Nelson Mandela Dead at 95

[Masbee]

forgot the link for the above chart:


http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2013/12/daily-chart-6

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

Mandela was freed in 1990, a year after Reagan's 2nd term finished and in the 1st year of GHW Bush's term. Whatever they did helped free Mandela.

Reagan labeled him a terrorist and, along with the American right wing, supported the South African government against international pressure for a decade. I don't see how that helped.

Regardless if YOU think Perkins was appointed for "the wrong reasons," he was appointed. If Reagan wanted to, he could have appointed a white man. You can't wish away what he did.

Dude, I'm just talking about whats in the article you showed me. George Schutlz said to Perkins, "There are people around the president who believe that it is time to send a black ambassador, but not necessarily for the right reasons." That doesn't give me the greatest confidence that Reagan had some saintly foresight that sending Perkins was going to end apartheid AND free Mandela.

 

[Denny Crane]

Reagan labeled him a terrorist and, along with the American right wing, supported the South African government against international pressure for a decade. I don't see how that helped.



Dude, I'm just talking about whats in the article you showed me. George Schutlz said to Perkins, "There are people around the president who believe that it is time to send a black ambassador, but not necessarily for the right reasons." That doesn't give me the greatest confidence that Reagan had some saintly foresight that sending Perkins was going to end apartheid AND free Mandela.

Reagan didn't label him a terrorist, JFK did. The apartheid government was there since 1948. More like 4 decades, and the presidencies of Truman, JFK, LBJ, and Carter more than established ongoing relations with the country.

Reagan didn't send a white man. Get it?

It seems to me you pick and choose which oppressive regimes it's OK to overthrow.

 

[jlprk]

Kennedy labeled him a terrorist, not Reagan as all the articles say? Link?

 

[Denny Crane]

http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/06/world/africa/nelson-mandela-other-side/

The United States government placed Mandela on a terror watch list, where he stayed until 2008 -- long after his term as President of South Africa, and even longer after his receiving the Nobel Peace Prize.

He was placed on it because of his group's militant fight against apartheid.

At the time that Umkhonto we Sizwe carried out its first attacks, Mandela was at its helm.

The next year, in 1962, he left for Morocco and Ethiopia, where he secretly studied guerrilla warfare.

 

[BrianFromWA]

 

[BlazerWookee]

That doesn't mean Reagan didn't appoint him for "the wrong reasons."



I'm not arguing against any of that. All I said was that Mandela was an enemy of Reagan and the American right wing.

"Enemy" is a little harsh. "Courageous leader who effectively ended apartheid in South Africa, only to be govern as a Marxist Commie Pinko while filling his pockets with public funds."

 

[BlazerWookee]

What? No Mexicans?

 

[dviss1]

This entire thread is a piece of shit.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

Reagan didn't label him a terrorist, JFK did.

I can't find any reference to Mandela, ANC or the MK being labeled as terrorists by the U.S. until Reagan. Link?

The apartheid government was there since 1948. More like 4 decades, and the presidencies of Truman, JFK, LBJ, and Carter more than established ongoing relations with the country.

Yeah, but we're talking about Reagan.

Reagan didn't send a white man. Get it?

I don't. Explain the significance.

It seems to me you pick and choose which oppressive regimes it's OK to overthrow.

lol

Since the only other oppressive regime you and I have ever talked about is Saddam's Iraq, I'm forced to conclude that you think that since I disapprove of Bush's invasion of Iraq that I have no right supporting a native uprising to cast off the shackles of systematic racism in South Africa.

 

[MARIS61]

He had his own ideas about ending Apartheid.

You'd think that deliberately choosing a black man to send as our ambassador would be a huge slap in the face to their government.

You might, but most people are quite aware that Reagan was apartheid's biggest supporter in the Western world. They also recognize a cheap political stunt when they see it.

 

[MARIS61]

 

[Denny Crane]

I can't find any reference to Mandela, ANC or the MK being labeled as terrorists by the U.S. until Reagan. Link?



Yeah, but we're talking about Reagan.



I don't. Explain the significance.



lol

Since the only other oppressive regime you and I have ever talked about is Saddam's Iraq, I'm forced to conclude that you think that since I disapprove of Bush's invasion of Iraq that I have no right supporting a native uprising to cast off the shackles of systematic racism in South Africa.

Washington Post. No friend to Reagan.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...andela-was-on-a-terrorism-watch-list-in-2008/

While the Reagan administration’s official goal was to end apartheid, and while it consistently called for South Africa to free Mandela, the U.S. dragged its feet on the crucial issue of economic sanctions.

...

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/12/u-s-lionizes-mandella-death-treated-terrorist-life.html

CIA involved in his arrest in 1962.

...

Now, what right do we have, period, to intervene in another nation's affairs? I have no beef with the people uprising and instituting government of their choosing. Economic warfare is still warfare.

Reagan was a lame duck. He could have appointed an ambassador who shared some mythical views you suggest he held. There was no need for a political stunt or any real point to one.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

stay classy, obama.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

Washington Post. No friend to Reagan.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...andela-was-on-a-terrorism-watch-list-in-2008/

While the Reagan administration’s official goal was to end apartheid, and while it consistently called for South Africa to free Mandela, the U.S. dragged its feet on the crucial issue of economic sanctions.

There's a big difference between what a president's official policy is and what they actually do. Speeches and appointing of ambassadors only go so far. Reagan wanted it both ways.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/12/u-s-lionizes-mandella-death-treated-terrorist-life.html

CIA involved in his arrest in 1962.

The CIA being "involved" in the arrest of Mandela in the 1960s doesn't mean that JFK gave both Mandela and the ANC the terrorist label. Reagan did that.

Now, what right do we have, period, to intervene in another nation's affairs? I have no beef with the people uprising and instituting government of their choosing. Economic warfare is still warfare.

Cool.

Reagan was a lame duck. He could have appointed an ambassador who shared some mythical views you suggest he held. There was no need for a political stunt or any real point to one.

I'm not suggesting he had any view point except for not being a fan of Mandela. I would guess that Perkins wasn't a fan of Mandela either since at the time Mandela was being painted by the American right wing as the leader of a communist political group looking to overthrow a staunch U.S. ally through armed insurrection.

I don't get why you think Reagan was anything other than a typical U.S. politician.

 

[Natebishop3]

stay classy, obama.

That's not even the best picture. Michelle had to separate them.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

well, its more the selfie at funerals thing. good thing he's connecting with the amurrican people!

 

[Denny Crane]

There's a big difference between what a president's official policy is and what they actually do. Speeches and appointing of ambassadors only go so far. Reagan wanted it both ways.



The CIA being "involved" in the arrest of Mandela in the 1960s doesn't mean that JFK gave both Mandela and the ANC the terrorist label. Reagan did that.



Cool.



I'm not suggesting he had any view point except for not being a fan of Mandela. I would guess that Perkins wasn't a fan of Mandela either since at the time Mandela was being painted by the American right wing as the leader of a communist political group looking to overthrow a staunch U.S. ally through armed insurrection.

I don't get why you think Reagan was anything other than a typical U.S. politician.

I don't think Reagan was a typical US politician. He was a true conservative, of which I can count a handful. William F Buckley, PJ O'Roarke, Barry Goldwater come to mind...

Conservatism is based upon three principles: Libertarianism, anti-communism, and tradition. He spoke like a Libertarian. Government isn't the solution, it is the problem.

He built up the military, but didn't use it to wage war. He made outright peace with our most mortal enemy, and came very close to eliminating the nuclear arsenals in the world at the summit in Iceland. At least they were greatly reduced and multiple further reductions enabled.

The tradition and anti-communism bits don't interest me much, nor disinterest me. Factor them into his policies and they make sense.

He wasn't right wing or left wing. He drew votes from republicans because of the R next to his name, but wasn't part of the republican establishment (GHW Bush, voodoo economics, etc.). He drew votes from Democrats, too. He was a Democrat and union leader.

He and JFK were quite similar. If you liked one, you're a hypocrite to not like the other.

 

[such sweet thunder]

Both.


He freed blacks in South Africa.


And then, effectively, delivered them into mass poverty and unemployment by allowing socialism to be the dominant force.


Too bad.

This has to be the most inane thing I've ever read.

 

[such sweet thunder]

I don't think Reagan was a typical US politician. He was a true conservative, of which I can count a handful. William F Buckley, PJ O'Roarke, Barry Goldwater come to mind...

Conservatism is based upon three principles: Libertarianism, anti-communism, and tradition. He spoke like a Libertarian. Government isn't the solution, it is the problem.

He built up the military, but didn't use it to wage war. He made outright peace with our most mortal enemy, and came very close to eliminating the nuclear arsenals in the world at the summit in Iceland. At least they were greatly reduced and multiple further reductions enabled.

The tradition and anti-communism bits don't interest me much, nor disinterest me. Factor them into his policies and they make sense.

He wasn't right wing or left wing. He drew votes from republicans because of the R next to his name, but wasn't part of the republican establishment (GHW Bush, voodoo economics, etc.). He drew votes from Democrats, too. He was a Democrat and union leader.

He and JFK were quite similar. If you liked one, you're a hypocrite to not like the other.

It's funny, Denny. I view Reagan almost exclusively in his role as a political touchstone. To me, Reagan was the guy who:

-- Perfected the Southern Strategy of racial infighting
-- Introduced the idea that the country can run large deficits during peace time where revenues are not roughly equal to expenditures
-- Aligned the Republican party with the emerging Christian Right
-- Developed techniques to incite the middle and upper class to turn on the poor

I mean, this is the blueprint for the Republican party and how they kicked the Democratic party's ass for a good couple of decades plus. None of these things, with the exception of running deficits, is popular, or morally or socially acceptable now, but at the time, they were groundbreaking.

 

[BlazerWookee]

Developed techniques to incite the middle and upper class to turn on the poor

Wait. You're saying that Reagan figured out how the middle and upper classes could titillate those less fortunate than themselves?

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

This has to be the most inane thing I've ever read.

is what I say to myself after most of Masbee's OT section posts

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

I don't think Reagan was a typical US politician. He was a true conservative, of which I can count a handful. William F Buckley, PJ O'Roarke, Barry Goldwater come to mind...

Conservatism is based upon three principles: Libertarianism, anti-communism, and tradition. He spoke like a Libertarian. Government isn't the solution, it is the problem.

And like a typical politician, what he said didn't match what he did. It was politics. He raised taxes over and over after the disastrous cuts of 1981. He increased the defense budget to Vietnam-era levels. He added federal agencies after promising to cut them. The national debt sky rocketed.

He built up the military, but didn't use it to wage war. He made outright peace with our most mortal enemy, and came very close to eliminating the nuclear arsenals in the world at the summit in Iceland. At least they were greatly reduced and multiple further reductions enabled.

El Salvador, Libya, Egypt, the Persian Gulf, Lebanon, Grenada, Honduras and Panama.

The tradition and anti-communism bits don't interest me much, nor disinterest me. Factor them into his policies and they make sense.

He wasn't right wing or left wing. He drew votes from republicans because of the R next to his name, but wasn't part of the republican establishment (GHW Bush, voodoo economics, etc.). He drew votes from Democrats, too. He was a Democrat and union leader.

He and JFK were quite similar. If you liked one, you're a hypocrite to not like the other.

I don't know enough about Kennedy to compare the two.

 

[such sweet thunder]

is what I say to myself after most of Masbee's OT section posts

I know very little about pre- and post- apartheid SA, which is to say, I know enough to understand that Mandela neither "freed the blacks" nor allowed "socialism to be the dominant force." But if you did believe that -- which again is incorrect -- how on earth would you still be able to debate whether he still was a net positive or net negative?

Freaky, freaky stuff.

 

[such sweet thunder]

Wait. You're saying that Reagan figured out how the middle and upper classes could titillate those less fortunate than themselves?

Hobo panties. Hobo panties was the answer I was looking for.

 

[Denny Crane]

And like a typical politician, what he said didn't match what he did. It was politics. He raised taxes over and over after the disastrous cuts of 1981. He increased the defense budget to Vietnam-era levels. He added federal agencies after promising to cut them. The national debt sky rocketed.



El Salvador, Libya, Egypt, the Persian Gulf, Lebanon, Grenada, Honduras and Panama.



I don't know enough about Kennedy to compare the two.

He did not wage war. He did retaliate and contribute peacekeeping troops. Some of those countries you list weren't Reagan.

His deeds did match his rhetoric. The tax cuts raised revenues 2x, while democrats declared his budgets DOA and increased spending 3x.

I enjoy the fiction, though.

 

[Denny Crane]

JFK? He ran to the right of Nixon, bashing him for lack of military spending by Ike's administration.

Very anti communist. Ever hear of the bay of pigs?

He cut taxes. Elected via the southern strategy.

Irish like Reagan, too.

He was also buddies with Joseph McCarthy.

 

[BrianFromWA]

I, for one, am at least a little proud of the board for the Mandela thread having double the responses of the Walker thread.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

I, for one, am at least a little proud of the board for the Mandela thread having double the responses of the Walker thread.

too bad it's all about reagan

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

JFK? He ran to the right of Nixon, bashing him for lack of military spending by Ike's administration.

Very anti communist. Ever hear of the bay of pigs?

He cut taxes. Elected via the southern strategy.

Irish like Reagan, too.

He was also buddies with Joseph McCarthy.

Cool story. Sounds like I wouldn't like either of them then. Why did you bring up JFK?