Nelson Mandela Dead At 95

New submitter Emilio Hodge writes "Nelson Mandela, the revered statesman who emerged from prison after 27 years to lead South Africa out of decades of apartheid, has died, President Jacob Zuma announces. He was 95." Mandela's death is covered by lots of news sources, of course, including The New York Times and The Washington Post.

Comments

What a great man

[Finallyjoined!!!]

He will be sadly missed. Huge respect.

Re:What a great man

[Anonymous Coward]

A man truly worthy of the title 'hero'. Rest in Peace. You achieved the goal to which you devoted your entire life.

Re:What a great man

[Anonymous Coward]

Absolutely. Was he still considered a terrorist by the US, or did he live to see that finally set right?

Re:What a great man

[Anonymous Coward]

Both. He was, in his own words in his autobiography, a terrorist inspired by Castro and Che Guevara and spearheaded the creation of an ANC spinoff for the purposes of armed violence.

Re: What a great man

[Anonymous Coward]

You guys know nothing of Mandela and believe he was a hero. He was branded a hero. He condoned all the murdering that was done throughout his life. Yes, he did not openly kill whites when president and was mild in his approach to stop genocide. Yet he came there with lots of murders and never condemned the ANC for their corruption. He was not a great man but a great brand. My standards for greatness is a little higher than the basics he managed to do right.

Re:What a great man

[PopeRatzo]

Was he still considered a terrorist by the US

It's so much worse than just Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher calling Mandela a "terrorist".

When congress passed anti-apartheid sanctions, Reagan vetoed them, and then actively called the Senators before the veto override vote to try to convince them to let it stand. Congress went ahead and overrode the veto, giving Reagan one of his worst political defeats as president. It was the only time in the 20th century when congress overrode a president's veto of a foreign policy bill.

Reagan still refused to enforce the sanctions against the apartheid regime, asking South African President Botha to call congress himself and lobby to have the sanctions lifted.

Reagan's successor, George H W Bush, included in his platform a promise to enforce the sanctions to their fullest extent, which he ultimately did.

Mandela's legacy will ring out long after Reagan and Thatcher's have been relegated to the trash.

Re:What a great man

[Finallyjoined!!!]

Slightly revisionist history, Reagan & Thatcher opposed "sanctions". They didn't support apartheid.

Re:What a great man

[krygny]

The guy sure had prunes.

RIP

Re: What a great man

[amiga3D]

People are a product of their times. While true that Mandela embraced violence he felt that he had no choice at the time. Terrible acts were being committed against his people by the government of South Africa. I think most telling was that when he finally overcame and was elected president he did not use that power to trample the former oppressors but instead used his power to heal his country. I think I was most impressed by how instead of imprisoning and executing former secret police he had them confess on video their crimes and then pardoned them. Some criticized him for this but they miss the beauty and power of the act. By having them confess on video he broke these men and made them small. If he had executed them in a wave of bloodshed then the backlash would have caused South Africa to take decades to heal, if ever. The legacy of these men will be forever shame and disgrace as is that of the apartheid regime. No hero is perfect and I feel that Mandela genuinely deserves the term.

Re:What a great man

[Anonymous Coward]

As was revealed in Reagan's diaries after his death he believed sanctions would do far more to hurt South African blacks than help them, Turned out he was right. The best that can be said is that the sanctions somewhat sped up an already inevitable process, but at an incredible price of widespread poverty and violence amongst primarily poor black South Africans. That's not a legacy I would care to be associated with.

Re: What a great man

[Finallyjoined!!!]

Sorry you twat, we know a great deal about Nelson Mandela, you on the other hand, probably get all of your news from the back of crisp packets.

Re:What a great man

[bmajik]

Not that you're interested, but for the benefit of people who come across your posts, I offer this clarification:

Read the Wikipedia article on Mandela. All of it.

ANC/Mandela supported economic nationalism. He was honored by the Soviet Union for his pro-communist affiliations. In 61-62 he participated in a _bombing campaign_ to put pressure on the apartheid government.

Mandela was anti-capitalist. Not as in, "bmajik says so", but as in, Mandela says so.

Reagan and Thatcher were hesitant to cut off South Africa not because they gave a shit about Mandela or because they loved sticking it to black people; they saw SA as a pawn in the cold war. They didn't want a bunch of African Nationalist Parties starting communist and Russia-aligned states all over the untapped African continent.

To Manela's credit, while he advocated for nationalizing of banks, gold production, other mining, and the abolition of private property, he didn't enact these policies when he eventually took control of the government. He was smart enough to understand that SA badly needed foreign investment, and nationalizing industry and destroying property doesn't get you investors.

Mandela is a mixed bag. As terrorists go, he was a pretty pleasant one -- MK (the militant wing he was part of) only attacked infrastructure at night, hoping to minimize civilian losses.

But, he was willing to resort to violence to bring about a communist revolution in Africa.

You think Reagan and Thatcher were against that? You're right.

Again -- read the WP article. I just summarized it here.

Re:What a great man

[serviscope_minor]

I love the justaposition of your sentiment and signiture.

Re: What a great man

[Alain Williams]

You can't make an omlette without breaking eggs. He might not have been an angel 100% of the time, but overall he did the right things. He did much more good with his life than I have in mine, and more good that I suspect you have done.

Re:What a great man

[ackthpt]

Was he still considered a terrorist by the US

It's so much worse than just Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher calling Mandela a "terrorist".

When congress passed anti-apartheid sanctions, Reagan vetoed them, and then actively called the Senators before the veto override vote to try to convince them to let it stand. Congress went ahead and overrode the veto, giving Reagan one of his worst political defeats as president. It was the only time in the 20th century when congress overrode a president's veto of a foreign policy bill.

Reagan still refused to enforce the sanctions against the apartheid regime, asking South African President Botha to call congress himself and lobby to have the sanctions lifted.

Reagan's successor, George H W Bush, included in his platform a promise to enforce the sanctions to their fullest extent, which he ultimately did.

Mandela's legacy will ring out long after Reagan and Thatcher's have been relegated to the trash.

I continue to feel Reagan is overrated. Mandela was the Gandhi of our time.

Re:What a great man

[PopeRatzo]

Reagan & Thatcher opposed "sanctions". They didn't support apartheid.

They supported the apartheid government, which is the same thing. It's like saying you support the German government in 1939, but you don't support Nazis.

Both Reagan and Thatcher called Mandela "terrorist" well after the world could see the truth. They were trying to hold on to the last vestiges of white colonial Africa. May their names be erased from the Book of Life.

Re:What a great man

[PopeRatzo]

So, when Thatcher and Reagan participate in "bombing campaigns" it's "fighting for liberty" but when Mandela does it, they call it terrorism. Yes, that sounds like what you're saying.

Thatcher was "resorting" to her own campaign of violence in Ireland, and Reagan, disappointed that he didn't have a real war to fight, sent the marines to invade, uh, Grenada.

South Africa was enormously helped by the influence of Nelson Mandela. Both the UK and the US were left worse off by the influence of Thatcher and Reagan, (may they burn in Hell).

Re:What a great man

[Anonymous Coward]

It's so much worse than just Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher calling Mandela a "terrorist".

Not to mention the CIA helped get him imprisoned.

Re:What a great man

[RabidReindeer]

He will be sadly missed. Huge respect.

History remembers the great conquerors, but he was one of the great peacemakers. Let his memory last as long. This was one Nobel prize that was richly deserved.

Sad to lose him, even though it's been years since he was a major player. The last year could not have been pleasant, though. Now he can rest. He's earned it.

Re:What a great man

[Anonymous Coward]

If sanctions are not effective, why are they used so avidly against Iran?

Re:What a great man

[bmajik]

I hesitated to respond to you because we live in entirely different worlds, and I don't think any number of Slashdot posts is going to fix that.

However, to be clear, I wasn't implying that Reagan or Thatcher had a problem with violence.

On the contrary; they had a problem with South Africa becoming a communist satellite. When the communist agitators resort to violence, that just makes it easier to convince the domestic public that the communists are bad. Obviously when it is bin Laden fighting the Soviets, violence is just fine. We both understand how it works.

Regarding your last point: South Africa of today is one of the most dangerous and violent places on earth; Mandela did next to nothing to address black on white or even black-on-black violence. There was a huge white-flight out of SA during the 90s.

Perhaps you think this is a positive outcome. I don't.

No racial reconciliation is perfect, of course. I would say that the US probably didn't do enough to help re-enfranchise blacks, and that South Africa may have done a bit too much.

The bottom line is this: I very much enjoyed living in the Reagan years America. I very much would NOT have liked living in the Mandela years SA.

I think Reagan and Thatcher were both great, as far as people who have actually held office go, and I am disappointed that the Reagan we got was nowhere close to the Reagan that campaigned. I was all for abolishing the Depts of Ed, Energy, and the ATF. Very disappointed with Reagan on that score...

The other transgressions in his career (military adventurism) bother me, but I don't think they actually bother Reagan detractors that much. The people who bitterly hate Reagan tend to hate him for reasons that his supporters like him. Similarly, if you accuse Thatcher of being a union buster or for cleaning up free loaders on the dole, people like me will say "bravo Thatcher".

The bottom line is that you and I probably agree that Reagan/Thatcher supported a bunch of wars and terrorists that they shouldn't have. But you shouldn't pretend like that is the basis for your displeasure with them. Especially not when every other US and UK leader since (some of which you've certainly hated LESS, if not mildly supported) has done the same exact shit...

Re:What a great man

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a man who openly admitted to murdering civilians in court and was sentenced to a jail term accordingly. (google Church Street Bombings)

But it's okay because it was against those evil white people, right?

Liberals.

Re:What a great man

[Anonymous Coward]

He even criticized our rescue mission to Grenada and our strike on Libya.

Re: What a great man

[Anonymous Coward]

Mandela was working against a government who developed such things as the 'street sweeper' ultra-high capacity shotgun for crowd control

When a freaking beast has their boot on your throat it is impossible to play nice

The greatest credit to Mandela is that when he did gain power he did not succumb to stupid behavior (land grabs, nepotism and economic decline) like his neighbor Mugabe

Re:What a great man

[PopeRatzo]

If sanctions are not effective, why are they used so avidly against Iran?

Well...there you go again, bringing up inconvenient questions.

I think the answer is, sanctions work in Iran because it's just a bunch of muslims getting hurt, but they don't work in South Africa because some rich white racists lost money.

Mandela pleaded with the world to keep the sanctions in place against the apartheid South African government. He pleaded with Thatcher and Reagan to support those sanctions, and for his troubles they labeled him a "terrorist" and did everything they could to thwart the end of apartheid.

Re: What a great man

[Anonymous Coward]

You guys know nothing of Mandela and believe he was a hero. He was branded a hero. He condoned all the murdering that was done throughout his life. Yes, he did not openly kill whites when president and was mild in his approach to stop genocide. Yet he came there with lots of murders and never condemned the ANC for their corruption. He was not a great man but a great brand. My standards for greatness is a little higher than the basics he managed to do right.

Unfortunately, you are right...
I am a Greek, never been in S.Africa, but lots of my Greek friends were born there but forced to leave because of his supporters - the few still living there have to witness every day the collapse of what was a functional state and the huge rise of crime -murders, RAPES, thief- that the apartheid (which means "segregation") kept in control (the same is happened in almost all "black" Africa, just when the "whites" lost control).
I don't support racial segregation (as "apartheid" was), but i understand the social/cultural -NOT BIOLOGICAL- need for that in some cases (and many "blacks" -forced to live in the "free from whites" Africa- also do!)...
Watch this sort clip of the S. Africa president advertise apartheid racism (Mandela was better than this but...):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fzRSE_p1Ys

Re:What a great man

[Anonymous Coward]

Thatcher never called Mandela a terrorist, you'll comb records in vain for any first-hand report of that remark because it never happened.

Mandela himself stated that he considered Thatcher to be a strong enemy of apartheid, and it's even been argued that she played a pivotal role in ending it.

Re: What a great man

[Anonymous Coward]

You obviously didn't read the article you linked to.

Re:What a great man

[Finallyjoined!!!]

Probably not wise to quote wikipedia as "authoritative".
Just pointing it out.. K!

Re:What a great man

[isorox]

Was he still considered a terrorist by the US

It's so much worse than just Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher calling Mandela a "terrorist".

When congress passed anti-apartheid sanctions, Reagan vetoed them, and then actively called the Senators before the veto override vote to try to convince them to let it stand. Congress went ahead and overrode the veto, giving Reagan one of his worst political defeats as president. It was the only time in the 20th century when congress overrode a president's veto of a foreign policy bill.

Reagan still refused to enforce the sanctions against the apartheid regime, asking South African President Botha to call congress himself and lobby to have the sanctions lifted.

Reagan's successor, George H W Bush, included in his platform a promise to enforce the sanctions to their fullest extent, which he ultimately did.

Mandela's legacy will ring out long after Reagan and Thatcher's have been relegated to the trash.

I continue to feel Reagan is overrated. Mandela was the Gandhi of our time.

How many buildings did Gandhi blow up?

Re:What a great man

[Finallyjoined!!!]

Top marks, upvote parent.

Re:What a great man

[10101001 10101001]

ANC/Mandela supported economic nationalism. He was honored by the Soviet Union for his pro-communist affiliations. ...

Mandela was anti-capitalist. Not as in, "bmajik says so", but as in, Mandela says so.

And? Mandela could have been Satan incarnate. That doesn't justify vetoing anti-apartheid sanctions.

In 61-62 he participated in a _bombing campaign_ to put pressure on the apartheid government.

I like how you sandwich that in the above. It's as if you believe that Mandela was a one dimensional man with specific intentions involving communism. Meanwhile, if he had staged non-violent sanctions, would that have been okay? Because Reagan wasn't even willing to push or enforce for that. And if he managed it, Reagan would have likely called for his own _bombing campaign_.

Reagan and Thatcher were hesitant to cut off South Africa not because they gave a shit about Mandela or because they loved sticking it to black people; they saw SA as a pawn in the cold war. They didn't want a bunch of African Nationalist Parties starting communist and Russia-aligned states all over the untapped African continent.

So, they don't give a shit about Mandela, but it's because of Mandela they weren't willing to piss off the South African government as it could possibly lead to Mandela gaining power... Funny. It also goes against the long-held truth that America has consistently in the past (a) pushed sanctions and (b) simultaneously provided support for a pro-nationalist pawn in the country to form a coup. The only reason Mandela wasn't chosen is he was anti-capitalist. And odds are good no other pro-capitalist was chosen because the South African government was good enough for Reagan as a useful pro-capitalist pawn.

To Manela's credit, while he advocated for nationalizing of banks, gold production, other mining, and the abolition of private property, he didn't enact these policies when he eventually took control of the government. He was smart enough to understand that SA badly needed foreign investment, and nationalizing industry and destroying property doesn't get you investors.

I like how you mixed "nationalizing industry and destroying property". Perhaps if you said "destroying capital" it'd mean something. In fact, nationalizing industry can spur foreign investment if done correctly. The hard part is, of course, convincing foreign investors that you're only going to nationalize those resources that were unreasonably sold to foreign investors in the past. That's the real destroyer, the destroyer of confidence. And there's no real simple way to fix that problem, no matter how unjust a previous government was with previous contracts or grants. The closest thing is to have a slow transition and a strong political party to see it through. The only alternative is to just let things stand and hope that either inequity fixes itself or you can use taxes or something similar to mold the system to solve the problems. In short, there's no simple solutions, and as you state, Mandela was wise to not engage in coarse action.

Mandela is a mixed bag. As terrorists go, he was a pretty pleasant one -- MK (the militant wing he was part of) only attacked infrastructure at night, hoping to minimize civilian losses.

Certainly better than the US government's own various bombing campaigns.

But, he was willing to resort to violence to bring about a communist revolution in Africa.

As above, being peaceful wouldn't have meant the US would have responded in kind.

You think Reagan and Thatcher were against that? You're right.

As you hinted above, Reagan and Thatcher were against any potentially Soviet Union puppet because Reagan and Thatcher wanted to be the puppet masters. You had to be the US or t

Re:What a great man

[Anonymous Coward]

"He will be sadly missed. Huge respect."

A huge loss for the IT community, I guess, otherwise, respect aside, why TF is that news for nerds?

I already read that in my 273 other news sources hours ago.

Re: What a great man

[Mashiki]

While true that Mandela embraced violence he felt that he had no choice at the time. Terrible acts were being committed against his people by the government of South Africa. I think most telling was that when he finally overcame and was elected president he did not use that power to trample the former oppressors but instead used his power to heal his country.

Yes terrible acts were committed against blacks by the government of South Africa, except that then the blacks came into power it was the blacks committing those same crimes against blacks and whites. Whites because "they felt they had it coming to them" and blacks for "standing up against the other blacks who wanted to commit the same crimes."

Peh, never mind that the ANC still to this day executes people in the streets, but they were most famous for doing so in their own concentration camps. If you call him a hero. I simply look at him like a terrorist who got what he wanted, and the people continue to condone those same actions he committed. And this isn't first hand experience, but it is from second hand from friends I know both white and black who used to live there and have long since fled.

Re:What a great man

[Third Position]

In this week’s issue of Radish, the Carlyle Club tries to fathom the motives of an ethno-nationalist terrorist and political mass-murderer. And when we’re done talking about Nelson Mandela, we’ll discuss Anders Breivik.

http://radishmag.wordpress.com/2013/07/05/volume-3-issue-2-breiviks-norway/

Re:What a great man

[Finallyjoined!!!]

Oh dear oh dear, been reading the Socialist History revisionist pamphlet have you?
"Reagan and Thatcher supported Apartheid", please do some research, preferably not on wikipedia, and revert.

Re:What a great man

[PopeRatzo]

Ding dong the communist witch is dead. Communist witch is dead, the deader the better. The only good collectivist is a dead collectivist.

So that's the opposite view from yours, obviously.

Yes, opposite in every possible way.

Re:What a great man

[Third Position]

A man truly worthy of the title 'hero'. Rest in Peace. You achieved the goal to which you devoted your entire life.

He sure did.

Re:What a great man

[PopeRatzo]

"Reagan and Thatcher supported Apartheid", please do some research, preferably not on wikipedia, and revert.

Did they support the apartheid government?

Case closed.

Re:What a great man

[istartedi]

To Manela's credit, while he advocated for nationalizing of banks, gold production, other mining, and the abolition of private property, he didn't enact these policies when he eventually took control of the government. He was smart enough to understand that SA badly needed foreign investment, and nationalizing industry and destroying property doesn't get you investors.

So he was smart enough to use communist rhetoric as a first stage, and then jettison it to fire stage 2 and insert South Africa into a successful orbit.

Would that all communists were that smart. We could have avoided a lot of problems.

Re:What a great man

[Anonymous Coward]

Where do you prefer to do your get your info on American support for Apartheid? Stormfront.org?

Re:What a great man

[Finallyjoined!!!]

No they didn't, and Mandela agrees, have you read any of his published works?

Re:What a great man

[PopeRatzo]

Thatcher never called Mandela a terrorist

That's interesting, because the Tories apologized for her having called Mandela a terrorist.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/cameron-we-were-wrong-to-call-mandela-a-terrorist-413684.html

and it's even been argued that she played a pivotal role in ending it.

How funny is it that people post links without reading them. Here's the headline of the story you link to:

How Margaret Thatcher helped end apartheid - despite herself

And here's an interesting quote from that story:

A close aide once told me that she opposed apartheid more on the grounds that it was a sin against economic liberalism rather than a crime against humanity. She also was bitterly against sanctions of any sort â" they were a crime against free trade. She even went on denouncing them after Britain and the rest of the Commonwealth had imposed a ban on sporting contacts and other marginal sanctions. She boasted that she alone had managed to fight off demands for stronger sanctions.

Advised by her husband, Dennis, who had business interests in South Africa, she felt that anything that damaged wealth creation must be bad for South Africa. She was also a great admirer of Laurens van der Post, the South African writer and traveller later exposed as a fraud, who also opposed sanctions on the country. He introduced her to Mangosuthu Buthelezi, the Zulu leader, who played an ambivalent role in the struggle against apartheid, splitting from the ANC in 1979 and accepting "homeland" status for Kwazulu. His movement, Inkatha, helped the South African police repress ANC rebellion in the townships.

That's right, Margaret Thatcher's household income came in part due to South African investments under apartheid.

Re:What a great man

[Mister Liberty]

I recall Chomsky a couple of years ago said that Mandela was cleared from
the US terrorist list only fairly recently. Maybe 2003?.
The US Government is a monster with its head up its ass.

Re:What a great man

[Finallyjoined!!!]

No matey, and judging by your grammar, you can be ignored. Completely.

Re:What a great man

[Solandri]

Reagan & Thatcher opposed "sanctions". They didn't support apartheid.

They supported the apartheid government, which is the same thing. It's like saying you support the German government in 1939, but you don't support Nazis.

The Nazis were democratically elected into power. If you supported democracy, you had to support the Nazis in 1939 (prior to their invasion of Poland in September). I opposed the younger Bush and voted against him both times, but I supported his government because he fairly won a democratic election.

There's this baffling tendency for people to try to oversimplify other people's actions and motivations to one single factor. That's almost never the case. Support or opposition is usually based on a myriad of factors, and quite often one's support can be a borderline thing chosen only because it's the lesser of two evils. It's very possible to oppose apartheid, yet support the (then) current government of South Africa because you feared if they lost power the government which replaced it would be much worse than apartheid.

If all choices were easy, politics wouldn't exist. Politics is all about having to decide between difficult (and often unpalatable) choices. Armchair quarterbacking is all about criticizing those making those difficult choices, by pretending that the negative consequences of the other choices don't exist.

Re:What a great man

[PopeRatzo]

I very much enjoyed living in the Reagan years America.

Did you know that the average annual growth in GDP under Reagan was less than it was under Jimmy Carter? That doesn't figure in to your Reagan hagiography, does it?

Of course "living in the Reagan years America" was good, especially compared to the years after his trickle-down insanity kicked in.

Sometime, go take a look at the trend in middle-class income, starting with Ronald Reagan. In many ways, we're still living in Reagan's America. It's still his trickle-down voodoo economics. Even Pope Francis has recently weighed in on Ronald Reagan's beloved "supply-side" economics, calling it a "new tyranny".

And it's only very recently that we're starting to see people begin to push back, as they start to understand what Ronald Reagan really did to this country.

Re:What a great man

[Kjella]

Regarding your last point: South Africa of today is one of the most dangerous and violent places on earth; Mandela did next to nothing to address black on white or even black-on-black violence. There was a huge white-flight out of SA during the 90s. Perhaps you think this is a positive outcome. I don't.

What did you expect? I suspect a lot of "white flight" from certain areas of the US post-1865, it's not easy to have a man you used to have in shackles and call your property now be a free man and your equal - though I doubt most ex-slave owners ever saw it that way. We here in Norway did some very unkind things to children of Nazi soldiers and their mothers (there were 400.000 soldiers = males at the capitulation occupying a country of 3.000.000 and they'd been there for 5 years, contraception was generally not available and the Nazis had their Lebensborn program - shit happens), you don't get a toss-up like that without revenge.

Like you say, a lot of that is black-on-black violence which is more about SA being in the same troubles as many other countries in Africa, they're 15th on the global list of murder rates but only 6th in Africa. The entire continent is so screwed up in more ways than you can count, there are still countries there with <35% literacy rates while South Africa is actually the most literate country in all of Africa, they have the highest GDP south of Sahara and so on. We're all affected by our neighbors and really they got nobody to look up to in a 5000 km radius.

Re:What a great man

[GarethIwanFairclough]

So what about all this talk I hear of the south african government and the ANC being hopelessly corrupt? The guys in power now came of age during mandelas tenure afaik. If both are true, then it is not unreasonable to assert that his legacy is one of weakness in stamping out corruption.

Still, no-one deserves a lingering death like that. May he rest in peace.

Re:What a great man

[Darinbob]

Sanctions are basically a way to do something and be seen as doing something, without actually having to do something even more distasteful or controversial.
It's like wearing a "down with those guys!" tee-shirt.

It's a compromise between doing something utterly stupid like going to war and between losing all political support by being seen as a supporter of the other regime. Ie, Reagan opposed the sanctions and which caused a lot of people to erroneously conclude that he must have supported apartheid.

The political arithmetic isn't too hard. Your choices boil down to being seen as supporting the existing regime, ssupporting the opposition to the regime (ie, arming them, giving them money, etc), or sanctions. Of course there are nuances in between those extremes.

Re:What a great man

[Darinbob]

Privatising mines makes sense. The wealth of the land belongs to the people, not just one individual. Maybe some hard liners think that means communism but it's not necessarily opposed to capitalism either. Being rich owner of a mine in an extremely poor nation isn't about creating wealth or free markets, it's more like theft. No white Afrikaaner or Englishman ever went about negotiating in good faith with the native black residents to have access to mineral resources, instead they just took it and exploited the population to mine it. There's nothing at all capitalist about that method of making money.

Re:What a great man

[Deadstick]

OK, let's see. We had to fight a war that killed over half a million people to destroy slavery in a country of thirty million. That godless commie killed maybe a few hundred people in destroying apartheid in a country of fifty million. Wonder if a lesson lurks therein...

Re:What a great man

[Darinbob]

When it comes to apartheid, Reagan was nearly on his own as quite a lot of conservatives were also opposed to apartheid and wanted the sanctions. Yes at the start it was mostly right wing versus left over the issues of communism. But the average American was also very ignorant of what was happening in South Africa and did not know about apartheid or the atrocities happening there. Once the Americans began to become better informed and learned how things were in South Africa the mood changed even amongst the right wing. It was becoming very clear at the time that the global communist movement thing was falling apart and so the idea that the US should fervently supporting brutal anti-communist regimes was also dying out.

Sure some people never budged on their stance and still think sanctions were a mistake today, just the same those few remaining die hards who think the Vietnamese war was a good idea.

Re:What a great man

[Darinbob]

How many buildings did Gandhi blow up?

Not nearly as many as Reagan did.

You're making the assumption that violence from someone you agree with is good whereas violence from someone you disagree with is bad. Ie, freedom fighters versus terrorists depends upon your viewpoint. What about all the founding fathers of the US who burned down a lot of buildings and tortured or killed a lot of British supporters? Ie "tar and feathering" which we are taught about in grade school was not just some mild public humiliation but a form of torture that could sometimes cause death. Were those people brave patriots fighting for freedom or terrorists using fear tactics?

Re:What a great man

[Anonymous Coward]

"Reagan and Thatcher supported Apartheid", please do some research, preferably not on wikipedia, and revert.

Did they support the apartheid government?

Case closed.

Unfortunately not. Or SA wouldn't be the massive cluster fuck it is today.

Re:What a great man

[Anonymous Coward]

Massive cluster fuck? It's the only African country that isn't complete shit. It is well enough to be part of BRICS. Of course it is no superpower that kills people all around the world with impunity, but compared to other African nations South Africa is doing great.

Re:What a great man

[Anonymous Coward]

I opposed the younger Bush and voted against him both times, but I supported his government because he fairly won a democratic election.

Did he now?

Re:What a great man

[clarkkent09]

Reagan after the Congress vote on SA sanctions:

"America - and that means all of us - opposes apartheid, a malevolent and archaic system totally alien to our ideals. The debate, which culminated in today's vote, was not whether or not to oppose apartheid but, instead, how best to oppose it and how best to bring freedom to that troubled country ....
Punitive sanctions, I believe, are not the best course of action; they hurt the very people they are intended to help. ...
It would be tragic to lose this opportunity to create a truly free society which respects the rights of the majority, the minority, and the individual. There is still time for orderly change and peaceful reform. South Africans of good will, black and white, should seize the moment."

He (correctly IMHO) believed that gradual change was the best course and that suddenly weakening the government would hand the power to ANC which at the time was a strongly anti-capitalism, pro-USSR, extremely violent (look up its practice of "necklacing") movement.

It is to Mandela's credit that he controlled such a vicious organization and managed to bring about peaceful change instead of the race and ideological war that would have taken place with just about anybody else in his place.

Re:What a great man

[Werrismys]

No, he will not be missed at all. A marxist extremist. It took 27 years of prison to tame him somewhat. His life legacy was fucking up the one good African country south of Sahara.

Re:What a great man

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you know that the average annual growth in GDP under Reagan was less than it was under Jimmy Carter?

No, because that's a lie.

Re:What a great man

[ArbitraryName]

Thatcher never called Mandela a terrorist,

She called the ANC a terrorist organization, which isn't much different.

Re:What a great man

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you know that the average annual growth in GDP under Reagan was less than it was under Jimmy Carter?

30 secs of google found a NY Times article* by Floyd Norris from 2011, using data from the Commerce Department, shows that it avg GDP growth was 3.5% under Reagan, The Gipper and 3.2% under Carter, The Peanut Farmer.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/29/ranking-the-presidents-by-g-d-p/?_r=0

(*not a right wing, let alone Reagan, trumpeteer)

Re:What a great man

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, that IS the capitalist way of making money.

Re:What a great man

[riverat1]

It's very possible to oppose apartheid, yet support the (then) current government of South Africa because you feared if they lost power the government which replaced it would be much worse than apartheid.

And Nelson Mandela is probably the major reason RSA didn't devolve into a civil war or become like Zimbabwe (Rhodesia) after apartheid ended. His leadership in those first few years after the change held the country together.

Re:What a great man

[PopeRatzo]

30 secs of google found a NY Times article* by Floyd Norris from 2011, using data from the Commerce Department, shows that it avg GDP growth was 3.5% under Reagan, The Gipper and 3.2% under Carter,

Here's something more recent that shows something different:

If you calculate the average GDP growth by term, you get the figures you cite. If you calculate the average GDP growth by presidency you get Carter ahead. See the paper below, figure 1b:

http://www.princeton.edu/~mwatson/papers/Presidents_Blinder_Watson_Nov2013.pdf

Re:What a great man

[mjwx]

Reagan & Thatcher opposed "sanctions". They didn't support apartheid.

They supported the apartheid government, which is the same thing. It's like saying you support the German government in 1939, but you don't support Nazis.

The Nazis were democratically elected into power. If you supported democracy, you had to support the Nazis in 1939 (prior to their invasion of Poland in September). I opposed the younger Bush and voted against him both times, but I supported his government because he fairly won a democratic election.

The Nazi's were elected, but not democratically.

In 1933, the Nazi's had an organisation called the Sturmabteilung or SA (commonly called the brown shirts) which acted as a private army for the Nazi party. Their role during the election was to act as standover men to watch who voted for who and to provide "assistance" to people who voted incorrectly. The German election of 1933 was pretty much rigged and immediately after the election Hitler set about destroying the democracy, stabbing his political enemies and adsorbed the SA into the German army.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturmabteilung

It has no equilency to the election of George Bush (either of them).

Now I did not vote for Tony Abbott in the Australian elections, I do not support the Abbott government as is my democratic right to oppose an elected government and I will take any steps, legal under Australian laws to oppose and democratically remove the Abbott government because I believe the Abbott government is bad for Australia (he's essentially our George W Bush and in his 2 months in office has proved this in spectacular fashion). The brilliant thing about democracy is that the leaders dont get to rule by fiat until the next election and that you are allowed to be critical or in open opposition of a government. Of course Abbott supporters will oppose me (as is their right), but I'm not worried as Abbott seems to be proving my points for me.

Re:What a great man

[PopeRatzo]

I don't believe in erasing anything from history

I didn't say anything about erasing from history. My suggestion was to erase their names from the Book of Life, which is an ancient curse, equivalent to damning them to Hell for eternity.

Read twice, comment once. This way you won't make the same mistake again.

Re:What a great man

[phantomfive]

I'm not sure where you are getting your numbers, it looks like the gdp dropped under Carter, and rose under Reagan. Maybe you forgot to adjust for inflation? You could probably give some credit to Carter because Reagen followed some of his economic policies (like keeping Volcker around), but strictly looking at the numbers, growth was higher during Reagan's presidency.

Re:What a great man

[Anonymous Coward]

Though they aren't entirely sure about the numbers, the ANC militant offshoot has roughly 60 innocent kills attributed to it. Versus the thousands of murdered and missing victims of the oppressive government at the time.

Re:What a great man

[PopeRatzo]

Reagan after the Congress vote on SA sanctions:

Which is exactly an indication of the kind of lying piece of shit Ronald Reagan was. He claimed to oppose apartheid after the whole world had already sided with Mandela, yet he moved to thwart him at every step.

When Mandela was looking for support from the West, Reagan and Thatcher decided to stand by the minority white apartheid regime. The only reason Mandela sought the support of the Soviet Union was because the West had already turned him down.

Ronald Reagan was as evil a man as has ever been in such a high office in the United States. He negotiated for Iran to hold Americans hostage so he could get elected. He sold arms to Iran in order to support fascist regimes in Central and South America. He undermined the industrial economy of the United States. He used the ugliest sort of racial stereotypes in his "Southern strategy". Reagan's "supply-side economics" have caused what Pope Francis has called the "New Tyranny".

Ronald Reagan and Maggie Thatcher were blights on the free world. They supposedly "defeated" the Soviet Union only to turn the United States and Great Britain into the neo-feudal countries they are today.

Re: What a great man

[Anonymous Coward]

The ANC did not target civilians, they targeted the government infrastructure and military. They did target some civilian buildings that supported the system of apartheid and carried those attacks out at night. But they never attacked innocent civilians directly. Unlike the government in power at that time.

Re:What a great man

[PopeRatzo]

If you average the GDP growth by term, Reagan comes out 2 tenths of a percent ahead.

If you average the GDP growth by presidency, Carter comes out ahead.

I've posted a link to the very recent study elsewhere in this thread. Look for figure 1b.

Re:What a great man

[LynnwoodRooster]

I very much enjoyed living in the Reagan years America.

Did you know that the average annual growth in GDP under Reagan was less than it was under Jimmy Carter?

Real GDP growth (meaning factoring in inflation) shows higher growth under Reagan than Carter.

Re:What a great man

[PopeRatzo]

It depends. If you're talking about average GDP growth by term, then Reagan is 0.2% better than Carter.

But if you measure by presidency... Well, go see for yourself. I've posted the very recent study elsewhere in this thread.

Re:What a great man

[Attila Dimedici]

You missed an important point there. The poster you replied to did not say that sanctions were not effective, nor did he say that Reagan believed that sanctions would be ineffective. What he said was that Reagan believed that sanctions would cause more harm to South African blacks than whatever help those sanctions would give them. He then offered a link which lends support to the conclusion that that was actually the result of the sanctions.
In the case of Iran, the purpose of sanctions is NOT to help one segment of the population overcome the oppression of the government. The purpose of the sanctions is to reduce the economic capability of the government to develop a nuclear weapon, and in the process cause so much economic pain to the country of Iran that it gives up the idea of doing so.

Re:What a great man

[Smauler]

Both Reagan and Thatcher called Mandela "terrorist" well after the world could see the truth.

Mandela was a terrorist, an admitted terrorist. Look at the MK, which he founded.

They were trying to hold on to the last vestiges of white colonial Africa. May their names be erased from the Book of Life.

No... what? Seriously, what? South Africa was one of the most independent British African colonies throughout its existence, and became fully independent well before most British colonies. Britain outlawed slavery and discriminatory voting well before most places.... but that's not relevant. By the 1980's, South Africa was _not_a colony, and had not been so properly for 150 years or so. Colonialism was not a factor... we'd given up on colonialism in the UK in the early 20th century.

Re:What a great man

[phantomfive]

Dang it, I was wrong, I got tricked in the graph I linked to, which is measuring GDP in gold ounces (an utterly useless measurement for this purpose). Here's a better graph. I didn't realize the economy was growing so quickly at the end of the Ford administration.

Re:What a great man

[Smauler]

He's one of the reasons... I believe De Klerk was also massively important. I see his role as similar to Gorbachev's, at the end of the USSR. They both could have held on to power, they both could have kept the status quo to some extent.

Re:What a great man

[Zontar The Mindless]

You must be really bored, Roman.

Re: What a great man

[Anonymous Coward]

You obviously have the intellect of a child.

Re:What a great man

[Zontar The Mindless]

The only reason Mandela sought the support of the Soviet Union was because the West had already turned him down.

You'd think after fucking up royally with Ho Chi Minh, we'd have learnt something...

Re:What a great man

[couchslug]

The Cold War was on at the time, compared to which little countries didn't matter but the strategic location of South Africa certainly did. With the survival of the West at stake, all of South Africa and it people were wisely considered expendable.

In serious conflicts, it may be expedient to support one evil against another. We don't have serious wars any more because the world has been largely at peace since the Cold War ended. A few recreational neocolonial squabbles aren't much at all, but things were different not so long ago.

"Uncle Joe" Stalin was as bad as the Nazi leadership, but few people quibble about support for the Soviet Union when that was expedient.

South Africa was not more important than the Cold War. It was and is a backwater, and now the Boes don't run it no one outside cares what happens there.

Re: What a great man

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem wasn't him working against the government. It was chumming up with the Soviets.

Politics is all about convenience, but you do have to make your choices. He made his and it cast him as an enemy. It doesn't make him evil or wrong. It just makes him a problem for us--at the time.

The world really is more complex than the soundbite crowd makes it sound.

Re:What a great man

[Anonymous Coward]

They shouldn't be. What's your point? Did you at some point hallucinate that I advocated sanctions? Or did you just have some axe to grind and the word "sanctions" triggered Pavlovian drooling?

Re:What a great man

[Anonymous Coward]

...we live in entirely different worlds...

False. You may operate under that illusion if you so choose, but an illusion is what it is.

Re:What a great man

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, let's see. We had to fight a war that killed over half a million people to destroy slavery in a country of thirty million. That godless commie killed maybe a few hundred people in destroying apartheid in a country of fifty million. Wonder if a lesson lurks therein...

Yes, that lesson being that the power of rationalization is seemingly infinite.

Re: What a great man

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't make an omlette without breaking eggs. He might not have been an angel 100% of the time, but overall he did the right things. He did much more good with his life than I have in mine, and more good that I suspect you have done.

Nope, no rationalizations here!

Re:What a great man

[Anonymous Coward]

> The Nazi's were elected, but not democratically.

> In 1933, the Nazi's had an organisation called the Sturmabteilung or SA (commonly called the brown shirts) which acted as a
> private army for the Nazi party. Their role during the election was to act as standover men to watch who voted for who and to
> provide "assistance" to people who voted incorrectly

Thats pretty much how the ANC ensured victory:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necklacing

Re:What a great man

[flyingfsck]

You just have no fscking idea do you? How the hell do you use 250,000 hand grenades and 140 tons of explosives for peaceful purposes? If you want to ignore all the people who died because of his callousness, maybe you should think of the children his wife murdered?

Re:What a great man

[torsmo]

He is not his wife. Her actions are her own responsibility.

Re:What a great man

[Anonymous Coward]

Who kicked your sorry cracker ass good.

Re:What a great man

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting comments about the pre WWII German elections.

I wonder if anyone will look back on the US in twenty years time and critique their election process:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/oct/24/texas-attorney-general-arrest-election-monitors

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/05/osce-us-election-texas_n_2079150.html

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/263141-international-monitors-at-polling-places-draw-criticism-from-voter-fraud-group

Re:What a great man

[Anonymous Coward]

Not 2003, it took em til 2008

Re:What a great man

[riverat1]

I absolutely agree with you. The leadership of both men was critical at the time.

Re: What a great man

[Anonymous Coward]

I've always felt the same way about Hitler.

Re:What a great man

[Anonymous Coward]

In 1938 the National Socialist Party in Germany held a vote, essentially asking the people of Germany if they would like to continue with their current government. As it happened, on the election day, the airship Hindenburg was on a multi-day trip, and so a balloting office was provided aboard the airship.

Out of exactly 100 passengers and crew on board, they radioed in that there were 102 votes in favour of Hitler, and none against.

AC

Re:What a great man

[CBravo]

And whose fault is that? One can wonder why a single person is so hard to miss. Is he the only sane person or is everyone else fighting with each other? Two sides of the medallion.

Re:What a great man

[teg]

Absolutely. Was he still considered a terrorist by the US, or did he live to see that finally set right?

Mandela was removed from the US terrorist list in 2008. However, he had been able to travel in and out of the US the entire time - and had even received the Presidential Medal of Freedom from George Bush in 2002 - so this looks more like an oversight than anything else.

Re:What a great man

[Anonymous Coward]

The United States also has votes. Unfortunately, certain people in the power circles there have realised that it is sufficient to perform mass "cleansing" on the voter registry - after all, if you target certain disempowered groups that won't vote for your people then it is not that hard to get to 50.1%, which is quite sufficient. While it is completely unfair to compare the two cases, neither is truly democratic. Democracy is a very difficult system to get right, particularly when the media is biased. Whether it be in the US, or more directly controlled places like Russia, people are not given a neutral, objective view of the facts. I'm not even sure it's possible, as long as human beings are involved there will always be bias. Is there a better system? Probably not but thinking that modern Western "democracies" are as good as it gets is depressing, to say the least.

Re:What a great man

[Anonymous Coward]

Not complete shit YET. Apartheid needed to end and Mandela was a great man.

Don't live under the illusion that the current crop of politicians aren't going to drive this country straight into the ground. They're already doing so with startling efficiency.

But thanks, for now at least we're the best of all the retarded kids. Guess that's some kind of consolation prize.

Re:What a great man

[soccerisgod]

The Nazis were democratically elected into power. If you supported democracy, you had to support the Nazis in 1939 (prior to their invasion of Poland in September).

You are aware that one of the Nazi regime's first acts was the abolition of democracy, right? Nobody had to support those shits. And you don't ever have to support or respect a government that suppresses, tortures, imprisons and kills its own people. Neither in Germany nor in South Africa.

Re:What a great man

[shutdown -p now]

Thing is, ANC did deliberately target civilians. Churches, that kind of thing. A lot of that came up in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

So yes, ANC were definitely terrorists. Fighting for a just cause, perhaps, but the definition is about the means, not the ends.

Re:What a great man

[shutdown -p now]

It is very different - as in, the difference between being factually correct or not. ANC was undeniably a terrorist organization, one only needs to look at some of the cases in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission to see that. Mandela personally is a different thing.

Re:What a great man

[Gavagai80]

The Nazis were elected as the largest party (though only about a third of votes) a couple of times fairly, before they started rigging elections.

Re:What a great man

[Xest]

"Both the UK and the US were left worse off by the influence of Thatcher and Reagan, (may they burn in Hell)."

For Thatcher to have left the UK worse off that implies there would've been a better option.

For all her faults, the problem is that the alternative was still worse. That's why the Tories won 4 elections in a row, including 3 under Thatcher.

I don't particularly like the Tories. I think they're greedy and selfish, but one thing they have is economic competence and credibility. Given that Labour had bankrupted the UK it's not surprising therefore that people voted for Thatcher three times running. That's the same reason the Tories are back in power now.

We have a problem in the UK and that's that on one had we have a party that is economically competent but ideologically against the things that make our country great (like the NHS, our strong human rights laws and so forth) and on the other we have a party that's great at running things like the NHS but economically incompetent. It seems our only option is to elect the Tories when Labour has fucked up the economy and elect Labour when the Tories have fucked up the likes of the NHS, the human rights act, and our relationship with Europe.

Thatcher got in because most people didn't want to live in a perpetually bankrupt country, which was the alternative.

So like it or not, fault her all you want, she didn't leave our country worse off for the simple fact that it would have been even worse again without her. Effectively there was a choice between awful, and really fucking awful, so the people chose awful, but that's still a better choice than really fucking awful.

Re:What a great man

[Gavagai80]

Mandela wasn't so much an anti-capitalist as an opportunistic ally of the communist opposition which was the best chance to fight apartheid. The communists had the local organization and the big international support and weapons smuggling from the USSR, so they were his obvious hope -- he never took a strong position on economic systems, ending apartheid was his priority before worrying about anything else.

Re:What a great man

[bluegutang]

You contradict yourself.

Did you know that the average annual growth in GDP under Reagan was less than it was under Jimmy Carter? That doesn't figure in to your Reagan hagiography, does it?

So government policies have immediate measurable effects on the economy...

Of course "living in the Reagan years America" was good, especially compared to the years after his trickle-down insanity kicked in.

...except when they take many years to "kick in"?

Re:What a great man

[InsightfulPlusTwo]

But [the use of sanctions] is much more common than their success: studies indicate that only five to, at most, 30 percent of sanctions result in the desired change.

Source: http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/sanctions

So why do they use sanctions? To take tangible action that demonstrates the seriousness of their commitment without actually going to war. Sanctions are generally used to further moral causes, I think, where you want some person or nation to improve their behavior but it doesn't make sense to kill a bunch of people to force them to do it.

Sanctions are also costly to the countries imposing the sanction, which further demonstrates their seriousness.

Re:What a great man

[isorox]

How many buildings did Gandhi blow up?

Not nearly as many as Reagan did.

Who's claiming Reagan is "this generation's Gandhi"?

Gandhi was known for his non-violence. Mandela was known for his violence, just like George Washington, Obama and Churchill. Now that violence may have been justified, but Mandella was far closer to those men than he was to Gandhi. Hell Gerry Adams is closer to a "this generation's Gandhi" than Mandela.

(P.S. for anyone currently under the age of 30 Communism and apartheid both fell before they were teenagers. "This generation" is an interesting word.)

You're making the assumption that violence from someone you agree with is good whereas violence from someone you disagree with is bad.

No, you're making the assumption that there's no difference between "good violence" and "no violence". I have no problem with Mandela's tactics, but he's no Gandhi.

What about all the founding fathers of the US who burned down a lot of buildings and tortured or killed a lot of British supporters? Ie "tar and feathering" which we are taught about in grade school was not just some mild public humiliation but a form of torture that could sometimes cause death. Were those people brave patriots fighting for freedom or terrorists using fear tactics?

Terrorists (as in they employed terrorist tactics to get their own way) that rose up in arms against their (ridiculous) government. For profit. I don't think anyone would say Washington was that generation's Gandhi, nor was George 3rd.

Re:What a great man

[Eunuchswear]

Unfortunately not. Or SA wouldn't be the massive cluster fuck it is today.

No, it would probably be a radioactive desert.

Re:What a great man

[impossiblefork]

Usually when one talks about civilians the warfare is such that civilians are clearly defined class, but if during a sustained occupation civilians from one side are granted particular rights, they do in some way become part of the occupying army even if they do not wear uniforms or carry weapons

Surely, for example, a farmer placed by the German army in Poland during the Second World War while a Polish farmer was displaced could not in any meaningful sense be counted as a civilian, due to the particular status he is given by the occupying army. One could think of him as a soldier, only with the somewhat curious rank 'farmer'.

Re:What a great man

[daem0n1x]

Dude, Orwell wrote his works as satires to the Communist regimes. But he got it wrong. The pigs are in power, now. And I have a clue for you, they're not Communist, not even a little bit.

Re:What a great man

[Anonymous Coward]

No, he would still be a civilian.

Re:What a great man

[Anonymous Coward]

No, but Dennis Thatcher's investments and business in South Africa certainly were a factor.

Re:What a great man

[Anonymous Coward]

I very much would NOT have liked living in the Mandela years SA.

It wasn't actually that bad. Don't get me wrong, it's a dangerous place here, but if you take the proper precautions, then you can protect your family.

I haven't left. Yet. Depending on how things go politically in the next few years, I hope I'll never have to. I think it's a great place here. Where can one go in the world where you won't find something to be unhappy about?

Re:What a great man

[PopeRatzo]

I don't particularly like the Tories. I think they're greedy and selfish, but one thing they have is economic competence and credibility.

You can read the newspaper and you still believe this? "Competence and credibility"?

Re:What a great man

[Anonymous Coward]

Under apartheid there were actually things worth investing in. I bet she sure wouldn't be stupid enough to invest in South Africa now!

Re:What a great man

[Anonymous Coward]

In what way did Thatcher "clean up free loaders on the dole"? Under Thatcher we went from almost full employment to having 3 million unemployed. She put millions of people ON the dole.

Re:What a great man

[jbrown.za]

What you need to remember is that at the time the Soviet Union was very active in Africa, with particularly close relations with Angola. South Africa was a counter point to this ... The enemy of my enemy is my friend. South Africa also had vast mineral resources. It was producing about half the worlds gold along with many other minerals such as platinum, vanadium, manganese and uranium. It is also very well situated strategically.

Re:What a great man

[krygny]

The guy sure had prunes.

As opposed to those who post anonymously; i.e. raisins.

Re:What a great man

[Anonymous Coward]

He was a terrorist, killed innocent people, and was found guilty for his crimes: http://thebackbencher.co.uk/3-things-you-didnt-want-to-know-about-nelson-mandela/
He also was prosecuted for beating his wife.
A great man my ass !

Re:What a great man

[Hatta]

Politics is all about having to decide between difficult (and often unpalatable) choices

No, politics is all about selling your own self interest as the public interest. It's about pretending the negative consequences of the choice that benefits you, and your cronies, the most do not exist.

Re:What a great man

[TapeCutter]

By today's definition virtually every soldier, sailor, and airman, who saw action during WW2 would be labelled a terrorist. It's not just an expression - war really is hell. For those who are thinking "I'm not a violent person, I could never be party to a war time atrocity", please google "the Stanford prison experiments" before replying. It's a rare man indeed who can stare down violent oppression with open palms, Mandela was a rare man but he was no MLK or Ghandi.

Re:What a great man

[TapeCutter]

Reagan and Thatcher weren't that keen on removing the Berlin wall either.

Re:What a great man

[stdarg]

And? Mandela could have been Satan incarnate. That doesn't justify vetoing anti-apartheid sanctions.

Yes it does. You aren't very smart if you help overthrow a bad government knowing that a worse government is waiting in the wings.

You see, as much as you can potentially condemn Mandela for what he did or might have been, you overlook that Mandela wasn't *the* guaranteed new leader of South Africa.

[...]

But even that doesn't justify vetoing sanctions or refusal to enforce them. It only explains why they wouldn't have supported Mandela.

I don't understand.. in both paragraphs it's like you are trying to say that Mandela was the sole source of all that was bad. Surely you see that Mandela was just a leader, and that leaders of such large movements are selected and shaped by that movement. In other words, it's not just Mandela that could be condemned and not supported, it's what he stood for and the people around him.

Re:What a great man

[stdarg]

Privatising mines makes sense. The wealth of the land belongs to the people, not just one individual.

I'm assuming you meant nationalizing.

The problem with that line of thought is that "the people" aren't really "the people". They're "the people right now." What about the next generation? What about when an invading army kicks them all out and resettles the land? Where are their resources? What about the descendants of the people who were displaced by the current group?

When you think about it, the people who nationalize and exploit a resource are just the winners of a lottery and they don't have any moral claim to it. If someone else can win the lottery, they deserve it just as much (or little).

Re:What a great man

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck you. Mandela is a perfect example of St. Reagan's the Senile's statement about the as*hole Contras in Nicaragua: "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter".

If you can't see that the Apartheit regime in SA was the major destabilizing force in that continent, you're a fool.

Re:What a great man

[LynnwoodRooster]

Define "presidency" other than "term", please.

Re:What a great man

[Anonymous Coward]

As to WHY the ANC was fighting, one word sums it up: Biko.

Re:What a great man

[aethelrick]

Sanctions did not hurt the ruling class in South Africa. They were a futile gesture at best. Having grown up in SA during the period when the sanctions were in full swing, I speak from first hand experience. The only people (if any) that sanctions hurt were the poor!

I think imposing sanctions was a voter-freindly alternative to actually __doing__ something for western politicians

Nelson was no angel, but he was no demon either, I think he did a good job when he came to power. But I would temper that by saying his methods (and those of the organisations he was part of) were openly "terrorist" earlier in his life and also later after he was arrested. I think it is fair to say that Nelson realised in prison that his actions as a youth did not and would not get the changes he wanted for his country. Diplomacy and level-headed statemanship were his most powerful weapons, these were the things that finally managed to start South Africa heading down the right path.

Re:What a great man

[aethelrick]

I think you'll find that this is why he and Mandela were jointly awarded the Nobel peace prize for the efforts to end apartheid, but poor guy is all but forgotten, hell I've even heard some folks demonizing him as the head of the oppressive white regime. Even though he headed up a movement within his party (that got him elected as party leader) to bring an end to institutional racism and legalize the ANC

Re:What a great man

[Just Another Poster]

He negotiated for Iran to hold Americans hostage so he could get elected.

Liar.

Re:What a great man

[ultranova]

Reagan and Thatcher were hesitant to cut off South Africa not because they gave a shit about Mandela or because they loved sticking it to black people; they saw SA as a pawn in the cold war.

So their support for a racist, oppressive regime was based on selfishness and imperialism rather than racism. What a relief, for a moment I thought they might have been bad people.

Re:What a great man

[Anonymous Coward]

Cuban troops invading Grenada: Good. The US evicting them by request from the government, and protecting its own citizens in the process: Bad.

Bush sending troops to the Middle East: Bad. 0bama bombing civilians with drones: good.

Bush releasing hundreds of detainees from Gitmo: Bad. 0bama releasing almost none and refusing to release people even DoD and CIA say are not a threat, and not closing it despite promises to do so: Good.

Bush acceding to Congress' demands to bail out Wall Street: Bad. 0bama bailing out Wall Street, GM and various Chinese interests: Good.

Four legs: Good. Two legs: Better.

I know your type.

Re:What a great man

[Anonymous Coward]

It was better under Nixon.

Re:What a great man

[impossiblefork]

I do not believe that this is obvious.

By assigning him a special status the army does effectively incorporate him as a, possibly unarmed, auxiliarly. Not every combatant participates by directly participating in hostilities. Logistic support troops are a common thing after all.

Re:What a great man

[impossiblefork]

It seems that combatants are defined as those who participate directly. I modify my previous statement, replacing 'combatant' with 'member of the armed forces of a party to the conflict'.

Re:What a great man

[Guppy06]

There is still time for orderly change and peaceful reform.

"Mr. Gorbachev, gradually reduce the height of this wall over the coming years and decades!"

Funny how Ronald "Southern Strategy" Reagan only appeals to gradualism in this instance.

Re:What a great man

[Darinbob]

Oh ya, I meant nationalizing or putting into the public sector. Or maybe de-privatizing since there are other alternatives (like extraction taxes, public/private partnerships, etc). Of course if the government that gains control fails to share the gains with the public then that's just as bad as private exploitation.

Re:What a great man

[dylan_-]

Just in case anyone is gullible enough to believe this without checking, your noble AC above just invented that "fact".

Re:What a great man

[Fyzzler]

You are aware that one of the Nazi regime's first acts was the abolition of democracy, right? Nobody had to support those shits. And you don't ever have to support or respect a government that suppresses, tortures, imprisons and kills its own people. Neither in Germany nor in South Africa or the United States of America

Fixed that for you.

Re:What a great man

[Anonymous Coward]

I very much would NOT have liked living in the Mandela years SA.

Actually I lived there during that time and can honestly say it was the golden age of South Africa. The country was filled with hope and people made a genuine effort at reconciliation. He was a great president for all the people in the country.
Yes, now the country faces many difficult issues. I can't help but think that if Mandela had been released early enough from jail so that he would have been able to serve a second term as president , the country would be in much better shape now.
It was pretty sad to see a lot of hate being directed at De Klerk last night when word spread of Mandela's passing. This is contrary to the spirit in which Mandela lived his life after his release from jail, and people claiming to be idolizing Mandela spewing hatred on Twitter should stop and reflect on that.

Re:What a great man

[Anonymous Coward]

I hesitated to respond to you because we live in entirely different worlds, and I don't think any number of Slashdot posts is going to fix that.

I can sum up your entire post with this: "Fuck all of you, I got mine, and I'm burning the rest just so you can't have it!"

Re:What a great man

[PopeRatzo]

Which is all the more reason why the US should have opposed the apartheid government and supported Mandela.

It didn't happen because Maggie Thatcher was making money off her husbands investments in the apartheid regime.

Re:What a great man

[10101001 10101001]

Or, you know, they could have just enforced the sanctions, which would have probably be ineffective towards their intended goal--to end apartheid. And even if they did succeed and Mandela did get elected by a democratic vote, well that's democracy for you. Perhaps that's a "worse" government in your view. In any case, my post wasn't to cast aspersions upon Mandela or his movement. It was to point out that there was a false dichotomy being presented. There were a lot of additional options available.

If the US were to have actually overthrown the South African government, I'm fairly confident they wouldn't have allowed Mandela or his movement to take power. But, you see, that was also a major point of my post which you seemed to miss too. Simply put, Reagan had no problems with apartheid per se. You could argue it was a strategic move to not rock the boat--why overthrow one pro-capitalist government just to probably have to quickly overthrow the next pro-communist (not really a given, but seen as a strong possibility) government. Notice I never mentioned democracy in any of the above because Reagan didn't care about that either.

So, what we're really left with is a government who was repeatedly willing to be policeman to the world but only to further US interests. And human rights were clearly not a US interest as far as Reagan went. Take from that what you want. It certainly has basically nothing to do with "evil" Mandela.

Re:What a great man

[Xest]

Yes, like it or not they're successful as fixing economies.

Labour made us bankrupt once before and nearly made us bankrupt again. Currently under largely Tory economic leadership we're the fastest growing developed nation in the world right now, we avoided triple dip recession and the double dip was even revised away. We've also had some of the cheapest borrowing rates for any nation saving a fortune.

They've also invested heavily in diversification, by working hard to promote the tech and scientific sectors and to improve trade with nations like China. In contrast Labour in the boom years was focussing heavily on banking and making cuts to science - yes, even in the boom years. Despite Labour's claim to be for the working class as well, Gordon Brown, again, in the boom years, removed the 10p tax rate - he increased tax on the lowest earners in society, whilst the coaliton (admittedly large because of the lib dems) have increased the tax free allowance beyond that which Brown stripped the 10p tax rate from.

Despite their austerity drives objective impartial surveys have shown that people haven't noticed a decrease in quality of local government services. Crime has continued to decrease despite cuts.

As I say, I don't like the Tories in general, I think they're prudish, I think they've got a hopeless record on the environment, I think they've got an awful workers rights record, I think they have a hopeless record with Europe and I think half their party are a bunch of bigotted arseholes who need to be shot. For these reasons I'd never vote for them, but I'd also never vote for Labour if our economy needs some TLC or for more than a term or two because time and time again they make a complete fuckup of it and borrow more than we can afford to pay back whilst still somehow managing to end up making the least wealthy pay more tax.

You've got to be a special kind of zealot to pretend that they don't at least have economic competence and credibility.

Re:What a great man

[Uberbah]

The problem with that line of thought is that "the people" aren't really "the people". They're "the people right now." What about the next generation? What about when an invading army kicks them all out and resettles the land? Where are their resources? What about the descendants of the people who were displaced by the current group?

Why so Concerned? If DeBeers can ration out their hoard of diamonds to manipulate prices, there's nothing stopping socially-controlled resources from being harvested at a reasonable rate while diversifying the rest of the economy.

What's your alternative, anyway? Private companies that give f***-all about how the rest of the economy will look like once the resource is depleted?

Re:What a great man

[Uberbah]

Your right wing trolling: obvious. We know your type as well.

Re:What a great man

[Uberbah]

How many buildings did Gandhi blow up?

How much genocide did the British commit against India? How many Indians where shoved into concentration camps called banstustans to clear land for white settlers?

Gandhi was known for his non-violence.

Because it was an effective tactic against the British occupation, who were looking to control markets and cheap resources. Not because the British were engaging in mass land theft and ethnic cleansing to make way for settlements. If Ghandi were born in South Africa, he would have been a "terroist bomber" just like Mandela. If Ghandi were born in Gaza, he would have been assassinated by Mossad or rotting in prison.

Re:What a great man

[stdarg]

I'm not concerned with the problem itself, I'm merely pointing out that problem because I'm concerned with the claim that it is more "moral" for one group (the group who happens to live there right now) to nationalize and burn up natural resources than for anybody else. It's bullshit.

The alternative is that it's equally okay for ANYBODY to exploit natural resources. If Shell and Exxon go into the Middle East and pump out all the oil, and that benefits 300 million people in America in some way, that's as valid as if Iran nationalizes it and uses it to benefit 75 million Iranians. It's not better, it's not worse, it's equal. I'm just sick of the idiots who go around saying Iranians (or whatever group) have some moral right to the oil that happens to be in their sand.

Re:What a great man

[Anonymous Coward]

"150 years or so"

Really, the Statute of Westminster is THAT old?

It was still a former colony with close ties to the imperial power until the October 1960 referendum.

Stop making ridiculous claims, racist liar.

He will be missed...

[Anonymous Coward]

...he was...like...Morgan Freeman 2.0 down there...

Re:He will be missed...

[Anonymous Coward]

At least he died doing what he loved!

And now that he's dead...

[Anonymous Coward]

... get ready for uhuru.

Re:And now that he's dead...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I always thought she was pretty hot...

cause of death

[Gravis Zero]

hang gliding accident

Re:cause of death

[Anonymous Coward]

Anybody know where George Zimmerman is?

Mandela taught forgiveness

[JoeyRox]

To be imprisoned for 27 years but still have the selflessness to bring peace and freedom to his country so that nobody should share his fate is the essence of compassion, generosity, and forgiveness. He is a shinning example of the human spirit.

Re:Mandela taught forgiveness

[Anonymous Coward]

The triumph of the human spirit over aggressive oppressors is something that we should all hope to emulate

Re:Mandela taught forgiveness

[Anonymous Coward]

^-- This.

Re:Mandela taught forgiveness

[Anonymous Coward]

If you spend years and decades systematically oppressing and denying a segment of your population good education, good jobs, good housing while treating them like dogs, it is not surprising that when the "flip" happens, that systematically-deprived population lacks the same proportion of experienced professionals or that some of those brutalized will act like brutes.

You reap what you sow: SA sowed the wind and ALMOST reaped the whirlwind but for Mandela's masterful leadership. It may take SA generations to overcome the cultural and intellectual destruction done by apartheid, but it will still be less time than if there had been a country-wide race war.

Remember: the SA gov't had nukes and made no secret about their willingness to use them on an uprising of black SA citizens.

Little Blurb about it on Drudge Report

[Anonymous Coward]

I found out about this on Drudge when I was reading the little news postings, you know, the unimportant ones... Typical Drudge.

Re:Little Blurb about it on Drudge Report

[Anonymous Coward]

It was highlighted in red, and still is, dumbfuck.

RIP Bill Cosby

[Niterios]

Just wait for all the Bill Cosby pictures with the caption "RIP Nelson Mandela".

Re:RIP Bill Cosby

[Anonymous Coward]

It's Morgan Freeman's pictures, dork!

Re:RIP Bill Cosby

[sir_eccles]

Idris Elba actually.

Re:RIP Bill Cosby

[Macman408]

Not gonna lie... When I saw the headline, I was mentally picturing Morgan Freeman for several seconds before I mentally slapped myself.

Re:RIP Bill Cosby

[Dabido]

I've already been seeing the ones with Morgan Freeman on them.

Re:just another nigga dead

[Finallyjoined!!!]

Your bell end must be red raw from all the wanking.

Because you are, without doubt, a fucking wanker.

Local perspective

[Any Web Loco]

South Africa's Mail & Guardian is worth a read - local perspective.

Re:Local perspective

[Anonymous Coward]

South Africa's Mail & Guardian is worth a read - local perspective.

Interesting name — mash-up of UK's worst & best papers, respectively (IMO).

Re:Not news for nerds

[Anonymous Coward]

STUFF THAT MATTERS

Re:Why is this here?

[coldsalmon]

Without Nelson Mandela, there would have been no Mark Shuttleworth, and hence no Ubuntu Phone.

Re:Not news for nerds

[RLiegh]

Because it's "stuff that matters."

Truly a South African icon

[_UnderTow_]

I just heard some sad news on talk radio - Anit-Apartheid activist Nelson Mandela was found dead in his South Africa home this morning. There weren't any more details. I'm sure everyone in this community will miss him - even if you didn't enjoy his work, there's no denying his contributions to popular culture. Truly a South African icon.

Re:Truly a South African icon

[Anonymous Coward]

shut up

Re:Truly a South African icon

[isorox]

Thank you, the post I was looking for :D

Re:Truly a South African icon

[Zontar The Mindless]

grow up

Re:Truly a South African icon

[Anonymous Coward]

Score:5, Funny

I don't get it...

Re:Truly a South African icon

[_UnderTow_]

You must be new here.

Re:Truly a South African icon

[Anonymous Coward]

Shot dead while climbing through a bathroom window into Oscar Pistorius' house.

Re:Not news for nerds

[Nyder]

How is this relevant on /.? I mean no disrespect, but this is a topic for more mainstream news sources, not a site dedicated to technology.

Let's get back to Geekdom, shall we?

Well, considering this is the only news site I go to, I'm glad for these occasional posts of "mainstream" news. I know you said no disrespect, but if you really didn't want to disrespect the passing of Mandela, you should of just not posted.

Geek or not, Nelson Mandela was a cool dude.

Re:Not news for nerds

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not without precedent that when a major general news story break, Slashdot will post it so that we can discuss it amongst the community. If you don't want to read the article, then don't click the link. It really doesn't get to where there are so many non-nerd articles that it's disruptive to the main mission of Slashdot.

R.I.P., good man.

[haaz]

Nelson Mandela is a hero to many, myself included. May he rest in peace as we honor and mourn him, though we never shall forget him.

Re:Not news for nerds

[CanHasDIY]

How is this relevant on /.? I mean no disrespect

Well, you've shown it, intentionally or not.

Anyone old enough to have at least a 10th grade education should know why Nelson Mandela was an important person, and why his death is relevant to everyone on the planet.

IMO.

Re:Why is this here?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't be an idiot! You obviously don't know anything about his contributions to the 2.4 kernel, do you? Google it yourself, I ain't doing your work for you.

Re:Not news for nerds

[Angeret]

It matters not if it is relevant, most if not all news services & sites of any worth will be posting something about Mandela. You could always just move on to the next tech story if you don't want to read this - you do have that power you know.

One word

[bob_super]

"Ubuntu"

Learn a bit.

Re:just another nigga dead

[reikae]

As an avid wanker I find it offensive that you group us self-lovers together with the troll grandparent.

On-topic: I hope the man of peace has finally found peace.

Really deserved his Nobel Peace Prize

[dkleinsc]

When Nelson Mandela and the African National Congress took power, they were in a position where they could well have taken revenge for a couple of centuries of repression by the English and Afrikaners. He led the effort to do something else (the Truth and Reconciliation Commissions), so that his country would not tear itself apart the way so many of its neighbors had done, repeatedly.

I'm not saying South Africa is a paradise compared to, say, the UK, but it's doing a heck of a lot better than Zimbabwe or Lesotho, and his decisions had a lot to do with that.

Re:Really deserved his Nobel Peace Prize

[clarkkent09]

If we are to be honest rather than PC, whites were the reason South Africa was the most developed country in Africa (by far) and not a mess of poverty, crime, war, disease, violence and disease like every other African country. I would say he was smart, not generous, when he made a deal with whites instead of trying to force them out like Mugabe did.

Re:Really deserved his Nobel Peace Prize

[Anonymous Coward]

They would never give the "Peace" "Nobel" to a terrorist. That fake "Nobel" is purely political, and it will never be given to one of their enemies.

Re:Really deserved his Nobel Peace Prize

[dave420]

The only non-PC thing you could say is that the whites were good because they were white, and the blacks bad because they were black. Everything else has nothing to do with "political correctness" (or, as decent folk call it: "accuracy").

Re:Really deserved his Nobel Peace Prize

[Subm]

If we are to be honest rather than PC, whites were the reason South Africa was the most developed country in Africa (by far) and not a mess of poverty, crime, war, disease, violence and disease like every other African country.

The climate and terrain may have more to with it than you think. They probably both account for the greater potential for prosperity and why Europeans were able to recreate social structures successfully there. They tried elsewhere in Africa, but failed. Same with southern Australia. Nobody created the climate and terrain, they were already there.

From Wikipedia: "The extreme southwest has a climate remarkably similar to that of the Mediterranean with wet winters and hot, dry summers, hosting the famous Fynbos biome of shrubland and thicket. This area also produces much of the wine in South Africa... With more than 20,000 different plants, or about 10% of all the known species of plants on Earth, South Africa is particularly rich in plant diversity... The Fynbos biome, which makes up the majority of the area and plant life in the Cape floristic region, one of the six floral kingdoms, is located in a small region of the Western Cape and contains more than 9,000 of those species, making it among the richest regions on earth in terms of plant diversity..." ... not sure how much credit Europeans can take for that.

Re:Really deserved his Nobel Peace Prize

[Anonymous Coward]

If we are to be honest rather than PC, whites were the reason South Africa was the most developed country in Africa (by far) and not a mess of poverty, crime, war, disease, violence and disease like every other African country. I would say he was smart, not generous, when he made a deal with whites instead of trying to force them out like Mugabe did.

Whatever.

So, are you saying that the lack of "white" phenotypes is the cause of underdevelopment in the rest of Africa? The only role skin color played in developing SA is by qualifying for sustained access to capital (both financial and political) that is not so easily obtained by non-white Africans. Your grasp of history, economics, and implicitly, genetics are both poor and frightening.

Re:Really deserved his Nobel Peace Prize

[Anonymous Coward]

*is both poor and frightening. ...I guess stupidity is contagious.

Re:Why is this here?

[Finallyjoined!!!]

Thought the age limit on /. was "over 12"

Linux tribute

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HED4h00xPPA

'nuff said

Didn't take GNAA long

[benjfowler]

They must've broken the sound barrier getting here to post.

Re:Mandela's dead, but new crypto currency emerged

[Anonymous Coward]

-1 Spam

Re:Not news for nerds

[hubie]

but if you really didn't want to disrespect the passing of Mandela, you should of just not posted.

I completely disagree. It isn't being disrespectful at all to question why this should be posted to a tech site. I'd much rather have someone question the relevance of something here than have them shamed into silence by people who feel strongly about some non-technical topic.

My own Mandela story

[spaceyhackerlady]

When Nelson Mandela turned 70 there was quite a bit of coverage in the news here. He was still in jail, so I called Cape Town information, got the number, phoned the jail and left a message ("Happy Birthday!") for him.

The man who answered the phone sounded like he'd been on the phone a lot that day. He was also very careful to take down my name and where I was calling from. I suspect that until the government changed there would have been little point in trying to get a visa to visit South Africa...

...laura

Re:My own Mandela story

[Anonymous Coward]

When Nelson Mandela turned 70 there was quite a bit of coverage in the news here. He was
still in jail, so I called Cape Town information, got the number, phoned the jail and left a
message ("Happy Birthday!") for him.

The man who answered the phone sounded like he'd been on the phone a lot that day.
He was also very careful to take down my name and where I was calling from. I suspect
that until the government changed there would have been little point in trying to get a visa
to visit South Africa...

...laura

That's very sweet laura...
But now that "the government changed" i "suspect" that, since the black current president of S. Africa likes to sing how the blacks will kill the whites ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fzRSE_p1Ys ), if you are white "there would have been little point in trying to get a visa to visit South Africa"!
If you are not white and "get a visa to visit South Africa" please be "very carefull" if you are a woman -"laura"!- because it seems to me like it's a hobby there to rape woman ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_violence_in_South_Africa ). ...Konstantinos

Re:My own Mandela story

[GodfatherofSoul]

ha! cute story!

Re:Why is this here?

[Anonymous Coward]

Pretty sure a white guy in SA would have done just fine.

Re:Mandela's dead, but new crypto currency emerged

[Anonymous Coward]

-1 Spam

You're wrong, sir. It's not a spam, but IMO quite important info.
I've checked this few minutes ago.
Don't like? Don't check, but don't judge also.

i'm sure the former residents of

[Anonymous Coward]

Rhodesia appreciate his demise, as well as the thousands of farmers and landowners displaced by subsequent regimes - meanwhile, DeBeers continues on...

Re:i'm sure the former residents of

[Builder]

What the hell would the "When-we's" care about Mandella's death? Call me when Mugabe carks it.

Re:just another nigga dead

[Finallyjoined!!!]

On the contrary, you fucking wanker, I group noone nohow nowhere. Seriously, I just point out where I see elbows appearing to play the violin; vigorously ! :-)
Sing in your head : "free ee ee ee Nelson Mandela

Mandela's "legacy"

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.amren.com/features/2013/12/mandela-white-genocide-with-a-whimper/

Required reading for anyone who thinks Mandela was an angel.

Re:Mandela's "legacy"

[Zontar The Mindless]

More like a whole site that's required reading for racists.

Next time, you'll grow a pair and log in first before posting that shit, I trust?

Nelson Mandela dies at 95

[richy freeway]

Respect where it's due... That's 5 miles an hour faster than Paul Walker!

And this is news for nerds???

[davidwr]

Okay, I'll grant you that this is important news for everyone, but most of us saw this on mainstream news sites or we soon will.

Now, when Ken Thompson dies, I'll expect his obit to hit /. within minutes if not milliseconds.

Re:And this is news for nerds???

[Zontar The Mindless]

It's probably been posted here a dozen times already. Granted, not as many times as Steven King's has been, but still...

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Finally

[isorox]

That took forever...

That took forever...

Aww, was it upsetting for you to go through those 22 weeks his health and body were failing?

Imagine what is must have been like for him.

We wouldn't do it to pets

Re:1 of the greatest leaders our world has ever kn

[Anonymous Coward]

Sweet little Mandela eh?

He signed off on the deaths of innocent people, lots of them

Nelson Mandela was the head of UmKhonto we Sizwe, (MK), the terrorist
wing of the ANC and South African Communist Party. At his trial, he had
pleaded guilty to 156 acts of public violence including mobilising
terrorist bombing campaigns, which planted bombs in public places,
including the Johannesburg railway station. Many innocent people,
including women and children, were killed by Nelson Mandela’s MK
terrorists. Here are some highlights

-Church Street West, Pretoria, on the 20 May 1983

-Amanzimtoti Shopping complex KZN, 23 December 1985

-Krugersdorp Magistrate’s Court, 17 March 1988

-Durban Pick ‘n Pay shopping complex, 1 September 1986

-Pretoria Sterland movie complex 16 April 1988 – limpet mine killed ANC terrorist M O Maponya instead

-Johannesburg Magistrate’s Court, 20 May 1987

-Roodepoort Standard Bank 3 June, 1988

Tellingly, not only did Mandela refuse to renounce violence, Amnesty refused to take his case stating “[the]
movement recorded that it could not give the name of ‘Prisoner of
Conscience’ to anyone associated with violence, even though as in
‘conventional warfare’ a degree of restraint may be exercised.”

Re:Not news for nerds

[krammit]

The 9/11 attacks were posted here, as was just about every response to it. Sometimes, the stuff that matters tag needs to be taken a little more prominently.

R.I.P.

[Anonymous Coward]

Mr. Mandela, who died Thursday night at age 95, seemed to understand that the motivating force behind ethnic, religious and racial hatred is not only, or even primarily, self-interest; it is fear, distrust, a lack of understanding. In his person and his policies, he set out to show those on the other side that they had little to fear. He sought unity rather than revenge, honesty and understanding rather than the naked exercise of power. These are all fine abstractions, of course, but never so clear to us as when there is a living figure to exemplify them. That's why Mr. Mandela’s influence extended so far beyond South Africa and was felt by so many of the world's peoples other than Africans. It is the reason, now that he is gone, that it is more important than ever — in a century marked so far by frightening eruptions of terror and religious intolerance — to keep before the world the name and example of Nelson Mandela.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/nelson-mandela-brought-the-world-toward-a-racial-reconciliation/2013/12/05/4a2dfb7e-2d77-11e0-8dd8-83b74589130a_story.html

so true

[chameleon3]

every word the truth

Re:Finally

[artor3]

Is there any reason to think that he wanted to die sooner? I was happy to support legalizing euthanasia when it came up to vote in Seattle, but let's not go presuming all of the old and sick are just waiting to be put out of their misery. He's not some dog to be put down when the medical bills get too high.

Larger than Life

[allcoolnameswheretak]

Nelson Mandela is a larger-than-life figure. The true hero, that sacrifices his life and gives all of his energy for a cause. He may not always have resorted to peaceful means, but when your opponents will not listen to reason and only speak the language of violence, the temptation to fight fire with fire runs high. Despite losing friends, witnessing the mercilessness and brutality of a police state and being treated less than human, he transitioned the unjust, abusive apartheid regime of South Africa into a free democracy for all.
South Africa is still a troubled country. But this is the product of decades of apartheid, that has created a huge divide between the rich and the poor, and ignoring the education and integration of most of its population. With these foundations, it is no wonder that poverty and crime still pose a huge challenge to South African society.

Nelson Mandela has done more than his part, much more than can be expected from a single lifetime. Rest in peace.

Good Man Down

[LifesABeach]

Once again humaity is shown how to live.

Re:just another nigga dead

[Anonymous Coward]

"Man of peace?" Please. He might have been an important figure in world history, but he wasn't Ghandi. He advocated the use of violence to achieve political ends. That makes him a terrorist under our modern definition of the term.

I guess he was "our kind of terrorist" though.

Is politics really the best category for this?

[damn_registrars]

I would think "news" or "the world" would be a better fit. Calling him a politician is a bit like calling Einstein a mathematician.

Re:Is politics really the best category for this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, they don't have a category for "terrorist".

That's a no-no

[justthinkit]

he advocated for nationalizing of banks, gold production, other mining

Acceptable foreign leaders are those who abuse their power (making it easy to get rid of them at any time in the future) and grab a stack of cash for themselves (ditto). All other leaders are advised to update their life insurance policy.

Mandala was too Gandhi-like for U.S. tastes. At least the CIA spinner landed on "time-in-prison" rather than "the-patsy-did-it".

Once released he was an untouchable martyr. Quelle nightmare.

Re:That's a no-no

[Anonymous Coward]

You're high. All they had to do was have him knocked off by a black man, and--poof!--instant civil war between all the black nationalist movements, and Whitey sitting on the sidelines trying to look "gravely concerned".

Re:just another ...

[riverat1]

Nah, he's just a racist asshole.

Case closed ? Not so fast !!

[Taco Cowboy]

"Reagan and Thatcher supported Apartheid", please do some research, preferably not on wikipedia, and revert.

Did they support the apartheid government?

In the Syria conflict USA/France/Britain support the "rebels" who fight against the Assad regime. Those "rebels" happened to include the Al Queda terrorists.

In conclusion, perusing your own analogy, what USA, France and England are doing is to give their support to Al Queda and all the jihadist terrorists

What is YOUR answer to that ?

Re:Case closed ? Not so fast !!

[PopeRatzo]

When France supported the United States in the Revolutionary War, I'm sure there were some criminals in the US.

The Assad regime was a brutal dictatorship. The opposition to Assad is made up primarily of people who are not at all jihadists. In fact, the freedom fighters have in many cases fought the Al Qaeda forces who came into Syria to exploit the violence.

When Thatcher and Reagan supported the apartheid white minority government in South Africa, they were doing so to preserve apartheid.

Mrs Thatcher profited directly from apartheid, since her husband had extensive investments in white South Africa during apartheid.

What is YOUR answer to that?

It's always better to oppose unjust, undemocratic regimes. 20th century American history is littered with occasions where the US supported the unjust regime and came to regret it later, in sometimes devastating ways. Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Central America, South America, Africa, Cuba...the list goes on.

Re:Case closed ? Not so fast !!

[shutdown -p now]

The Assad regime was a brutal dictatorship. The opposition to Assad is made up primarily of people who are not at all jihadists.

If that is the case, then why is it considered common knowledge by now that the core of the actual armed resistance are jihadists?

Yes, some in the FSA are not happy about it, and are fighting back. And losing, because they are the minority, at least among those willing to fight.

Re:Case closed ? Not so fast !!

[Anonymous Coward]

... what USA, France and England are doing is to give their support to Al Queda and all the jihadist terrorists

What is YOUR answer to that ?

That you are correct and that they were doing it from the beginning.

Re:Case closed ? Not so fast !!

[PopeRatzo]

If that is the case, then why is it considered common knowledge by now that the core of the actual armed resistance are jihadists?

What makes you think this is "common knowledge"?

Everything I've read shows the opposite. Maybe your common knowledge and my common knowledge are different.

Re:Case closed ? Not so fast !!

[shutdown -p now]

Because the rebels themselves are saying so, FSA included?

A recent example. An earlier one.

Or are you saying that al-Nusra is not radical Islamist?

Re:Case closed ? Not so fast !!

[rotovator]

The Assad regime was a brutal dictatorship. The opposition to Assad is made up primarily of people who are not at all jihadists. In fact, the freedom fighters have in many cases fought the Al Qaeda forces who came into Syria to exploit the violence.

I'm just hearing that on hundreds of news, media, websites and neighbours, but then, I go to liveleak and another truth can be seen. "A lie told 1000 times becomes a true". This lie of "brutal dictatorssssssshiiip of Asssad" is being repeated 1000 times a day. Yet everyday some new beheading video by the "rebels" shows up but is quickly censored or never shown on TV. All for the glory of the choosen nation of Israel There is no truth, when people belives media.

Re:Case closed ? Not so fast !!

[Uberbah]

Or are you saying that al-Nusra is not radical Islamist?

Depends on whether or not you're a radical Christianist.

Re:Case closed ? Not so fast !!

[shutdown -p now]

I am an atheist, but I don't see the connection. There is a big difference between drone strikes at military targets (though the fact that they seem to be hitting civilians a lot should definitely prompt us to investigate their use more closely), and, say, sawing a guy's head off while chanting "Allahu Akbar" on camera, which is the kind of thing that al-Nusra is notorious for. Unless you're saying that drone strikes are somehow religiously motivated?

Though even if you can successfully argue that US is waging a crusade in the Middle East, I don't see what bearing it has on the status of al-Nusra.

(FWIW, I'm not an American, either)

Re:All of us who were around back in 1990 ...

[Smauler]

Mandela, ~ unlike all other hypocritical politicians all around the world, ~ is a dude who was TRUE TO HIS WORDS.

I think his actions speak louder.

"The TRC (Truth and Reconciliation Commission) found that torture was "routine" and was official policy – as were executions "without due process" at ANC detention camps particularly in the period of 1979–1989."

Mandela founded MK, because he thought the ANC was not militant enough.

I think he was right and just to do most of the things that he did. Brushing under the carpet military and terrorist tactics like most seem to do now, because he was on the right side, is unhelpful IMO.

It wasn't his words that influenced politics in South Africa, it was his actions, however unsavoury they were. Also, yes, I do know he was in prison when those attacks took place. The organisation he founded carried out the attacks.

Anonymous Coward . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

You have an awful, awful lot of extra time on your hands. I pity you.

Re:Not news for nerds

[couchslug]

Slashdot is NOT a geek site. That's gone.

Now its posters want it to feed News From Everywhere Else even if they would get MORE of that by opening another tab in their fucking browser.

They can't articulate WHY it should be here when its covered in greater depth elsewhere.

  Slashdot is a cross between Fark and 4chan, but 4chan is often MUCH better.

Bullshit!

[Rujiel]

If Reagan didn't support aparthead, he wouldn't have vetoed the comprehensive anti-apartheid Act of 1986. Reagan is only idolized by sheep and their shepherds.

Re:Not news for nerds

[couchslug]

You fail to explain why covering it HERE is better than the massive coverage it already gets elsewhere. Slashdot adds nothing to the political and historic coverage of Nelson Mandela.

PRECISELY why does it belong on Slashdot? "Importance" alone isn't justification, for if you follow that logic many things are more important than the relatively trivial tech coverage of Slashdot. In that case, scrap the site or sell it to Dice....oh.....wait....

Re:Why is this here?

[couchslug]

"So Slashdot is just NORMAL news now?"

That turns a greater profit for its owners, and the user base contains far fewer techies.

What sites do "OG" Slashdotters visit nowadays?

Great Man Great Words

[harshal.tawade]

1) "If you talk to a man in a language he understands, that goes to his head. If you talk to him in his language, that goes to his heart." 2) "It is better to lead from behind and to put others in front, especially when you celebrate victory when nice things occur. You take the front line when there is danger. Then people will appreciate your leadership."

Re:All of us who were around back in 1960 ...

[flyingfsck]

Nelson did not exactly live in a jail cell. He mostly lived in the chief warden's house in Polls Moore Prison.

Anyhow, as Voltaire put it: He was a kind an generous man - provided of course, that he is really dead.

Nelson Mandela Was Not Murdered by Obama Drones

[Anonymous Coward]

Nelson Mandela was murdered by Joe Biden (Code Name: BIg Whitey) Drones. HA HA.

Ha Not Fuckers.

Mass murderer

[david999]

Nelson Mandela was a mass murderer as is his wife. He was the head of UmKhonto we Sizwe, the terrorist wing of the ANC and South African communist party. The terrorists bombed in public places, including the Johannesburg railway station. Many innocent people, including women and children, were killed by Nelson Mandela’s MK terrorists. http://thebackbencher.co.uk/3-things-you-didnt-want-to-know-about-nelson-mandela/

Re:Mass murderer

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously? That's common knowledge - hardly "things you didn't want to know about Nelson Mandela".

AFRICA FOR THE AFRICANS

[Anonymous Coward]

ASIA FOR THE ASIANS, AFRICA FOR THE AFRICANS, WHITE COUNTRIES FOR EVERYBODY!

Everybody says there is this RACE problem. Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries.

The Netherlands and Belgium are just as crowded as Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them.

Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to “assimilate,” i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites.

What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries?

How long would it take anyone to realize I’m not talking about a RACE problem. I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?

And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn’t object to this?

But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.

They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white.

Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.

Re:Mandela's dead, but new crypto currency emerged

[Zontar The Mindless]

quite important info

ProTip (from one who used to write ad copy for a living):
Do NOT use the phrase "important info" when trying to claim you're not spamming. It's a dead giveaway that you in fact ARE spamming, and people with at least the sense that God granted a goose will immediately tune you out.

Cheers.

Really sad

[Chrisq]

Nelson Mandela was one of my heroes. His "truth and reconciliation" was the only way to heal South Africa after apartheid, and puts lie to the claims that "people who are mistreated have no choice but to become murderers" that we hear so often.

Re:just another nigga dead

[Anonymous Coward]

WTF is a "noone?"

Re:Why is this here?

[Anonymous Coward]

What is this Ubuntu Phone you are talking about?

Re:Why is this here?

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck your g0ogle bullshit, NSA shill.

Well done

[Anonymous Coward]

Your "point" perfectly says it for me. They COULD have off'd him, but didn't. Why not? Not for lack of ability on the CIA's part. But because it wasn't the best way to neutralize him. Being in prison is pretty neutralized, you have to admit. And less unrest. And it gave the 1%ers a few decades to steal everything they wanted before he was let out.

Mandela did next to nothing!!!

[bayankaran]

South Africa of today is one of the most dangerous and violent places on earth; Mandela did next to nothing to address black on white or even black-on-black violence. There was a huge white-flight out of SA during the 90s.

Mandela's biggest legacy and creditable achievement as the President is the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_and_Reconciliation_Commission_(South_Africa) Also he was the premier for five years, that too on a country as big as South Africa without any administrative experience (he was in prison for 27 years.) From all accounts he did well. He may not have micromanaged the affairs, but on a policy level his actions look far reaching and inspirational.
Wikipedia says from 1995, 800000 of a total white population of 5.2 million left the country. I think the white flight out of South Africa would have happened even if Mahatma Gandhi was the President. Its an inevitable knee jerk reaction.

Re:Mandela did next to nothing!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree about the T&R commission being great, but IMHO Mandela and the ANC's greatest triumph was getting a complete change in government without the bloodbath many of us thought was inevitable. For those who don't remember or weren't there, the SA gov't was actively promoting/providing/protecting Zulus who carried weapons and attacked Mandela supporters; the SA gov't routinely shot up the townships; the SA gov't was sending armed agents provocateurs out to cause trouble and blame it on blacks in an effort to prove devolution wouldn't work; Mandela's supporters, tired of being killed, were openly harassing him during his open-air speeches, saying "Give us guns". It REALLY looked bad. A leading SA white politician confronted the senate (whatever it was called), telling them, "Adapt or die". It was incredibly scary if you understood what was going on and care about avoiding genocide...

And it didn't all fall apart. I thought it would, and, knowing that the racist, fascist SA gov't and their proxies (the Broderbund et alia) had nukes and probably would use them in an all-out uprising, I feared a truly scorched/glassified disaster.

And Mandela et alia pulled it off without any end-of-the-world scenario, just with a huge population patiently waiting in voting lines. Wow.

Re:Nelson Mandela was a Communist

[Anonymous Coward]

So what? I thought the USA was the land of the free, which would include the freedom to be a communist, surely?

Re:liberals, conservatives, and ATS

[Anonymous Coward]

There was a bitter, but telling, joke at the time:

      "How do you tell a liberal from a conservative?"
      "Liberals believe foreign nations should interfere in the internal affairs of South Africa, but not of Chile.
      Conservatives believe foreign nations should interfere in the internal affairs of Chile, but not of South Africa."

      By the way, how many "great men"'s wives behave as the adherents of Willie Mandela did?

      Having lived through the time, I have little patience for the superficial and selective memory applied to the complicated issues of the time.

Re:All of us who were around back in 1990 ...

[TapeCutter]

Yes, Winston Churchill was also a ruthless and cunning bastard, precisely what's needed if you want to survive a bitter conflict. Problem is today's ruthless dictator is often yesterday's courageous hero, eg: Mugabe. I admire both Churchill and Mandela for many reasons, but to me MLK and Ghandi are in a class of their own when it comes to righteous victories over formidable oppressors.

And yeah I remember 1979 quite well, it was the year before I got married, Stevie Wonder was singing "peace has come to Zimbabwe". Maybe in 20yrs time people will start to realise that the Syrian war and much of the "Arab spring" was triggered by severe drought rather than facebook. Much of rural Syria simply walked away from their farms in 2009-10. 10% of the population was internally displaced before it exploded, first into food riots, then a civil war and all the side-battles between splinter groups and factions that entails. In the cold war Syria was to the Russians what Israel was to the US, Putin and Obama have so far done a pretty good job of containing the conflict within Syria's borders, which is definitely a GoodThing(TM) for everyone who's not in Syria..

Re:Why is this here?

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't tell people who can't stop bitching about non-"tech" stories being posted. This is YOUR slashdot.

Re:Not news for nerds

[CanHasDIY]

You fail to explain why covering it HERE is better than the massive coverage it already gets elsewhere

Slashdot is a news aggregate. If you're looking for fresh, hot-off-the-presses breaking stories, you are in the wrong place.

I would say a good reason for covering it here is the opportunity for intelligent discourse about the topic that one would not find on other news sites.

Don't like it? Start your own new aggregation website.

Preferably with blackjack, and hookers.

The 16th Man

[cant_get_a_good_nick]

Sometimes random unexpected things move you the most.

For me, Mandela's legacy was sealed in The 16th Man. A snapshot of not how he pushed the nation away from apartheid, but how he ran the nation and kept it together. There were so many armed groups just waiting for a flashpoint to descend into civil war. You may have seen it in "Invictus", but for me, seeing people talk about how they were getting ready to kill people, and talking with the actual players (no interviews with Mandela himself tho) made it more real.

It kind of makes you think how he kept the country together when we can't even get our Congress together to make a vote.

He was removed from the watch list in 2008

[Anonymous Coward]

Not that bad....if you compare it with the Catholic Church's expedient apologies for its mistakes.

Re:Not news for nerds

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess from your post we can assume you have less than a 10th grade education.

Re:Nelson Mandela was a Communist

[Anonymous Coward]

So politicians are free to be communists and make a non-free country like US even more totalitarian? Ya know, in a free country communists can group together into a commie enclave ruling their own way, but in a communist country no one can be free.
So, should there be freedom for enemies of freedom?
Pardon my English

Re:Not news for nerds

[hubie]

I don't necessarily have an issue with these things being posted. I have an issue with the tyranny of the self-righteous where you are not allowed to even question the relevance to this site. Witness the moderation on the OP and some of the responses to it. The question was polite and did nothing to malign nor slight the story, it just questioned whether this site was the proper place to post this story.

One Less Terrorist

[Anonymous Coward]

He was a terrorist. You may have liked his cause, but his tactics were pure terror. Don't believe me? Google "necklacing".

Re:Not news for nerds

[Anonymous Coward]

Excuse me, but I have a high school education. No offense, but all i knew is that Nelson was in jail in South Africa for a few years. I didn't learn about him while I was in school or college. I should read more about Nelson to see why is so famous and a big celebrity.

Please don't insult my intelligence. Thank you.

Re:All of us who were around back in 1960 ...

[st0nes]

It was the then Victor Verster prison (now Drakenstein) in Paarl; it wasn't the Chief Warder's house; and it was only for a small proportion of his imprisonment--the rest (19 years) was spent on Robben Island, working in conditions that permanently damaged his eyes, and, incidentally, on a diet to which he attributed his longevity. The prison in which he spent a very brief time (weeks) was Pollsmoor.

On nazis and democracy

[olau]

The Nazis were democratically elected into power. If you supported democracy, you had to support the Nazis in 1939 (prior to their invasion of Poland in September).

I just have to comment this as I see it repeated often: I am sorry, but that's not really true. It's true they got a (big) foot in the door (about 1/3 of the votes in a background of a crisis), but that's about where democracy stopped and Hitler took over. If you're interested, I suggest you read a history book on the Germany and the Weimar Republic. Here's a couple of quick links with more info:

http://www.lobelog.com/no-hitler-did-not-come-to-power-democratically/
http://history.stackexchange.com/questions/1150/is-the-claim-that-hitler-came-to-power-democratically-justified

Even if you can perhaps argue about the 1933 election, there's no doubt that by 1939 Germany was not a democracy. In 1939 you had to be a fool to think otherwise, the nazis weren't exactly quiet about their authoritarian philosophy. I live in a neighbouring country, and by 1939 a lot of people here were certainly reading the signs, nervously.

Dead Lowlife Nigger

[Anonymous Coward]

How many Whites in South Africa have been directly or indirectly murdered,raped ,tortured, hacked apart by or this disgusting ugly, useless nigger trash...
Here is the story:
The Whites build a civilized nation in a sparsely populated part of Africa...By the time the Whites arrive the native tribes (different savage Bantus)
have either killed each other off, starved or died of disease....
Niggers pour in from remote parts of the shit continent....(for "jobs"...)
The vicious jew insidious trash riles them up to kill and takeover...
Worldwide jew press jumps in....
Nigger savages take control through "elections"...
South Africa goes into chaos with savage niggers running wild, killing, destroying....
The vicious jews there run to izrahell in the wake of their destruction....
Whites are now trapped there in HELL...a once great White country being murdered,raped ,tortured, hacked apart by or this disgusting nigger trash...
COMING TO A PREVIOUSLY WHITE NATION NEAR YOU!!!!!

Re:Dead Lowlife Nigger

[Anonymous Coward]

The children are out in full force today!

Once again, burial

[seven of five]

According to the latest news, South Africa is burying Nelson Mandela on Dec 15th. Let us hope that someday a more enlightened society will be better prepared for the demise of its heroes and preserve them cryonically.

Do you oppose left-wing authoritarian regimes too?

[INowRegretThesePosts]

I hope that, for consistency, you are a staunch critic of Venezuela, Cuba, Vietnam and China.

The USA has its flaws, but many (maybe the majority) of its critics turn a blind eye to socialist atrocities, and often actively support it. I ask for consistency.

By the way: if there was a worldwide poll asking "if you could immigrate legally to any country, where would you go?". The USA would be in the top, likely #1. If you complain of economic disparity, then restrict your poll to poor people. The USA would still be at the top, because it has far more opportunity to poor people than most of the world.

Then do another poll: "in which country would you prefer to be treated as a political dissident?" The USA would be among the top.

Criticism of the USA must acknowledge its upsides. And make sure to criticize uniformly.

I heard that before

[INowRegretThesePosts]

The only reason Mandela sought the support of the Soviet Union was because the West had already turned him down.

I heard the same thing with respect to Fidel Castro. "He wasn't a communist, he turned to the Soviet Union because he had no alternative".
He then installed a one-party oppressive dictatorship and continues oppressing his people long after the end of the Cold War.
I have not formed an opinion on Mandela, but that kind of argument is suspicious.

Re:I heard that before

[PopeRatzo]

You can be as suspicious as you'd like. Mandela sought help from the West before going to the Soviet Union.

Margaret Thatcher's investments in apartheid South Africa made it a no-go. So, Mandela, unlike Reagan and Thatcher, did what he thought was best for the people of his country, black and white.

Hell Welcomes Its Own

[Anonymous Coward]

Mandela was a terrorist and a socialist. During his administration SA became a much more immoral place. I think he's probably preparing a place for O and O.

Freedom for enemies of freedom.

[hessian]

So, should there be freedom for enemies of freedom?

That really is an essential question.

There's a related question, which is what to do about people who don't want "freedom" -- those who oppose democracy and equality and want to live under another system.

You mean if you want to be a racist shitbag.

[Uberbah]

If we are to be honest rather than PC, whites were the reason South Africa was the most developed country in Africa

Aside from the obvious racism in that statement, there's leaving out the part that this "development" did not extend to 2/3 of the population. That's as asinine as saying Gaza is "most developed" because the Israelis have built some really nice settlements on the West Bank and the people of the right ethnicity get paid to move there.

Do you repeat brain dead winger talking points?

[Uberbah]

I hope that, for consistency, you are a staunch critic of Venezuela

Because "not renewing the license of a radio station that backed a freaking coup is so "authoritarian".

Cuba, Vietnam and China.

When has the U.S. sold large amounts of weapons to Cuba, Vietnam, or China?

Chavez is authoritarian

[INowRegretThesePosts]

I hope that, for consistency, you are a staunch critic of Venezuela

Because "not renewing the license of a radio station that backed a freaking coup is so "authoritarian".

See http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/03/05/venezuela-chavez-s-authoritarian-legacy

Chavism:
1) Turned the Supreme Court into its puppet.
2) Directly controls a large part of the media, and harasses much of the rest into submission.
3) Threatens, promotes hatred against, harasses and sometimes arrests, political dissidents.

Venezuela still has elections, yes. So did the Soviet Union. Elections are not enough to guarantee freedom; the elections need to be free and fair, and there needs to be freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, and generally the majority must respect the rights and liberties of the minorities and individuals. Also, the current government must never entrench itself. These guarantees were violated by the Soviet Union and are violated by Venezuela.

By the way, Chavez attempted a coup d'état himself, and constantly licked the boots of Fidel Castro and other dictators who were his heroes. A chavist complaining of "golpismo" is like the Ku Klux Klan complaining of racism. It is beyond incoherent.

When has the U.S. sold large amounts of weapons to Cuba, Vietnam, or China?

I don't get your point.