Sounds Simon and Garfunkelish no?

The beginnings of the Rainbow Nation

[BDiddy]

Originally posted by theolein:
This thread is about Nelson Mandela and South Africa and the various influences on the country. It is not about the USA. There are more than enough threads for that. This thread and my posts should have shown by now that South Afrca, while theoretically in the western camp was a rogue country, more so than even my posts got to show. It was not a product of, nor did it have all that much to do with the cold war. The problems in South Africa were home grown, and "fertilized" to a certain extent by covert support of the various parties by the superpowers.

I made a post about Mandela's speech. He claimed the UN was responsible for WW3 never developing. My argument was that this is crap. How can I be off topic with a direct response toe a previous post in this thread? I never said that S.Africa was a product of the Cold War. I never even brought up S.Africa's role or lack thereof in the cold war until Troll brought it up. I had nothing to say about S.Africa at all, I wanted simply to comment on Mandela's speech. And I truly believe he was dead wrong in stating the UN prevented WW3 for 57 years. The UN didn't do anything at all. They couldn't. They were deadlocked with their hands tied for the first 40 of those years.

Originally posted by theolein:

He was angry at the time and said what a lot of people felt. I suspect he was especially angry because the US/UK were running roughshod over the UN and were insulting their older allies and were using instruments of war without a broad international consensus. He was angry because people would die who had nothing to do with their government.

I agree completely.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by BDiddy:
I made a post about Mandela's speech. He claimed the UN was responsible for WW3 never developing. My argument was that this is crap. How can I be off topic with a direct response toe a previous post in this thread?

Well, I could go into a lengthy diatribe at this point on how this is possible, and what you need to look out for, and guess what: It would be a direct response to a previous post in this thread. And it would be massively off-topic.

And I truly believe he was dead wrong in stating the UN prevented WW3 for 57 years. The UN didn't do anything at all. They couldn't. They were deadlocked with their hands tied for the first 40 of those years.

Actually, while I'm not too firm on the matter, I do believe that the Cold War would not have gone anywhere near the way it did, had China, Soviet Russia, and the United States not been locked into a kind of stalemate in the UNSC. The UNSC was instrumental in maintaining the balance of power.

If the Cold War were still going on, I'm willing to bet that the ridiculing of peaceniks and the unilateral killing spree we've just witnessed from the U.S.A. would not have happened.

Conjecture, of course.

-s*

[Troll]

Originally posted by BDiddy:
I never even brought up S.Africa's role or lack thereof in the cold war until Troll brought it up.

Just to be clear, you claimed that the the peace was kept not by the fact of the existence of the UN but by the fact that the world was split into two 'security blankets' with all nations responding to one of two 'masters.' What we pointed out to you was that there were countries that had nuclear weapons that weren't reporting to any masters, e.g. South Africa. That seems to throw your theory as to why there hasn't been a world war for 57 years into question.

There have been pages written about whether the UN has worked or not and I think most people concede that it has had some impact. At the very least it provides a forum for discussion and plays a legitimising role which hitherto didn't exist. No need to go into again. Mandela has his opinion, you have yours.

[BDiddy]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Actually, while I'm not too firm on the matter, I do believe that the Cold War would not have gone anywhere near the way it did, had China, Soviet Russia, and the United States not been locked into a kind of stalemate in the UNSC. The UNSC was instrumental in maintaining the balance of power.

If the Cold War were still going on, I'm willing to bet that the ridiculing of peaceniks and the unilateral killing spree we've just witnessed from the U.S.A. would not have happened.

Conjecture, of course.

-s*

I agree with you there... I guess I never thought of it that way.... lack of action was actually the most favorable action... it's like they say in baseball - sometimes the best trade is no trade at all.

[BDiddy]

Originally posted by Troll:
Just to be clear, you claimed that the the peace was kept not by the fact of the existence of the UN but by the fact that the world was split into two 'security blankets' with all nations responding to one of two 'masters.' What we pointed out to you was that there were countries that had nuclear weapons that weren't reporting to any masters, e.g. South Africa. That seems to throw your theory as to why there hasn't been a world war for 57 years into question.

Whether or not S.Africa was in the corner of the East or West is irrelevant, IMO. Perhaps I stand corrected on S.Africa's stance. However, my position still holds that S.Africa, were it compelled to use nukes, would not have done so because they would know that they would be obliterated by one side or the other. I'll give you guys the benefit of the doubt, and accept I was wrong on S.Africa's history. But at the same time, I argue that a nation with nukes between 1945-1985 would feel restrained from using them more-so by fear of reprisal from the US or USSR rather than UN sanctions (which hardly occurred in the aforementioned timeframe).

[Troll]

Originally posted by BDiddy:
But at the same time, I argue that a nation with nukes between 1945-1985 would feel restrained from using them more-so by fear of reprisal from the US or USSR rather than UN sanctions (which hardly occurred in the aforementioned timeframe).

I once heard a lecture given by a German relating to this. At the time I agreed with you, but he was pretty convincing. He said that if SA nuked Southern Angola during the Angolan war, he doubted the USSR or the USA would respond with their own nuclear attack. Because such an attack would likely precipitate global nuclear war which neither of them wanted. He thought that Angola was not strategically important enough to them and that they would both condemn a nuclear attack but not respond to it for fear of escalating.

I guess if that had happened, the UN would have been quick to denounce the attack and I don't think the USA or the USSR would have blocked a Security Council resolution to send blue helmets off to Pretoria to sort the South Africans out. I guess the flip side would be that if SA was throwing nukes at Angola, wouldn't it throw them at blue helmets too? Maybe actually, SA would faced sanctions only.

I think rogues with nuclear weapons are very difficult to deal with. I mean, in our unipolar 2003 world, what do you think stops nuclear powers like Israel from firing nukes? The fear of a nuclear attack from the US? Maybe just the simple realisation that nukes are pretty scary things.

[BDiddy]

Originally posted by Troll:
I once heard a lecture given by a German relating to this. At the time I agreed with you, but he was pretty convincing. He said that if SA nuked Southern Angola during the Angolan war, he doubted the USSR or the USA would respond with their own nuclear attack. Because such an attack would likely precipitate global nuclear war which neither of them wanted. He thought that Angola was not strategically important enough to them and that they would both condemn a nuclear attack but not respond to it for fear of escalating.

I guess if that had happened, the UN would have been quick to denounce the attack and I don't think the USA or the USSR would have blocked a Security Council resolution to send blue helmets off to Pretoria to sort the South Africans out. I guess the flip side would be that if SA was throwing nukes at Angola, wouldn't it throw them at blue helmets too? Maybe actually, SA would faced sanctions only.

I think rogues with nuclear weapons are very difficult to deal with. I mean, in our unipolar 2003 world, what do you think stops nuclear powers like Israel from firing nukes? The fear of a nuclear attack from the US? Maybe just the simple realisation that nukes are pretty scary things.

Agreed.

[theolein]

Originally posted by Troll:
I once heard a lecture given by a German relating to this. At the time I agreed with you, but he was pretty convincing. He said that if SA nuked Southern Angola during the Angolan war, he doubted the USSR or the USA would respond with their own nuclear attack. Because such an attack would likely precipitate global nuclear war which neither of them wanted. He thought that Angola was not strategically important enough to them and that they would both condemn a nuclear attack but not respond to it for fear of escalating.

I guess if that had happened, the UN would have been quick to denounce the attack and I don't think the USA or the USSR would have blocked a Security Council resolution to send blue helmets off to Pretoria to sort the South Africans out. I guess the flip side would be that if SA was throwing nukes at Angola, wouldn't it throw them at blue helmets too? Maybe actually, SA would faced sanctions only.

I think rogues with nuclear weapons are very difficult to deal with. I mean, in our unipolar 2003 world, what do you think stops nuclear powers like Israel from firing nukes? The fear of a nuclear attack from the US? Maybe just the simple realisation that nukes are pretty scary things.

This is a brilliant post! There is so much in this wolrd that has changed since the fall of the Soviet bloc. The chance that the USA would use nuclear weapons now is far greater than it was during the cold war. The USA and the Soviet Uniion were petrified of one another's ability to rid our planet of all life. Neither would have allowed the other to unilaterally use nuclear weapons against South Africa for fear of retaliation.

The UNSC was important, in that it provided a forum of checks and balances, essentially providing a deadlock in international relations. None of the superpowers could have really done much at the UN level against another because of the system of the veto, but it kept them talking while they sponsored many dozens of wars by proxy nations and organisations.

[theolein]

Originally posted by Troll:
WITS! Me and Winnie down on East Campus. Sounds Simon and Garfunkelish no?

This means that there is a good chance that we might have sat together unknowingly in Senate House drinking that awful liquid that passed for coffee while watching the strange strata of social species known as bagels and kugels parading around displaying their designer clothes.

You were perhaps there a bit later than I was though. Mid-80's, late-80's, early 90's ?

[Troll]

Originally posted by theolein:
This means that there is a good chance that we might have sat together unknowingly in Senate House drinking that awful liquid that passed for coffee while watching the strange strata of social species known as bagels and kugels parading around displaying their designer clothes.

You were perhaps there a bit later than I was though. Mid-80's, late-80's, early 90's ?

Yeah, I got there in '91 just as the sh1t was starting to slide off the fan. Spent a bit of time on the Concourse watching the koogs, but hopping between East and West campus 10 times a day kept me pretty busy.

[OAW]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Mandela also praised Col. Qaddafi and Maximum Leader Fidel Castro

Well since you brought it up, let's see what President Mandela actually said ...

"JOHANNESBURG, March 29 (AFP) - South Africa's President Nelson
Mandela announced Sunday that he intends to visit Iran soon,
insisting on his country's friendly relations with Tehran.
"I will visit Iran shortly and I do not hide those things," he
told CNN television, hours after seeing off visiting US President
Bill Clinton.
On Friday, Mandela told Clinton he was proud of Pretoria's close
relations with Cuba, Iran and Libya -- three countries Washington
treats as pariah states.
"Libya, Cuba, Iran are my friends," Mandela told the US
television channel, noting those countries' support for the
anti-apartheid struggle in South Africa "when the United States, as
other western powers, at the time of the struggle were really
helping our enemy."
Mandela repeated his opposition to the Growth and Opportunity
Bill on trade relations which is before the US Senate. The bill
offers trade bonuses to African countries that back democracy and
apply IMF reforms.
"We resist any attempt by any country to impose conditions on
our freedom of trade. That we cannot accept. And the provisions of
this Bill will restrict our freedom to trade with other countries,
something that I found totally unacceptable," Mandela said.
Mandela has several times upset Washington since his election in
1994 but has escaped much criticism because of his high
international moral standing.
In September 1996, then Iranian president Ali Akbar Hashemi
Rafsanjani visited Pretoria and the two countries maintain good
trade relations.
Mandela said Sunday he was willing to play a role in resolving
differences between Washington and those regimes it opposes.
"The enemies of the United States are not our enemies, I will
not accept that ... We are ready, and there are many influential
heads of state who are ready to help ensuring that the relations
between the USA and those countries are sorted out peacefully in a
way that will please both countries," he said.
"The United States of America plays an important role in world
affairs but ... American foreign policy should be consistent with
the provision of the United Nations charters which call upon all the
countries to settle their dispute by peaceful means."
"As a world leader, we would like them to set an example in
tring to carry out those principles."
Clinton left South Africa Sunday and arrived in Botswana, the
fifth country visited on a six-nation African tour. He had spent
four days in South Africa, making it the highlight of his visit. "

Personally, I don't have a problem with his statement, especially the portions I emphasized in bold which relate directly to the issue you raised. It is only the arrogance on the part of certain Americans that would cause them to actually think that after the US supported the apartheid government of SA for decades ... President Mandela and his government should suddenly disavow those countries that supported them in their struggle against tyranny and oppression simply because the US said so.

OAW

[theolein]

Originally posted by Troll:
Yeah, I got there in '91 just as the sh1t was starting to slide off the fan. Spent a bit of time on the Concourse watching the koogs, but hopping between East and West campus 10 times a day kept me pretty busy.

I dropped out in 1985, but still spent a fiar amount of time on campus after that as a lot of my friends were there. East campus was being built at the time, and I only got to write some exams there. The sh1t was flying thickly and heavily at the time. I lived a block away from Senate House in Jorrisen street and the demos at the time were quite hairy. There were shots fired, people were beaten up and quite a few got arrested by the security cops. In those years things seemed so bad I thought it was only a matter of time before full scale civil war broke out. Thank god that De Klerk, as the first and only PM had the sense to end the nonsense.