Interesting article here:
Mandela on Iraqi War
Printable View
Interesting article here:
Mandela on Iraqi War
Nothing when I click the link.:(
Mixed up title and url, here it is.
Mandela on Bush
Whoops! Sorry, I've edited the original post.
I was amazed at the language Mandela used. I found it refreshing to come across a high profile and well respected person willing to speak out, without mincing any words about their view on the impending war.
I'm curious about the effects of such comments. He is a very well respected man around the world, and especially America. I wonder if there will be a campaign to discredit him or if people will be appreciative.
Yeah, I read about this a day or so ago at BBC (this article) and I too was surprised at his bluntness; no sugar-coating there! I'm glad to see such a powerful and well-respected man speak up.
And to answer your question, I have heard people discredit him already >_< I posted about this at another forum I go to (where discussions like these are totally allowed and appreciated) and someone said "He's becoming senile and doesn't know what he's talking about.".
It's also interesting how even Stormin Norman is against it. What is the government thinking???
From the web site: If there is a country that has committed unspeakable atrocities in the world, it is the United States of America. They don't care for human beings," he said. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I am not a Bush fan, and I believe Mandela has a right to his opinion. After all I live in a free country.
That is all it is an opinion and he should look into his
own back yard.
The U.S. might not be the most perfect
country, but they are the most generous country when
it comes to helping others.
THe U.S. is the number one Country in the World
when it comes to giving money and support to other nations
in need. As for South Africa, they have their
own racist problems.
As for unspeakable atrocities, we might not be perfect
but open up your eyes and see what is going on in the rest of the world today and what has been done in the past.
I wonder why so many people of all shades of color
and different religions try to come to America
for a better life???
I do not like to talk politics, and I do not like to country bash.
My family is from Russia and I remember the horrendous
stories my grandparents would tell me what happened over
their and other parts of Europe.
When they came to America many years ago,
my grandmother refused to speak Russian, and she brought us up to kiss the ground we walk on, because we are Americans and we have it easier than other countries in the world even though
this country is not perfect. We have FREEDOM.
I will not post again and stick to dog stuff.
I want to read an actual transcript (or watch the video) of Nelson Mandela's speech before commenting.
I read the articles about the speech but I do not find them refreshing nor helpful.
Paul
Well, the comments will all be perceived differently. But I think that anything off of the AP line is pretty trustable. So I don't think you'd find much variation from a full transcript. These are strong statements and it's hard to think that he padded it out.
I think that dissenting opinion is underreported in the States. The fact that someone who most Americans adulate like Mandela is saying such strong things and there's barely any coverage of it, that just strikes me as odd. Add to that Schwarzkopf and other Middle East experts dissenting views and you have something that adds up to more than odd, something more like censoring.
Why do people find blind acceptance of Government actions patriotic? How does that help anyone? Why get defensive when criticisms are made? Why not try to find out why it is they have that view, and see if perhaps they see something that you, being on the inside, had not seen before?
Actually, that is as far from the truth as you can get.Quote:
Originally posted by KYS
The U.S. might not be the most perfect country, but they are the most generous country when it comes to helping others. THe U.S. is the number one Country in the World when it comes to giving money and support to other nations in need.
To quote a rant/article I wrote once (I'm not dumb enough to post a link to it here; knowing the response I'd get... If you want to read the full thing you are free to let me know and I'll provide you with the link):
"The USA often tries masquerading as a helpful country; always ready to aid poor and needy countries with it's wealth. However, the USA's aid (in terms of percentage to their GDP) is the lowest of any industrialized nation in the world! For example, Denmark was the country that gave the most money to poor countries in 2001. Denmark gave a whooping 1,01% of their GNP while the USA only gave 0,11%."
Paul, several news sites have quoted him the exact same way. And those are all respectable sources like BBC, so I fail to see why you need even further evidence.
Soledad, I couldn't agree with you more. Your last paragraph was extremely well put, thanks and kudos for that.
I am going to post once and only once on this thread, because I knew it would make me angry, and it did.
1. Nelson Mandela has absolutely NO room to talk about atrocities. Look in your own backyard babe. I have a friend who lives in South Africa and has to have a gate around her house to protect her and her family...and that STILL didn't work when 2 men got in and broke her car window and then pulled her out and beat the living hell out of her, just because she is white.
2. South Africa has the highest rape rate in the world. There have been estimates that 1 in 3 women will be raped at some point in their lives if they live in South Africa.
3. The U.S. was one of the first countries to jump on the bandwagon to help South Africa rid itself of apartheid. I remember that when I worked at the bank that we stopped selling kuegarands (I'm sorry I don't know the correct spelling) because the U.S. wasn't buying them anymore.
4. I'm sick to death of this anti-American rhetoric. It seems to some of those on this thread think that the Americans can't do anything right. We aren't supposed to stick our nose in anyone's business, yet, we get raked over the coals for not providing enough aid to other countries. Make a command decision, either you want our help or you don't.
5. IF America is such and awful place to live, why, then, do so many people want to come here to live? And why, are they so passionate in their adoration for this country and its freedoms?
6. I used to have the utmost respect for Nelson Mandela, and you couldn't find a more ardent supporter of him, but no more. As soon as he played the race card, I was done. I guess he forgets what country was instrumental in getting him out of prison and who supported him in his administration.
7. Ann, the U.S. gives support to just about any country who needs it, whenever they need it, so don't go there.
8. Why was it ok to go into Bosnia and get rid of Milosovich, but not ok to go into Iraq and rid their people of a rotten, evil dictator? Perhaps because it was Clinton who went into Bosnia and it's Bush who is going into Iraq? Hmmmmm....
9. I am not, nor never will be, a Republican or a Democrat in this country, I am an independant thinker. My only thought is, let's be fair. I don't like the idea of war anymore than anyone else, but, if you're not involved, stay out of it.
So you're saying that unless your country is perfect or you are directly involved in this war you don't have the right to speak?! Well, for one, no country is perfect. Yes, some countries are better than others but there is no such thing as a perfect country nor will there ever be. So because South Africa has problems Nelson Mandela can not talk about the flaws of other countries?! And secondly, this war will affect the whole world, in one way or another, especially if it will be fought with nuclear weapons. Technically, the only people directly involved in this war is people like Bush. So we, the civilians and people of the world should just keep quiet cause we're not "involved" enough?!
As for the comment that we cannot make up our mind about the USA helping or not, it's quite simple actually. According to UN resolution all industrialized nations in the world must help poor countries. However, no where does it state that those nations get the right to play world police and meddle in other countries businesses or politic affairs. There's a big difference there.
And yes, I will "go there" since it's a proven fact that the USA does give the least money out of any industrialized nation in the world. It's true, it's not as if I'm sitting here making it up you know.
I have to go eat dinner now but I will respond to the rest of the things you said later.
You really needn't bother, I don't really care, but if you want to go ahead. Your opinion means as much to me as mine does to you.
I need the transcript because the quotes do not make any sense to me. From several sources I have read it said that US is completely arrogant; it's only about oil; the UN is good; Bush is a racist he would respect the UN process if only the Secretary General were white.
This does not add up. If so we would be like the President of Iraq when he wanted Kuwait, we would not go to the UN, we would not debate, we would just conquer.
President Bush is not a racist. Colin Powell is Secretary of State for only one reason. President Bush chose him.
It's not just about oil. We had control over the oil wells; we gave up control. Americans spent our money and some Americans risked their lives to put out the oil fires. Putting out the fires only benefitted people in the region. Given the amount of oil burned it did not effect the price of oil.
Some of the quotes by themselves amount to just name calling. Children calling each other names is childish. For a statesman to resort to baseless name calling in such a life-or-death matter is reprehensible. If all that can be done is name calling then the next step may very well be bloodshed.
For me the transcript may flesh out the quotes.
Paul
Paul,
They had a report on Fox news about it I know. I agree with what you said that it doesn't make sense, but that's what the man said. I'll look and see if I can find it.
Molly
I have heard about Nelson Mandela's speech from several US sources. The only strange thing to me is not to see a full trasncript or a video online.
My random search seems to indicate the media is covering it. Although, I do think there should be more coverage.
ABC,
CBS,
CNN,
Fox,
New York Times,
UPI,
Chicago Tribune,
Washington Post,
San Francisco Chronicle,
Orlando Sentinel
Paul
Yep, all I can find is excerpts too. I just got an email from my friend who lives in Johannesburg and she said she is absolutely appalled by what he said in his speech...that coming from a woman who holds Mandela as one of her heroes. I'll see if I can't get something from her...maybe we can get a different spin.
I think it is absurd to say Americans do not care about other people. For hundreds of millions of Americans the most important thing they can do to help others is to pray for them. I imagine hundreds of millions of Americans are praying for peace.
I can not imagine how anyone could reliably calculate the amount of money Americans give.
What is the value of a human life? To determine whether a country "really" cares what kind of formula would you use? Perhaps you could quantify the number of prayers, the direct financial aid, direct food aid, direct medical aid, technological assistance, clothing, and the number of hours of donated time. But how would you value the human lives lost? Would the "care value" be different if it were a uniformed soldier guarding food in Somalia who gave his life or a missionary?
Paul
Excellent points Paul. One life does not mean more than any other. A death is a death, whether it's a soldier or a missionary, or a kid on the street corner...one is not worth more than the other...they are all tragic.
I have emailed the Sunday Times in Johannesburg about getting a transcript of his speech.
quote....8. Why was it ok to go into Bosnia and get rid of Milosovich, but not ok to go into Iraq and rid their people of a rotten, evil dictator? Perhaps because it was Clinton who went into Bosnia and it's Bush who is going into Iraq? Hmmmmm....
molly, i think this point is a bit of a stretch. there was quite a bit of opposition to any american involvement in bosnia, several current congressional leaders were not willing to support the clinton administration. sadly,many european governments then weren't willing or able to stop the carnage and genocide in southeastern europe. many of those same countries are still expressing similar hesitations again about iraqi involvement.
in bosnia, mr clinton wasn't part of the issue,his administration ignored and deferred to the europeans too long. mr. bush hasn't been able to make the iraqi issue non-personalized; his recorded statements saying that sadaam tried to kill his father were not helpful in keeping him uninvolved. his and mr cheneys' not publically presenting incontrovertable evidence much earlier has not helped this administrations efforts to build a collation, here or abroad. news media in bosnia were able to widely, graphically, and clearly make the case for american involvement by publicising the rape and death camps in bosnia.
and i AM interested in your opinion, i can and do and will learn from as many sources as i can., there is always new things to learn.
kindest regards, joyce in columbus
I found your stats interesting, so I had to take a further look into them. From what I have found, yes, in 2001 the US's aid in relation to their GNP was the lowest...But, in terms of raw US dollars(not sure how it translates into other countries) the US donated the most $$. ODA=Official Development AssistanceQuote:
Originally posted by Ann
"The USA often tries masquerading as a helpful country; always ready to aid poor and needy countries with it's wealth. However, the USA's aid (in terms of percentage to their GDP) is the lowest of any industrialized nation in the world! For example, Denmark was the country that gave the most money to poor countries in 2001. Denmark gave a whooping 1,01% of their GNP while the USA only gave 0,11%."
http://www.globalissues.org/images/NetODA2001.jpg
So yes, the US donated only .11 of their GNP lower than the UN target of .7, but that .11 was the highest in raw dollar amounts donated at 10.88 billion USD. So, shouldn't that read Denmark gave the most of its money, not the most money in 2001?
My point...none really, just had this urge to clarify the stats. I found the site interesting...of course, I'm not very good at unerstanding stats..this is just my basic grasp of it. Here's the site if you'd like to take a look.
http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp
:)
Tiff,
Stats are able to be skewed any way way the person doing the quoting wants to skew them, so don't worry about it. I put little to no faith in statistics.
Joyce,
I respect your opinion, and I do agree that Bush made a major fubar when he made the statement that Saddam had tried to kill his father. Way too personal at that point. My point was that for most, going into Bosnia wasn't that big of a deal (although the conservatives didn't like it here in the States), but when Bush wants to go into Iraq, suddenly the liberals are all over him for it when they praised Clinton for Bosnia...I guess my point is, that it's going to be a problem for what ever side isn't in control, be it conservative or liberal. I'm just glad I'm a moderate. ;) :)
My point remains that there is far more to caring than money. It is absurd to say the US does not care.
However, from the web page you site it says: "ODA is basically aid from the governments of the wealthy nations, but doesn't include private contributions or private capital flows and investments."
So these numbers are only relevant to a discussion about ODA money. They are irrelevant to US giving in general. It's even hard to see how they would account for all US contributions to the UN. One US citizen alone, Ted Turner, pledged to give $1,000,000,000 to the UN. Why not count his private contribution? How many billions of dollars are unaccounted for?
I wonder if the US contribution to the UN is only a tiny fraction of total US giving.
Paul
Well said again Paul!! Good and valid points. Not only that how much money does it cost the U.S. to "house" the U.N? And what about the private Americans who go to other countries like China and Russia, etc to adopt their unwanted, unloved children...at their own expense, I might add. Along with untold private donations from individuals and corporations and churches etc going to aid the poor countries. What about the Americans who serve in the Peace Corps (and go to the African countries that Mandela is so close to) and live in total poverty in places unfamiliar to them? Ok...there are just a few examples of U.S. generosity. AND I'm NOT saying that other countries don't give, I'm just saying that the Americans ARE a giving and caring people.
You make a very interesting point Paul. So true. I was just trying to clarify the stats that she gave...so I only found official stats. There could be tons of money from the US as well as other countries given in aid that is unaccounted for...private contributions etc..
I think his points were aimed at the government, not individual American citizens and that has to be remembered. Most foreigners that have "anti-american" views do differentiate.
Saying that Bush isn't a racist because he hired Colin Powell is extremely flawed logic. That proves nothing.
And I found the suggestion that Mandela "played the race card" both hilarious and perplexing. Mandela "playing the race card"?
I found that perplexing too, but he did make the statement that the U.S. wasn't playing fair with the U.N. because it was run by a black man....and in my eyes that (for what it's worth) is playing the race card. And I found that extremely distressing.
I commented on the reports only to show why I believe the transcript is needed.
Colin Powell proves that George Bush is not a racist that would not put someone in a position of power based solely on his skin color. I believe that all people deserve a good measure of respect. The presumption should be that George Bush or anyone else is not a racist. Hopefully Nelson Mandela's speech gave compelling evidence to merit such an incendiary charge and was not reprehensible name calling. From George Bush's words and deeds I think it is clear he is not a racist. However, I am willing to hear the speech.
Paul
I'll let you know if either of my attempts pans out.
There is no way to find out if Bush is a racist. But one does not cease to be racist because they employ a black person. No matter what rank or position they might employ them in.
See what happens when you let people out of jail?
There are racists who will not employ some people based on skin color alone. This proves that Bush is not one of them without a doubt.
I believe that all people deserve a good measure of respect. The presumption should be that George Bush or anyone else is not a racist of any kind instead of looking for ways in which he could speak and act like a non-racist while still being a racist.
Paul
Quote:
Originally posted by Paul
I believe that all people deserve a good measure of respect. The presumption should be that George Bush or anyone else is not a racist of any kind instead of looking for ways in which he could speak and act like a non-racist while still being a racist.
Paul[/COLOR]
With my joking comment aside, I had this discussion once with a woman of colour, and I think it gets down to semantics, again. I "claim" not to be a "racist". I "claim" not to be "prejudice". I am not sure there is, in practice, much of a difference. We all have preconceived ideas about nearly everything, if from nothing else but our one earlier experience with a situation.
This person told me that we all are "racist" or "prejudice", or we wouldn't really be human...with the logic (or opinion) that it is only when this racism or prejudice gets in the way of fairness or equality or humane treatment that we have "issues".
Exactly! I found the article choppy. It was hard to follow along with each statement/issue when it kept bouncing around. I, too, would be interested in reading a full transcript as this seems to be taken out of context.Quote:
Originally posted by Paul
I need the transcript because the quotes do not make any sense to me. From several sources I have read it said that US is completely arrogant; it's only about oil; the UN is good; Bush is a racist he would respect the UN process if only the Secretary General were white.Paul
I sincerely hope that the anti-American's here DO differentiate between the governmental decisions and the people who live here. Just because a few act in ways "you" may not agree with, doesn't mean that we agree either. I'm getting sick of these stupid generalizations and having to prove what is in our hearts...
So, Bush is not the kind of racist who will not employ someone based on the color of their skin. This does not mean Bush is not a racist.
But you're right, I don't think that the part on race was necessary for strategic reasons alone. I find it an interesting comment, but most people, especially white people, will find it immediately angering and therefore render his other comments invalid in their eyes.
But I did find it good and interesting that someone with such a high profile would questions Bush's motivation.
Too bad that people are getting caught up in which words were used to realise the enormity of world opposition on this "war".
Its not as simple as word choice....its about not forming an opinion on an ARTICLE that seems incomplete...not opposition to war.Quote:
Originally posted by Soledad
Too bad that people are getting caught up in which words were used to realise the enormity of world opposition on this "war".
I wonder if all this scrutiny would exist if the article was about Mandela supporting Bush and the war. Somehow, I think not.
Yes, I would be equally puzzled if Nelson Mandela left out the racism charge and supported President Bush while saying the American people do not care about others; it's only about oil; and insulted Prime Minister Tony Blair.
"They don't care for human beings" is the Salon quote.
Some of the quotes by themselves amount to just name calling. Children calling each other names is childish. For a statesman to resort to baseless name calling in such a life-or-death matter is reprehensible. If all that can be done is name calling then the next step may very well be bloodshed.
For me, the transcript may flesh out the quotes.
Paul
That's not the alternate scenario I was presenting.
If there were an article about Mandela's overwhelming support of the US, Bush and a war against Iraq no one here would be questioning the quotes and looking for a transcript.
That was my point.
I wonder, why is it name-calling when it's someone from the left but it's called "straight-talking" when it's someone from the right?
Quote:
Originally posted by Soledad
I wonder if all this scrutiny would exist if the article was about Mandela supporting Bush and the war. Somehow, I think not.
Hmmmm...you were the thred starter...I wonder would you have even brought it up if it wasn't so inflaming? I bet.......NOT!