Mandela statue joins ranks of Britain's heroes

[snaw]

The US has a democratic process that holds individuals who commit atrocities to account, cuba does not. Unless you want to argue that the killing by Hitler of 6 million jews was no worse than a couple of detainees dying in custody at a UK police station

It does, does it? How many proxy wars did the US sponsor during the cold war that resulted in millions of deaths? How about US sponsorship of Saddam Hussein, Al Queda etc before they became our enemies. How many dictatorships are the US happy to support as long as the bad guy is on our side?

Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, Renditions - ring any bells. Any of the real instigators of these actions being brought to task?

There is a very rich history on US sponsored terror if you take even 5 mins to investigate, yes the Cuban government is pretty horrendous in many respects but let's not kid ourselves that the US doesn't do some of the stuff it's happy to critisice others for.

[DodgyAgent]

It does, does it? How many proxy wars did the US sponsor during the cold war that resulted in millions of deaths? How about US sponsorship of Saddam Hussein, Al Queda etc before they became our enemies. How many dictatorships are the US happy to support as long as the bad guy is on our side?

Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, Renditions - ring any bells. Any of the real instigators of these actions being brought to task?

There is a very rich history on US sponsored terror if you take even 5 mins to investigate, yes the Cuban government is pretty horrendous in many respects but let's not kid ourselves that the US doesn't do some of the stuff it's happy to critisice others for.

So the difference between the killing of 6 million jews is no different to the killing of a suspected criminal in a british jail by police other than the numbers were different?

[snaw]

So the difference between the killing of 6 million jews is no different to the killing of a suspected criminal in a british jail by police other than the numbers were different?

Your words, not mine. Don't believe I said that, though I'm pretty sure stalin said something similar.

BTW If we're gonna start throwing around accusations involving the nazis etc then I'm pretty sure, given our respective outlooks, that I'd be the one defending the jews - doubt you would be somehow.

[sunnysan]

Some ungoogled info for NickyG

Winnie Mandela was the estranged wife of Nelson, so I am not sure why you posted her quotes when quoting NM.

Winnie Mandela was a firebrand and the quotes you refer to where made to audiences limited to hot head communist agitators and youth movements. The ANC leadership was already starting to distance themselves from her. Now here is the interesting part.

The ANC had always advocated a NON-VIOLENT and diplomatic approach to the dissolution of the Apartheid system. Thsi approach was largely due to NM. When the incumbent government gave them no political legitimacy they committed limited and targeted "terrorist" attacks on so called legitimate targets. The Magoo bombing comes to mind and based on the fact that the bar was full of policeman, and they above all where agents of Apartheid at the time, they could be considered a legitamate target.

These and other events took place because the ANC was not given political legitamacy owing to he fact that the organisation was banned and all their leaders incarcerated including NM. This was followed by bannings, harrassment, overt surveilence, detention without trial, torture and death to many of the ANC leadership.

If this hadnt happened then perhaps the ANC would have had a more effective political channel, and the there would have been no need for terrorist attacks. So you could actually say the incumbent Apartheid regime brought this upon themselves.

I am not naive anough to think that is was only Mandela that stopped South Africa going down the well trodden African path of becoming a bloodbath but he was a well respected leader among the people and he had tremendous power.

Considering that he had spent 27 years in prison, many of them doing forced labour I would say that he displayed remarkable restraint and forgiveness. Whatever the reasons, his policies in SA at the time saved the country and the people, regardless of race, from a total bloodbath.

You can call him a terrorist, factually thats correct, but consider the options he was left with and what he was fighting against, in my mind, its justifiable. This man deserves his position as a great statesman.

He saved my @rse from getting hacked up with machetes anyway

[DodgyAgent]

Your words, not mine. Don't believe I said that, though I'm pretty sure stalin said something similar.

BTW If we're gonna start throwing around accusations involving the nazis etc then I'm pretty sure, given our respective outlooks, that I'd be the one defending the jews - doubt you would be somehow.

You are sliding out of the argument snaw

Surely the killing of 6 million Jews by Hitler is no different from the killing of three British servicemen by American forces in Iraq last week "by accident". Killing is killing is it not?

Therefore the Castro regime is better than the US regime because it is responsible for killing less people is it not?

Some people may say that Castro is an evil dictator who's intent is to kill for personal power. he has no popular mandate for his behaviour and acts to further his own personal agenda. On the other hand some people would argue that the killing by Americans is necessary as the better of two evils, and that its agenda is strictly maintained due to the legal and democratic accountability that its its leaders are subjected to. That does not make what the Americans do as right, but it at least means that its leaders and its people are accountable.

[sasguru]

You are sliding out of the argument snaw

Surely the killing of 6 million Jews by Hitler is no different from the killing of three British servicemen by American forces in Iraq last week "by accident". Killing is killing is it not?

Therefore the Castro regime is better than the US regime because it is responsible for killing less people is it not?

Some people may say that Castro is an evil dictator who's intent is to kill for personal power. he has no popular mandate for his behaviour and acts to further his own personal agenda. On the other hand some people would argue that the killing by Americans is necessary as the better of two evils, and that its agenda is strictly maintained due to the legal and democratic accountability that its its leaders are subjected to. That does not make what the Americans do as right, but it at least means that its leaders and its people are accountable.

What about the numerous "black-ops" conducted by the CIA - look it up, if you ignore the conspiracy theories there are a few, which we must assume are only those known about. No accountability there. We all know about rendition etc. as ana example.

[DodgyAgent]

What about the numerous "black-ops" conducted by the CIA - look it up, if you ignore the conspiracy theories there are a few, which we must assume are only those known about. No accountability there. We all know about rendition etc. as ana example.

A very fair point, and american people have to live with the consequences of the activities of these people. The point I am making is to argue that "intent" is an important part of the activities of govt. The arguments being put forward for the occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan is that such actions are conducted to make the world a safer place for the so called "free" people in the West. Side activities to such events such as oil capture and Blair and Bush vanity are subject to the opinion and power of the democracies that gave them the power in the first place. If the US and the British were to occupy these countries "properly" they would most surely have suppressed the people of these countries using similar techniques as used by German and Japanese occupying forces in the world wars.

The fact that NATO troops are not seeking to crush the people of Iraq and Afghanistan suggests that maybe they have better intentions.

[DBA_bloke]

That does not make what the Americans do as right, but it at least means that its leaders and its people are accountable.

Accountable? Tee hee!

[snaw]

You are sliding out of the argument snaw

Surely the killing of 6 million Jews by Hitler is no different from the killing of three British servicemen by American forces in Iraq last week "by accident". Killing is killing is it not?

Therefore the Castro regime is better than the US regime because it is responsible for killing less people is it not?

Some people may say that Castro is an evil dictator who's intent is to kill for personal power. he has no popular mandate for his behaviour and acts to further his own personal agenda. On the other hand some people would argue that the killing by Americans is necessary as the better of two evils, and that its agenda is strictly maintained due to the legal and democratic accountability that its its leaders are subjected to. That does not make what the Americans do as right, but it at least means that its leaders and its people are accountable.

Nope, I'm not trying to slide out of the arguement. Your trying to put words in my mouth I've no intention of saying - you suggest searching for Cuba and attrocity, and compared that to the US's. I highlighted that actually that's not exactly true given the US's very recent, and on-going indirect backing for any number of very dodgy governments, dictators and extremely questionable human rights record.

How the hell this leads to comparing different kinds of deaths I've no idea. If you're seek to compare the deaths of accidental, if avoidable, deaths of British servicemen with systematic, industrialised slaughter of millions of people based purely in race then you're very much a lost cause.

[DodgyAgent]

Snaw,

I am simply arguing that the activities of the US and UK govt have a legitimate integrity that countries such as Iraq and Cuba do not. I am not saying that everything that they do is legitimate, I am saying that often the decisions they make are for the good.

It is all very well talking about dealing with dodgy governments but often the alternatives to the types of dealings you do not like or approve of are the best options available. After all if we went to war with every so called "dodgy country" you and your liberal friends would be the first to scream in horror.