Sorry. I mixed 'Europe' and <i>'Europe'</i> up. They sound so similiar <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
In case you refer to the govt.s, I of course agree.
[edit]Actually, 'Old European' wouldn't make that bad a tag, would it? Militant Pacifist is getting old <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->[/edit]
I have a bad habit of writing 'Europe' when I mean 'European Governments and European Big Business'. I'm usually in too much of a hurry to respond. If I say europe, just assume I meant the above, and I'll start being more exact in the future.
Althhhououuughhhhhh, one might make the case that we're talking about governments that are democratically elected by their peoples, and that the will of the people is to say 'Chechnya? No potential oil contracts there, **** those asians. Now, Iraq is where the money is boy! Fight the Bush!' and then rub their small inbred hands together with glee.
Heh, no seriously, I understand that it's more about European Big Business than anything else.
Ok, that inbred thing was a low-blow and I take it back. Except for the remnants of your monarchies ^_^ .
Since when can creatures which consist of 80% teeth inbreed? <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->But you are right, there are exceptions, like the US, or Australia, or Canada. Hmmm... seems like if they were UK colonies they ended up ok though... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, no, MonsE, you got it all wrong. Its all the former penal colonies that got it right. Look at India. That area was a major british colony for quite a while (no exact numbers,but a long time). America and Canada were, at least for part of their colonial periods, penal colonies for those who were not to be put to death. Altough you did get people escaping persecution, famine, etc.
When America revolted and shook off its colonial rulers and Canada decided taht they didnt want the prisoners, the Brits were forced to find a new prison continent. That was Australia.
<!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Mar 13 2003, 05:19 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Mar 13 2003, 05:19 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I have a bad habit of writing 'Europe' when I mean 'European Governments and European Big Business'. I'm usually in too much of a hurry to respond. If I say europe, just assume I meant the above, and I'll start being more exact in the future. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Just write €urope when you mean european big binniz and the autocrats. Like I write Micro$oft when I am referring to "Big Mean Corporate Pigolopist Monopoly Abusing" Microsoft, and not just the name of the manufacturer of my OS, Mouse, Office program, Keyboard, Smartphone etc. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
(ok I don't have a smartphone. Wouldn't want if it was free)
/me looks desperately for a <b>"€"</b> key on his keyboard...
Good idea. I'm off to setup a hotkey for it <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
As for the use of all those things you hate, are you driving an SS Panzer tank too? Sheesh boy, go use a Mac or something! <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--Immacolata+Mar 13 2003, 10:09 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Immacolata @ Mar 13 2003, 10:09 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I have some recollection about Falklands being on the papers in the recent past, but don't really remember what it was about. Care to enlighten me?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Falkland Island or Islas Malvinas
Argentina had claimed sovereignty over the Falkland Islands (which lie 300 miles [480 km] east of its coast) since the early 19th century, but Britain had occupied and administered the islands since 1833 and had consistently rejected Argentina's claims. In early 1982 the Argentine military junta led by Lieutenant General Leopoldo Galtieri gave up on long-running negotiations with Britain and instead launched an invasion of the islands. The decision to invade was chiefly political: the junta, which was being criticized for economic mismanagement and human rights abuses, believed that the “recovery” of the islands would unite Argentines behind the government in a patriotic fervour. An elite invasion force trained in secrecy, but its timetable was shortened on March 19, when a dispute erupted on British-controlled South Georgia island (1,000 miles [1,600 km] east of the Falklands) between Argentine salvage workers and British scientists stationed there. Naval forces were quickly mobilized.
<cut a lot of trite war details>
The British captured some 11,400 Argentine prisoners during the war, all of whom were afterward released. Nearly 750 Argentine troops were killed—including 368 in the sinking of the General Belgrano—while Britain lost 256. Scores of Argentine aircraft of various types were destroyed, most while on the ground, and the British lost 10 Harrier jets and more than two dozen helicopters. Military strategists have debated key aspects of the conflict but have generally underscored the roles of submarines (both Britain's nuclear-powered vessels and Argentina's older, diesel-electric craft) and antiship missiles (both air-to-sea and land-to-sea types). The war also illustrated the importance of air superiority—which the British had been unable to establish—and of advanced surveillance. Logistic support was vital as well, because the armed forces of both nations had operated at their maximum ranges. (See also Naval warfare: The age of the guided missile.)
Argentina's ignominious defeat severely discredited the military government and led to the restoration of civilian rule there in 1983. Meanwhile, British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher converted widespread patriotic support into a landslide victory for her Conservative Party in that year's parliamentary election.
So basically it's some islands that a nation has conquered from another nation and won't give back. Nothing new in that, really.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I can't believe someone would say that all the Falkland's War was about was that we weren't going to give back some islands.
The fact of the matter is that the majority of the people on the Falkland Islands consider themselves British citizens and so the Argentineans were attempting to take control of an area that simply did not want them as their rulers.
Now I'm not trying to say that the British were right in taking over the Falkland Islands before - because honestly I do not know the history, but I do know about the Falkland Islands when they were invaded.
I'm not trying to say that the British were heroes in defending the Falkland Islanders' rights because there definitely more interests than that. The idea that if Argentina could take British land and the British allow it would have set a dangerous precedent for sure. However saying that it was all the gain of the British is very poor and shows very little knowledge about the war itself.
What I've read on the matter seems to describe the islands as disputed. So even though the british stole them fair and square in 1833, the UN in the 1960's and 1970's said that the islands were still not clearly owned and that the UK and Argentina needed to work it all out. And from further reading, it seems the only real occupants of the falklands was the English-owned Falkland Islands Company. The argentinians, for their part, were a disgusting military junta mob, but their government had rather legally and continously disputed the British occupation of the island from 1833 on in various european and world courts for the past 150 years and had plenty of documentation. It seems that british ownership of the island was dependent on which people you were talking to.
For the sake of argument though, it's not strong enough case for me to point to modern british colonialism. I retract my statement and apologise...
... and instead change my british example to their final release of Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) as a colony in <b>1980</b>!!! Yes, all but our teenage boardmembers were alive for African coloniasm in full effect! And how is Zimbabwe these days, you ask, after centuries of €uropean rule? Well, a few civil wars, a dictator, lots of mass-murders, constant starvation, and one of the the most corrupt and self-destructive governments in western africa! Yay! You taught them well...sounds like 1940's europe... Not that france minds, they gave mass-murdering zimbabwe president Robert Mugabe a free pass to hang out in France <i>last month</i>(breaking very explicit EU rules about the harboring of war criminals and fugitives from justice).
The source of the problem is old days colonialism. I cant blame anyone for defending their citizens, so sorry about that. It's the same as blaming the israelis for defending their land today, however unfair the original resolution of 1947 (or sometime around that) was to the existing population. Geez, now I brought in Israel. sorry. Just using it as an example. But Israel is another case of trouble caused by meddling great powers, which you can't blame those who live in the country for now. Not Israelis nor palestines.
Skåne was conquered by the swedes 400 years ago or something. A rather hard handed "swedification" took place after that. Still, today no one sane would say that if was a legitimate reason if Denmark waged a war of "reconquest" on Sweden. Things changed throughout the centuries. (Tho we had plans to do it up till the Napoleonic Wars <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Mar 13 2003, 07:39 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Mar 13 2003, 07:39 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> /me looks desperately for a <b>"€"</b> key on his keyboard...
Good idea. I'm off to setup a hotkey for it <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> HA! I got my l€€t € key right here <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo--> Neener.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As for the use of all those things you hate, are you driving an SS Panzer tank too? Sheesh boy, go use a Mac or something! <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But then I won't have Micro$oft to bash. It's just as entertaining as bashing USA <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
And German PzKfw were COOL hardware! That's the boy in me, can't help being attracted to big metal hunks of destruction. Yes I can blatantly ignore what they were used to <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> It's the Turing test of genders. If a respondent can give any sort of detailed answer on anything Panzer, it's 99% a male.
<!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Mar 13 2003, 07:39 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Mar 13 2003, 07:39 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->/me looks desperately for a <b>"€"</b> key on his keyboard...
Good idea. I'm off to setup a hotkey for it <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> HA! I got my l€€t € key right here <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> Neener. Too bad France said goodbye to the french franc symbol (f with a dash). Now I'll have to write Franc€ when I am referring to their government etc. in order to avoid generic Frenchman bashing. Btw. obviously it's not England that has issues with colonialism, it's £ngland!
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As for the use of all those things you hate, are you driving an SS Panzer tank too? Sheesh boy, go use a Mac or something! <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
When NS for Mac is Released! But I can't let go of my pc and MS because then I won't have Micro$oft to bash! It's just as entertaining as bashing U$A <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
And German PzKfw were COOL hardware! That's the boy in me, can't help being attracted to big metal hulks of destruction. Yes I can blatantly ignore what they were used to <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> It's the Turing test of genders. If a respondent can give any sort of detailed answer on anything Panzer, it's 99% a male.
<!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Mar 13 2003, 08:46 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Mar 13 2003, 08:46 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->What I've read on the matter seems to describe the islands as disputed. So even though the british stole them fair and square in 1833, the UN in the 1960's and 1970's said that the islands were still not clearly owned and that the UK and Argentina needed to work it all out. And from further reading, it seems the only real occupants of the falklands was the English-owned Falkland Islands Company. The argentinians, for their part, were a disgusting military junta mob, but their government had rather legally and continously disputed the British occupation of the island from 1833 on in various european and world courts for the past 150 years and had plenty of documentation. It seems that british ownership of the island was dependent on which people you were talking to.
For the sake of argument though, it's not strong enough case for me to point to modern british colonialism. I retract my statement and apologise...
... and instead change my british example to their final release of Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) as a colony in <b>1980</b>!!! Yes, all but our teenage boardmembers were alive for African coloniasm in full effect! And how is Zimbabwe these days, you ask, after centuries of €uropean rule? Well, a few civil wars, a dictator, lots of mass-murders, constant starvation, and one of the the most corrupt and self-destructive governments in western africa! Yay! You taught them well...sounds like 1940's europe... Not that france minds, they gave mass-murdering zimbabwe president Robert Mugabe a free pass to hang out in France <i>last month</i>(breaking very explicit EU rules about the harboring of war criminals and fugitives from justice).
Rock on!<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> As for Zimbabwe, I'm not saying that British Colonialism was a good thing, however blaming all of the troubles that are occurring now on Britain is just not on.
However, the BBC is just stating the facts - not opinions.
You will see that between 1972-1980 there was a civil war - however in 1979 the British held peace talks to try and end this war.
Independence was indeed granted in 1980 and all the majority of the problems after that have been caused by President Mugabe himself.
You will that the EU and the Commonwealth have both placed/tried to place sanctions upon Zimbabwe, and that the majority of foreign aid into the country was severely limited because of objections to Mugabe's regime.
You cannot blame all the problems in Zimbabwe solely on British Colonialism, as your post seems to be implying.
As for the French thing, it caused massive outrage in Britain I can tell you.
So was Colonialism good? - no.
Were some of the problems now caused by Colonialism? - most probably.
Has Britain tried to fix it? - yes.
Trying to apply morals from today to things that happen hundreds of years ago, colonialism, is rather harsh.
I'm sure you will say: "Look it was 1980! That was hardly 100s of years ago!"
However if the British had just left Zimbabwe in the 1930s-1960s what do you think would have happened?
Would Zimbabwe have been the shining beacon of democracy and freedom to show the rest of the African countries what to be like?
I don't think so - although I'm open to people trying to convince me otherwise.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Well, a few civil wars, a dictator, lots of mass-murders, constant starvation, and one of the most corrupt and self-destructive governments in western Africa! <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well the civil wars as well as those mass murders were after we left:
1982 - Mugabe sacks Nkomo, accusing him of preparing to overthrow the government. North Korean-trained Fifth Brigade deployed to crush rebellion by pro-Nkomo ex-guerrillas in Midlands and Matabeleland provinces. Government forces are accused of killing thousands of civilians over next few years.
Constant starvation?
2002 April - State of disaster declared as worsening food shortages threaten famine. Government blames drought, the UN's World Food Programme says disruption to agriculture is a contributing factor.
The disruption to agriculture is the policy of "seizure of white-owned farm land" which Mugabe started and one can hardly blame Britain for a famine.
And as for the most corrupt and self-destructive governments in West Africa?
It was their freedom - they can do with it what they like.
If Britain had invaded Zimbabwe and attempted to stop this all happening - everyone and his wife would say that Britain was trying to Colonize Africa again.
Military force would not have helped then and it would not help now - I feel that Britain is doing all it can, short of training rebels or overthrowing the government, it can.
I'm gonna sound crazy for a second, but European Colonialism wasn't all that bad. Sure, it was horrible WHILE it was going on... but the citizens of European Colonized regions are, for the most part, better off than the places where Europe just raped for resources (which is pretty much everywhere else, with the exception East Asia). So I'm ready to give 2 cheers for colonialism. Anyone looking for a more in depth explanation, read 'Whats so Great about America' by Jesus. I mean Dineh D'Souza.
Well Josiah, do you think that if Britain had spent the time, money, and effort to ease Zimbabwe into free-rule, rather than simply letting the country get so out of hand and crushed under war, that things might have turned out differently?
If they had said 'hmmm, we have the only African colony left right now; we should tell the Rhodesians that we plan on granting them independence in 5 years. We'll pay for their citizens to get educated in european schools of government, we'll give them a trust fund, and we'll ease them in democracy. Because we've seen 50 times now what happens when other european countries just pull out of an african colony and leave it swinging in the wind - murder, tribal warfare, corrupt governments, famine, death. Since, after all, we never taught them how to govern themselves and we always did it for them so they have become politically retarded over the past 200 years of occupation. Yeah, good idea. Let's get a pint and some chips, then get that rolling tomorrow'.
But they didn't. They just said the hell with it, and let the disaster that they had caused unfold fully. That's **** up and you know it. You simply cannot defend it, and I would hope it would be just as guilt-causing to you as slavery is to us. Don't make me tell everyone here where the name Rhodesia comes from, after all...
As an aside, I'm not Britain hunting. I'm just using examples. I don't see you leaping to France's defense here (who I lovingly bash every 5th post), so try and stay calm and objective. It's not about Britain, it's about €uropean Government and €uropean Big Business. I'm getting married in Britain in 2 months, and happen to think you're some of the only europeans worth a handshake and a beer these day. Heck, I even like Grendel, and he's a jerk half the time <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> .
AllUrHiveRblong2usBy Your Powers Combined...Join Date: 2002-12-20Member: 11244Members
<!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Mar 13 2003, 09:26 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Mar 13 2003, 09:26 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Allur: Go look at lots of your previous posts to see what I mean. Don't make me embarrass you by quoting them all. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I honestly have no idea what you're talking about, but then again, my memory is frighteningly short.
Amazingly, I can't find any. How odd. Oh wait, I look in the SQL post table edit dates, and see how you've gone back and started editing your old ones to remove your trail of l337. Just to knock off your smartalleck attitude, your posting rights have been revoked for 72 hours. We'll enjoy the silence.
Now... what the heck were the grown-ups talking about?
(Singing) And they say that a Hero will save us, I'm not gonna get in the way... (End Singing)
Thanks Monse. I was getting a little weary of his arguments (or lack there of) in his posts.
Damn that Multicultural, Anti-American public school indoctrination!!! It just messes up the discussion boards. This has kind of spiraled away from the intended topic, the current cultural and political shifts in Europe. Oh well, I certainly did nothing to get it on course.
I think Europe will eventually unite into a United States of Europe. The EU will just grow and eventually become a single country. I don't see such movement being successful in the long run, as Europe's wonderful diversity will once again flare up. And the most affluent nations, such as Britain, will be scared of losing their autonomy.
<!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Mar 13 2003, 11:34 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Mar 13 2003, 11:34 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Well Josiah, do you think that if Britain had spent the time, money, and effort to ease Zimbabwe into free-rule, rather than simply letting the country get so out of hand and crushed under war, that things might have turned out differently?
If they had said 'hmmm, we have the only African colony left right now; we should tell the Rhodesians that we plan on granting them independence in 5 years. We'll pay for their citizens to get educated in european schools of government, we'll give them a trust fund, and we'll ease them in democracy. Because we've seen 50 times now what happens when other european countries just pull out of an african colony and leave it swinging in the wind - murder, tribal warfare, corrupt governments, famine, death. Since, after all, we never taught them how to govern themselves and we always did it for them so they have become politically retarded over the past 200 years of occupation. Yeah, good idea. Let's get a pint and some chips, then get that rolling tomorrow'.
But they didn't. They just said the hell with it, and let the disaster that they had caused unfold fully. That's **** up and you know it. You simply cannot defend it, and I would hope it would be just as guilt-causing to you as slavery is to us. Don't make me tell everyone here where the name Rhodesia comes from, after all...
As an aside, I'm not Britain hunting. I'm just using examples. I don't see you leaping to France's defense here (who I lovingly bash every 5th post), so try and stay calm and objective. It's not about Britain, it's about €uropean Government and €uropean Big Business. I'm getting married in Britain in 2 months, and happen to think you're some of the only europeans worth a handshake and a beer these day. Heck, I even like Grendel, and he's a jerk half the time <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> .<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> So you want the United Kingdom to have given the entire population of Zimbabwe education?
What kind of government would do that? I mean come on that is just not viable at all.
In 1980 Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister and she wasn't exactly the most liberal of Prime Ministers this country has ever seen.
The 1980s weren't exactly the best time in British financial history and Britain was hardly a very liberal place itself.
No government in its right mind would actually place an entire foreign country in to full time education whilst their country was in such a state.
You seem to forget that the winter of 1978-79 was known as "The Winter of Discontent" as there was a massive bust up between the Trade Unions and the Government, which involved a lack of food and petrol, no rubbish collecting in places, and in Liverpool, dead people were piled up in mortuaries.
The picket lines outside hospitals even decided whom they would let through to get better in the hospital.
This was probably the most unpopular Government in British history and I'm sure giving a shed-load of money to Zimbabwe would really have helped.
Also when it came to 1980 - the Soviets invaded Afghanistan and everyone was scared they'd roll into Poland next.
Also in Britain, unemployment had reached 2 million, the highest since 1936! Inflation was at 20% and industry reported orders were down between 10-40%
In fact it was costing the British 22% more to produce 4% less.
However, I'm sure we could have found enough cash to educate the entire population of Zimbabwe, whilst it was in the middle of a civil war. I'm sure that there would be no rivalry between the educated Zimbabweans and those who missed out.
And there would be no massive influx of refugees into Zimbabwe causing its collapse, and that no other countries would not be jealous of Zimbabwe's new democracy and help from the British - maybe even causing a war.
So yes I'm sure that would have been the perfect solution to the problem.
Also your post seems to be implying that democracy only works amongst the educated - so should Britain only have allowed votes for those who are educated?
Maybe a "Right to Vote Exam?" If you fail the test you don't get to vote? That is what you seem to be saying.
And as for my personal views about the British Empire? I shall leave these out of the discussion, as I fear we may move off on another tangent.
Wow, you went off on all this unreasonable tangent because of badly-worded sentence on my part...
I meant to say:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->We'll pay for <b>[some of]</b> their citizens to get educated in european schools of government, we'll give them a trust fund, and we'll ease them in democracy<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Some, some, some. Naturally you can't ship 15 million people over to the Oxford College of Government Iif there is such a place).
As for the rest of your point? Tough noogies. Britain screwed the place up, it's there job to fix it. There is no excuse for what Britain did, considering that in the hundreds of years of colonialism, they couldn't be bothered to spend the slightest effort on undoing the damage as they bailed out. Heck, even the french made a vague attempt to teach self-governance when they pulled out of west african countries. At the least, they could have created a timetable of pulling out and used that as a way to stop the civil war and have people start getting ready for decolonialization. I'm sorry, but this was a poor, poor country and it would not have taken much money or effort to do some good on the way out. Britain's government instead chose to do nothing. Were there big civil protests of this behavior, or did the british public not care?
<!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Mar 14 2003, 02:06 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Mar 14 2003, 02:06 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Wow, you went off on all this unreasonable tangent because of badly-worded sentence on my part...
I meant to say:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->We'll pay for <b>[some of]</b> their citizens to get educated in european schools of government, we'll give them a trust fund, and we'll ease them in democracy<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Some, some, some. Naturally you can't ship 15 million people over to the Oxford College of Government Iif there is such a place).
As for the rest of your point? Tough noogies. Britain screwed the place up, it's there job to fix it. There is no excuse for what Britain did, considering that in the hundreds of years of colonialism, they couldn't be bothered to spend the slightest effort on undoing the damage as they bailed out. Heck, even the french made a vague attempt to teach self-governance when they pulled out of west african countries. At the least, they could have created a timetable of pulling out and used that as a way to stop the civil war and have people start getting ready for decolonialization. I'm sorry, but this was a poor, poor country and it would not have taken much money or effort to do some good on the way out. Britain's government instead chose to do nothing. Were there big civil protests of this behavior, or did the british public not care? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I do believe the British people were too busy worrying about the 2 million in unemployment.
Sorry pressed the enter button and it posted my incomplete post.
Your post still doesn't answer the question the points about rivalry between those who got education and those who didn't, and the fact that other countries could be jealous.
Also <a href='http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/africa/features/storyofafrica/12chapter10.shtml' target='_blank'>BBC World Service</a> has a little bit of history about Zimbabwe's independence.
Prime Minister Ian Smith, of Zimbabwe, Unilaterally Declared Independence on the radio.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->This was against all the wishes of the British government, who hoped to help Rhodesia towards majority rule in line with the rest of the continent. Rhodesia left the Commonwealth and Britain imposed economic sanctions.
It took another fifteen years of negotiation and fighting before Rhodesia, renamed Zimbabwe, became independent under majority rule with Robert Mugabe leading the government in 1980. - BBC World Service<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You see they declared independence and then left the Commonwealth - clearly showing that they didn't want our help!
Wow, as an American, I so cannot identify with revolting against your oppressive British colonial rulers and throwing them out of the country after hundreds of years of mistreatment, lack of representation, land theft, and more...
^_^
Uhhhhhh...
As for your point on the haves and have nots warring, it still would not have been necessary if the people felt like the UK giovernment had their best interests in mind and were trying to improve the place. But let's see what the historial relatrionship was instead; if you don't fell like reading it all, check out the highlighted texts (all from a british website, <a href='http://www.rhodesian-chronicle.co.uk/rhodesias_history.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.rhodesian-chronicle.co.uk/rhode...ias_history.htm</a>, which actually seems to be slanted rather in favor of the white rhodesians and UK government):
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->In 1888, Cecil Rhodes obtained a concession for mineral rights from local chiefs. <b>Later that year, the area that became Southern and Northern Rhodesia was proclaimed a British sphere of influence.</b> The British South Africa Company was chartered in 1889, and the settlement of Salisbury (now Harare, the capital) was established in 1890. In 1895, the territory was formally named Rhodesia after Cecil Rhodes under the British South Africa Company's administration.
Following the abrogation of the company's charter in 1923, Southern Rhodesia's white settlements were given the choice of being incorporated into the Union of South Africa or becoming a separate entity within the British Empire. The settlers rejected incorporation, and Southern Rhodesia was formally annexed by the United Kingdom that year. Until 1980, Rhodesia was an internally self-governing colony with its own legislature, civil service, armed forces, and police. <b>Although Rhodesia was never administered directly from London, the United Kingdom always retained the right to intervene in the affairs of the colony, particularly in matters affecting Africans. </b>
After 1923, European immigrants concentrated in developing Rhodesia's rich mineral resources and agricultural potential. <b>The settlers' demand for more land led in 1934 to the passage of the first of a series of land apportionment acts that reserved certain areas for Europeans. </b>
In September 1953, Southern Rhodesia was joined in a multiracial Central African Federation with the British protectorate of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland in an effort to pool resources and markets. <b>Although the federation flourished economically, it was opposed by the African population, who feared they would not be able to achieve self-government with the federal structure dominated by White Southern Rhodesians. </b>The federation was dissolved at the end of 1963 after much crisis and turmoil, and Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland became the independent states of Zambia and Malawi in 1964.
<b>The European electorate in Rhodesia, however, showed little willingness to accede to African demands for increased political participation and progressively replaced more moderate party leaders. </b>In April 1964, Prime Minister Winston Field, accused of not moving rapidly enough to obtain independence from the United Kingdom, was replaced by his deputy, Ian Smith. Prime Minster Smith led his Rhodesian Front Party to an overwhelming victory in the 1965 elections, winning all 50 of the first roll seats and demoralizing the more moderate European opposition.
Although prepared to grant independence to Rhodesia, the United Kingdom insisted that the authorities at Salisbury first demonstrate their intention to move toward eventual majority rule. <b>Desiring to keep their dominant position, the white Rhodesians refused to give such assurances.</b> On November 11, 1965, after lengthy and unsuccessful negotiations with the British Government, Prime Minister Smith issued a Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI) from the United Kingdom.
Rhodesia on the 11th Nov 1965 broke from Empire with the Unilateral Declaration of Independence (U D I). In it PM Ian Smith stated;
“There can be no solution to our racial problems while African nationalists believe that, provide they stirred up enough trouble, they will be able to blackmail the British Government into bringing about a miracle on there behalf by handing the country over to irresponsible rule...Whatever the short term economic disadvantages may be, in the long term steady economic progress could never be achieved unless we are masters in our own house...We have struck a blow for the preservation of justice, civilization and Christianity...God bless you all.”
Communist regimes across the globe united to contrive to make the African continent a huge pro-eastern bloc landmass. With the colonial powers trying their dam nest to wash their hands of these colonies the Reds were only too happy to take the reigns of power. With pro Marxist terror groups disguising themselves under the black nationalism banner like ZANU and ZAPU the Rhodesians were in no way going to just roll over at their bidding. ZANU was funded and supplied by OAU (Organization of African Unity), which was a mish-mash of despot communist funded African states, who in turn was funded by Russia, Cuba and north Korea to just name a few.
After Ian smith stated Rhodesia's ‘Unilateral Declaration of Independence’, ZANU and ZAPU commenced their terror.
April 1966 saw groups of terrorists infiltrate Rhodesia. These attacks slowly increasing until all out bush war erupted in December 1972 with ‘hit and run’ murder squads destroying white owned farms. The Rhodesian forces fought bravely and whenever met full on; the enemy always came off much worse. In 1974 the 1st battalion Rhodesian Light Infantry and the ’C’ Rhodesian SAS Regiment were now fully prepared for a battle for their land. The Marxist enemy was hunted and destroyed whenever it tried to hit a target.
1974 saw Portuguese control of Mozambique collapsed to communist terror. This opened a second front for Rhodesia. Rhodesia started the creation of specialist units that would covertly seek and destroy the guerrillas in their bases. These were the ‘Selous Scouts’ and for highly mobile bush warfare the ‘Grey Scouts’ reintroducing cavalry, aggressively follow the enemy into almost inaccessible areas faster than infantry.
In 1976 the Rhodesians took the war to the enemy with a precision lethal raid on a major base in Mozambique killing 1200 guerrillas and captured huge amounts of weapons. The next three years saw the Rhodesian air force; the SAS regiment and the Selous scouts strike at the very heart of the terror network. In one such raid named ‘Green Leader’ the Rhodesian air force took over the entire Zambian airspace and deliver a crippling blow to the Red forces there.
In September 1978 a civil aircraft was brought down by the guerrillas, eighteen civilians who survived the crash were then executed in cold blood.
September 1979 saw the most heroic make or break incursion into Mozambique. Operation ERIC saw 400 SAS and specialist troops supported by helicopters, fighter aircraft and transport/supply aircraft of the Rhodesian air force, hunt and attack the massive terrorist training camps that held up to 20,000 guerrillas in Mozambique! The troops met fierce resistance but secured their objectives. 14 Rhodesians were killed and a helicopter was lost. The kill ratio was 1 Rhodesian to 25 enemy!
Staggering these successes were though the cruel fact was that the Rhodesians would be unable to bring the war to a speedy end. Rhodesian losses in men and machines were increasing, whereas the supply of equipment and recruits to the guerrillas seemed endless.
A political agreement was reached in December 1979. Rhodesian troops were at the ready to take out Mugabe and ZANU. But though troops and tanks were at the ready in and around key strategic points in the capital, the Apparent ‘decisive’ victory at the polls, the military reluctantly stepped down.
<b>The British government considered the UDI unconstitutional and illegal but made clear that it would not use force to the rebellion. On November 12, 1965, the United Nations also determined the Rhodesian government and UDI to be illegal and called on member states to refrain from assisting or recognizing the Smith regime. The British government imposed sanctions on Rhodesia and requested other nations to do the same. </b>
On December 16, 1966, the UN Security Council, for the first time in this history, imposed mandatory economic sanctions on a state. Rhodesia's primary exports including ferrochrome and tobacco, were replaced on the selective sanctions list, as were shipments of arms, aircraft, motor vehicles, petroleum, and petroleum products to Rhodesia. On May 29, 1968, the Security Council unanimously voted to broaden the sanctions by imposing an almost total embargo on all trade with, investments in, or transfers of funds to Rhodesia and imposed restrictions on air transport to the territory.
In the early 1970s, informal attempts at settlement were renewed between the United Kingdom and the Rhodesian administration. Following the April 1974 coup in Portugal and the resulting shifts of power in Mozambique and Angola, pressure on the Smith regime to negotiate a peaceful settlement began to increase. In addition, sporadic antigovernment guerilla activity which began in the late 1960s, increased dramatically after 1972, causing destruction, economic dislocation, casualties, and a slump in white morale. In 1974, the major African nationalists groups--the Zimbabwe African Peoples Union (ZAPU), and the Zimbabwe African National Union (ZANU), which split away from ZAPU in 1963--were united into the "Patriotic Front" and combined their military forces, at least nominally.
In 1976, because of a combination of embargo-related economic hardships, the pressure of guerilla activity, independence and majority rule in the neighboring former Portuguese territories, and a U.K.-U.S. diplomatic initiative, the Smith government agreed in principle to majority rule and to a meeting in Geneva with black nationalist leaders to negotiate a final settlement of the conflict. Blacks represented at the Geneva meeting included ZAPU leader Joshua Nkomo, ZANU leader Robert Mugabe, UANC chairman bishop Abel Muzorewa, and former ZANU leader Rev. Nadabaningi Sithole. The meeting failed to find a basis for agreement because of Smith's inflexibility and the inability of the black leaders to form a common political front.
On September 1, 1977 a detailed Anglo-American plan was put forward with proposals for majority rule, neutrally administered with pre-independence elections, a democratic constitution and the formation of an integrated army. Reactions were mixed, but no party rejected them. In the interim, on March 3, 1978, the Smith administration signed the "internal settlement" agreement in Salisbury with Bishop Muzorewa, Rev. Sithole, and Chief Jeremiah Chirau. The agreement provided for qualified majority rule and elections with universal suffrage. Following elections in April 1979, in which his UANC party won a majority, Bishop Muzorewa assumed office on June 1, becoming "Zimbabwe-Rhodesia's" first black prime minister. However, the installation of the new black majority government did not end the guerilla conflict that had claimed more than 20,000 lives since 1972.
Shortly after British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's conservative government took power in May 1979, the British began a new round of consultations that culminated in an agreement among the Commonwealth countries as the basis for fresh negotiations among the parties and the British involving a new constitution, free elections and independence.
The British and the African parties began deliberations on a Rhodesian settlement at Lancaster house in London on September 10, 1979. On December 10, 1979, in preparation for the transition under British authority to officially recognized independence, the "Zimbabwe-Rhodesia" reverted de facto to colonial status. On December 12, British Governor Lord Christopher Soames arrived in Salisbury to reassert British authority over the colony. His arrival signaled the end of the Rhodesian rebellion and the "internal settlement," as well as the beginning of Zimbabwe's transition to independence. The United Kingdom lifted all remaining sanctions against Zimbabwe that day. The United States lifted sanctions effective December 16.
On December 21, after three months of hard bargaining, the parties signed an agreement at Lancaster House calling for a cease-fire, new elections, a transition period under British rule, and a new constitution implementing majority rule while protecting minority rights. The agreement specified that upon the granting of independence, the country's name would be Zimbabwe. The same day, the UN Security Council endorsed the settlement agreement and formally voted unanimously to call on member nations to remove sanctions.
During the transition period, nine political parties campaigned for the February 27-29 pre-independence elections. The elections were supervised by the British government and monitored by hundreds of observers, most of whom concluded that, under the prevailing circumstances, the elections were free and fair and reflected the will of the people. Robert Mugabe's ZANU(PF) party won an absolute majority and was asked to form Zimbabwe's first government.
In a series of public statements during the transition period, Prime Minister Mugabe indicated that he was committed to a process of national reconciliation and reconstruction as well as moderate socioeconomic change. His priorities were to integrate the various armed forces, reestablish social services and education in rural areas, and resettle the estimated one million refugees and displaced persons. Mugabe also announced that his government would begin investigating ways of reversing past discriminatory policies in land distribution, education, employment, and wages.
Mugabe stated that Zimbabwe would follow a non-aligned foreign policy while seeking assistance from all actions and would pursue a pragmatic relationship with South Africa. He noted that while Zimbabwe opposed apartheid and would support democratic change in South Africa, it would not provide bases for anti-South African guerillas.
The British Government formally granted independence to Zimbabwe on April 18, 1980. Most nations recognized Zimbabwe following independence. The United States was to first nation to open an embassy in Salisbury on that day. Parliament convened for the first time on May 13, 1980. Zimbabwe became a member of the United Nations on August 25, 1980.
In seeking national reconciliation, Prime Minister Mugabe's first cabinet comprised members of ZANU-PF, PF-ZAPU, and independent white members of parliament (MPs) and senators. The government embarked on an ambitious reconstruction and development program and instituted increases in minimum wages. Land redistribution proceeded under four experimental models on land that the government had purchased at market rates from willing sellers. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So, Britain installed it's white settlers and had them take over the country. This led to some understandable alienation from the natives, so that the permanent rift between sides meant that a civil war was inevitable. The country became a South Africa. The aboriginal natives were never allowed to self-govern, so their own proponent became a murdering warlord (Mugabe). Sort of like France and Vietnam. Basically, the British government and corporations milked the place dry, then left it to implode when they were done with it. Why are you defending this behavior? It's no different than what the British and Early American Settlers did to the indians, and normal people certainly don't try to make excuses for the fact today. It's a source of national embarrassment and we spend billions of dollars every year in compensation to what's left of the tribes.
AsranielJoin Date: 2002-06-03Member: 724Members, Playtest Lead, Forum Moderators, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Shadow, Subnautica Playtester, Retired Community Developer
hm.. i join this conversation a little bit late.. but i just can say, i agree completely with Nemesis(at least on the first page, i didnt read the rest).
I would like when some of you americans would inform yourself whats going on with theyr rights since some time, like the patriotic act. This paper is a huge atack against the human rights and when the patriotic act 2 will be accepted.. then it will be horrible.. inform yourself
And look at all those lies that has been said since now from bush and Co. just to legitimate a attack on the Iraq. Even ex president Carter sais that there is NO danger for the USA from the Iraq. The american governement told the people that Saddam hussein has something to do with terrorism, but that NOT true. And many other things have been faked, also in the first Iraq war, i hope you know all of them (baby massacre.. never happend, chirugic precision of the bombs..not true 70% of the bombs miss theyr targets... )
I want to say, im not anti americanist (or however you say that), im just against bush and his politic. And there is another thing i want to say, in europe, there is nearly nobody that has anti americaism feelings. But look at america, there are many people with anti french or german feelings...
ok, last thing, inform yourself.. about the PNAC and so, and you will see... the world has a big problem with bush....
(excuse my english, im swiss and to write complex texts like this one is hard)
<!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Mar 14 2003, 04:43 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Mar 14 2003, 04:43 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Wow, as an American, I so cannot identify with revolting against your oppressive British colonial rulers and throwing them out of the country after hundreds of years of mistreatment, lack of representation, land theft, and more...
^_^
Uhhhhhh...
As for your point on the haves and have nots warring, it still would not have been necessary if the people felt like the UK giovernment had their best interests in mind and were trying to improve the place. But let's see what the historial relatrionship was instead; if you don't fell like reading it all, check out the highlighted texts (all from a british website, <a href='http://www.rhodesian-chronicle.co.uk/rhodesias_history.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.rhodesian-chronicle.co.uk/rhode...ias_history.htm</a>, which actually seems to be slanted rather in favor of the white rhodesians and UK government):
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->In 1888, Cecil Rhodes obtained a concession for mineral rights from local chiefs. <b>Later that year, the area that became Southern and Northern Rhodesia was proclaimed a British sphere of influence.</b> The British South Africa Company was chartered in 1889, and the settlement of Salisbury (now Harare, the capital) was established in 1890. In 1895, the territory was formally named Rhodesia after Cecil Rhodes under the British South Africa Company's administration.
Following the abrogation of the company's charter in 1923, Southern Rhodesia's white settlements were given the choice of being incorporated into the Union of South Africa or becoming a separate entity within the British Empire. The settlers rejected incorporation, and Southern Rhodesia was formally annexed by the United Kingdom that year. Until 1980, Rhodesia was an internally self-governing colony with its own legislature, civil service, armed forces, and police. <b>Although Rhodesia was never administered directly from London, the United Kingdom always retained the right to intervene in the affairs of the colony, particularly in matters affecting Africans. </b>
After 1923, European immigrants concentrated in developing Rhodesia's rich mineral resources and agricultural potential. <b>The settlers' demand for more land led in 1934 to the passage of the first of a series of land apportionment acts that reserved certain areas for Europeans. </b>
In September 1953, Southern Rhodesia was joined in a multiracial Central African Federation with the British protectorate of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland in an effort to pool resources and markets. <b>Although the federation flourished economically, it was opposed by the African population, who feared they would not be able to achieve self-government with the federal structure dominated by White Southern Rhodesians. </b>The federation was dissolved at the end of 1963 after much crisis and turmoil, and Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland became the independent states of Zambia and Malawi in 1964.
<b>The European electorate in Rhodesia, however, showed little willingness to accede to African demands for increased political participation and progressively replaced more moderate party leaders. </b>In April 1964, Prime Minister Winston Field, accused of not moving rapidly enough to obtain independence from the United Kingdom, was replaced by his deputy, Ian Smith. Prime Minster Smith led his Rhodesian Front Party to an overwhelming victory in the 1965 elections, winning all 50 of the first roll seats and demoralizing the more moderate European opposition.
Although prepared to grant independence to Rhodesia, the United Kingdom insisted that the authorities at Salisbury first demonstrate their intention to move toward eventual majority rule. <b>Desiring to keep their dominant position, the white Rhodesians refused to give such assurances.</b> On November 11, 1965, after lengthy and unsuccessful negotiations with the British Government, Prime Minister Smith issued a Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI) from the United Kingdom.
Rhodesia on the 11th Nov 1965 broke from Empire with the Unilateral Declaration of Independence (U D I). In it PM Ian Smith stated;
“There can be no solution to our racial problems while African nationalists believe that, provide they stirred up enough trouble, they will be able to blackmail the British Government into bringing about a miracle on there behalf by handing the country over to irresponsible rule...Whatever the short term economic disadvantages may be, in the long term steady economic progress could never be achieved unless we are masters in our own house...We have struck a blow for the preservation of justice, civilization and Christianity...God bless you all.”
Communist regimes across the globe united to contrive to make the African continent a huge pro-eastern bloc landmass. With the colonial powers trying their dam nest to wash their hands of these colonies the Reds were only too happy to take the reigns of power. With pro Marxist terror groups disguising themselves under the black nationalism banner like ZANU and ZAPU the Rhodesians were in no way going to just roll over at their bidding. ZANU was funded and supplied by OAU (Organization of African Unity), which was a mish-mash of despot communist funded African states, who in turn was funded by Russia, Cuba and north Korea to just name a few.
After Ian smith stated Rhodesia's ‘Unilateral Declaration of Independence’, ZANU and ZAPU commenced their terror.
April 1966 saw groups of terrorists infiltrate Rhodesia. These attacks slowly increasing until all out bush war erupted in December 1972 with ‘hit and run’ murder squads destroying white owned farms. The Rhodesian forces fought bravely and whenever met full on; the enemy always came off much worse. In 1974 the 1st battalion Rhodesian Light Infantry and the ’C’ Rhodesian SAS Regiment were now fully prepared for a battle for their land. The Marxist enemy was hunted and destroyed whenever it tried to hit a target.
1974 saw Portuguese control of Mozambique collapsed to communist terror. This opened a second front for Rhodesia. Rhodesia started the creation of specialist units that would covertly seek and destroy the guerrillas in their bases. These were the ‘Selous Scouts’ and for highly mobile bush warfare the ‘Grey Scouts’ reintroducing cavalry, aggressively follow the enemy into almost inaccessible areas faster than infantry.
In 1976 the Rhodesians took the war to the enemy with a precision lethal raid on a major base in Mozambique killing 1200 guerrillas and captured huge amounts of weapons. The next three years saw the Rhodesian air force; the SAS regiment and the Selous scouts strike at the very heart of the terror network. In one such raid named ‘Green Leader’ the Rhodesian air force took over the entire Zambian airspace and deliver a crippling blow to the Red forces there.
In September 1978 a civil aircraft was brought down by the guerrillas, eighteen civilians who survived the crash were then executed in cold blood.
September 1979 saw the most heroic make or break incursion into Mozambique. Operation ERIC saw 400 SAS and specialist troops supported by helicopters, fighter aircraft and transport/supply aircraft of the Rhodesian air force, hunt and attack the massive terrorist training camps that held up to 20,000 guerrillas in Mozambique! The troops met fierce resistance but secured their objectives. 14 Rhodesians were killed and a helicopter was lost. The kill ratio was 1 Rhodesian to 25 enemy!
Staggering these successes were though the cruel fact was that the Rhodesians would be unable to bring the war to a speedy end. Rhodesian losses in men and machines were increasing, whereas the supply of equipment and recruits to the guerrillas seemed endless.
A political agreement was reached in December 1979. Rhodesian troops were at the ready to take out Mugabe and ZANU. But though troops and tanks were at the ready in and around key strategic points in the capital, the Apparent ‘decisive’ victory at the polls, the military reluctantly stepped down.
<b>The British government considered the UDI unconstitutional and illegal but made clear that it would not use force to the rebellion. On November 12, 1965, the United Nations also determined the Rhodesian government and UDI to be illegal and called on member states to refrain from assisting or recognizing the Smith regime. The British government imposed sanctions on Rhodesia and requested other nations to do the same. </b>
On December 16, 1966, the UN Security Council, for the first time in this history, imposed mandatory economic sanctions on a state. Rhodesia's primary exports including ferrochrome and tobacco, were replaced on the selective sanctions list, as were shipments of arms, aircraft, motor vehicles, petroleum, and petroleum products to Rhodesia. On May 29, 1968, the Security Council unanimously voted to broaden the sanctions by imposing an almost total embargo on all trade with, investments in, or transfers of funds to Rhodesia and imposed restrictions on air transport to the territory.
In the early 1970s, informal attempts at settlement were renewed between the United Kingdom and the Rhodesian administration. Following the April 1974 coup in Portugal and the resulting shifts of power in Mozambique and Angola, pressure on the Smith regime to negotiate a peaceful settlement began to increase. In addition, sporadic antigovernment guerilla activity which began in the late 1960s, increased dramatically after 1972, causing destruction, economic dislocation, casualties, and a slump in white morale. In 1974, the major African nationalists groups--the Zimbabwe African Peoples Union (ZAPU), and the Zimbabwe African National Union (ZANU), which split away from ZAPU in 1963--were united into the "Patriotic Front" and combined their military forces, at least nominally.
In 1976, because of a combination of embargo-related economic hardships, the pressure of guerilla activity, independence and majority rule in the neighboring former Portuguese territories, and a U.K.-U.S. diplomatic initiative, the Smith government agreed in principle to majority rule and to a meeting in Geneva with black nationalist leaders to negotiate a final settlement of the conflict. Blacks represented at the Geneva meeting included ZAPU leader Joshua Nkomo, ZANU leader Robert Mugabe, UANC chairman bishop Abel Muzorewa, and former ZANU leader Rev. Nadabaningi Sithole. The meeting failed to find a basis for agreement because of Smith's inflexibility and the inability of the black leaders to form a common political front.
On September 1, 1977 a detailed Anglo-American plan was put forward with proposals for majority rule, neutrally administered with pre-independence elections, a democratic constitution and the formation of an integrated army. Reactions were mixed, but no party rejected them. In the interim, on March 3, 1978, the Smith administration signed the "internal settlement" agreement in Salisbury with Bishop Muzorewa, Rev. Sithole, and Chief Jeremiah Chirau. The agreement provided for qualified majority rule and elections with universal suffrage. Following elections in April 1979, in which his UANC party won a majority, Bishop Muzorewa assumed office on June 1, becoming "Zimbabwe-Rhodesia's" first black prime minister. However, the installation of the new black majority government did not end the guerilla conflict that had claimed more than 20,000 lives since 1972.
Shortly after British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's conservative government took power in May 1979, the British began a new round of consultations that culminated in an agreement among the Commonwealth countries as the basis for fresh negotiations among the parties and the British involving a new constitution, free elections and independence.
The British and the African parties began deliberations on a Rhodesian settlement at Lancaster house in London on September 10, 1979. On December 10, 1979, in preparation for the transition under British authority to officially recognized independence, the "Zimbabwe-Rhodesia" reverted de facto to colonial status. On December 12, British Governor Lord Christopher Soames arrived in Salisbury to reassert British authority over the colony. His arrival signaled the end of the Rhodesian rebellion and the "internal settlement," as well as the beginning of Zimbabwe's transition to independence. The United Kingdom lifted all remaining sanctions against Zimbabwe that day. The United States lifted sanctions effective December 16.
On December 21, after three months of hard bargaining, the parties signed an agreement at Lancaster House calling for a cease-fire, new elections, a transition period under British rule, and a new constitution implementing majority rule while protecting minority rights. The agreement specified that upon the granting of independence, the country's name would be Zimbabwe. The same day, the UN Security Council endorsed the settlement agreement and formally voted unanimously to call on member nations to remove sanctions.
During the transition period, nine political parties campaigned for the February 27-29 pre-independence elections. The elections were supervised by the British government and monitored by hundreds of observers, most of whom concluded that, under the prevailing circumstances, the elections were free and fair and reflected the will of the people. Robert Mugabe's ZANU(PF) party won an absolute majority and was asked to form Zimbabwe's first government.
In a series of public statements during the transition period, Prime Minister Mugabe indicated that he was committed to a process of national reconciliation and reconstruction as well as moderate socioeconomic change. His priorities were to integrate the various armed forces, reestablish social services and education in rural areas, and resettle the estimated one million refugees and displaced persons. Mugabe also announced that his government would begin investigating ways of reversing past discriminatory policies in land distribution, education, employment, and wages.
Mugabe stated that Zimbabwe would follow a non-aligned foreign policy while seeking assistance from all actions and would pursue a pragmatic relationship with South Africa. He noted that while Zimbabwe opposed apartheid and would support democratic change in South Africa, it would not provide bases for anti-South African guerillas.
The British Government formally granted independence to Zimbabwe on April 18, 1980. Most nations recognized Zimbabwe following independence. The United States was to first nation to open an embassy in Salisbury on that day. Parliament convened for the first time on May 13, 1980. Zimbabwe became a member of the United Nations on August 25, 1980.
In seeking national reconciliation, Prime Minister Mugabe's first cabinet comprised members of ZANU-PF, PF-ZAPU, and independent white members of parliament (MPs) and senators. The government embarked on an ambitious reconstruction and development program and instituted increases in minimum wages. Land redistribution proceeded under four experimental models on land that the government had purchased at market rates from willing sellers. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So, Britain installed it's white settlers and had them take over the country. This led to some understandable alienation from the natives, so that the permanent rift between sides meant that a civil war was inevitable. The country became a South Africa. The aboriginal natives were never allowed to self-govern, so their own proponent became a murdering warlord (Mugabe). Sort of like France and Vietnam. Basically, the British government and corporations milked the place dry, then left it to implode when they were done with it. Why are you defending this behavior? It's no different than what the British and Early American Settlers did to the indians, and normal people certainly don't try to make excuses for the fact today. It's a source of national embarrassment and we spend billions of dollars every year in compensation to what's left of the tribes.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I never tried to defend British/European Colonialism - I was merely making the point that not everything can be blaimed directly on it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The British government considered the UDI unconstitutional and illegal but made clear that it would not use force to the rebellion. On November 12, 1965, the United Nations also determined the Rhodesian government and UDI to be illegal and called on member states to refrain from assisting or recognizing the Smith regime. The British government imposed sanctions on Rhodesia and requested other nations to do the same. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You will see that the UN also declared it illegal.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Although prepared to grant independence to Rhodesia, the United Kingdom insisted that the authorities at Salisbury first demonstrate their intention to move toward eventual majority rule. Desiring to keep their dominant position, the white Rhodesians refused to give such assurances. On November 11, 1965, after lengthy and unsuccessful negotiations with the British Government, Prime Minister Smith issued a Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI) from the United Kingdom. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We wanted to grant independence which allowed the government to have majority rule, the European settlers didn't want it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Shortly after British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's conservative government took power in May 1979, the British began a new round of consultations that culminated in an agreement among the Commonwealth countries as the basis for fresh negotiations among the parties and the British involving a new constitution, free elections and independence. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->On December 21, after three months of hard bargaining, the parties signed an agreement at Lancaster House calling for a cease-fire, new elections, a transition period under British rule, and a new constitution implementing majority rule while protecting minority rights. The agreement specified that upon the granting of independence, the country's name would be Zimbabwe. The same day, the UN Security Council endorsed the settlement agreement and formally voted unanimously to call on member nations to remove sanctions.
During the transition period, nine political parties campaigned for the February 27-29 pre-independence elections. The elections were supervised by the British government and monitored by hundreds of observers, most of whom concluded that, under the prevailing circumstances, the elections were free and fair and reflected the will of the people. Robert Mugabe's ZANU(PF) party won an absolute majority and was asked to form Zimbabwe's first government. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You can't just say that we left and then did sod all.
Well we set up and ensured the first democratic election and removed embargos, and officially recognised it as a country in its own right.
Had we done anything extra it would have been called interfering with the internal affairs of another country.
We did all that was required within the realms of reason and practicality.
With these democratic elections Mugabe was elected in. He was the democratically elected leader, if we had taken a dislike to him and removed him from power by force or otherwise then all Hell would have broken loose.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Had we done anything extra it would have been called interfering with the internal affairs of another country.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What do you call the 150 years prior to that? You interfered in a completely negative way and robbed the country of its resources since the early 1800's. Why not put that awful attitude to good use at the end? This argument is highly questionable.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Well we set up and ensured the first democratic election and removed embargos, and officially recognised it as a country in its own right. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Bravo. And you made sure it was rigged so that the white british settler minority had a guaranteed win.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->We did all that was required within the realms of reason and practicality.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You did the <b>bare minimum</b> that was required, and not a bit more. Instead of guiding the country in independence, you let it rot into civil war and death.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->With these democratic elections Mugabe was elected in. He was the democratically elected leader, if we had taken a dislike to him and removed him from power by force or otherwise then all Hell would have broken loose.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
After 150 years of white rule by a country 3000 miles away they would have voted a dorito chip in as president. There was no moderate and british backed local black leadership as an alternative, only the white settler old-boys club.
I'm still unconvinced, give me more please. Or you could just drop it, as you are basically defending Apartheid at this point.
<!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Mar 14 2003, 09:15 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Mar 14 2003, 09:15 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->We did all that was required within the realms of reason and practicality.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You did the <b>bare minimum</b> that was required, and not a bit more. Instead of guiding the country in independence, you let it rot into civil war and death. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Hold on, you want us to give them their independence and then tell them what to do?
No. You might be acting deliberately obtuse here, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. I'm saying that under the circumstances of <b>retarding the country's self-rule abilities</b> over 150 years, you should have given them their independence in an organized and structured way as to be the least painful and self-destructive. You did the colonial equivalent of taking a puppy from the wild, raising him in your house for many years until he knew nothing of feeding himself, self-determination, or having an survival skills, then tossing him back into the wild. And expected him to last more than 5 minutes. Instead of writing me back in the next 30 seconds with another hot sarcastic reply, why not just think it over for a day.
Comments
In case you refer to the govt.s, I of course agree.
[edit]Actually, 'Old European' wouldn't make that bad a tag, would it? Militant Pacifist is getting old <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->[/edit]
Althhhououuughhhhhh, one might make the case that we're talking about governments that are democratically elected by their peoples, and that the will of the people is to say 'Chechnya? No potential oil contracts there, **** those asians. Now, Iraq is where the money is boy! Fight the Bush!' and then rub their small inbred hands together with glee.
Heh, no seriously, I understand that it's more about European Big Business than anything else.
Ok, that inbred thing was a low-blow and I take it back. Except for the remnants of your monarchies ^_^ .
No, no, MonsE, you got it all wrong. Its all the former penal colonies that got it right. Look at India. That area was a major british colony for quite a while (no exact numbers,but a long time). America and Canada were, at least for part of their colonial periods, penal colonies for those who were not to be put to death. Altough you did get people escaping persecution, famine, etc.
When America revolted and shook off its colonial rulers and Canada decided taht they didnt want the prisoners, the Brits were forced to find a new prison continent. That was Australia.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Just write €urope when you mean european big binniz and the autocrats. Like I write Micro$oft when I am referring to "Big Mean Corporate Pigolopist Monopoly Abusing" Microsoft, and not just the name of the manufacturer of my OS, Mouse, Office program, Keyboard, Smartphone etc. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
(ok I don't have a smartphone. Wouldn't want if it was free)
Good idea. I'm off to setup a hotkey for it <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
As for the use of all those things you hate, are you driving an SS Panzer tank too? Sheesh boy, go use a Mac or something! <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
Falkland Island or Islas Malvinas
Argentina had claimed sovereignty over the Falkland Islands (which lie 300 miles [480 km] east of its coast) since the early 19th century, but Britain had occupied and administered the islands since 1833 and had consistently rejected Argentina's claims. In early 1982 the Argentine military junta led by Lieutenant General Leopoldo Galtieri gave up on long-running negotiations with Britain and instead launched an invasion of the islands. The decision to invade was chiefly political: the junta, which was being criticized for economic mismanagement and human rights abuses, believed that the “recovery” of the islands would unite Argentines behind the government in a patriotic fervour. An elite invasion force trained in secrecy, but its timetable was shortened on March 19, when a dispute erupted on British-controlled South Georgia island (1,000 miles [1,600 km] east of the Falklands) between Argentine salvage workers and British scientists stationed there. Naval forces were quickly mobilized.
<cut a lot of trite war details>
The British captured some 11,400 Argentine prisoners during the war, all of whom were afterward released. Nearly 750 Argentine troops were killed—including 368 in the sinking of the General Belgrano—while Britain lost 256. Scores of Argentine aircraft of various types were destroyed, most while on the ground, and the British lost 10 Harrier jets and more than two dozen helicopters. Military strategists have debated key aspects of the conflict but have generally underscored the roles of submarines (both Britain's nuclear-powered vessels and Argentina's older, diesel-electric craft) and antiship missiles (both air-to-sea and land-to-sea types). The war also illustrated the importance of air superiority—which the British had been unable to establish—and of advanced surveillance. Logistic support was vital as well, because the armed forces of both nations had operated at their maximum ranges. (See also Naval warfare: The age of the guided missile.)
Argentina's ignominious defeat severely discredited the military government and led to the restoration of civilian rule there in 1983. Meanwhile, British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher converted widespread patriotic support into a landslide victory for her Conservative Party in that year's parliamentary election.
Copyright © 1994-2002 Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.
So basically it's some islands that a nation has conquered from another nation and won't give back. Nothing new in that, really.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I can't believe someone would say that all the Falkland's War was about was that we weren't going to give back some islands.
The fact of the matter is that the majority of the people on the Falkland Islands consider themselves British citizens and so the Argentineans were attempting to take control of an area that simply did not want them as their rulers.
Now I'm not trying to say that the British were right in taking over the Falkland Islands before - because honestly I do not know the history, but I do know about the Falkland Islands when they were invaded.
I'm not trying to say that the British were heroes in defending the Falkland Islanders' rights because there definitely more interests than that. The idea that if Argentina could take British land and the British allow it would have set a dangerous precedent for sure. However saying that it was all the gain of the British is very poor and shows very little knowledge about the war itself.
For the sake of argument though, it's not strong enough case for me to point to modern british colonialism. I retract my statement and apologise...
... and instead change my british example to their final release of Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) as a colony in <b>1980</b>!!! Yes, all but our teenage boardmembers were alive for African coloniasm in full effect! And how is Zimbabwe these days, you ask, after centuries of €uropean rule? Well, a few civil wars, a dictator, lots of mass-murders, constant starvation, and one of the the most corrupt and self-destructive governments in western africa! Yay! You taught them well...sounds like 1940's europe... Not that france minds, they gave mass-murdering zimbabwe president Robert Mugabe a free pass to hang out in France <i>last month</i>(breaking very explicit EU rules about the harboring of war criminals and fugitives from justice).
Rock on!
Skåne was conquered by the swedes 400 years ago or something. A rather hard handed "swedification" took place after that. Still, today no one sane would say that if was a legitimate reason if Denmark waged a war of "reconquest" on Sweden. Things changed throughout the centuries. (Tho we had plans to do it up till the Napoleonic Wars <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
Good idea. I'm off to setup a hotkey for it <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
HA! I got my l€€t € key right here <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo--> Neener.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As for the use of all those things you hate, are you driving an SS Panzer tank too? Sheesh boy, go use a Mac or something! <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But then I won't have Micro$oft to bash. It's just as entertaining as bashing USA <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
And German PzKfw were COOL hardware! That's the boy in me, can't help being attracted to big metal hunks of destruction. Yes I can blatantly ignore what they were used to <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> It's the Turing test of genders. If a respondent can give any sort of detailed answer on anything Panzer, it's 99% a male.
Good idea. I'm off to setup a hotkey for it <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
HA! I got my l€€t € key right here <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> Neener. Too bad France said goodbye to the french franc symbol (f with a dash). Now I'll have to write Franc€ when I am referring to their government etc. in order to avoid generic Frenchman bashing. Btw. obviously it's not England that has issues with colonialism, it's £ngland!
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As for the use of all those things you hate, are you driving an SS Panzer tank too? Sheesh boy, go use a Mac or something! <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
When NS for Mac is Released! But I can't let go of my pc and MS because then I won't have Micro$oft to bash! It's just as entertaining as bashing U$A <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
And German PzKfw were COOL hardware! That's the boy in me, can't help being attracted to big metal hulks of destruction. Yes I can blatantly ignore what they were used to <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> It's the Turing test of genders. If a respondent can give any sort of detailed answer on anything Panzer, it's 99% a male.
For the sake of argument though, it's not strong enough case for me to point to modern british colonialism. I retract my statement and apologise...
... and instead change my british example to their final release of Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) as a colony in <b>1980</b>!!! Yes, all but our teenage boardmembers were alive for African coloniasm in full effect! And how is Zimbabwe these days, you ask, after centuries of €uropean rule? Well, a few civil wars, a dictator, lots of mass-murders, constant starvation, and one of the the most corrupt and self-destructive governments in western africa! Yay! You taught them well...sounds like 1940's europe... Not that france minds, they gave mass-murdering zimbabwe president Robert Mugabe a free pass to hang out in France <i>last month</i>(breaking very explicit EU rules about the harboring of war criminals and fugitives from justice).
Rock on!<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As for Zimbabwe, I'm not saying that British Colonialism was a good thing, however blaming all of the troubles that are occurring now on Britain is just not on.
<a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/country_profiles/1831470.stm' target='_blank'>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/co...les/1831470.stm</a>
I know you are all going to say:
"Look it’s the BBC they are bound to be biased!"
However, the BBC is just stating the facts - not opinions.
You will see that between 1972-1980 there was a civil war - however in 1979 the British held peace talks to try and end this war.
Independence was indeed granted in 1980 and all the majority of the problems after that have been caused by President Mugabe himself.
You will that the EU and the Commonwealth have both placed/tried to place sanctions upon Zimbabwe, and that the majority of foreign aid into the country was severely limited because of objections to Mugabe's regime.
You cannot blame all the problems in Zimbabwe solely on British Colonialism, as your post seems to be implying.
As for the French thing, it caused massive outrage in Britain I can tell you.
So was Colonialism good? - no.
Were some of the problems now caused by Colonialism? - most probably.
Has Britain tried to fix it? - yes.
Trying to apply morals from today to things that happen hundreds of years ago, colonialism, is rather harsh.
I'm sure you will say:
"Look it was 1980! That was hardly 100s of years ago!"
However if the British had just left Zimbabwe in the 1930s-1960s what do you think would have happened?
Would Zimbabwe have been the shining beacon of democracy and freedom to show the rest of the African countries what to be like?
I don't think so - although I'm open to people trying to convince me otherwise.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Well, a few civil wars, a dictator, lots of mass-murders, constant starvation, and one of the most corrupt and self-destructive governments in western Africa! <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well the civil wars as well as those mass murders were after we left:
1982 - Mugabe sacks Nkomo, accusing him of preparing to overthrow the government. North Korean-trained Fifth Brigade deployed to crush rebellion by pro-Nkomo ex-guerrillas in Midlands and Matabeleland provinces. Government forces are accused of killing thousands of civilians over next few years.
Constant starvation?
2002 April - State of disaster declared as worsening food shortages threaten famine. Government blames drought, the UN's World Food Programme says disruption to agriculture is a contributing factor.
The disruption to agriculture is the policy of "seizure of white-owned farm land" which Mugabe started and one can hardly blame Britain for a famine.
And as for the most corrupt and self-destructive governments in West Africa?
It was their freedom - they can do with it what they like.
If Britain had invaded Zimbabwe and attempted to stop this all happening - everyone and his wife would say that Britain was trying to Colonize Africa again.
Military force would not have helped then and it would not help now - I feel that Britain is doing all it can, short of training rebels or overthrowing the government, it can.
If they had said 'hmmm, we have the only African colony left right now; we should tell the Rhodesians that we plan on granting them independence in 5 years. We'll pay for their citizens to get educated in european schools of government, we'll give them a trust fund, and we'll ease them in democracy. Because we've seen 50 times now what happens when other european countries just pull out of an african colony and leave it swinging in the wind - murder, tribal warfare, corrupt governments, famine, death. Since, after all, we never taught them how to govern themselves and we always did it for them so they have become politically retarded over the past 200 years of occupation. Yeah, good idea. Let's get a pint and some chips, then get that rolling tomorrow'.
But they didn't. They just said the hell with it, and let the disaster that they had caused unfold fully. That's **** up and you know it. You simply cannot defend it, and I would hope it would be just as guilt-causing to you as slavery is to us. Don't make me tell everyone here where the name Rhodesia comes from, after all...
As an aside, I'm not Britain hunting. I'm just using examples. I don't see you leaping to France's defense here (who I lovingly bash every 5th post), so try and stay calm and objective. It's not about Britain, it's about €uropean Government and €uropean Big Business. I'm getting married in Britain in 2 months, and happen to think you're some of the only europeans worth a handshake and a beer these day. Heck, I even like Grendel, and he's a jerk half the time <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> .
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I honestly have no idea what you're talking about, but then again, my memory is frighteningly short.
Now... what the heck were the grown-ups talking about?
Thanks Monse. I was getting a little weary of his arguments (or lack there of) in his posts.
Damn that Multicultural, Anti-American public school indoctrination!!! It just messes up the discussion boards. This has kind of spiraled away from the intended topic, the current cultural and political shifts in Europe. Oh well, I certainly did nothing to get it on course.
I think Europe will eventually unite into a United States of Europe. The EU will just grow and eventually become a single country. I don't see such movement being successful in the long run, as Europe's wonderful diversity will once again flare up. And the most affluent nations, such as Britain, will be scared of losing their autonomy.
If they had said 'hmmm, we have the only African colony left right now; we should tell the Rhodesians that we plan on granting them independence in 5 years. We'll pay for their citizens to get educated in european schools of government, we'll give them a trust fund, and we'll ease them in democracy. Because we've seen 50 times now what happens when other european countries just pull out of an african colony and leave it swinging in the wind - murder, tribal warfare, corrupt governments, famine, death. Since, after all, we never taught them how to govern themselves and we always did it for them so they have become politically retarded over the past 200 years of occupation. Yeah, good idea. Let's get a pint and some chips, then get that rolling tomorrow'.
But they didn't. They just said the hell with it, and let the disaster that they had caused unfold fully. That's **** up and you know it. You simply cannot defend it, and I would hope it would be just as guilt-causing to you as slavery is to us. Don't make me tell everyone here where the name Rhodesia comes from, after all...
As an aside, I'm not Britain hunting. I'm just using examples. I don't see you leaping to France's defense here (who I lovingly bash every 5th post), so try and stay calm and objective. It's not about Britain, it's about €uropean Government and €uropean Big Business. I'm getting married in Britain in 2 months, and happen to think you're some of the only europeans worth a handshake and a beer these day. Heck, I even like Grendel, and he's a jerk half the time <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> .<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So you want the United Kingdom to have given the entire population of Zimbabwe education?
What kind of government would do that? I mean come on that is just not viable at all.
In 1980 Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister and she wasn't exactly the most liberal of Prime Ministers this country has ever seen.
The 1980s weren't exactly the best time in British financial history and Britain was hardly a very liberal place itself.
No government in its right mind would actually place an entire foreign country in to full time education whilst their country was in such a state.
You seem to forget that the winter of 1978-79 was known as "The Winter of Discontent" as there was a massive bust up between the Trade Unions and the Government, which involved a lack of food and petrol, no rubbish collecting in places, and in Liverpool, dead people were piled up in mortuaries.
The picket lines outside hospitals even decided whom they would let through to get better in the hospital.
This was probably the most unpopular Government in British history and I'm sure giving a shed-load of money to Zimbabwe would really have helped.
Also when it came to 1980 - the Soviets invaded Afghanistan and everyone was scared they'd roll into Poland next.
Also in Britain, unemployment had reached 2 million, the highest since 1936! Inflation was at 20% and industry reported orders were down between 10-40%
In fact it was costing the British 22% more to produce 4% less.
However, I'm sure we could have found enough cash to educate the entire population of Zimbabwe, whilst it was in the middle of a civil war. I'm sure that there would be no rivalry between the educated Zimbabweans and those who missed out.
And there would be no massive influx of refugees into Zimbabwe causing its collapse, and that no other countries would not be jealous of Zimbabwe's new democracy and help from the British - maybe even causing a war.
So yes I'm sure that would have been the perfect solution to the problem.
Also your post seems to be implying that democracy only works amongst the educated - so should Britain only have allowed votes for those who are educated?
Maybe a "Right to Vote Exam?" If you fail the test you don't get to vote? That is what you seem to be saying.
And as for my personal views about the British Empire? I shall leave these out of the discussion, as I fear we may move off on another tangent.
I meant to say:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->We'll pay for <b>[some of]</b> their citizens to get educated in european schools of government, we'll give them a trust fund, and we'll ease them in democracy<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Some, some, some. Naturally you can't ship 15 million people over to the Oxford College of Government Iif there is such a place).
As for the rest of your point? Tough noogies. Britain screwed the place up, it's there job to fix it. There is no excuse for what Britain did, considering that in the hundreds of years of colonialism, they couldn't be bothered to spend the slightest effort on undoing the damage as they bailed out. Heck, even the french made a vague attempt to teach self-governance when they pulled out of west african countries. At the least, they could have created a timetable of pulling out and used that as a way to stop the civil war and have people start getting ready for decolonialization. I'm sorry, but this was a poor, poor country and it would not have taken much money or effort to do some good on the way out. Britain's government instead chose to do nothing. Were there big civil protests of this behavior, or did the british public not care?
I meant to say:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->We'll pay for <b>[some of]</b> their citizens to get educated in european schools of government, we'll give them a trust fund, and we'll ease them in democracy<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Some, some, some. Naturally you can't ship 15 million people over to the Oxford College of Government Iif there is such a place).
As for the rest of your point? Tough noogies. Britain screwed the place up, it's there job to fix it. There is no excuse for what Britain did, considering that in the hundreds of years of colonialism, they couldn't be bothered to spend the slightest effort on undoing the damage as they bailed out. Heck, even the french made a vague attempt to teach self-governance when they pulled out of west african countries. At the least, they could have created a timetable of pulling out and used that as a way to stop the civil war and have people start getting ready for decolonialization. I'm sorry, but this was a poor, poor country and it would not have taken much money or effort to do some good on the way out. Britain's government instead chose to do nothing. Were there big civil protests of this behavior, or did the british public not care? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I do believe the British people were too busy worrying about the 2 million in unemployment.
Sorry pressed the enter button and it posted my incomplete post.
Your post still doesn't answer the question the points about rivalry between those who got education and those who didn't, and the fact that other countries could be jealous.
Also <a href='http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/africa/features/storyofafrica/12chapter10.shtml' target='_blank'>BBC World Service</a> has a little bit of history about Zimbabwe's independence.
Prime Minister Ian Smith, of Zimbabwe, Unilaterally Declared Independence on the radio.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->This was against all the wishes of the British government, who hoped to help Rhodesia towards majority rule in line with the rest of the continent. Rhodesia left the Commonwealth and Britain imposed economic sanctions.
It took another fifteen years of negotiation and fighting before Rhodesia, renamed Zimbabwe, became independent under majority rule with Robert Mugabe leading the government in 1980. - BBC World Service<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You see they declared independence and then left the Commonwealth - clearly showing that they didn't want our help!
^_^
Uhhhhhh...
As for your point on the haves and have nots warring, it still would not have been necessary if the people felt like the UK giovernment had their best interests in mind and were trying to improve the place. But let's see what the historial relatrionship was instead; if you don't fell like reading it all, check out the highlighted texts (all from a british website, <a href='http://www.rhodesian-chronicle.co.uk/rhodesias_history.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.rhodesian-chronicle.co.uk/rhode...ias_history.htm</a>, which actually seems to be slanted rather in favor of the white rhodesians and UK government):
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->In 1888, Cecil Rhodes obtained a concession for mineral rights from local chiefs. <b>Later that year, the area that became Southern and Northern Rhodesia was proclaimed a British sphere of influence.</b> The British South Africa Company was chartered in 1889, and the settlement of Salisbury (now Harare, the capital) was established in 1890. In 1895, the territory was formally named Rhodesia after Cecil Rhodes under the British South Africa Company's administration.
Following the abrogation of the company's charter in 1923, Southern Rhodesia's white settlements were given the choice of being incorporated into the Union of South Africa or becoming a separate entity within the British Empire. The settlers rejected incorporation, and Southern Rhodesia was formally annexed by the United Kingdom that year. Until 1980, Rhodesia was an internally self-governing colony with its own legislature, civil service, armed forces, and police. <b>Although Rhodesia was never administered directly from London, the United Kingdom always retained the right to intervene in the affairs of the colony, particularly in matters affecting Africans. </b>
After 1923, European immigrants concentrated in developing Rhodesia's rich mineral resources and agricultural potential. <b>The settlers' demand for more land led in 1934 to the passage of the first of a series of land apportionment acts that reserved certain areas for Europeans. </b>
In September 1953, Southern Rhodesia was joined in a multiracial Central African Federation with the British protectorate of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland in an effort to pool resources and markets. <b>Although the federation flourished economically, it was opposed by the African population, who feared they would not be able to achieve self-government with the federal structure dominated by White Southern Rhodesians. </b>The federation was dissolved at the end of 1963 after much crisis and turmoil, and Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland became the independent states of Zambia and Malawi in 1964.
<b>The European electorate in Rhodesia, however, showed little willingness to accede to African demands for increased political participation and progressively replaced more moderate party leaders. </b>In April 1964, Prime Minister Winston Field, accused of not moving rapidly enough to obtain independence from the United Kingdom, was replaced by his deputy, Ian Smith. Prime Minster Smith led his Rhodesian Front Party to an overwhelming victory in the 1965 elections, winning all 50 of the first roll seats and demoralizing the more moderate European opposition.
Although prepared to grant independence to Rhodesia, the United Kingdom insisted that the authorities at Salisbury first demonstrate their intention to move toward eventual majority rule. <b>Desiring to keep their dominant position, the white Rhodesians refused to give such assurances.</b> On November 11, 1965, after lengthy and unsuccessful negotiations with the British Government, Prime Minister Smith issued a Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI) from the United Kingdom.
Rhodesia on the 11th Nov 1965 broke from Empire with the Unilateral Declaration of Independence (U D I). In it PM Ian Smith stated;
“There can be no solution to our racial problems while African nationalists believe that, provide they stirred up enough trouble, they will be able to blackmail the British Government into bringing about a miracle on there behalf by handing the country over to irresponsible rule...Whatever the short term economic disadvantages may be, in the long term steady economic progress could never be achieved unless we are masters in our own house...We have struck a blow for the preservation of justice, civilization and Christianity...God bless you all.”
Communist regimes across the globe united to contrive to make the African continent a huge pro-eastern bloc landmass. With the colonial powers trying their dam nest to wash their hands of these colonies the Reds were only too happy to take the reigns of power. With pro Marxist terror groups disguising themselves under the black nationalism banner like ZANU and ZAPU the Rhodesians were in no way going to just roll over at their bidding. ZANU was funded and supplied by OAU (Organization of African Unity), which was a mish-mash of despot communist funded African states, who in turn was funded by Russia, Cuba and north Korea to just name a few.
After Ian smith stated Rhodesia's ‘Unilateral Declaration of Independence’, ZANU and ZAPU commenced their terror.
April 1966 saw groups of terrorists infiltrate Rhodesia. These attacks slowly increasing until all out bush war erupted in December 1972 with ‘hit and run’ murder squads destroying white owned farms. The Rhodesian forces fought bravely and whenever met full on; the enemy always came off much worse. In 1974 the 1st battalion Rhodesian Light Infantry and the ’C’ Rhodesian SAS Regiment were now fully prepared for a battle for their land. The Marxist enemy was hunted and destroyed whenever it tried to hit a target.
1974 saw Portuguese control of Mozambique collapsed to communist terror. This opened a second front for Rhodesia. Rhodesia started the creation of specialist units that would covertly seek and destroy the guerrillas in their bases. These were the ‘Selous Scouts’ and for highly mobile bush warfare the ‘Grey Scouts’ reintroducing cavalry, aggressively follow the enemy into almost inaccessible areas faster than infantry.
In 1976 the Rhodesians took the war to the enemy with a precision lethal raid on a major base in Mozambique killing 1200 guerrillas and captured huge amounts of weapons. The next three years saw the Rhodesian air force; the SAS regiment and the Selous scouts strike at the very heart of the terror network. In one such raid named ‘Green Leader’ the Rhodesian air force took over the entire Zambian airspace and deliver a crippling blow to the Red forces there.
In September 1978 a civil aircraft was brought down by the guerrillas, eighteen civilians who survived the crash were then executed in cold blood.
September 1979 saw the most heroic make or break incursion into Mozambique. Operation ERIC saw 400 SAS and specialist troops supported by helicopters, fighter aircraft and transport/supply aircraft of the Rhodesian air force, hunt and attack the massive terrorist training camps that held up to 20,000 guerrillas in Mozambique! The troops met fierce resistance but secured their objectives. 14 Rhodesians were killed and a helicopter was lost. The kill ratio was 1 Rhodesian to 25 enemy!
Staggering these successes were though the cruel fact was that the Rhodesians would be unable to bring the war to a speedy end. Rhodesian losses in men and machines were increasing, whereas the supply of equipment and recruits to the guerrillas seemed endless.
A political agreement was reached in December 1979. Rhodesian troops were at the ready to take out Mugabe and ZANU. But though troops and tanks were at the ready in and around key strategic points in the capital, the Apparent ‘decisive’ victory at the polls, the military reluctantly stepped down.
<b>The British government considered the UDI unconstitutional and illegal but made clear that it would not use force to the rebellion. On November 12, 1965, the United Nations also determined the Rhodesian government and UDI to be illegal and called on member states to refrain from assisting or recognizing the Smith regime. The British government imposed sanctions on Rhodesia and requested other nations to do the same. </b>
On December 16, 1966, the UN Security Council, for the first time in this history, imposed mandatory economic sanctions on a state. Rhodesia's primary exports including ferrochrome and tobacco, were replaced on the selective sanctions list, as were shipments of arms, aircraft, motor vehicles, petroleum, and petroleum products to Rhodesia. On May 29, 1968, the Security Council unanimously voted to broaden the sanctions by imposing an almost total embargo on all trade with, investments in, or transfers of funds to Rhodesia and imposed restrictions on air transport to the territory.
In the early 1970s, informal attempts at settlement were renewed between the United Kingdom and the Rhodesian administration. Following the April 1974 coup in Portugal and the resulting shifts of power in Mozambique and Angola, pressure on the Smith regime to negotiate a peaceful settlement began to increase. In addition, sporadic antigovernment guerilla activity which began in the late 1960s, increased dramatically after 1972, causing destruction, economic dislocation, casualties, and a slump in white morale. In 1974, the major African nationalists groups--the Zimbabwe African Peoples Union (ZAPU), and the Zimbabwe African National Union (ZANU), which split away from ZAPU in 1963--were united into the "Patriotic Front" and combined their military forces, at least nominally.
In 1976, because of a combination of embargo-related economic hardships, the pressure of guerilla activity, independence and majority rule in the neighboring former Portuguese territories, and a U.K.-U.S. diplomatic initiative, the Smith government agreed in principle to majority rule and to a meeting in Geneva with black nationalist leaders to negotiate a final settlement of the conflict. Blacks represented at the Geneva meeting included ZAPU leader Joshua Nkomo, ZANU leader Robert Mugabe, UANC chairman bishop Abel Muzorewa, and former ZANU leader Rev. Nadabaningi Sithole. The meeting failed to find a basis for agreement because of Smith's inflexibility and the inability of the black leaders to form a common political front.
On September 1, 1977 a detailed Anglo-American plan was put forward with proposals for majority rule, neutrally administered with pre-independence elections, a democratic constitution and the formation of an integrated army. Reactions were mixed, but no party rejected them. In the interim, on March 3, 1978, the Smith administration signed the "internal settlement" agreement in Salisbury with Bishop Muzorewa, Rev. Sithole, and Chief Jeremiah Chirau. The agreement provided for qualified majority rule and elections with universal suffrage. Following elections in April 1979, in which his UANC party won a majority, Bishop Muzorewa assumed office on June 1, becoming "Zimbabwe-Rhodesia's" first black prime minister. However, the installation of the new black majority government did not end the guerilla conflict that had claimed more than 20,000 lives since 1972.
Shortly after British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's conservative government took power in May 1979, the British began a new round of consultations that culminated in an agreement among the Commonwealth countries as the basis for fresh negotiations among the parties and the British involving a new constitution, free elections and independence.
The British and the African parties began deliberations on a Rhodesian settlement at Lancaster house in London on September 10, 1979. On December 10, 1979, in preparation for the transition under British authority to officially recognized independence, the "Zimbabwe-Rhodesia" reverted de facto to colonial status. On December 12, British Governor Lord Christopher Soames arrived in Salisbury to reassert British authority over the colony. His arrival signaled the end of the Rhodesian rebellion and the "internal settlement," as well as the beginning of Zimbabwe's transition to independence. The United Kingdom lifted all remaining sanctions against Zimbabwe that day. The United States lifted sanctions effective December 16.
On December 21, after three months of hard bargaining, the parties signed an agreement at Lancaster House calling for a cease-fire, new elections, a transition period under British rule, and a new constitution implementing majority rule while protecting minority rights. The agreement specified that upon the granting of independence, the country's name would be Zimbabwe. The same day, the UN Security Council endorsed the settlement agreement and formally voted unanimously to call on member nations to remove sanctions.
During the transition period, nine political parties campaigned for the February 27-29 pre-independence elections. The elections were supervised by the British government and monitored by hundreds of observers, most of whom concluded that, under the prevailing circumstances, the elections were free and fair and reflected the will of the people. Robert Mugabe's ZANU(PF) party won an absolute majority and was asked to form Zimbabwe's first government.
In a series of public statements during the transition period, Prime Minister Mugabe indicated that he was committed to a process of national reconciliation and reconstruction as well as moderate socioeconomic change. His priorities were to integrate the various armed forces, reestablish social services and education in rural areas, and resettle the estimated one million refugees and displaced persons. Mugabe also announced that his government would begin investigating ways of reversing past discriminatory policies in land distribution, education, employment, and wages.
Mugabe stated that Zimbabwe would follow a non-aligned foreign policy while seeking assistance from all actions and would pursue a pragmatic relationship with South Africa. He noted that while Zimbabwe opposed apartheid and would support democratic change in South Africa, it would not provide bases for anti-South African guerillas.
The British Government formally granted independence to Zimbabwe on April 18, 1980. Most nations recognized Zimbabwe following independence. The United States was to first nation to open an embassy in Salisbury on that day. Parliament convened for the first time on May 13, 1980. Zimbabwe became a member of the United Nations on August 25, 1980.
In seeking national reconciliation, Prime Minister Mugabe's first cabinet comprised members of ZANU-PF, PF-ZAPU, and independent white members of parliament (MPs) and senators. The government embarked on an ambitious reconstruction and development program and instituted increases in minimum wages. Land redistribution proceeded under four experimental models on land that the government had purchased at market rates from willing sellers.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So, Britain installed it's white settlers and had them take over the country. This led to some understandable alienation from the natives, so that the permanent rift between sides meant that a civil war was inevitable. The country became a South Africa. The aboriginal natives were never allowed to self-govern, so their own proponent became a murdering warlord (Mugabe). Sort of like France and Vietnam. Basically, the British government and corporations milked the place dry, then left it to implode when they were done with it. Why are you defending this behavior? It's no different than what the British and Early American Settlers did to the indians, and normal people certainly don't try to make excuses for the fact today. It's a source of national embarrassment and we spend billions of dollars every year in compensation to what's left of the tribes.
I would like when some of you americans would inform yourself whats going on with theyr rights since some time, like the patriotic act. This paper is a huge atack against the human rights and when the patriotic act 2 will be accepted.. then it will be horrible.. inform yourself
And look at all those lies that has been said since now from bush and Co. just to legitimate a attack on the Iraq. Even ex president Carter sais that there is NO danger for the USA from the Iraq.
The american governement told the people that Saddam hussein has something to do with terrorism, but that NOT true.
And many other things have been faked, also in the first Iraq war, i hope you know all of them (baby massacre.. never happend, chirugic precision of the bombs..not true 70% of the bombs miss theyr targets... )
I want to say, im not anti americanist (or however you say that), im just against bush and his politic.
And there is another thing i want to say, in europe, there is nearly nobody that has anti americaism feelings. But look at america, there are many people with anti french or german feelings...
ok, last thing, inform yourself.. about the PNAC and so, and you will see... the world has a big problem with bush....
(excuse my english, im swiss and to write complex texts like this one is hard)
^_^
Uhhhhhh...
As for your point on the haves and have nots warring, it still would not have been necessary if the people felt like the UK giovernment had their best interests in mind and were trying to improve the place. But let's see what the historial relatrionship was instead; if you don't fell like reading it all, check out the highlighted texts (all from a british website, <a href='http://www.rhodesian-chronicle.co.uk/rhodesias_history.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.rhodesian-chronicle.co.uk/rhode...ias_history.htm</a>, which actually seems to be slanted rather in favor of the white rhodesians and UK government):
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->In 1888, Cecil Rhodes obtained a concession for mineral rights from local chiefs. <b>Later that year, the area that became Southern and Northern Rhodesia was proclaimed a British sphere of influence.</b> The British South Africa Company was chartered in 1889, and the settlement of Salisbury (now Harare, the capital) was established in 1890. In 1895, the territory was formally named Rhodesia after Cecil Rhodes under the British South Africa Company's administration.
Following the abrogation of the company's charter in 1923, Southern Rhodesia's white settlements were given the choice of being incorporated into the Union of South Africa or becoming a separate entity within the British Empire. The settlers rejected incorporation, and Southern Rhodesia was formally annexed by the United Kingdom that year. Until 1980, Rhodesia was an internally self-governing colony with its own legislature, civil service, armed forces, and police. <b>Although Rhodesia was never administered directly from London, the United Kingdom always retained the right to intervene in the affairs of the colony, particularly in matters affecting Africans. </b>
After 1923, European immigrants concentrated in developing Rhodesia's rich mineral resources and agricultural potential. <b>The settlers' demand for more land led in 1934 to the passage of the first of a series of land apportionment acts that reserved certain areas for Europeans. </b>
In September 1953, Southern Rhodesia was joined in a multiracial Central African Federation with the British protectorate of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland in an effort to pool resources and markets. <b>Although the federation flourished economically, it was opposed by the African population, who feared they would not be able to achieve self-government with the federal structure dominated by White Southern Rhodesians. </b>The federation was dissolved at the end of 1963 after much crisis and turmoil, and Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland became the independent states of Zambia and Malawi in 1964.
<b>The European electorate in Rhodesia, however, showed little willingness to accede to African demands for increased political participation and progressively replaced more moderate party leaders. </b>In April 1964, Prime Minister Winston Field, accused of not moving rapidly enough to obtain independence from the United Kingdom, was replaced by his deputy, Ian Smith. Prime Minster Smith led his Rhodesian Front Party to an overwhelming victory in the 1965 elections, winning all 50 of the first roll seats and demoralizing the more moderate European opposition.
Although prepared to grant independence to Rhodesia, the United Kingdom insisted that the authorities at Salisbury first demonstrate their intention to move toward eventual majority rule. <b>Desiring to keep their dominant position, the white Rhodesians refused to give such assurances.</b> On November 11, 1965, after lengthy and unsuccessful negotiations with the British Government, Prime Minister Smith issued a Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI) from the United Kingdom.
Rhodesia on the 11th Nov 1965 broke from Empire with the Unilateral Declaration of Independence (U D I). In it PM Ian Smith stated;
“There can be no solution to our racial problems while African nationalists believe that, provide they stirred up enough trouble, they will be able to blackmail the British Government into bringing about a miracle on there behalf by handing the country over to irresponsible rule...Whatever the short term economic disadvantages may be, in the long term steady economic progress could never be achieved unless we are masters in our own house...We have struck a blow for the preservation of justice, civilization and Christianity...God bless you all.”
Communist regimes across the globe united to contrive to make the African continent a huge pro-eastern bloc landmass. With the colonial powers trying their dam nest to wash their hands of these colonies the Reds were only too happy to take the reigns of power. With pro Marxist terror groups disguising themselves under the black nationalism banner like ZANU and ZAPU the Rhodesians were in no way going to just roll over at their bidding. ZANU was funded and supplied by OAU (Organization of African Unity), which was a mish-mash of despot communist funded African states, who in turn was funded by Russia, Cuba and north Korea to just name a few.
After Ian smith stated Rhodesia's ‘Unilateral Declaration of Independence’, ZANU and ZAPU commenced their terror.
April 1966 saw groups of terrorists infiltrate Rhodesia. These attacks slowly increasing until all out bush war erupted in December 1972 with ‘hit and run’ murder squads destroying white owned farms. The Rhodesian forces fought bravely and whenever met full on; the enemy always came off much worse. In 1974 the 1st battalion Rhodesian Light Infantry and the ’C’ Rhodesian SAS Regiment were now fully prepared for a battle for their land. The Marxist enemy was hunted and destroyed whenever it tried to hit a target.
1974 saw Portuguese control of Mozambique collapsed to communist terror. This opened a second front for Rhodesia. Rhodesia started the creation of specialist units that would covertly seek and destroy the guerrillas in their bases. These were the ‘Selous Scouts’ and for highly mobile bush warfare the ‘Grey Scouts’ reintroducing cavalry, aggressively follow the enemy into almost inaccessible areas faster than infantry.
In 1976 the Rhodesians took the war to the enemy with a precision lethal raid on a major base in Mozambique killing 1200 guerrillas and captured huge amounts of weapons. The next three years saw the Rhodesian air force; the SAS regiment and the Selous scouts strike at the very heart of the terror network. In one such raid named ‘Green Leader’ the Rhodesian air force took over the entire Zambian airspace and deliver a crippling blow to the Red forces there.
In September 1978 a civil aircraft was brought down by the guerrillas, eighteen civilians who survived the crash were then executed in cold blood.
September 1979 saw the most heroic make or break incursion into Mozambique. Operation ERIC saw 400 SAS and specialist troops supported by helicopters, fighter aircraft and transport/supply aircraft of the Rhodesian air force, hunt and attack the massive terrorist training camps that held up to 20,000 guerrillas in Mozambique! The troops met fierce resistance but secured their objectives. 14 Rhodesians were killed and a helicopter was lost. The kill ratio was 1 Rhodesian to 25 enemy!
Staggering these successes were though the cruel fact was that the Rhodesians would be unable to bring the war to a speedy end. Rhodesian losses in men and machines were increasing, whereas the supply of equipment and recruits to the guerrillas seemed endless.
A political agreement was reached in December 1979. Rhodesian troops were at the ready to take out Mugabe and ZANU. But though troops and tanks were at the ready in and around key strategic points in the capital, the Apparent ‘decisive’ victory at the polls, the military reluctantly stepped down.
<b>The British government considered the UDI unconstitutional and illegal but made clear that it would not use force to the rebellion. On November 12, 1965, the United Nations also determined the Rhodesian government and UDI to be illegal and called on member states to refrain from assisting or recognizing the Smith regime. The British government imposed sanctions on Rhodesia and requested other nations to do the same. </b>
On December 16, 1966, the UN Security Council, for the first time in this history, imposed mandatory economic sanctions on a state. Rhodesia's primary exports including ferrochrome and tobacco, were replaced on the selective sanctions list, as were shipments of arms, aircraft, motor vehicles, petroleum, and petroleum products to Rhodesia. On May 29, 1968, the Security Council unanimously voted to broaden the sanctions by imposing an almost total embargo on all trade with, investments in, or transfers of funds to Rhodesia and imposed restrictions on air transport to the territory.
In the early 1970s, informal attempts at settlement were renewed between the United Kingdom and the Rhodesian administration. Following the April 1974 coup in Portugal and the resulting shifts of power in Mozambique and Angola, pressure on the Smith regime to negotiate a peaceful settlement began to increase. In addition, sporadic antigovernment guerilla activity which began in the late 1960s, increased dramatically after 1972, causing destruction, economic dislocation, casualties, and a slump in white morale. In 1974, the major African nationalists groups--the Zimbabwe African Peoples Union (ZAPU), and the Zimbabwe African National Union (ZANU), which split away from ZAPU in 1963--were united into the "Patriotic Front" and combined their military forces, at least nominally.
In 1976, because of a combination of embargo-related economic hardships, the pressure of guerilla activity, independence and majority rule in the neighboring former Portuguese territories, and a U.K.-U.S. diplomatic initiative, the Smith government agreed in principle to majority rule and to a meeting in Geneva with black nationalist leaders to negotiate a final settlement of the conflict. Blacks represented at the Geneva meeting included ZAPU leader Joshua Nkomo, ZANU leader Robert Mugabe, UANC chairman bishop Abel Muzorewa, and former ZANU leader Rev. Nadabaningi Sithole. The meeting failed to find a basis for agreement because of Smith's inflexibility and the inability of the black leaders to form a common political front.
On September 1, 1977 a detailed Anglo-American plan was put forward with proposals for majority rule, neutrally administered with pre-independence elections, a democratic constitution and the formation of an integrated army. Reactions were mixed, but no party rejected them. In the interim, on March 3, 1978, the Smith administration signed the "internal settlement" agreement in Salisbury with Bishop Muzorewa, Rev. Sithole, and Chief Jeremiah Chirau. The agreement provided for qualified majority rule and elections with universal suffrage. Following elections in April 1979, in which his UANC party won a majority, Bishop Muzorewa assumed office on June 1, becoming "Zimbabwe-Rhodesia's" first black prime minister. However, the installation of the new black majority government did not end the guerilla conflict that had claimed more than 20,000 lives since 1972.
Shortly after British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's conservative government took power in May 1979, the British began a new round of consultations that culminated in an agreement among the Commonwealth countries as the basis for fresh negotiations among the parties and the British involving a new constitution, free elections and independence.
The British and the African parties began deliberations on a Rhodesian settlement at Lancaster house in London on September 10, 1979. On December 10, 1979, in preparation for the transition under British authority to officially recognized independence, the "Zimbabwe-Rhodesia" reverted de facto to colonial status. On December 12, British Governor Lord Christopher Soames arrived in Salisbury to reassert British authority over the colony. His arrival signaled the end of the Rhodesian rebellion and the "internal settlement," as well as the beginning of Zimbabwe's transition to independence. The United Kingdom lifted all remaining sanctions against Zimbabwe that day. The United States lifted sanctions effective December 16.
On December 21, after three months of hard bargaining, the parties signed an agreement at Lancaster House calling for a cease-fire, new elections, a transition period under British rule, and a new constitution implementing majority rule while protecting minority rights. The agreement specified that upon the granting of independence, the country's name would be Zimbabwe. The same day, the UN Security Council endorsed the settlement agreement and formally voted unanimously to call on member nations to remove sanctions.
During the transition period, nine political parties campaigned for the February 27-29 pre-independence elections. The elections were supervised by the British government and monitored by hundreds of observers, most of whom concluded that, under the prevailing circumstances, the elections were free and fair and reflected the will of the people. Robert Mugabe's ZANU(PF) party won an absolute majority and was asked to form Zimbabwe's first government.
In a series of public statements during the transition period, Prime Minister Mugabe indicated that he was committed to a process of national reconciliation and reconstruction as well as moderate socioeconomic change. His priorities were to integrate the various armed forces, reestablish social services and education in rural areas, and resettle the estimated one million refugees and displaced persons. Mugabe also announced that his government would begin investigating ways of reversing past discriminatory policies in land distribution, education, employment, and wages.
Mugabe stated that Zimbabwe would follow a non-aligned foreign policy while seeking assistance from all actions and would pursue a pragmatic relationship with South Africa. He noted that while Zimbabwe opposed apartheid and would support democratic change in South Africa, it would not provide bases for anti-South African guerillas.
The British Government formally granted independence to Zimbabwe on April 18, 1980. Most nations recognized Zimbabwe following independence. The United States was to first nation to open an embassy in Salisbury on that day. Parliament convened for the first time on May 13, 1980. Zimbabwe became a member of the United Nations on August 25, 1980.
In seeking national reconciliation, Prime Minister Mugabe's first cabinet comprised members of ZANU-PF, PF-ZAPU, and independent white members of parliament (MPs) and senators. The government embarked on an ambitious reconstruction and development program and instituted increases in minimum wages. Land redistribution proceeded under four experimental models on land that the government had purchased at market rates from willing sellers.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So, Britain installed it's white settlers and had them take over the country. This led to some understandable alienation from the natives, so that the permanent rift between sides meant that a civil war was inevitable. The country became a South Africa. The aboriginal natives were never allowed to self-govern, so their own proponent became a murdering warlord (Mugabe). Sort of like France and Vietnam. Basically, the British government and corporations milked the place dry, then left it to implode when they were done with it. Why are you defending this behavior? It's no different than what the British and Early American Settlers did to the indians, and normal people certainly don't try to make excuses for the fact today. It's a source of national embarrassment and we spend billions of dollars every year in compensation to what's left of the tribes.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I never tried to defend British/European Colonialism - I was merely making the point that not everything can be blaimed directly on it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The British government considered the UDI unconstitutional and illegal but made clear that it would not use force to the rebellion. On November 12, 1965, the United Nations also determined the Rhodesian government and UDI to be illegal and called on member states to refrain from assisting or recognizing the Smith regime. The British government imposed sanctions on Rhodesia and requested other nations to do the same. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You will see that the UN also declared it illegal.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Although prepared to grant independence to Rhodesia, the United Kingdom insisted that the authorities at Salisbury first demonstrate their intention to move toward eventual majority rule. Desiring to keep their dominant position, the white Rhodesians refused to give such assurances. On November 11, 1965, after lengthy and unsuccessful negotiations with the British Government, Prime Minister Smith issued a Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI) from the United Kingdom. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We wanted to grant independence which allowed the government to have majority rule, the European settlers didn't want it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Shortly after British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's conservative government took power in May 1979, the British began a new round of consultations that culminated in an agreement among the Commonwealth countries as the basis for fresh negotiations among the parties and the British involving a new constitution, free elections and independence. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->On December 21, after three months of hard bargaining, the parties signed an agreement at Lancaster House calling for a cease-fire, new elections, a transition period under British rule, and a new constitution implementing majority rule while protecting minority rights. The agreement specified that upon the granting of independence, the country's name would be Zimbabwe. The same day, the UN Security Council endorsed the settlement agreement and formally voted unanimously to call on member nations to remove sanctions.
During the transition period, nine political parties campaigned for the February 27-29 pre-independence elections. The elections were supervised by the British government and monitored by hundreds of observers, most of whom concluded that, under the prevailing circumstances, the elections were free and fair and reflected the will of the people. Robert Mugabe's ZANU(PF) party won an absolute majority and was asked to form Zimbabwe's first government. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You can't just say that we left and then did sod all.
Had we done anything extra it would have been called interfering with the internal affairs of another country.
We did all that was required within the realms of reason and practicality.
With these democratic elections Mugabe was elected in. He was the democratically elected leader, if we had taken a dislike to him and removed him from power by force or otherwise then all Hell would have broken loose.
Had we done anything extra it would have been called interfering with the internal affairs of another country.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What do you call the 150 years prior to that? You interfered in a completely negative way and robbed the country of its resources since the early 1800's. Why not put that awful attitude to good use at the end? This argument is highly questionable.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Well we set up and ensured the first democratic election and removed embargos, and officially recognised it as a country in its own right.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Bravo. And you made sure it was rigged so that the white british settler minority had a guaranteed win.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->We did all that was required within the realms of reason and practicality.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You did the <b>bare minimum</b> that was required, and not a bit more. Instead of guiding the country in independence, you let it rot into civil war and death.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->With these democratic elections Mugabe was elected in. He was the democratically elected leader, if we had taken a dislike to him and removed him from power by force or otherwise then all Hell would have broken loose.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
After 150 years of white rule by a country 3000 miles away they would have voted a dorito chip in as president. There was no moderate and british backed local black leadership as an alternative, only the white settler old-boys club.
I'm still unconvinced, give me more please. Or you could just drop it, as you are basically defending Apartheid at this point.
You did the <b>bare minimum</b> that was required, and not a bit more. Instead of guiding the country in independence, you let it rot into civil war and death.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hold on, you want us to give them their independence and then tell them what to do?