[Ironfocus]

No sympathy? Too stupid? I respectfully have to disagree with those statements. The whites have been in Southern Africa almost as long as whites have been in the US. In my opinion, it entitles them to some ownership of the country they helped build, and call it home. You expect people to give up their homes and leave Zimbabwe, but in other places the US goes to war to remove dicators, and protect minority rights. Why is this different?

[BlazingArizona]

No sympathy? Too stupid? I respectfully have to disagree with those statements. The whites have been in Southern Africa almost as long as whites have been in the US. In my opinion, it entitles them to some ownership of the country they helped build, and call it home.

Their stupidity lies in not organizing to defend themselves, and in not availing themselves of all the military-expertise-for-hire that is available around the world. If they had collaborated and armed themselves when all this started - and there was plenty of warning - they should have had no trouble blowing away Mugabe and his Zanu-PF. Instead the played the role of colonial planters, waiting for England or the Useless Nations to "do something". They missed a chance to become the Israelis of Africa.

[Max Combined]

"No sympathy? Too stupid?"

That's right. No matter what justification you may posit for why whites have a right to live in Zimbabwe and South Africa, the reality is that whites are going to get screwed. Anyone who was not stupid and/or blinded by ideology should have known to get out when the getting was good. It is not too late to get out of South Africa, but it will be, eventually.

[Max Combined]

"Why is this different?"

You already know the answer.

[Jack Black]

Not enough whites there to fight I guess. They needed to fight for and win a white homeland back 20 years ago. The South African's would be smart to realize this is going to happen to them and create their homeland now. That was one of the proposals for ending aparteid that was tried, but discarded. Probably the only one that could have allowed some whites to stay in the region.

[dvwjr]

Sorry about the hard truth. The reason that the white Europeans (primarily from Britain) were able to succeed on the North American continent was the rule of law, education, work ethic and NUMBERS that they brought with them to the new colonies. The aboriginal inhabitants of the North American continent had varying, but low degrees of technological and social sophistication. They lacked the ability to live and function together in large numbers, made little technical progress in the same time in which their Asian and European cousins flourished, did not make use of the wheel, never entered an "Iron Age", had no domesticated draft animals and thus never had the ability to support large scale farming. This is not to say they were stupid, because as adaptable human beings they rapidly made use of advanced concepts and tools after exposure, but were too far behind to ever catch up with the Europeans settlers.

The above factors all contributed significantly, but the ability to outnumber the native-'Americans' ensured that the culture they brought with them would overwhelm and absorb the pre-existing primitive cultures. The Europeans who settled South Africa and Rhodesia never brought the numbers necessary to succeed long-term; the immigration of large numbers of surrounding Africans tribes to these territories, lured by the economic success its new inhabitants displayed prevented the same success story from being repeated.

Ownership is always backed by force. If you do not have enough power, you do not keep your possessions. The 'rule of law' ensures that the necessary force to keep one's possessions is held in common by a government. If that government decides that certain members no longer have its protection, then their claims to ownership are moot. You may call it 'home', but if you cannot maintain ownership, it never will stay that way.

The US never goes to war just to remove dictators, it goes to war to protect and defend its multifaceted national interests. The side effects of freeing people and the institution of the rule of law to protect 'minority rights', while desirable and noble, are just that: 'side-effects'. Zimbabwe is not a threat to the United States, only to themselves. Thus, it is not on the strategic radar to be regarded as a threat. Some may call this selective imperialism, rather it is a narrow self-interest which concurrently benefits the world.

The United States is not itself an imperialist threat, on the contrary the United States is an 'Empire killer'. Every empire which has extended contact with the United States dies; the tools may be military, economic or cultural but they all die in the end. Empires are dangerous to our future, thus they are targets to be eliminated via reform or conquest. The Republic, long may she reign...


dvwjr

[RightWhale]

Why is this different?

Excellent subject for an essay. Report back when it's done.

[cyborg]

Not even when you as a South African speak will it be good enough for a lot of freepers who've NEVER BEEN NEAR THE DAMNED PLACE OR EVER TALKED TO ANYONE AFRICAN!!! God awful here you are talking about a place you've lived and I can't believe the things I've read on this thread.

I see Storm Front has done a great job as far as their infiltration of FR.