Ha! Yes, I was! :smack: 
Hey, I would never belittle anyone’s death, but it was delivered wholesale by all sides in WWII. At least as many civilians died in the conventional firebombing of Tokyo in Japan, or Dresden and Hamburg combined in Germany. Are those also Atrocities because thousands died, even though no nuclear bomb was used, or just legitimate acts of war?
And if killing thousands of civilians is classed as an atrocity, than lets not leave Japan out of the discussion. MILLIONS of Chinese civilians died at Japanese hands, something their government and parts of their population remained in denial about for decades.
And I’m not even mentioning how the militaries of all combatants ordered the bombing of civilians to their best of their ability. If American bombing caused more damage, it was because we had more resources and were better at it, not because we were more willing to kill people than Japan. And I daresay, if you examine any Chinese history text today, it probably lingers a lot longer on the rape of Nanking than it does the bombing of Hiroshima. The first event involved thousands of Japanese soldiers over a period of days and killed twice as many defenseless people, the second involved one bomb dropped by one plane. Which was a bigger atrocity?
See above.
…nobody should pay any mind to the senile rantings of this old fool. Mandela thinks the US sponsors atrocities? Well, he should look at his own continent for some neat examples…Sani Abacha, Idi Amin, and Mobutu come to mind…but they were all BLACK AFRICAN tyrants, who only killed black people!
Screw Mandela, I no longer have any respect for this idiot!
What do you want to bet that Mandela’s people will come out later on this year and state very quietly that he has Alzheimer’s or some such thing. And then all of this will be filed under, " Ahhhh, it all makes sense now."
Mr. Mandela obviously went beyond anything resembling diplomacy, but it seems equally obvious that he was frustrated over the fact that there appeared to be a possibility that the U.N. would be by-passed.
To him the fact that Kofi Annan is secretary- general is undoubtedly a matter of great personal pride. It might not be completely rational for him to blame Bush or Blair with such claims, but considering what he has endured in his life, in the manner he has endured it, I for one am willing to give him some slack.
If he truly believes that Bush is such an air-head and Blair a lacky of the U.S., which commits atrocities; why is he willing to give his blessing if the U.N. gives its blessing? Could he be bad mouthing us, in an attempt to insure that we recognize the importance of the U.N.? IMHO his message is “If you treat the U.N. as irrelevant, when my friend is the secretary-general, then you’re no friend of mine.”
I am convinced that Saddam must be thrown out of power. I have my doubts about the wisdom of letting him go into exile, but even greater doubts that he will accept that as an option. I am optimistic that the U.N. will back the actions necessary to remove Saddam. It also is obvious that if we don’t follow up on our threat that it will give Saddam a message that he doesn’t have to worry about there being consequences to any action he wants to take in the future. But I’m not willing to write off Mr. Mandela as a senile old man.
It’s interesting that some of us feel compelled to compare atrocities of other countries. “Well, XXX country did THIS, and that’s much worse than what the U.S. has ever done, so they shouldn’t open their fat mouths!”
Seems like there are those who don’t wish to face the fact that the U.S. has done some pretty bad things. I happen to agree on the whole that our good deeds outweigh the bad, but this doesn’t mean the bad ones didn’t happen.
I find this attitude strange, and I would venture a guess it is part of the reason we piss off and confuse a lot of other people in the world. We sometimes act like a parent who can’t believe THEIR kid would ever do anything wrong.
It could also be he still is bitter against Cheney, who was part of those who wanted to keep him in prison?
Feel free to address the racist little weasel at nmandela@anc.org.za
(You may be bounced, but look for search hits with .anc after the @)
Uigi, you STILL have not explained your comment about his head exploding.
You seriously want someone to assassinate Mandela?
Oh it’s “interesting,” is it? Just what is so “interesting” about it? Perhaps my very first post, where I said “we have certainly done things that are unjust, unfair, and even cruel.” Forgive me if that doesn’t exactly meet the level of grovelling you seem to desire. And trying to avoid the ramifications of comparing us with other countries merely exposes your own true bias. Nothing happens in a vacuum. Hell, what makes an atrocity an “atrocity” anyway, but comparing it to the actions of other nations in similar circumstances??
As for pissing off and confusing other nations, did you read my last post? Japan’s government tried to prevent an accurate account of it’s war with Japan from being told publicly will into the 1980s.
So I guess you’re right; they shouldn’t open their fat mouths.
Oh, come on.
The EU is divided on the Iraq matter. The fact that a few important EU states refused to sign a statement backing a US invasion of Iraq doesn’t mean they have gone off their rocker accusing the US of mass attrocities and racism. Friends and allies don’t agree 100% of the time - the fact that nations like France and Germany refused to sign the statement gives a strong signal to the US that it should tread carefully in this case.
It’s called international diplomacy, which is the exact opposite of Mandela’s latest drivel.
I’ll be a good Clog Boy and eat crow: the Netherlands certainly stood at the cradle of the Apartheid system. But when Mandela was locked up at Robbeneiland, the Netherlands certainly weren’t “linked to South Africa” in any way, shape, or form. In fact, the country played a very active role in the international boycot of South Africa during the 70’s and 80’s. It’s amazing what 300 years of history can do, eh?
[Partially serious Devil’s Advocate]
Other than just because it’s polite, why should we give a good God-damn what France and Germany think about this?
[/Partially serious Devil’s Advocate]
If you really want to come across as a bunch of fucking cowboys who don’t give a damn about the opinions and interests of your allies, then I guess you shouldn’t give a damn, Lizard.
Well, I see that as a possible option. Doesn’t much matter how it happens; attack my President with b.s. and stand by for heavy rolls. Think pink Nelson.
(Jeeez, where did that post go?)
How very enlightened of you.
:rolleyes:
I think the crux of this matter is, just who is our “ally”? With the Soviet Union gone and the Cold War pretty much over, this makes any kind of alliance with, say, France, of questionable utility. And their behavior during this period is merely highlighting that fact. They seem ready and willing to use their influence in the U.N. to prevent the United States from doing what is in it’s own best interests. Would any superpower worthy of the name let its actions be dictated by someone smaller and weaker than itself, especially when it (the superpower) feels physically threatened? Bush even alluded to this when he said in his State of the Union address that “we will not let our fate be decided by the decisions of others.” (may have got a word or two wrong, can’t remember exactly.)
It’s not like France is merely saying they will sit this one out on principle, like Germany. They are actively trying to stop the U.S.
How France gets treated by the U.S. after this will be interesting to see. During the Falkland Islands War, the U.S. actually gave Britain (a true ally) material support, in direct conflict with our historic Monroe Doctrine. I see no such assistanc for France in anything on the horizon. In fact, except for having large white populations and calling themselves democracies, I can’t se where the two nations have anything in common at all.
And what is with this European fixation on the “cowboy” image? Is anyone over there aware of just how miniscule an aspect of American culture they really were? Or does all of Europe get everything they know about the U.S. from Marlboro ads?
I think it’s more from John Wayne movies than Marlboro ads.
But seriously, I never understand this sentiment.
If they (France) thinks that it is in their best interests to try to stop or influence what the US is doing, why shouldn’t they? I mean, they may be right, they may be wrong, but just because they are not the most powerful kid in the schoolyard they don’t have the right to act as they see fit?
Lizard you are the definition of an ugly american. Countries can be your friends and be against you. If they really think you are wrong and only use passive resistance they are moral cowards.
Trust me pal, you need all the friends you can get. You are just a country in a really big planet.
[Administrator Hat ON]
'Uigi, please do not encourage the assassination of Nelson Madela on this MB. Thank you.
[Administrator Hat OFF]
Hanh? 
The whole “Cowboy/Wild West/Frontier” fantasy-image-archetype thing is HUGE to Amurricans and Amurrican Culture, where you FROM, anyway?
I go over to cnn.com, put “cowboy” into search, what immediately pops up? Two stories from just this month. At 74, Internet cowboy spreads wireless. And everybody knows exactly what an “Internet cowboy” would be, without even having to read the story.
Second hit is Black cowboys hit the trail in New York. You can’t tell me that a culture that has inner-city black kids playing cowboy is a culture whose “cowboy” aspect is “miniscule”. 
Now if you were to say that the culture of wine-drinking, 300-kinds-of-cheese-eating Frenchmen was a miniscule aspect of American culture, I’d agree with you.
And I bet that nobody would start up a group to teach inner-city black American kids about the wine-drinking, 300-kinds-of-cheese-eating French aspect of their culture.