Mandela: The United States of America is a Threat to World Peace

WOW, that's crazy, after all he calls the USA a racist nation even though we renominated Kofi Annan for Security General. Damn, I guess he is les of a great statesman and more of a politican. But then again after what he has been through, I can see why he doesn't believe what those in power say.

 

A snippet from thar article:

"Well, that element is there. In fact, many people say quietly, but they don’t have the courage to stand up and say publicly, that when there were white secretary generals you didn’t find this question of the United States and Britain going out of the United Nations. But now that you’ve had black secretary generals like Boutros Boutros Ghali, like Kofi Annan, they do not respect the United Nations. They have contempt for it. This is not my view, but that is what is being said by many people."

Everyone can interpret it as they wish, but I don't see Mandela calling the US racist himself. Rather, he sees many around the world viewing the US this way.

 

The US are a threat to world peace. Or rather part of your government.

 

Humanity is a threat to world peace.

 

Nelson Mandela and the ANC were (are) a risk to the stability of Africa.I think people forget this was a man who used terrorism against political rivals within his own people back in the 60's.He spent years in prison refusing to condemn political violence.

 

You really don't know much about South African political history do you?

For most of the 20th century it was a crime to make public statements opposed to Apartheid. Much of the government's economic policy was designed to make sure that non-white populations would remain poor and disorganized. The government also used divide-and-conquer tactics to increase the level of violence among non-white populations. In short, the moral landscape was defined entirely by the government. To publicly oppose Apartheid was to declare yourself a criminal. To avoid being destroyed by the government required a willingness to do whatever was necessary to survive.

Even so, the are only two reasons why any of us have ever heard of Nelson Mandela: his extraordinary strength of character, and his accurate judgment that there were some depths to which even that government would not sink. As a successful exercise in non-violent resistance, his 25 years in prison on Robben Island surpasses anything I have ever heard of. He simply refused to accept or acknowledge being treated as anything less than a human being.

Finally, where in the article does he really go off the deep end? The US did support the Shah until the very end. The US did bank roll the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan. Bush has been clearly reluctant to involve the UN in the Iraq question. He didn't say that Scott Ritter's position is the absolute truth, he points out that Bush has not offered compelling evidence to the contrary, and continues by saying that if that evidence is presented to the UN, it would completely change the situation, unless of course, the US continued to insist on acting as a solitary superpower. Finally, he concludes that anyone in a position to speak out should so.

If that's senility then the world needs a whole lot more it.

 

You know, in a way he is right. If the USA would just go away, there would be no one to hate them or attack them.

 

Mandela's main point is that the United States should not do an end run around the Security Council. Many people have been making the argument that the US is establishing dangerous precedents with its preemptive strike stance and by superceding the UN. Namely, we are establishing a precendent that any nation can attack another nation by claiming it feels threatened by that nation and without taking its case to the UN. I think this argument is far from senile, I think it is forward looking and, if the United States acts in this manner, it will be an incident we look back on in history as a mistake (read arming the mujahadin, supporting Iraq, supporting Latin American dictators). It quite likely will cause greater injury to our interests in the long term than it helps in the short term (China could use this example to invade Taiwan). In actions that seem to undermine international law, the United States is undermining world stability. Since we were the first nation to really push for international law (Wilson's 14 points speech) we should be concerned that we undermine the legacy that has allowed the world to accept US hegemony as largely benign.

 

LOL. This is interesting coming from a Dutch person.

Take Bosnia. The Dutch peacekeepers go into Srebrenica and promptly allow the Serbs to come in and slaughter the Muslims. US gets involved and the fighting comes to an end, both in Bosnia and Kosovo.

Who gives you more peace?

Is Afghanistan better off or worse off since US involvement? It seems clear to me that it is better off.

Rather than a threat, the US is perhaps the biggest contributor to peace in the world.

 

I would like to nominate this for 'Post of the Week'. Irrelevant, illogical and profoundly goofy, all in one 16 word package.

 

Yeah, it's sad that the truth is considered "goofy" nowadays.

 

Colin's remark can only be considered truth in the sense that religious dogma is, i.e. a declaration without connection to external reality that is only accepted by fellow believers.

To say nothing of the fact that it the final sentence of what was basically an ad hominem attack that completely ignored the facts in the posting to which he was responding.

 

did anyone read the article or just the header?

What Mandela said was "the ATTITUDE of the USA is a threat to world peace"

The attitude that we can go in and violate the sovereignty of other countries? Isn't that what led to world wars in the first place?

I think the USA should understand the seriousness of waging war on Iraq and getting rid of Saddam.

By the way, I am in favor of getting rid of Saddam but w/ world support...

And Mandela has a huge point, nobody is discussing the nuclear arms in Israel. Why is that?

I think Nelson Mandela is very, very far away from senile.

 

bush's dirty war

I dont see how anyone can disagree with Mandela, his points are what most in america are thinking, hence why support of bush's war on iraq are is hard to sell....in the end, the war will happen, some war, some where, bush has to have war going on to help him win re-election......period.

 

Certainly not because of his idiotic statement that "Israel is white" "Iraq is Black." Guess who the only democratically elected minister of Iraqi ancestry is? Hint, that person does not live in Iraq anymore.

Of course, rather than making a blatant racist statement, maybe Mandela was speaking figuratively. Israel is "white" in that the U.S. perceives it as the good guy, and Iraq is "black" in that the U.S. perceives it as the bad guy. If that's the case, then what Mandela is saying has a kernal of truth in it.

Largely because its true. Israel, despite its flaws, is a democratic country and an ally that has, in the past, been willing to make more concessions for peace than would any other nation in its situation. Iraq is a brutal dictatorship run by a lunatic thug.

And of course, Iraq has actually USED its weapons of mass destruction, which makes its possible possession of them a lot more troublesome.

I too agree that if we are going to do something in Iraq, we have to do a much, much, much better job presenting our case and working with other countries. But the only people who consider Iraq and Israel to be an equal threat to world security are those that believe that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion are true documents.

Just curious, why do you think Mandela mentioned Israel, and not say, Pakistan or India, two countries that have nukes and have come much closer to actually using them (and countries whose populations are a bit more dark skinned than the Iraqis that Mandela finds himself in solidarity with)?

 

Re: bush's dirty war

I don't know about this. Support in America for action against Iraq numbers in the 60-75% range, depending on who's doing the polling.

 

from CBS/NYT's poll 9/10/02

results mixed

HALF SAMPLE; FORM B) Which comes closer to your opinion? The United States should not attack Iraq unless Iraq has attacked the United States first, or the United States should be able to attack Iraq if it thinks Iraq might attack the United States?
Total Rep Dem Ind
U.S. should not attack 26% 19% 37% 21%
U.S. can attack 61 71 51 62
It depends 4 1 4 6
DK/NA 9 9 8 11

(HALF SAMPLE; FORM B) Which comes closer to your opinion? The United States should not attack Iraq unless Iraq has attacked the United States first, or the United States should be able to attack Iraq if it thinks Iraq might use nuclear weapons against the United States?
Total Rep Dem Ind
U.S. should not attack 17% 14% 25% 13%
U.S. can attack 75 79 64 81
It depends 2 1 4 2
DK/NA 6 6 7 4

How much have you heard or read about the possibility of the United States taking new military action against Iraq -- a lot, some, or not much so far?
Total Rep Dem Ind
A lot 43% 46% 45% 38%
Some 34 37 32 33
Not much so far 23 17 21 28
DK/NA 0 0 2 1

So far, do you think the Bush administration has clearly explained the United States position with regard to possibly attacking Iraq, or haven't they done that yet?
Total Rep Dem Ind
Clearly explained 27% 34% 20% 28%
Not done that yet 64 57 73 60
DK/NA 9 9 7 12

Do you approve or disapprove of the United States taking military action against Iraq to try and remove Saddam Hussein from power?
Total Rep Dem Ind
Approve 68% 82% 59% 65%
Disapprove 24 12 33 24
DK/NA 8 6 8 11

Should the United States take military action against Iraq fairly soon, or should the U.S. wait and give the United Nations more time to get weapons inspectors back into Iraq?
Total Rep Dem Ind
Take military action 35% 40% 25% 41%
Give U.N. more time 56 49 69 48
Both 1 2 0 0
Neither 1 1 1 1
DK/NA 7 8 5 10

Do you think the president should have to get the approval of Congress before taking military action against Iraq to try and remove Saddam Hussein from power, or should he be able to make that decision himself?
Total Rep Dem Ind
Get approval 62% 51% 70% 63%
His decision 35 45 27 34
DK/NA 3 4 3 4

Which statement do you agree with more? Iraq presents such a clear danger to American interests that the United States needs to act now, even without the support of its allies, or the U.S. needs to wait for its allies before taking any action against Iraq.
Total Rep Dem Ind
U.S. needs to act now 27% 33% 16% 32%
U.S. needs to wait 67 59 80 61
U.S. shouldn't act 0 0 0 0
DK/NA 6 8 4 7

Do you expect the United States military to end up fighting against Iraq or do you think the situation will be resolved without fighting?
Total Rep Dem Ind
End up fighting 74% 81% 68% 74%
Resolved without fighting 19 16 24 16
DK/NA 7 3 8 9

Do you think removing Saddam Hussein from power is worth the potential loss of American life and the other costs of attacking Iraq, or not?
Total Rep Dem Ind
Worth it 54% 69% 40% 55%
Not worth it 35 20 48 34
DK/NA 11 11 12 11

Suppose U.S. military action in Iraq would result in substantial U.S. military casualties, then would you favor or oppose the United States taking military action against Iraq?
Total Rep Dem Ind
Favor 50% 58% 43% 50%
Oppose 38 27 49 37
DK/NA 12 15 8 13

Suppose U.S. military action in Iraq would result in substantial Iraqi civilian casualties, then would you favor or oppose the United States taking military action against Iraq?
Total Rep Dem Ind
Favor 49% 62% 41% 47%
Oppose 40 24 53 41
DK/NA 11 14 6 12

Suppose U.S. military action in Iraq meant that the U.S. would be involved in a war there for months or even years, then would you favor or oppose the United States taking military action against Iraq?
Total Rep Dem Ind
Favor 49% 62% 37% 49%
Oppose 44 30 56 42
DK/NA 7 8 7 9

To the best of your knowledge, do you think Iraq currently possesses weapons of mass destruction, or doesn't it have those yet?
Total Rep Dem Ind
Yes 79% 82% 79% 78%
No 11 10 11 12
DK/NA 10 8 10 10

Do you think Iraq is planning to use those weapons against the United States, or not?
Total Rep Dem Ind
Yes 62% 66% 56% 64%
No 10 9 14 7
DK/NA 7 7 9 7
Don't have nuclear weapon 21 18 21 22

If the United States does get militarily involved in Iraq, which of the following would be the most likely: a fairly quick and successful effort, or a long and costly involvement?
Total Rep Dem Ind
Quick and successful effort 41% 49% 38% 39%
Long and costly involvement 53 45 59 53
Quick but unsuccessful 0 0 0 0
DK/NA 6 6 3 8

 

Wow, you told me in no uncertain terms.

Consider me underwhelmed by the body of evidence you've cited.

 

Likewise.

Where was the ad hominem attack? Could you please be more specific? And what "facts" did I ignore?

 

I think that Mandela mentioned Israel b/c of it's proximity to Iraq. Pakistan and India, while both countries that have nuclear arms, are not part of the technical 'Middle East'.

I agree with you that Iraq is run by a lunatic thug, however, he is one that we (USA) helped put in power. Saddam fought the Gulf war with arms that we helped him buy... And Israel is not a threat to world security only b/c the US agrees with their position. If we decided that the Zion movement was not something we wanted to support, I think they, very quickly, would become a threat.

What other country has been in Israel's position? What other country has been in the position to make such concessions? I'm not being inflammatory, just very curious about your point of of view.

And regarding Mandela's color issues, that is obviously from his South African apartheid experiences, Muslims (Arab/Pakistani/Indian and so on) were considered either coloured or black. Right or wrong, he is coming at this with his own experiences.

 

This was your first sentence in response to csc7's consideration of Mandela's points and how they relate to the Iraq situation and international law.
[QUOTELOL. This is interesting coming from a Dutch person.
[/QUOTE]

csc7 was talking about Iraq, not Bosnia, so what on earth do the actions of the Dutch government in Bosnia have to do with whether or not a US attack on Iraq would violate international law? While not precisely ad hominem (ad patrium?), it is certainly responding to an argument with entirely disconnected criticism.

Unless your sole argument is that the ends justify the means, so the UN and international law are irrelevant in this discussion, then your closing remark made no reference any facts at all.

 

Go back and re-read my post. It wasn't in response to csc7, it was in response to AFCA, who I quoted.

 

The United States of America is a threat to world peace, but world peace is not all it's cracked up to be.