cheney and South Africa

before I start this is not ment to be Anti cheney even though he is the example.


Many years ago cheney voted againsts recognising the ANC. His reason was they where terrorists...he has since change his mind on this.
now this goes to the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter. The ANC where fighting for freedom...democracy... the very thing we are now saying is a just reason for the USA to invade dictatorships. So why does cheney consider it right that the USA invades "in the name of freedom" but the people of the nations can't do it for themselves without being called terrorist?...or does it depend on who they are uprising against?
I condem the killings done by some ANC members as i do the actions of the then South African government.
In many ways there where similarrities between the ethical thinking of south Africa and Iraq under Saddam. Please no comments about WMD and genocide...South Africa had a terrible record.

The debating point is .....given that we hadn't invaded Iraq...would a group such as the ANC ( INC in this case ) operating with the same goals in Iraq against saddam be considered terrorists by Cheney or freedom fighters?

Please answer that point before making your own opinion.

Well, what about Nepal?

In Nepal, its open Civil War, with most wanting Democracy (The Terrorists) and the USA and India are giving their support to the Absolute Monarch (who only controls 1/3 of the country atm) ;)

well rat that's more fuel for the double standard issue, I'm sure we could make cases like this again and again.:(

I probably would be more interested in how certain groups that are so sure that we are being rightious in Iraq can explain this double standard. Seems the term "mixed messages" could come into it at some point.

I see it as hypocracy period.

Well, i started another on Nepal

Maybe if we keep all the threads together, a Republican can answer a couple of questions?

ie: They wont accidently not see the threads ;)

Freedom fighters are people who are fighting against people you don't like. Osama was a freedom fighter when he fought the Russians in the 80s. Likewise the Contras in Central America were feted, although the latter did some pretty awful things to civilians (and some nuns as I recall).

If the US was invaded and ordinary people shot at the invaders would they be illegal non-combatants and terrorists or freedom fighters? I think most impartial observers would say the latter whilst the invaders might suggest the former.

Iraqis fighting against Saddam would have undoubtedly been called freedom fighters.

The terminology can, therefore, be a moveable feast. AQ is an exception to a considerable degree in that it actually espouses international terror in order to achieve political goals for a whole region rather than just domestic aspirations of self determination.

I suspect the problem with the ANC was that there was a feeling in certain US circles that it was too left wing - regardless of how just their cause may have been. I think a case of "better slaves than red"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rat Faced

Well, i started another on Nepal

Maybe if we keep all the threads together, a Republican can answer a couple of questions?

ie: They wont accidently not see the threads ;)

---

I will be honest with you Rat i am not polished up on the situation of Napal so i won't get too involved with it :)

Arent our resident Reps going to mention anything?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Look any thread where the "hard questions" are asked about the Republican party. You are nonexistent (you are not alone however). Do the same for a Democratic or Independent and people show in droves.

---

__________________

From an earlier post in another thread. It seems related.

Noted, and noticed already ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rat Faced

Noted, and noticed already ;)

---

High wind
Tumbleweed

or

Frogs burping
Crickets chirping