Africa's coming hunger

The Christian Science Monitor ^ | February 06, 2002 | Robert I. Rotberg

[headsonpikes]

You are quite shameless.

You bump what I imagine you regard as a triumph of your reasoning and objective fact over some hillbilly boer racist.

But I notice that over the course of this thread you tried out virtually every half-truth available to smear South Africans, and whites generally, with the present-day public crimes of African states.

Sorry. That won't do. They have become true authors of their own misfortunes; the only just result in Africa is for Africans to wake up to their reality; oust their 'leadership', and hang them. ;^)

If that doesn't quite do it, then hang some more. The 'West' pays entirely too much respect to these heads of states, few of whom have any significant legitimacy.

Africa may be the only place on the planet, saving N. Korea, where anarchy might indeed be preferred to governance.

BUT, it's NOT CHARLEY'S fault, foo'!

[rwb]

But I notice that over the course of this thread you tried out virtually every half-truth available to smear South Africans, and whites generally, with the present-day public crimes of African states.

No one is only responsible for their own neatly-defined segment of history. There is no disconnect where national history is concerned. There is always a cause and effect and a resulting trickle through time.

The Apartheid government (and those from every group, who supported it) is responsible for crimes during the Apartheid era; the present South African government is responsible for those of the present-day.
Clearly, both contributed/contribute to the overall mess in South Africa.
Where in my posts have I not made this clear? If Mugabe gets "hanged" , as you put it, I'll be the first one to say good riddance.
The same good riddance that the Apartheid government got.

Africa may be the only place on the planet, saving N. Korea, where anarchy might indeed be preferred to governance.

That can't be right since anarchy is precisely what exists there now (in many countries).

[nopardons]

I your post # 171, you claim to know about what you have been typing " first hand . That you can't remember just what you type, is obvious. Neither do you know what you are claining first hand ; BUT, you said so.

They are called Africaners ; NOT Africans, and yes, there are two As in the name for the language... I made a typo. For shame, for shame. At least I know what I'm talking about, and unlike you , it isn't a pretense.

It's MRS. ! ms, no matter what the feminazis say, stands for manuscript.

Your personal attacks on me, my family, and ALL Afrikaners, is against the rules for postings. Not only that, your implied and not so implied imugnations of a people, whom you know virtually NOTHING at all about, is the sign of a benighted brain.

Just WHOM are you supposedly standing up for as their knight errant ? All blacks in Africa ? Is that is ? You imagine that YOU are their champion ? Al that you have done, is to show just how ill equipd you are to be a member of this forum; let alone post on it.

[Lewite]

True, the grass was higher than a man's head. But, even worse, the black mamba snakes could kill many men each. The black africans would not enter that area. They only came later when whitey had made it safe and would feed them!!!!