A lot of morons here are always talking of the reasons (implied or explicit) behind South Africa's fall from 'grace.' Present your reasons why; and if stupid and illogical, I will strike them down.

Which fall from who's grace?

...and who the hell put you on that damn throne:

i will strike them down

...strike them down......K.M.B.A

I believe South Africa was a stable country prior to 1994, granted huge inequalities btwn the white and black population but never the less the country was better off. South Africa had nukes, was about to into space. South Africa had to improvise, due to sanctions, and was the only country to confront communism in Southern Africa. She had created a entire defence industry from scratch with some of the best quality weapons around. Not a great deal many states can say that (exceptions Israel, NK). Granted Apartheid was very bad, and it is what made South Africa what it is today, extremely divisive and poorer. How? Well simple since the preceding decades the blacks did not have the oppertunity to reach the same heights as a white person. Thus you have a entire generation of ppl who aren't up to the levels that they should be. And this creates a enviroment of tension. You still have whites going around doing vigilante justice on Blacks. South Africa was a up an coming state, but sadly it was it's policies that forever doomed her.

Because negroes simply cannot run their own countries. Once the noble aryans gave up power, the country went back to what the native blacks were capable of doing.

lol!!
yo Jihad, seems like someone let another crazy Amerikaan out of his cage:D

Stability over freedom? hhmm, difficult choice, going back to PLato and beyond.

Im assuming you killed jesus is just imitating a big ugly thing that sits under a bridge and robs passers by.

Indeed it is very dissapointing that south-Africa did not become the rainbow nation as Nelson Mandela and Pik Botha, me and many others would like it to be. Without the evil white man holding the whip, the blacks now may ask themselves who to blame for the sad situations in the townships. Sure you can still blame the whites for creating the homelands etc. in the first place, but you got to stop wining and pointing at others and take your own responsibillity sometime!!!

Maybe I am just saying what YKJ says in a less shocking way?? (hey, and I am regarded as being a leftist around here), i don't know but I do know that the ANC is full of corruption and that Apartheid by colour is now replaced with Apartheid between Poor and rich.


What is most amusing is that these noble Aryans of wich YKJ speaks had close millitary/economicallie ties with the noble jews of Israel , isn't that juicy?

I guess the fear for barbaric black/arab hurds asking for a refund made it possible to have an alliance like this...

I don't want to sound racist because I am not. But look at the state these countries are in now? South Africa living standards decreased after black rule, Rhodesia (zimbabwe) a mess, black apartheid to the extreme, Angola 30 years of civil war that just ended (after the Portugese left in '75), Mozambique (civil war was Rhodesia's fault). The only success story in the region would be Botswana, and Namibia. Both have tiny populaitons, i guess that's why?

I have given this some thought and my conclusion is that blacks are perfectly capable of ruling their territories as long as they stick to the traditional way of living and do not try to imitate the white man way of living....

Sure it was arguably more primitive lifestyle before the whites came, but I bet it was more peacefull instead of people chasing the yankee dollar to buy food and television they were just growing their food or hunting it in the bush and had gatherings with food and music round campfires, instead of huffing gasoline in a concrete jungle township, where rape and murder and robbery can happen at every corner...

Our lifestyle seems not very compatible for their social and especially TRIBAL structure, You know, like I would probably really suck if I was to chase the Eskimo lifestyle....

I say get back to your roots......

Vortexx I don;t agree because that would mean that they would give up on the price system and retreat to the pre-modern age. NO what I think is the biggest problem in Africa is the borders they are in no way representative of the local populations. So there will always be racial tensions. See under white-rulership they couldn't complain b/c they had no power, now that they do they are fighting for control of the resources. Look at the war in Angola and you will see what I mean. I think we need to change the maps of Africa on order for it to work.

I am afraid it will take many many wars (most importantly, the war between cristian and muslim africans) and a few succesfull genocides before african borders stop looking like rectangles and their shapes reflect more of the actual people that live within those borders.....

But I am mostly talking about Christian Africa, i.e. Congo, Southern Africa. Islamic Africa isn't so fractious, as least it seems that way, apart from some exceptions like Sudan which is in the process of fixing her borders, and well Somalia. That is well a joke. The only states that are true are Ethiopia, Liberia, and Morroco.

Various

With contempt: :D
1. Living standards decreased? How? stats.

2. Factor in AIDS

3. Hypocritical investors who simply abandonedthecountry.

4. White South Africans purposely undermining their govt.

5. You consider spending billions on nuclear arms research whilst the populus starved a sign of prosperity?

6. In the east, African rulehas 'failed' because the population expected upward economic moblity after independence. Didn't happen because the old colonial structures were already in place. [The way sub-Saharan Africa trades with Europe and the USA is pathetic.) Anyway,back to original thought, in Zimbabwe, the white still owned thefarms, etc.

7. Borders will take shape with nationalism. Pan-Africanism helped with/after independence. Religious conflicts in Africa will be irrelevant-- Christian and Islamic beliefs are still rooted in many traditional beliefs.

Come on do better.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3053473.stm

South Africa's population increased by 10% between 1996 and 2001 despite earlier estimates that the figure would be lower due to the HIV/Aids epidemic, according to official census figures. The population rose to 44.8 million from 40.5 million.
The results - released ahead of next year's general elections - show that the average living standards of South Africans have improved.

South Africa is not better really than she was. It's something you can really prove with numbers, crime is way up, AIDS is way up, unemployment is up. The country is not doing well at all. Have the blacks gotten out of the ghetto's? Does everyone have water? Does evryone have education? Also south Africa has lost international power projection compared to before.

South Africa is not better really than she was. It's something you can really prove with numbers, crime is way up, AIDS is way up, unemployment is up. The country is not doing well at all. Have the blacks gotten out of the ghetto's? Does everyone have water? Does evryone have education? Also south Africa has lost international power projection compared to before.
please, facts hombre, facts.
LMAO.
1. Crime--> previous stats undereported. Crime before was for equal opportunity--fighting against apartheid. Police brutality was underreported, Crime in the ghettos ignored, underported. Etc etc

2. AIDS---> population has grown. Predictions incorrect. AIDS infection from neighboring countries was inevitable and not the result of government incompetence. High prices of drugs and the lack of generic can be attributed mainly to the pharmaceutical companies.

3. Unemployment---> LMAO

4. Education---> better! Access, resources, etc. Gap between whites and blacks in terms of higher education fucked up but improving.

5. International Power---> You must mean miltary: The rand has regained almost all the value it lost, still lower but really because of problems in neighboring countries. Military power NOW is irrelevant. SA hasno enemies. Inside Africa, it can still provide peacekeeping troops.

EDIT:
6. Ghettos---> I'm sure you are too intelligent to assume that Black SAs, even in a situation approaching the ideal, out of the ghettos by now.


Comeon man, get off your obsession with nuclear power and simplistic views on the global power balance. As with Russia, SA is solving a lot of problems internally and doing a darn good job. The next step is cheaper oil.

Most important, at the most basic level, SA have equal rights.

5. International Power---> You must mean miltary: The rand has regained almost all the value it lost, still lower but really because of problems in neighboring countries. Military power NOW is irrelevant. SA hasno enemies. Inside Africa, it can still provide peacekeeping troops. I always thought you were a fucking idiot with shit for brains, but this made me laugh and realize just how fuckings stupid you are.

In 1991, before the end of apartheid, $1 = R3. And it sat there for a bit.

In 2003, it "recovered" as you put it to $1 = R7.50 to R8.00 depending on the day.

Yes. Regained all its value.

Idiot.

Fountain:

Comeon man, get off your obsession with nuclear power and simplistic views on the global power balance. As with Russia, SA is solving a lot of problems internally and doing a darn good job. The next step is cheaper oil.


Who cares about the state of living in countries? Those are their problems. If you want to talk about things that affect us, you have to talk about military, economic, and possible nuke power. SA spent about 15% of it's budget on the military, but if it wasn't for that military Communism/socialism would have came to SA. Remember Mandela is a communist:

http://home.wanadoo.nl/rhodesia/mandela.jpg

Nuke power was important of course, did you ever hear on the Brezhnev doctrine? Cheaper oil? The only way is to invade Angola and get it. And we know that ain't happening again. SA under Apartheid also had a very hi-tech arms industry. Which luckily today's SA inheirted. When you re-distribute the wealth of the nation invariably the country goes through a bad stage.

This made my day: Jerrek calling me an idiot. If there exists a more thoughtless regurgitator of moronic viewpoints apart from yourself, I would like to read their posts. Wow so Jerrek the idiotic shithead actually grew some balls to post. And as always he will pick one line out of many to respond to. LMAO. Anyway, you stupid fool, when did I mention before 1991? After apatheid ended, economically SA was a mess; but even then the Rand was overvalued; it hit its true value after pragmatism succeeded the elation following mandela's release. It reached record lows after 9/11 or 2001. I am talking about value gained since then!
http://www.economist.com.na/2003/20jun/06-20-06.htm

Oh yea, go back and reply to threads you left unanswered, you scared weenie.

Nico:
LMAO. You are something else. Asfor cheaper oil, there are betterways than invading Angola.

LMAO. You are something else.

Good or bad way? :( :)

Asfor cheaper oil, there are betterways than invading Angola.

Love to hear it, even the US is bound by OPEC.

Nico, don't argue with fools, they will drag you down to their own level and beat you with experience.

I just love to hear the answer Jerrek.

As you say.

Common t.f.h answer my two realitively simple questions.

Good or bad way?
--> I suppose good as your obvious passion for debating about the global power struggle keeps me posting.


Love to hear it, even the US is bound by OPEC.
--> Mbeki can either kiss Bush's ass or import Mozambiue gas and Nigerian oil.

Also didn't realize my answers were stupid.:rolleyes:

And to the Jerrek freak whose first reply was belligerent and insulting simply because I disagreed and corrected an inane point of yours, I say I'm dragging you down?:eek:

Mbeki can either kiss Bush's ass or import Mozambiue gas and Nigerian oil.


Like Bush is going to care about S.A? LOL and Mozambique would sell gas to you cheaper when she can het a much better price and Nigeria, haha. The she's the US biatch. Again so how can we get cheap oil for S.A?

Like Bush is going to care about S.A? LOL
---> lmao.

Mozambique would sell gas to you cheaper when she can het a much better price
---> already arranged baby. 2004!!!

Nigeria, haha. The she's the US biatch.
---> far from the truth. If you look at Nigeria's history with the USA and especially this admin, albeit Bush's trip.

Anyway, they are cheaper than what a war with Angola would cost.

All S.A would need to do is invade Cabina the Angolan enclave that is where most of the oil is.

already arranged baby. 2004!!!

Interesting link baby!

far from the truth. If you look at Nigeria's history with the USA and especially this admin, albeit Bush's trip

Not that well versed in Nigeria, link por favor.

Interesting link baby!
-->http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/company/cna30899.htm

far from the truth. If you look at Nigeria's history with the USA and especially this admin, albeit Bush's trip

http://www.iss.co.za/AF/profiles/Nigeria/Politics.html


But anyway, in terms of South Africa and Nigeria--- if new researchinto oil deposits off the coasts of Nigeria and (damn cannot remember the 2nd nation) pan out; plus the drilling of oil deposists in Ghana, a Nigerian-South African oil trade is inevitable--well maybe. There is a bunch of oil in Africa--as we are now discovering; if the continent learns from problems in Nigeria, well...

Just a comment.--
The continent's hope for the future are Nigera, Egypt, South Africa, Ghana and Senegal.

new researchinto oil deposits off the coasts of Nigeria and (damn cannot remember the 2nd nation)

I assume Cameroon, or Benin, but I put my money on Cameroon. Near the Biafra area, Port Harcourt?

Just a comment.--
The continent's hope for the future are Nigera, Egypt, South Africa, Ghana and Senegal.

I think Africa's future lay's with S.A, Nigeria, Sudan, Congo's, and Zimbabwe. Anything N of Sudan, Niger, Mali, I consider more Arab than African.

Here's a little insight to Africa's oil industry:

Nigeria 24.0- 30.0 billion barrels of oil. (bbo)

Angola 5.4- 6.0 bbo

South Africa 0.0 -0.0 bbp

Gabon 2.5- 2.4 bbo

Mozambique 0.0 -0.0 bbo


And a good way to indicate economic activety is to see how much million bo a country uses a day

South Africa (Oil consumption) (1980)312 324 349 338 360 350 350 345 342 348 375 403 412 402 410 421 428 439 451 466 458 460(2001)

[i]Nigeria (Oil production) (1980)2,055 1,433 1,295 1,241 1,388 1,495 1,467 1,341 1,450 1,716 1,810 1,892 1,943 1,960 1,931 1,993 2,001 2,132 2,153 2,130 2,165 2,256(2001)


So Nigeria can fulfill all of S.A needs but will she is the question? Also Nigeria is horribly unstable, especially in the oil rich region of Biafra, and Northern Nigeria.

Sudan, Congo and Zimbabwe? LMAO. No. not anytime soon. Potentially rich nations, but stability, an adequate infratsructure, etc an issue for along time. Currently, there are two relatively unknown gems: Ghana and Senegal. Gosh, how much I wish Togo and Benin were integrated into Ghana long ago. Anyway, Ghana, Nigeria, South Africa, Egypt and Senegal will lead if Africa is to do shit in the next 50 years or so.



Anything N of Sudan, Niger, Mali, I consider more Arab than African.
-- I disagree.

Sudan, Congo and Zimbabwe? LMAO. No. not anytime soon. Potentially rich nations, but stability, an adequate infratsructure, etc an issue for along time. Currently, there are two relatively unknown gems: Ghana and Senegal. Gosh, how much I wish Togo and Benin were integrated into Ghana long ago. Anyway, Ghana, Nigeria, South Africa, Egypt and Senegal will lead if Africa is to do shit in the next 50 years or so.


Those three are very important if Sudan, Congo and Zimbabwe don't get fixed Africa is going to shit. So S.A, and Ghana, and Sengal can try all they want they aren't going anywhere without the other problems fixed,and AIDS. It is estimated that it would Africa 200 years to have sanitation for all her inhabitants.

Those three are very important if Sudan, Congo and Zimbabwe don't get fixed Africa is going to shit.
--> incorrect. Ivory Coast more important. The Congo could be great as I said. But Africa does not NEED it.

So S.A, and Ghana, and Sengal can try all they want they aren't going anywhere without the other problems fixed,and AIDS.
--> Equal trading with the West, better infrastructure and stability. This is what Africa needs.

It is estimated that it would Africa 200 years to have sanitation for all her inhabitants
--->another useless estimate based on current situtation.

Originally posted by nico
I believe South Africa was a stable country prior to 1994, granted huge inequalities btwn the white and black population but never the less the country was better off. South Africa had nukes, was about to into space.

You would consider a country where less than 10% of the population live like kings and the remaining 90% are practicaly political slaves in their own country well-off*? Income desparity and lawful 'segregation'(prosecution!) of populaces should not be counted as a sign of a successfull nation in my opinion, just look at pre-Bolshevic Tsarist Russia, income desparity is what spawned the commies you fear so much.
Besides white South Africa was pretty much all pro-Nazi(though not officialy) during WWII and a long time after. There are still parades of Nazis often in South Africa today, granted there are those in all nations, but the difference is that while in most other countires neo-nazism is the political view in south Africa classic-nazism is still chanted as a long enduring remnant of the movements spawned in the 1930s to 40s and is somewhat secretly supported by a considerable chunk of SA's Arian populace.

Another note, frankly the less nukes there are in the world the better off all of us are. All countires should disarm and the world would be better, but this is too idealistic in this world of greed.

*I seem to have forgotten that this is what made Colonial America so 'great' and prosperous, systematic prosecution of native populations and the relentless claiming of thier land.

Jerrek- Your hostility and insults are totaly uncalled for here, I think it should almost be considered contrary to forum rules(mods?). Insults breed nothing but ignorance.

You would consider a country where less than 10% of the population live like kings and the remaining 90% are practicaly political slaves in their own country well-off*?

Yes, you seem to think that living standards are that important in the grand scheme of things. What is important is the economic, military, and nuke abilities. We bash S.A granted morally what happened there was wrong, but we pretty much ignore Zimbabwe. Wasn't Zimbabwe better off before the white purges? The sad fact of it all is that white rule the countries were better off. That is a sad fact, and there are many reasons why black rule has not been as successful. Which I believe were already discussed. Now your arguements went into the Nazi tangents and the what not. My question is who cares? Are they in power? No.

Another note, frankly the less nukes there are in the world the better off all of us are. All countires should disarm and the world would be better, but this is too idealistic in this world of greed.


You do realize that nukes prevented WWIII btwn the US and USSR, I believe nukes are important to retain.

nico- Well it's obvious that we simply disagree here on what is important in the 'grand scheme of things'.

Granted my political interest goes so deep as to say countries, money and military are shit and shouldn't exist. I have however spent some years in Zimbabwe and am somewhat acquainted with the countries and regions history and I can say that before the white purges in Zimbabwe the rule was actualy black since 1980, The whites were land owners and NOT rulers, and their organized agriculture contributed greatly to the countries prosperity, however demented and power-corrupted Mugabe utilized an inherent post-colonial deprevation in the local people(though, here the 'extremists' of rural living NOT representing the entire native population) to cling to power and so avoid inevitable political prosecution due to his various crimes.

Africas sad faliures from which the total list of countries can only omit small examples such as Botswana, are pretty much a result of local people who are put to lead 'countries' whos shapes have been carved out by white-mans knife, and are corrupted by white-mans promises.
Indeed I believe there is more to life than economy, military and nukes. So much so that the mentioned are completely meaningless in my grand scheme of things, but I can not turn away from them because they won't f****ing leave me alone and let me live my life!

Hmm, I think I should stay the hell away from the Politics forum. :D :D

Well it's obvious that we simply disagree here on what is important in the 'grand scheme of things'.


Sure do.

Zimbabwe

Was That region better off as Rhodeisa or as Zimbabwe? Rule and economic growth seemed to be more stable under the whites, same with Angloa, and Mozambique.

http://www.worldstatesmen.org/zw-rho68.gif

vs.

http://www.worldstatesmen.org/zw.gif

I think I should stay the hell away from the Politics forum

No don't

Africas sad faliures from which the total list of countries can only omit small examples such as Botswana, are pretty much a result of local people who are put to lead 'countries' whos shapes have been carved out by white-mans knife, and are corrupted by white-mans promises.

I see you are not aware of my pariah state theory.


:(

According to the UN's HDI the South Africa index has fallen significantly:

South Africa:

1975:0.660
1980:0.676
1985:0.702
1990:0.734
1995:0.741
2001:0.684

The ones bolded are when SA was under apartheid. 1995 was a year of transition so I still count it as Apartheid. By 2001 SA had fallen below 1985 levels of development.

Maybe time to call in the Grand Dragon to the Grand Scheme of Things moving again ?