Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Thoughts on US Politics from a member of the SA Firearms Forum

Expand Messages
  • JoAn Wilcox
    Greetings, Keep in mind this man is Afrikans, a decendent of the Boers, so you will see occassional slips into the Afrikaans language. I thought this was
    Message 1 of 1 , Mar 31, 2004
      Keep in mind this man is Afrikans, a decendent of the Boers, so you will see occassional slips into the Afrikaans language.
      I thought this was interesting and I hope you will too. It was written by a member of the South African Firearms Forum group I am a member of. I removed the man's name, but I have written to him on several occassions and he is a regular contributer to our forum. Though you and I might not agree 100 % with his comments, you might find his perception quite interesting. I think I mentioned one time in the past, that on 911 I was reading my SA e-mail and that is how I received the early warning and saw almost the whole televised coverage.  They are my early warning system, since they are 9 or 10 hours ahead of us, depending on DST.
      Because of my work with Jan Lamprecht and my involvment with various people in southern Africa, I am aware of how they follow our politics. When I read this I thought to myself, I wonder if there is a soul on this forum who could write the same number of words on politics in SA, and come as close to right as Brett did? They are right, about Americans. We are, as a people, nieve and self interested. Too busy to pay attention to what is going on in our own country, let a lone what goes on in the rest of the world. I'm not making reference to those who participate on forums like this one, but  the American people in general.
      Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 10:01 PM
      Subject: Re: [SAFirearmForum] ISS :

      Sure, the US tried to manipulate a balance of terror in the M.East, weakening both Iran and Iraq at times militarily.
      It wanted neither country to gain ascendancy because of the Iran hostage affair which was encouraged by a perception of US weakness after the fall of Saigon.
      Sure, because of the strength of the pro-Israel lobby and its influence with the Democratic National Committee the US foreign policy mandarins have never come to grips with the real destabilising force in the M East and that is the inhuman treatment of Palestinians and the reign of terror over them which more than anything else was THE causal factor leading to 9 11. But, the US cannot be all things to all people -- why do the Arab countries that have massive amounts of oil cash not pump funds into the West Bank and make those people financially independent of Israel? Then, there would be no need for a wall. Most Arab states are now recognising Israel's right to exist, after all.

      Sure, since the oil crises of the 70's a stable oil supply has been regarded as of vital national interest to the US. A vital national interest means it would go to war to protect that supply. Why? Because the US economy would collapse if its oil flow was interrupted. That is why oil plays such a big role in US politics.

      Of course Kuwait was part of Iraq, but that is like Palestine, historically a British screw up that the US started carrying the can for after the collapse of the Empire. ( heheheh. Which we and our MAusers helped start!) Should Saddam's military aggression have been appeased? Who elected Saddam to be the champion of any arab people? How many arabs did Saddam kill? How many Iraqis?

      I LMAO when people try to portray the Bush family as Standard Oil. At best, they were small time wildcatters who are not even moderately wealthy by Texas oil boom standards. And yes, I know Exxon named an oil tanker after Condoleezza Rice and yes, I know both Bush and Kerry are skulls and bonesers.

      The increasingly likely possibility of not having Bush re-elected scares me ........., because we know democrats and guns do not mix. Besides, he showed great leadership under fire. Everyone conveniently forgets the weeks after 9 11 when it looked as if the US and indeed the world was staring economic depression in the face, with the heart of the world's financial capital taken out.

      The Bush family are absolutely useless at marketing themselves. Feel like mailing him and telling him to catch a wake-up, vuka in a major way, or he is out. But, the filtering software would not let that mail through! Bush1 was the same, totally lacking in Slick's ability to promote himself and shrug off responsibility for screw-ups while claiming credit for other people's achievements. Who credits a 10 year economic boom to Bush1's financial management and consolidation after Reagan's (Greatest man of second half of 20th century) liberation of the US economy?
      I do not like the way  the Republican Revolution was betrayed and sold out to big business either, but US gunowners are trapped in a 2 party system. We all saw what happens when a third candidate enters the arena, but that can only be fixed through run-off elections and no-one seems to want to change the US electoral system.

      It burns me that no-one remembers more people voted against Bill Clinton than for him. Conveniently, few members of the US media remember how he weakened US national security. There are plenty of retired CIA people living in the Cape. They know how the Klintonistas weakened the CIA's intelligence gathering capabilities. And, the FBI was more intent on fighting US gunowners in places like Waco than keeping al-Qaeda out of the US....

      The bottom line is, Bush1 tried a multi-lateral approach to deal with state terrorism in the Mid East and it failed, because everyone had their own agenda. US taxpayers got stuck with the bill. FOr 10 years, the UN kept a US presence off Kuwait to keep the lid on Saddam. It made a laughing stock of the US and weakened its interests to such an extent that Arab radicals -- who had sympathy for Saddam when it suited them -- thought they could get away with hitting the world trade centres. Add to that the betrayals in Bosnia and Kosovo....The fiasco in Mogadishu....

      Bush and Blair shouldn't have used WMD as an excuse to invade Iraq. They should have spelled out the facts clearly and told those who did not like it to go screw themselves. Of course, lekkker for the gun-grabber Blair -- he could not refuse to go along with Bush. It would have been a foreign policy disaster. Many UK citizens were killed at the WTC. PR disaster! He could not betray the 'special relationship' between the US and the UK, because it is a corner stone of UK foreign policy. So, for once, Smiley could not wriggle his way out of a tight spot -- no choice but vasbyt -- now Smiley is left wringing his gun-grabbing little hands.... LMAO! While his little countrymen agonise over the UK's forces actually hurting real people..... To think those people won the RWC.....Sies! Wish we could replay the Boer War -- they would quit after Ladysmith!

      ----- Original Message -----
        From: dierk_luthi@...
        To: SAFirearmForum@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 1:20 PM
        Subject: Re: [SAFirearmForum] ISS :

        ... except

        that Saddam would still be sitting pretty if he had not made the cardinal
        error of invading OIL - rich Kuwait (which was part of Iraq for 1000's of
        years before OIL was discovered and an artificial Sheikhdom/Kingdom was

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

      Any and all opinions expressed on this group are purely those of the author, not those of any organisation.

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.