Can someone please invade Zimbabwe?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Sikander


No one was on a hotline to Washington, which quite frankly didn't care very much about this corner of the world, save that its supplies of strategic metals etc. from South Africa remained unharmed by Soviet clients in neighboring states.

'U.S. officials were for the most part more circumspect about expressing such views. The Reagan Administration could not openly link its proposals to the Front-line States to such crude threats. But the link was there nonetheless, and the Front-line States understood this. In late 1983, in an interview with the Johannesburg Financial Mail (November 18, 1983), Charles Lichenstein, the Deputy U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, made it abundantly plain that the U.S. and South Africa were working to the same plan. In as clear a threat as any American official had made publicly, Lichenstein said that "destabilization will remain in force until Angola and Mozambique do not permit their territory to be used by terrorists to at tack South Africa."

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/US_ThirdWorld/US_SAfrica_wars.html

Not what I'd call neglect...

[Ted Striker]

Give it up molly, you've got nothing but keep dragging this list of quotes from Angola on and on and on...

You've produced a patchwork of different sources dependent on the US/CIA Boogie Man Theory, and that at very best would should a US involvement on the periphery of events that were ALREADY IN MOTION.

On the other, hand you deny the common knowledge that says any US involvement in Africa amounts to a DROP IN THE BUCKET compared with the overwhelming direct control Europeans exercised over the continent for several hundred years.

But feel free to throw on more quotes that basically say the same thing over and over...

[rmsharpe]

Most of the problems in Africa today are the direct result of their own mistakes, not America or the former colonizing nations.

In my personal opinion, the only solution is the re-colonization of Africa and installation of white-ruled governments until the populous is educated enough and tribal rivalries can be crushed.

Think about it - many blacks even MOVED TO South Africa during "apartheid," because of the opportunities that other African countries didn't have.

[chequita guevara]

While direct covert aid to UNITA was outlawed in 1976, a year later, the CIA still had people directing UNITA actions in Angola. John Stockwell was the CIA cheif of operations in Angola, and he wrote a book about his experience there, In Search of Enemies: A CIA Story.

Sikander, the CIA closely cooperated with the South African security apparatus. To say that South Africa was largely responsible for RENAMO and UNITA overlooks the point that the US gave aid to South Africa specifically for the purpose of being given to these thugs. With the CIA and South African security working so closely together, don't you think it's not much of a leap for the CIA people there to be directing RENAMO and UNITA? Given that Stockwell admits what he was doing, it's not a leap at all. It's historical fact.

[Ted Striker]

It's still a raindrop in the middle of a raging river.

[Ted Striker]

Oh, and by the way, the 2 countries leading the peace negotiations in that situation -- UK and US

[Sikander]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
While direct covert aid to UNITA was outlawed in 1976, a year later, the CIA still had people directing UNITA actions in Angola. John Stockwell was the CIA cheif of operations in Angola, and he wrote a book about his experience there, In Search of Enemies: A CIA Story.

Sikander, the CIA closely cooperated with the South African security apparatus. To say that South Africa was largely responsible for RENAMO and UNITA overlooks the point that the US gave aid to South Africa specifically for the purpose of being given to these thugs. With the CIA and South African security working so closely together, don't you think it's not much of a leap for the CIA people there to be directing RENAMO and UNITA? Given that Stockwell admits what he was doing, it's not a leap at all. It's historical fact.

UNITA was largely an American backed operation that was later supported in conjuction with South Africa. RENAMO was a South African operation whose connections to the U.S. are tenuous at best. Don't confuse the two, or make a connection that I have seen no proof for despite the volume of links and quoted text and my own long interest in the subject. I have never seen any information that would indicate any sort of operational control of RENAMO from Washington, and I have seen plenty of information both at the time and now that indicated South African control of RENAMO both politically and operationally from the end of Rhodesia. Show me some evidence to the contrary and I will consider it, otherwise I think my appraisal is pretty fair.

I don't doubt that the U.S. was happy that RENAMO was making life difficult for Mozambique's regime, but the U.S. did not fight the Cold War alone nor did they direct every action of every group nominally on "our side". Very far from it.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
Give it up molly, you've got nothing but keep dragging this list of quotes from Angola on and on and on...

On the other, hand you deny the common knowledge that says any US involvement in Africa amounts to a DROP IN THE BUCKET compared with the overwhelming direct control Europeans exercised over the continent for several hundred years.

But feel free to throw on more quotes that basically say the same thing over and over...

Ah yes, 'common' knowledge. What one falls back on, when you have no argument.

In how many African countries post independence has the United States acted to remove the head of state or financed a civil war, or terrorist attacks? Care to hazard a guess, Ted old bean?

Take Ghana. Kwame Nkrumah removed.
The Congo/Zaire- Patrice Lumumba removed.
Angola- civil war.
Uganda- civil war.
Mozambique- civil war.
Ethiopia- civil war.
The Sudan- civil war.
Liberia- a coup and a civil war.
Botswana, Zambia, Lesotho, Zimbabwe and Namibia and Mozambique- terrorist attacks and direct military intervention by the U.S. proxies, apartheid South Africa, and racist Rhodesia.
Somalia and Libya- direct military intervention by the U.S.

The list goes on, but suffice to say, the U.S. has been busy, either directly or indirectly. The net result- appalling poverty, refugees on a colossal scale, and its client state Zaire becoming the eighth poorest nation on earth after 30 years of rule by the United States' stooge Mobutu. That's not a bad achievement for a country that holds the world's largest reserves of cobalt (70%) .

'The economic stakes in the Congo basin are high. The Inga Dam alone could provide enough hydroelectric power to meet all the current needs of SADC nations, including South Africa. The Congo/Zaire has been the world's largest cobalt exporter and has ranked among the top ten world producers of uranium, copper, manganese, and tin--all vital to aerospace and military industries. The major importer of these low-cost minerals has been U.S. industry. In addition, the biodiversity riches of the vast rain forest have yet to be mapped. U.S. and Belgian mining corporations continue to mine Congo's minerals, including diamonds, making enormous profits during the instability. '

-Carol Thompson is a specialist on Southern Africa and a professor of political economy at Northern Arizona University. She is on sabbatical, doing research and writing at the University of Zimbabwe

What did the U.S. get for its support of Ian Smith's Rhodesia (remember, Ted, the U.S., along with Salazar's fascist regime in Portugal and South Africa helped break sanctions on Rhodesia) and the apartheid state?

Well, in Mozambique it gained a country among the top ten poorest in the world, with a per capita income of $ 80 in 1984. Not a bad investment, eh? And why was the U.S. interested in Mozambique? This U.S.A.F. assessment may give an inkling:

'The long term payoff would be a stable country in Southern Africa friendly to the U.S., one which would promote peaceful regional initiatives. Militarily, it is useful as a strategic access to secure lines of communications as well as the strategic minerals it possesses. It would be beneficial to our nation while
providing the basis for Mozambique to rebuild itself.

MOZAMBIQUE'S SIXTEEN-YEAR BLOODY CIVIL WAR

Since December 1990, Mozambique has enjoyed a partial cease fire from its 16-year devastating Civil War. This war has torn the nation apart and has caused
widespread economic misery and famine. Few Americans are familiar with Mozambique; therefore, a review of its background and development, including the
current status of its brutal Civil War, will help determine if it is in our national interest economically and militarily to continue our current involvement.

Mozambique is located on the Indian Ocean in southern Africa. Its 2,000-mile coastline and three major ports of Maputo, Beira, and Nacala are all ideally suited
for naval bases and have long been coveted by the superpowers. These ports, from which a great power could interdict, or at least disrupt, Indian Ocean commerce and alter the balance of power in Southern Africa, also offer international gateways to the landlocked countries of the region.

The nation's strategic importance, however, transcends its geographic position. Mozambique, according to Business International, "Mozambique: On the Road to
Reconstruction and Development? (Geneva, 1980), has enormous mineral potential.

The world's largest reserve of columbotantalite, which is used to make nuclear reactors and aircraft and missile parts, is located in Zambezia Province in central
Mozambique. The country is the second most important producer of beryllium, another highly desired strategic mineral.(5:1)....

Militarily, it is very attractive to have strategic access to a "choke point" such as Capetown point to secure lines of logistical reinforcement for naval supremacy. Additionally, the strategic minerals in Mozambique could be useful to the U.S. U.S. support to Mozambique contingent on a continued cease fire of its civil war would be beneficial to our nation while providing the basis for Mozambique to rebuild itself."

AUTHOR Major Lance S. Young, USAF
CSC 1991
SUBJECT AREA - General
MOZAMBIQUE'S 16-YEAR BLOODY CIVIL WAR
OUTLINE
THESIS: Our exploration of the background and development of Mozambique,
including the current status of its brutal Civil War, demonstrates that it is in our national interest economically and militarily to continue to support the nation's evolution.

Note- he makes next to no reference to who helped prosecute the civil war in Mozambique- perhaps that would have been a little impolitic.

Sikander- I said the C.I.A. armed and funded Renamo. At no point did I suggest that the C.I.A. directed Renamo's operations. If the C.I.A. armed South African forces, or sold arms to South Africa to be used by Renamo, or gave funds to South Africa to be used to arm Renamo, then ultimately the C.I.A. funded and armed Renamo. This does not imply that the C.I.A. was the sole supporter of Renamo. As John Stockwell, ex-C.I.A. agent seems to agree:

"And the CIA director was required by law to brief the Congress. This CIA director Bill Colby - the same one that dumped our people in Vietnam - he gave 36 briefings of the Congress, the oversight committees, about what we were doing in Angola. And he lied. At 36 formal briefings. And such lies are perjury, and it's a felony to lie to the Congress.

He lied about our relationship with South Africa. We were working closely with the South African army, giving them our arms, coordinating battles with them, giving them fuel for their tanks and armored cars. He said we were staying well away from them. They were concerned about these white mercenaries that were appearing in Angola, a very sensitive issue, hiring whites to go into a black African country, to help you impose your will on that black African country by killing the blacks, a very sensitive issue. The Congress was concerned we might be involved in that, and he assured them we had nothing to do with it."

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Stockwell/StockwellCIA87_1.html

"The CIA has traditionally sympathized with South Africa and enjoyed its close liaison with BOSS. The two organizations share a violent antipathy toward communism and in the early sixties the South Africans had facilitated the agency's development of a mercenary army to suppress the Congo rebellion. BOSS, however, tolerates little clandestine nonsense inside the country and the CIA had always restricted its Pretoria station's activity to maintaining the liaison with BOSS. That is, until 1974, when it yielded to intense pressures in Washington and expanded the Pretoria station's responsibilities to include covert operations to gather intelligence about the South African nuclear project. In the summer of 1975 BOSS rolled up this effort and quietly expelled those CIA personnel directly involved. The agency did not complain, as the effort was acknowledged to have been clumsy and obvious. The agency continued its cordial relationship with BOSS.
Thus, without any memos being written at CIA headquarters saying "Let's coordinate with the South Africans," coordination was effected at all CIA levels and the South Africans escalated their involvement in step with our own."
The South African question led me into another confrontation with Potts. South African racial policies had of course become a hated symbol to blacks, civil libertarians, and world minorities-the focal point of centuries-old resentment of racism, colonialism, and white domination. Did Potts not see that the South Africans were attempting to draw closer to the United States, in preparation for future confrontations with the blacks in southern Africa? If he did, he was not troubled by the prospect. Potts viewed South Africa pragmatically, as a friend of the CIA and a potential ally of the United States. After all, twenty major American companies have interests in South Africa and the United States maintains a valuable NASA tracking station not far from Pretoria. Eventually Potts concluded, in one of our conversations, that blacks were "irrational" on the subject of South Africa. This term caught on. It even crept into the cable traffic when the South African presence became known and the Nigerians, Tanzanians, and Ugandans reacted vigorously.
Escalation was a game the CIA and South Africa played very well together. In October the South Africans requested, through the CIA station chief in Pretoria, ammunition for their 155 mm. howitzers. It was not clear whether they intended to use this ammunition in Angola. At about the same time the CIA was seeking funds for another shipload of arms and worrying about how to get those arms into Angola efficiently. Our experience with the American Champion had us all dreading the thought of working another shipload of arms through the congested Matadi port and attempting to fly them into Angola with our ragtag little air force. The thought of putting the next shipload of arms into Walvis Bay in South-West Africa, where South African efficiency would rush them by C-l30 to the fighting fronts, was irresistible to Jim Potts.
At the same time, Savimbi and Roberto were both running short of petrol. The South Africans had delivered small amounts in their C-l30s, but they could not be expected to fuel the entire war, not with an Arab boycott on the sale of oil to South Africa. The MPLA's fuel problems had been solved when a tanker put into Luanda in September, and Potts, in frustration, began to consider having a tanker follow the second arms shipload to Walvis Bay.
When Potts proposed this to the working group, he met firm opposition: He was told by Ambassador Mulcahy that the sale or delivery of arms to South Africa was prohibited by a long-standing U.S. law. Never easily discouraged, Potts sent one of his aides to the CIA library, and in the next working group meeting triumphantly read to the working group the text of the thirteen-year-old "law."
"You see, gentlemen," he concluded with obvious satisfaction. "It isn't a law. It's a policy decision made under the Kennedy administration. Times have now changed and, given our present problems, we should have no difficulty modifying this policy." He meant that a few technical strings could be pulled on the hill, Kissinger could wave his hand over a piece of paper, and a planeload of arms could leave for South Africa the next day.
p250

In Search of Enemies, John Stockwell

and finally:

"In assessing the prospects for the future, it should be remembered that South Africa and the U.S . have embarked on an extremely ambitious and rash exercise, that of bringing an end to socialist experiments in the entire southern African region. It has been clear for some time that they are bent on overthrowing the socialist governments already established there. In the spring of 1983, western diplomats at the U.N. were already speaking of ''the determination on the part of the Reagan Administration and South Africa to gradually rid southern Africa of Marxist regimes." (Louis Wiznitzer, ''U.N. Security Council Likely to be Drawn Into Namibian Debate,'' Christian Science Monitor, March 31, 1983. )
This means that the pressure on Angola and Mozambique in particular is bound to increase. There is now a real danger that, by a combination of economic, political, and military pressure, South Africa and the U.S. will continue to seek to overthrow the Machel government in Mozambique, opening a serious breach in the Front-line States and paving the way to expanded regional conflict and economic and social chaos.
Before that happens, the Congress and the public should look much more closely at the role which the Reagan Administration has been playing in southern Africa during the last three years. For the war against the Front-line States which it has been waging jointly with South Africa is illegal and barbarous. It should not be permitted to continue.
Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Chester Crocker has said that he wants to see "negotiated solutions" and ''peaceful change'' in southern Africa. In pursuit of this goal, the Reagan Administration and its racist ally have unleashed a war which has devastated an entire subcontinent and cost tens of thousands of lives. This is terrorism on a scale which has not been seen since the U.S. intervention in Indochina.


Sean Gervasi is a visiting professor of economics at the university of Paris, and former Assistant in the Office of the U.N. commissioner for Namibia.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/US_ThirdWorld/US_SAfrica_wars.html

[Sikander]

Could you highlight the portion of that which supports your point about RENAMO being armed and funded by the CIA? I don't see it. This looks mainly like a bunch of stuff about UNITA, which I only mentioned in a previous post to say that I haven't mentioned them, just RENAMO.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by molly bloom


Ah yes, 'common' knowledge. What one falls back on, when you have no argument.

In how many African countries post independence has the United States acted to remove the head of state or financed a civil war, or terrorist attacks? Care to hazard a guess, Ted old bean?

Take Ghana. Kwame Nkrumah removed.
The Congo/Zaire- Patrice Lumumba removed.
Angola- civil war.
Uganda- civil war.
Mozambique- civil war.
Ethiopia- civil war.
The Sudan- civil war.
Liberia- a coup and a civil war.
Botswana, Zambia, Lesotho, Zimbabwe and Namibia and Mozambique- terrorist attacks and direct military intervention by the U.S. proxies, apartheid South Africa, and racist Rhodesia.
Somalia and Libya- direct military intervention by the U.S.

The list goes on, but suffice to say, the U.S. has been busy, either directly or indirectly. The net result- appalling poverty, refugees on a colossal scale, and its client state Zaire becoming the eighth poorest nation on earth after 30 years of rule by the United States' stooge Mobutu. That's not a bad achievement for a country that holds the world's largest reserves of cobalt (70%) .

'The economic stakes in the Congo basin are high. The Inga Dam alone could provide enough hydroelectric power to meet all the current needs of SADC nations, including South Africa. The Congo/Zaire has been the world's largest cobalt exporter and has ranked among the top ten world producers of uranium, copper, manganese, and tin--all vital to aerospace and military industries. The major importer of these low-cost minerals has been U.S. industry. In addition, the biodiversity riches of the vast rain forest have yet to be mapped. U.S. and Belgian mining corporations continue to mine Congo's minerals, including diamonds, making enormous profits during the instability. '

-Carol Thompson is a specialist on Southern Africa and a professor of political economy at Northern Arizona University. She is on sabbatical, doing research and writing at the University of Zimbabwe

What did the U.S. get for its support of Ian Smith's Rhodesia (remember, Ted, the U.S., along with Salazar's fascist regime in Portugal and South Africa helped break sanctions on Rhodesia) and the apartheid state?

Well, in Mozambique it gained a country among the top ten poorest in the world, with a per capita income of $ 80 in 1984. Not a bad investment, eh? And why was the U.S. interested in Mozambique? This U.S.A.F. assessment may give an inkling:

'The long term payoff would be a stable country in Southern Africa friendly to the U.S., one which would promote peaceful regional initiatives. Militarily, it is useful as a strategic access to secure lines of communications as well as the strategic minerals it possesses. It would be beneficial to our nation while
providing the basis for Mozambique to rebuild itself.

MOZAMBIQUE'S SIXTEEN-YEAR BLOODY CIVIL WAR

Since December 1990, Mozambique has enjoyed a partial cease fire from its 16-year devastating Civil War. This war has torn the nation apart and has caused
widespread economic misery and famine. Few Americans are familiar with Mozambique; therefore, a review of its background and development, including the
current status of its brutal Civil War, will help determine if it is in our national interest economically and militarily to continue our current involvement.

Mozambique is located on the Indian Ocean in southern Africa. Its 2,000-mile coastline and three major ports of Maputo, Beira, and Nacala are all ideally suited
for naval bases and have long been coveted by the superpowers. These ports, from which a great power could interdict, or at least disrupt, Indian Ocean commerce and alter the balance of power in Southern Africa, also offer international gateways to the landlocked countries of the region.

The nation's strategic importance, however, transcends its geographic position. Mozambique, according to Business International, "Mozambique: On the Road to
Reconstruction and Development? (Geneva, 1980), has enormous mineral potential.

The world's largest reserve of columbotantalite, which is used to make nuclear reactors and aircraft and missile parts, is located in Zambezia Province in central
Mozambique. The country is the second most important producer of beryllium, another highly desired strategic mineral.(5:1)....

Militarily, it is very attractive to have strategic access to a "choke point" such as Capetown point to secure lines of logistical reinforcement for naval supremacy. Additionally, the strategic minerals in Mozambique could be useful to the U.S. U.S. support to Mozambique contingent on a continued cease fire of its civil war would be beneficial to our nation while providing the basis for Mozambique to rebuild itself."

AUTHOR Major Lance S. Young, USAF
CSC 1991
SUBJECT AREA - General
MOZAMBIQUE'S 16-YEAR BLOODY CIVIL WAR
OUTLINE
THESIS: Our exploration of the background and development of Mozambique,
including the current status of its brutal Civil War, demonstrates that it is in our national interest economically and militarily to continue to support the nation's evolution.

Note- he makes next to no reference to who helped prosecute the civil war in Mozambique- perhaps that would have been a little impolitic.

Sikander- I said the C.I.A. armed and funded Renamo. At no point did I suggest that the C.I.A. directed Renamo's operations. If the C.I.A. armed South African forces, or sold arms to South Africa to be used by Renamo, or gave funds to South Africa to be used to arm Renamo, then ultimately the C.I.A. funded and armed Renamo. This does not imply that the C.I.A. was the sole supporter of Renamo. As John Stockwell, ex-C.I.A. agent seems to agree:

"And the CIA director was required by law to brief the Congress. This CIA director Bill Colby - the same one that dumped our people in Vietnam - he gave 36 briefings of the Congress, the oversight committees, about what we were doing in Angola. And he lied. At 36 formal briefings. And such lies are perjury, and it's a felony to lie to the Congress.

He lied about our relationship with South Africa. We were working closely with the South African army, giving them our arms, coordinating battles with them, giving them fuel for their tanks and armored cars. He said we were staying well away from them. They were concerned about these white mercenaries that were appearing in Angola, a very sensitive issue, hiring whites to go into a black African country, to help you impose your will on that black African country by killing the blacks, a very sensitive issue. The Congress was concerned we might be involved in that, and he assured them we had nothing to do with it."

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Stockwell/StockwellCIA87_1.html

"The CIA has traditionally sympathized with South Africa and enjoyed its close liaison with BOSS. The two organizations share a violent antipathy toward communism and in the early sixties the South Africans had facilitated the agency's development of a mercenary army to suppress the Congo rebellion. BOSS, however, tolerates little clandestine nonsense inside the country and the CIA had always restricted its Pretoria station's activity to maintaining the liaison with BOSS. That is, until 1974, when it yielded to intense pressures in Washington and expanded the Pretoria station's responsibilities to include covert operations to gather intelligence about the South African nuclear project. In the summer of 1975 BOSS rolled up this effort and quietly expelled those CIA personnel directly involved. The agency did not complain, as the effort was acknowledged to have been clumsy and obvious. The agency continued its cordial relationship with BOSS.
Thus, without any memos being written at CIA headquarters saying "Let's coordinate with the South Africans," coordination was effected at all CIA levels and the South Africans escalated their involvement in step with our own."
The South African question led me into another confrontation with Potts. South African racial policies had of course become a hated symbol to blacks, civil libertarians, and world minorities-the focal point of centuries-old resentment of racism, colonialism, and white domination. Did Potts not see that the South Africans were attempting to draw closer to the United States, in preparation for future confrontations with the blacks in southern Africa? If he did, he was not troubled by the prospect. Potts viewed South Africa pragmatically, as a friend of the CIA and a potential ally of the United States. After all, twenty major American companies have interests in South Africa and the United States maintains a valuable NASA tracking station not far from Pretoria. Eventually Potts concluded, in one of our conversations, that blacks were "irrational" on the subject of South Africa. This term caught on. It even crept into the cable traffic when the South African presence became known and the Nigerians, Tanzanians, and Ugandans reacted vigorously.
Escalation was a game the CIA and South Africa played very well together. In October the South Africans requested, through the CIA station chief in Pretoria, ammunition for their 155 mm. howitzers. It was not clear whether they intended to use this ammunition in Angola. At about the same time the CIA was seeking funds for another shipload of arms and worrying about how to get those arms into Angola efficiently. Our experience with the American Champion had us all dreading the thought of working another shipload of arms through the congested Matadi port and attempting to fly them into Angola with our ragtag little air force. The thought of putting the next shipload of arms into Walvis Bay in South-West Africa, where South African efficiency would rush them by C-l30 to the fighting fronts, was irresistible to Jim Potts.
At the same time, Savimbi and Roberto were both running short of petrol. The South Africans had delivered small amounts in their C-l30s, but they could not be expected to fuel the entire war, not with an Arab boycott on the sale of oil to South Africa. The MPLA's fuel problems had been solved when a tanker put into Luanda in September, and Potts, in frustration, began to consider having a tanker follow the second arms shipload to Walvis Bay.
When Potts proposed this to the working group, he met firm opposition: He was told by Ambassador Mulcahy that the sale or delivery of arms to South Africa was prohibited by a long-standing U.S. law. Never easily discouraged, Potts sent one of his aides to the CIA library, and in the next working group meeting triumphantly read to the working group the text of the thirteen-year-old "law."
"You see, gentlemen," he concluded with obvious satisfaction. "It isn't a law. It's a policy decision made under the Kennedy administration. Times have now changed and, given our present problems, we should have no difficulty modifying this policy." He meant that a few technical strings could be pulled on the hill, Kissinger could wave his hand over a piece of paper, and a planeload of arms could leave for South Africa the next day.
p250

In Search of Enemies, John Stockwell

and finally:

"In assessing the prospects for the future, it should be remembered that South Africa and the U.S . have embarked on an extremely ambitious and rash exercise, that of bringing an end to socialist experiments in the entire southern African region. It has been clear for some time that they are bent on overthrowing the socialist governments already established there. In the spring of 1983, western diplomats at the U.N. were already speaking of ''the determination on the part of the Reagan Administration and South Africa to gradually rid southern Africa of Marxist regimes." (Louis Wiznitzer, ''U.N. Security Council Likely to be Drawn Into Namibian Debate,'' Christian Science Monitor, March 31, 1983. )
This means that the pressure on Angola and Mozambique in particular is bound to increase. There is now a real danger that, by a combination of economic, political, and military pressure, South Africa and the U.S. will continue to seek to overthrow the Machel government in Mozambique, opening a serious breach in the Front-line States and paving the way to expanded regional conflict and economic and social chaos.
Before that happens, the Congress and the public should look much more closely at the role which the Reagan Administration has been playing in southern Africa during the last three years. For the war against the Front-line States which it has been waging jointly with South Africa is illegal and barbarous. It should not be permitted to continue.
Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Chester Crocker has said that he wants to see "negotiated solutions" and ''peaceful change'' in southern Africa. In pursuit of this goal, the Reagan Administration and its racist ally have unleashed a war which has devastated an entire subcontinent and cost tens of thousands of lives. This is terrorism on a scale which has not been seen since the U.S. intervention in Indochina.


Sean Gervasi is a visiting professor of economics at the university of Paris, and former Assistant in the Office of the U.N. commissioner for Namibia.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/US...rica_wars.html

This is all well and good, (though questionable) but it's still a drop in a river compared with the effects of hundreds of years of direct European rule. Those places were all messed up in the first place when they were abondoned by their European overlords.

But hey if you want to cite more lengthy Boogie Man lists, by all means go ahead, I'm not going to stop you.

I think the US was directly responsible for Apartheid as well.

[chequita guevara]

Ted, do you know of the concept of selective quoting?

[Pekka]

This Mugabe guy makes me aggressive. Every time I read about this jerk, or see his picture, I become aggressive. It's almost personal, if I'll ever get the chance, I won't think twice or blink.

[Pekka]

I hope you guys are happy now. I have to go running to calm down. Someone just please KILL THIS GUY!

[chequita guevara]

Why? He's a thug, but by any objective standard, he's comparitively tame. I already listed a bunch of countries that are far worse than Mugabe's Zimbabwe. I think the main problem most people have with him is that he's picking on poor little white colonizers who farm stolen land.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I think the main problem most people have with him is that he's picking on poor little white colonizers who farm stolen land.

The main problem people have is that his policies have ruined what used to be a breadbasket of Africa.