- 13 Sep 2014 09:00
#14464322
That really has nothing to do with Rei's point however. Rhodesia was effectively no longer a colony in the years of the aftermath of Ian Smith's unilateral declaration of independence. The discussion isn't about the costs of supporting Rhodesia or any other British colony or British former colony, nor the sustainability of British colonialism in Africa to begin with. The point is that both Britain and the U.S. went out of their way to place economic sanctions on Rhodesia and press the moralist crusade against it, which was really in the strategic interest of neither country. It reminds me of years later when we were told because of our disgusting government's about-face to shun and abandon NP-led South Africa. I promptly took on more krugerrands than you could count.
The other point, which I also heartily endorse, is that everyone knew - everyone on the state payroll in Washington D.C., and everyone in London - as well as all of us following events, that such a course of action would lead to the establishment of a ZANU-led state in Salisbury supported by black nationalists enamored with Robert Mugabe's cult of personality and backed by the Maoists and communist China. So you bring about the exact conditions in which only one outcome is possible and then in typical puerile Christian-martyr-complex left-liberal fashion, whine about that very result. I supported Smith's Rhodesia. Now I hope Mugabe does everything possible to exclude, call out and chastise, and punish the worms in the West.
pugsville wrote:Petty moral ism, anti racism has nothing to do with the Retreat of the British Empire. As the Britain got a bit more democratic and the costs of Empire went up the vast bulk of the British population were not willingly to fight/die or pay higher taxes to support the colonies. Simple self interest. There was also a factor in the US turning the screws but again it mostly US trade interests.
That really has nothing to do with Rei's point however. Rhodesia was effectively no longer a colony in the years of the aftermath of Ian Smith's unilateral declaration of independence. The discussion isn't about the costs of supporting Rhodesia or any other British colony or British former colony, nor the sustainability of British colonialism in Africa to begin with. The point is that both Britain and the U.S. went out of their way to place economic sanctions on Rhodesia and press the moralist crusade against it, which was really in the strategic interest of neither country. It reminds me of years later when we were told because of our disgusting government's about-face to shun and abandon NP-led South Africa. I promptly took on more krugerrands than you could count.
The other point, which I also heartily endorse, is that everyone knew - everyone on the state payroll in Washington D.C., and everyone in London - as well as all of us following events, that such a course of action would lead to the establishment of a ZANU-led state in Salisbury supported by black nationalists enamored with Robert Mugabe's cult of personality and backed by the Maoists and communist China. So you bring about the exact conditions in which only one outcome is possible and then in typical puerile Christian-martyr-complex left-liberal fashion, whine about that very result. I supported Smith's Rhodesia. Now I hope Mugabe does everything possible to exclude, call out and chastise, and punish the worms in the West.
"I am never guided by a possible assessment of my work" - President Vladimir Putin
"Nations whose nationalism is destroyed are subject to ruin." - Muammar Qaddafi
"Nations whose nationalism is destroyed are subject to ruin." - Muammar Qaddafi