Skip to comments.The Threat From South Africa
Posted on 03/16/2005 11:08:41 AM PST by Tailgunner Joe
President Bush has issued a statement on "Ten Years of Democracy in South Africa," conveniently ignoring the fact that South African President Thabo Mbeki is a Marxist who has surrounded himself with followers of radical Islam. The other curious omission is that while the president complimented "South Africa's commitment to progress at home and around the world," evidence is emerging that South Africa has played a role in nuclear weapons proliferation, including to Iran. The evidence is contained in a hot new book, Iran's Nuclear Option: Tehran's Quest for the Atom Bomb, by journalist Al Venter.
Some people forget that the white government of South Africa produced 6 atomic bombs. Those were reportedly destroyed when a black majority government took over. But remnants of South Africa's nuclear program remained. The white government had cooperated with Israel but that cooperation was terminated after Nelson Mandela was elected president of South Africa. That's apparently when the Iranian mullahs stepped in.
Venter, an international correspondent for nearly 30 years, was presented with an ethical dilemma in 1997 when he met with Dr. Waldo Stumpf, head of South Africa's nuclear program. He says Stumph told him a story-off the record-about the atomic energy minister for Iran arriving with a shopping list of nuclear materials for a nuclear bomb. At the time, Venter was working for the Jane's Information Group. He was shocked by the story of Iran's search for a nuclear bomb but was constrained in telling it because it had been given to him off the record. He considered it a story that could change the course of history. "The world has a right to know," he concluded.
(Excerpt) Read more at aim.org ...
The ANC are Red to the core.
Look in the dictionary for the word 'mess'. South Africa is featured just below Zimbabwe.
As long as Mbeki is in charge, SA is NOT a democracy. It is a marxist state.
Overlooked in this interesting posting, is the absurdity of President Bush's caption, itself. South Africa, under the previous Government was Democratic. The delusion that it was not, is the result of Leftist dogma that insisted that the South Africans and the various Bantu Nations, and other peoples within what had been the British Imperial borders, were "one nation." Anyone who cared to seriously study South African history and demographics understood that that was nonsense--one of the great lies concocted by the 20th Century Left.
The white SA government was fighting the same battle as the Shah of Iran was fighting. yet, we let the leftist media portray both as suppressing a real democratic uprising while murdering thousands of innocents. We now see the outcome.
I'm not sure I agree with your statement that South Africa was democratic. Essentially the homelands only had government-approved candidates, so that any vote there was of academic only. Outside of the homelands, blacks could not vote, and also had no say in governing the homelands, it was puppet governments installed by the whites.
Yes, there are many nations in South Africa, and the current solution is no better than apartheid.
Few people know that the muslim Pahad brothers (Essop and Aziz) are close confidants and advisors to the current and previous presidents of South Africa.
I believe Al Venter, he is an experienced and accurate journalist, although not always politically correct.
The muslims in SA are mostly Sunni's, the same as Saddam and accoding to my best knowledge, the mullahs in Iran. Aziz Pahad was sent to Saddam just before the war to advise him...I guess it didn't help much :-)
Apartheid was never completely applied, because of opposition from the business community, engendered by reasoning not unlike that which prevents our dealing with Third World immigration, in a rational manner. Once you acknowledge that the different peoples in South Africa are in fact truly different nations, you have accepted the premise of Apartheid. It was never intended to exploit anyone, rather return the distinct peoples to their pre-Colonial independence.
I am not an advocate of "Democracy," for most countries. Frankly, I consider it completely unsuitable for a majority of the nations of the earth. But the South Africans--the people whom the name really applies to ethnically, rather than merely all those living in what the White Settlers chose to call South Africa--had a fully functioning Democratic Republic at the time they were pressured into the present world of make believe.
The fact is also, that many of the Bantu tribes--even the monarchial ones--have a very Democratic institution called "Indaba." It works a bit like a New England Town Meeting, save for the fact that in reflecting the greater sociability among the Bantu, the end is to achieve unanimity on policy, rather than vigorous dissent.
South Africa, both then and now, is a wonderful example of why one nation should not try to manage another nation's business. One can learn a very great deal by studying South African history.
My interest in South Africa has always been fueled by the fact that its settler peoples have a history that more closely parallels that of the United States, than does the history of any other people on the earth.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.