NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.foxnews.com/images/335555/0_61_011008_SecurityBarrier02.jpg
Jacob Zuma, South Afrika's Next President: Exposed

He may be the most controversial figure in African politics — a skirt-chasing, self-described "Zulu Boy" shrouded by accusations of corruption and rape who marches to a catchy tune called "Bring Me My Machine Gun."

South Africa, meet your next president.

Jacob Zuma, the 65-year-old "100 Percent Zulu Boy" and new leader of South Africa's ruling African National Congress (ANC), has garnered the popular support of communists and young people, some of whom publicly display anti-gay and anti-feminist views.

South African presidents are chosen by the 400 members of the directly-elected National Assembly, one of the two houses of parliament.

Although more than a dozen parties are represented in parliament, the ruling ANC has been the main player in South African politics since 1994, which means that Zuma is the most likely successor when current president Thabo Mbeki steps down.

(The ANC's rivals include the Democratic Alliance (DA), the biggest opposition party, and the predominantly Zulu Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP).)

Women's groups may be sounding off over the values of the polygamist president-to-be, but Zuma is no stranger to controversy.

Zuma has an estimated 20 children by six different women. His eldest wife, Sizakele Khumao, has renounced her "first lady" status in favor of his new 33-year-old wife.

A former wife, Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma, is South Africa's foreign minister and a potential political rival. Another wife killed herself in 2000.

Despite Zuma's removal as deputy president of South Africa after fraud charges two years ago, and subsequent corruption and rape charges, the ANC announced this week that the party will support his candidacy for the national presidency.

During his rape trial, Zuma took a "short skirt" excuse, claiming it was his duty as a Zulu warrior to have sex with a woman if she wore a short kanga (an African wrap), and that he could not leave her "unfulfilled."

Zuma told the court that he knew the woman was "clearly aroused" by the fact that her kanga was "quite short" — meaning knee-length.

"In the Zulu culture, you cannot just leave a woman if she is ready," he explained.

According to his defense team, Zulu men have sexual primacy over women. Therefore, he could not be guilty.

"To deny her sex, that would have been tantamount to rape," Zuma claimed.

The accusing woman, who was 31 and HIV-positive at the time of the incident, is the daughter of one of Zuma's now-dead liberation-war comrades.

She alleged that when she went for advice in late 2005 to the home of the man she had known since childhood and had always called "uncle," Zuma forced his 250-pound frame upon her.

During the subsequent trial, thousands of Zuma's supporters congregated outside the courthouse, chanting "kill the bitch" and pelting the accuser with rocks as she arrived each morning. She was given police protection due to death threats.

At one point, Zuma was caught attempting to bribe the victim's aunt with an offer of two cows and a new garden fence in exchange for persuading the victim to withdraw the allegations.

But was Zuma, the former head of the National AIDS Council in a country where one in seven citizens are HIV-positive, and aware of the woman's HIV-positive status, concerned about unprotected sex?

"I had a shower afterwards," Zuma explained after announcing that he had chosen not to use a condom.

In a country where, according to human rights groups, a woman is raped every 26 seconds, Zuma was found not guilty. His accuser has been granted asylum in the Netherlands.

Zuma's throngs of supporters, who refer to him as simply "JZ," dismiss the rape and corruption allegations as plots masterminded by government intelligence agents to prevent his rise to power.

Zuma has also been accused of taking bribes in a defense-contract scandal for which he still faces trial, as well as charges of consorting with criminals, prostitutes and corruption.

Despite claims that the judiciary is independent, he will have significant influence over his own prosecution as the head of the ANC.

A recent KPMG auditing report alleges that the man at the center of the defense-contract scandal, fraud convict Schabir Shaik, spent over $21 million on Zuma's children, including allowances, cars and cash payment for a wedding.

The report also suggests that Shaik and his companies footed the bill for Zuma's household and travel expenses.

Zuma faces 16 charges, including one charge of racketeering, two counts of corruption, one count of money laundering and 12 counts of fraud.

Ironically, Zuma's problems have only increased his support among the poverty-stricken and the oppressed.

Under President Mbeki, discontent has escalated in the black population.

Most South African blacks still live in shocking conditions, with one person murdered every 20 minutes and unemployment at 90 percent in some townships.

In his striking political comeback, Zuma, who often wears a traditional cowhide robe and Zulu shield, led his thousands of supporters Tuesday, many from the Young Communist League, in preparation to succeed Mbeki as the new ANC leader.

Zuma left home at 16 and joined the ANC as a foot soldier for the armed wing of the liberation movement, Umkhonto we Sizwe or "Spear of the Nation."

At 21, he was arrested for conspiring to overthrow the apartheid government and served 10 years in prison alongside liberation hero Nelson Mandela — as well as his rape accuser's father — in the notorious jail on Robben Island just offshore from Cape Town.

Mbeki is also a veteran of the anti-apartheid struggle, but unlike Zuma, he is an intellectual who left South Africa to pursue an economics degree in England during the anti-apartheid struggle and never spent time in prison.

A series of corruption scandals, including the theft of millions intended for vital drugs, increased opinion against Mbeki.

Zuma has signaled his intent to "Africanize" the country, and there rumors he plans to seize some white-owned South African farms.
*Not this shit again. How is it legitimate to "Africanize" a country that was founded, built and run by Europeans?*

In neighboring Zimbabwe, Robert Mugabe's "Africanization" land-reform policies have brought famine to his country through the seizure of white-owned farms.

Ironically, while Mbeki has been criticized for his refusal to take action against the dictatorial Mugabe, a fellow veteran of the liberation struggle, Zuma has called for a tougher South African stance.

Thirteen years after emerging from apartheid and starting down the path of Mandela's "Rainbow Nation", South Africa, Africa's superpower and largest economy now embarks down the road of "Bring Me My Machine Gun."

There are no words. The article speaks for itself.:rolleyes:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,321785,00.html

Slowly but surely, South Africa plunges to the depths of the rest of the continent. What a pathetic waste of life that man is. Hopefully he will "have an accident" and the country will avoid the death sentance his leadership brings. If not, ZA's leadership may go to the way of Mugabe....

Also, forgot to add, I hate this motherfucker just for wearing Cheetah skin. I love Cheetahs, and there is no doubt in my mind that they deserve life more than this animal does.

This article also begs the questions. Is it legitimate to "Africanize" a country that was founded, built and run by Europeans? Europeans who's culture, blood, history, family sweat and tears are in this nation aswell? Well, is it?

Say what you want about the man, he has awesome fashion sense. :D

South Africa could be the next African Zimbabwe and that would be sad. “Zuma has signaled his intent to "Africanize" the country, and there rumors he plans to seize some white-owned South African farms.” Very sad and very bad for the whole continent.

why? why? how is this abomination capable of speech? i'm talking specifically about this new president of South Africa, defies reason and..i'm speechless

Say what you want about the man, he has awesome fashion sense. :D
Actually. Let's say for a second that I could get past the corruption, idiocy, lack of economic understanding, hatred of White people, Communist ties, rape and so forth.....I would STILL hate him for wearing Cheetah skin, as they are my favorite animals.

There are no words. The article speaks for itself.:rolleyes:


Apparently not, since you feel the need to highlight certain sections.

Apparently not, since you feel the need to highlight certain sections.
What a great addition to the debate that post was. Perhaps I was highlighting sections that were most relevant to be read, because many people like to skim instead of reading the entire article, for reasons of time, apathy, ect...not my problem. I read the entire article, but just in case not everyone else does, I highlighted some important things.

Please, address the topic at hand or not at all, don't annoy me.

why? why? how is this abomination capable of speech? i'm talking specifically about this new president of South Africa, defies reason and..i'm speechless

Slow down and take a deep breathe. He isn't the President of SA, YET.

.....I would STILL hate him for wearing Cheetah skin, as they are my favorite animals.

I'll bet he won't get any votes from the PETA people. :D

Apparently not, since you feel the need to highlight certain sections.

So, you want to defend him? Ok, have at it.....

Actually. Let's say for a second that I could get past the corruption, idiocy, lack of economic understanding, hatred of White people, Communist ties, rape and so forth.....I would STILL hate him for wearing Cheetah skin, as they are my favorite animals.

Maybe it's fake fur. He seems the socially conscious type. ;)

Eugh. He might be popular with the shittier bits of South Africa, but electing a man who seems to be like a cross between Idi Amin and Robert Mugabe would be a fucking terrible idea for the country.

But there we go. The ANC is going to win, and he's probably going to gain power.

Oh, and as to his thoughts on HIV - Jesus Christ, I thought that South Africa was a bit over the whole "having a shower makes it OK" mess.

*edits* Can't the poll have "I do(n't) support him, South Africa is about the same with black leadership" as an option?

because many people like to skim instead of reading the entire article, for reasons of time, apathy, ect...not my problem.

Very true and very sad. Sometimes I wonder if some of the people on this forum can even read let alone comprehend what they have read.

During his rape trial, Zuma took a "short skirt" excuse, claiming it was his duty as a Zulu warrior to have sex with a woman if she wore a short kanga (an African wrap), and that he could not leave her "unfulfilled."

Zuma told the court that he knew the woman was "clearly aroused" by the fact that her kanga was "quite short" — meaning knee-length.

"In the Zulu culture, you cannot just leave a woman if she is ready," he explained.

According to his defense team, Zulu men have sexual primacy over women. Therefore, he could not be guilty.

"To deny her sex, that would have been tantamount to rape," Zuma claimed.

------------------------------------------------

I'll bet he won't get any votes from the PETA people. :D
When interviewed, Zuma claimed it was his duty as a Zulu warrior to poach an animal if it's skin was too beautiful, and that he could not leave it "unfulfilled".

Zula told the court he "knew" the Cheetah clearly wanted to die by flaunting that beautiful coat.

Zuma: "In Zulu culture, the Cheetah deserved to be killed and skinned for looking that beautiful. In the Zulu culture, you cannot just leave a Cheetah if it is ready. To deny it murder, well that would have been tantamount to rape."

*Idiot speak, aka Zulu reasoning* :headbang:

Oh, and as to his thoughts on HIV - Jesus Christ, I thought that South Africa was a bit over the whole "having a shower makes it OK" mess.

So much for the AIDS education money the world has spent down there. :mad:

Eugh. He might be popular with the shittier bits of South Africa, but electing a man who seems to be like a cross between Idi Amin and Robert Mugabe would be a fucking terrible idea for the country.

But there we go. The ANC is going to win, and he's probably going to gain power.

Oh, and as to his thoughts on HIV - Jesus Christ, I thought that South Africa was a bit over the whole "having a shower makes it OK" mess.
Agreed. How unfortunate. :(
*edits* Can't the poll have "I do(n't) support him, South Africa is about the same with black leadership" as an option?
No. The country is not the same at all. It's 150% different than it was under Afrikaaner leadership, for good or for worse. The poll begs an answer as to where one stands on the opinion of the current leadership as opposed to the former leadership.

Maybe it's fake fur. He seems the socially conscious type. ;)
It better be for his sake.....

*Calls up South African assassin contacts*

*Calls in a favor*

hmmm...seems about time to recolonize Africa...

*grabs musket*

FOR THE EMPIRE!!!!!

:p

This guy is obviously an asshat, but when reading the article, the only thing I could think was "oh no, he is supported by communists and young people, nooooooo." :rolleyes:

This guy is obviously an asshat, but when reading the article, the only thing I could think was "oh no, he is supported by communists and young people, nooooooo." :rolleyes:
Perhaps you need to revaluate the other situations presented in the article, if that was the only thing you could think.:rolleyes:

Anyway, commies fail.

So much for the AIDS education money the world has spent down there. :mad:
Seeing as that end of the world generally has a rate of HIV in the tens of percents, aye. Ah well.

But but but...Fox News...Corporate Media...Economic Imperialism...!

*flails arms randomly*

No. The country is not the same at all. It's 150% different than it was under Afrikaaner leadership, for good or for worse. The poll begs an answer as to where one stands on the opinion of the current leadership as opposed to the former leadership.
Erm.

My answer is really that it's equally crap for about the same reasons, but then further exacerbated by all of the Whites (and hence all of the money) leaving so that they didn't have to feel guilty about Apartheid.

It doesn't matter what party was in control when Apartheid fell, the situation would have been much the same.

The poll begs an answer as to where one stands on the opinion of the current leadership as opposed to the former leadership.

I disagree. The poll insinuates there is a difference between black and white leaders not leaders who may be incompetent or competent. However, if one looks at the history of Africa since the end of colonialism, the idea that more black African leaders are incompetent than white African leaders may be a valid assumption.

Can anyone name one African country where the people and country have prospered more under black African leadership than under either white African or colonial leadership? That might be a very interesting thesis for a history major.

But but but...Fox News...Corporate Media...Economic Imperialism...!

*flails arms randomly*
lol. I laughed.
Erm.

My answer is really that it's equally crap for about the same reasons, but then further exacerbated by all of the Whites (and hence all of the money) leaving so that they didn't have to feel guilty about Apartheid.

It doesn't matter what party was in control when Apartheid fell, the situation would have been much the same.
Fair enough.

And now to my other OP question. Is it legitimate to Africanize a country that was founded, built and run by Europeans?

Could you try to make a poll that isn't obviously racist?

But but but...Fox News...Corporate Media...Economic Imperialism...!

*flails arms randomly*

Oh no, it's FOX news and can't possible be true. :rolleyes: OK http://www.mg.co.za/specialreport.aspx?area=zuma_report

I disagree. The poll insinuates there is a difference between black and white leaders not leaders who may be incompetent or competent. However, if one looks at the history of Africa since the end of colonialism, the idea that more black African leaders are incompetent than white African leaders may be a valid assumption.
So then why do you disagree?:confused:
Can anyone name one African country where the people and country have prospered more under black African leadership than under either white African or colonial leadership? That might be a very interesting thesis for a history major.
That would be very interested to hear indeed. Also, for the sake of the discussion and arguement, I beleive a distinction needs to be made between "Black Africa" and "Arab North Africa".

My answer is really that it's equally crap for about the same reasons, but then further exacerbated by all of the Whites (and hence all of the money) leaving so that they didn't have to feel guilty about Apartheid.


Or did they leave because they were in fear for their lives? In any case, what ever the reason for their leaving, why would they leave their money behind. Would you head out and leave your money behind?

I'm not trying to justify Apartheid but to blame those who left for the current situation is ridiculous.

Oh no, it's FOX news and can't possible be true. :rolleyes: OK http://www.mg.co.za/specialreport.aspx?area=zuma_report
Relax, Celt. It looks like he was joking. :p But thank you for the extra linkage. What a scumbag that guy is. Look at all his baggage.
Could you try to make a poll that isn't obviously racist?
Could you try to get into touch with reality and out of your parent's house where everything is pink, fluffy and in bubblewrap? If you think race has no impact or effect on African politics, you are in a for a HUGE reality check. Let's ask President-to-be Jacob Zuma if race is something worth discussing in African politics:

"Zuma has signaled his intent to "Africanize" the country, and there rumors he plans to seize some white-owned South African farms."

This looks bad, but scaling the situation a bit for the fact that all I see are Atty and Celtund posts...

...

...I'm not overly concerned.

Not much I can say, I don't know why anyone would support him, but I do remember there was something in the news about the election which made him chairman of the leading party, why was he elected?

And yeah, obviously there is something wrong if he wasn't convicted for raping that girl, but there are bad judges everywhere and zulu culture isn't the only one which rates women inferior to men.

It's also hard to compare pre- and post-colonized african nations. There are many factors contributing to why things are so bad in Africa right now, and ethnicity or race or whatever probably has nothing to do with it. I would rather expect for instance: the cold war, so called "free trade", human nature leading to corruption etc. And of course there is the fact that during the colonization there was a lot of funding from the west and that at least some of the people we put in power were better trained than the warlords that seized power after the colonization.


Say what you want about the man, he has awesome fashion sense. :D

Yeah, I do like those sunglasses as a finishing touch.

This looks bad, but scaling the situation a bit for the fact that all I see are Atty and Celtund posts...

...and a Fox News article written in transparently propagandistic terms....

So then why do you disagree?:confused:

Your Poll is racist and that’s why I didn’t vote.

I support him. South Africa is on a BETTER path with Black leadership.
I don't support him. South Africa is on a BETTER path with Black leadership.
I support him. South Africa is on a WORSE path with Black leadership.
I don't support him. South Africa is on a WORSE path with Black leadership.

This poll is not racist and I would vote.

I support him. South Africa is on a BETTER path with current leadership.
I don't support him. South Africa is on a BETTER path with current leadership.
I support him. South Africa is on a WORSE path with current leadership.
I don't support him. South Africa is on a WORSE path with current leadership.

He's an idiot, though it's by no means given that he'll still lead the party by the time the elections come around.

The fact that he's the leader of it right now though reflects badly upon the party and maybe South African politics in general. But that doesn't make it a race issue.

It's also hard to compare pre- and post-colonized african nations. There are many factors contributing to why things are so bad in Africa right now, and ethnicity or race or whatever probably has nothing to do with it.

Only one word http://www.nearlygood.com/smilies/horse.gif

This man is a hero, hopefully he will nationalize rich white property asap.

This looks bad, but scaling the situation a bit for the fact that all I see are Atty and Celtund posts...

...

...I'm not overly concerned.
Wow. You're not overly concerned about a critical situation that threatens to plunge Africa "best" country to a new low, because two people who disagree with you politically are making multiple posts in a discussion on said issue.

Wow! Good call!

Wow. You're not overly concerned about a critical situation that threatens to plunge Africa "best" country to a new low, because two people who disagree with you politically are making multiple posts in a discussion on said issue.

Wow! Good call!

See, by scaling this down based on the circumstances, it reads more like:

Hmm. I find that rather surprising, but I forgive that.

Only one word http://www.nearlygood.com/smilies/horse.gif

You really seem to like that smiley today, don't you? Now, what do you really mean, that my post was horse-shit? Could you please elaborate why you think the current situation in Afrika is caused by an increased activity in the melanocytes of it's population?
And I agree there are a lot of other factors I forgot, the arbitrary borders drawn by the colonists which split some tribes in two for instance lead to ethnic cleansing after the colonization. etc.

The fact that he's the leader of it right now though reflects badly upon the party and maybe South African politics in general. But that doesn't make it a race issue.

If it isn't a race issue, how do you explain how African countries have gone in the toilet economically and socially since the white Europeans and Africans have left the continent? How do you explain how millions of people live in abject poverty and are starving to death on a continent with the most natural resources of any continent in the world? How do you explain that Zimbabwe that was once the breadbasket of Africa now can't even produce enough food to feed their own people? Please explain it to me. I do not understand how Black Africans could let this happen, and please don't give me that colonialism crap. Europe has been out of there for decades.

More directly, the...consistency of posts in a thread will most definitely change the way your average reader sees it. And, well, Maybe it's just cuz I'm used to the way you react with Muslims, but this is downright calm for you, Atty. Maybe with more red text, capslock, and a few denials of racism tossed in...

...and a Fox News article written in transparently propagandistic terms....
Oh enough. You're just giving me a tummy ache from making me giggle too much. Celt has also provided tons of other articles about all that stuff Fox reported on this guy. Just because it's written by Fox does not mean that it was invented in some back room by a bunch of slugs oozing over the paper and then the editors saying "This looks good, let's print this!". Nothing in there is made up.:rolleyes: Prove that the article lies.
This man is a hero, hopefully he will nationalize rich white property asap.
:D:D:D Move there, perhaps?
He's an idiot, though it's by no means given that he'll still lead the party by the time the elections come around.

The fact that he's the leader of it right now though reflects badly upon the party and maybe South African politics in general. But that doesn't make it a race issue.
I'd say it seems very likely that he will lead the party by the time elections come around, and he seems to think so. He's also paranoid about assassination by people who don't want him to assume power. Also, politics in South Africa and in Africa in general is almost always a race issue. Why is this an exception? Just because YOU don't like the idea of race, doesn't mean that it's not a real, important factor in much, if not all of the world's politics.

Your Poll is racist and that’s why I didn’t vote.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7p4mioawIA


http://www.blackgayblogger.com/images/violin.jpg

Wow. You're not overly concerned about a critical situation that threatens to plunge Africa "best" country to a new low, because two people who disagree with you politically are making multiple posts in a discussion on said issue.

Wow! Good call!

You also forgot that SA may have nuclear weapons. :(

You also forgot that SA may have nuclear weapons. :(

There's still countries that might not have nuclear weapons? Ha! We're better off than I thought!

Wow. You're not overly concerned about a critical situation that threatens to plunge Africa "best" country to a new low, because two people who disagree with you politically are making multiple posts in a discussion on said issue.
Look, what do you actually know about South Africa or their politics?

Statistics on poverty, crime, education and disease before Apartheid pretty much all ignored the black population. Of course if you measure it that way you get better numbers then than now.

You are aware what sort of ridiculous rules exhisted under the regime which prevented black people from getting the sort of education and training that would be needed for someone to be a really good politician today. Zuma, apart from being a cockhead, never went to school, let alone university. He grew up between tribal lands left well in the 19th century and the slums of the cities.

Should that exclude him from being the leader of the country? Perhaps. But such a rule would be both very hard to enforce (how hard is it to fake a degree in a country like this?) and would leave basically no black politicians in a country in which a big majority of the voters is in fact black and does in fact vote for the ANZ which by nature of its history is a black party.

White people built one half of South Africa and destroyed the other. Putting the two together again, while having to deal with the spectre of HIV and enormous poverty is not something that is going to be fixed easily. Not just because it's a hard job, but also because even creating someone to do it may still take some time.

South Africa will never get back to what is apparently your vision of it: 1950s America with picket fences and funny accents and exotic animals. That is because it was never like that. There was always this ugly mess brushed under the carpet, thanks to one of the most unfair political, social and economic systems ever created. If you want to brush it back, say so. Don't beat around the bush.

Since when did rumours and hearsay (i.e. most of that article) count as news?

You also forgot that SA may have nuclear weapons. :(

Of course, where do you think Israel got the know-how and technical expertise (specifically in testing warheads) to build it's nuclear arsenal?
Apartheid SA and Zionist Israel were best buddies way back when, brothers in segregations and all that...

Celt has also provided tons of other articles about all that stuff Fox reported on this guy.

Celtlund linked to a "Special Report" page with a number of articles about Zuma. He did not link to articles specifically backing the claims the article made.

Of course, where do you think Israel got the know-how and technical expertise (specifically in testing warheads) to build it's nuclear arsenal?
Apartheid SA and Zionist Israel were best buddies way back when, brothers in segregations and all that...

So, it doesn't matter to you that nuclear weapons could end up in the hands of a man like Zuma? You are not concerned what he might do with nuclear weapons, who he might sell them to?

Celtlund linked to a "Special Report" page with a number of articles about Zuma. He did not link to articles specifically backing the claims the article made.

Well, if you read the FOX article and bothered to read any of the other articles...:rolleyes:

He certainly can't be any worse than Nelson Mandela. That's for damn sure.

You also forgot that SA may have nuclear weapons. :(
South Africa was the first state in the world to give up its nuclear weapons capability voluntarily. When South Africa dismantled its advanced, but clandestine, nuclear weapons program and assumed a leading role in the nonproliferation regime, it was in anticipation of the country’s immense political changes. The then President F.W. de Klerk's decision in 1990 to dismantle the apartheid system paved the way for democratic elections. All the bombs (six constructed and one under construction) were destroyed and South Africa acceded to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1991. In 1993 F.W. de Klerk admitted the scope of the country's past nuclear activities to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and gave them access to the country's nuclear sites for verification purposes. On August 19, 1994, after completing its inspection, the IAEA confirmed that one partially-completed and six fully-completed nuclear weapons had been dismantled. As a result, the IAEA was satisfied that South Africa's nuclear program had been converted to peaceful applications. Following this, South Africa joined the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) as a full member on 5 April 1995. South Africa played a leading role in the establishment of the African Nuclear Weapons Free Zone Treaty (the Treaty of Pelindaba) in 1996, becoming one of the first members in 1997. South Africa signed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty in 1996 and ratified it in 1999.
Of course, where do you think Israel got the know-how and technical expertise (specifically in testing warheads) to build it's nuclear arsenal?
Actually, it was more Israel helping South Africa build the South African nuclear arsenal than the other way around.

And now to my other OP question. Is it legitimate to Africanize a country that was founded, built and run by Europeans?

I find your view on this curious considering what I've seen you write on immigration...


... any I agree Zuma is an odious little toad with outdated, abhorrent views that seem to justify bullying, misogyny and homophobia. It is also a shame that he is in a position to become president (and I thought Mbeki was scraping the bottom of the barrel).


But anyway, the "best" thing to come from the case against him a couple of years ago. Jacob Zuma's 101 Uses for a Condom

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7979/1347/400/Zuma-condomuse.jpg

Well, if you read the FOX article and bothered to read any of the other articles...

I did both. What conclusion should I have reached?

So, it doesn't matter to you that nuclear weapons could end up in the hands of a man like Zuma? You are not concerned what he might do with nuclear weapons, who he might sell them to?
'a man like Zuma'...

Sorry friend but all I have seen in this thread is right-wing propaganda backed up most probably by a completely fabricated fox news polemic?

I personally think the Communist Party deserves more say in the ANC and SA, without them liquidating the racist tyranny of the conservative National Party (Apartheid) may not have happened.

Celtlund, do you know who the first person Nelson Mandela went and saw abroad after his release from prison? Guess.

Look, what do you actually know about South Africa or their politics?

Statistics on poverty, crime, education and disease before Apartheid pretty much all ignored the black population. Of course if you measure it that way you get better numbers then than now.

You are aware what sort of ridiculous rules exhisted under the regime which prevented black people from getting the sort of education and training that would be needed for someone to be a really good politician today. Zuma, apart from being a cockhead, never went to school, let alone university. He grew up between tribal lands left well in the 19th century and the slums of the cities.

Should that exclude him from being the leader of the country? Perhaps. But such a rule would be both very hard to enforce (how hard is it to fake a degree in a country like this?) and would leave basically no black politicians in a country in which a big majority of the voters is in fact black and does in fact vote for the ANZ which by nature of its history is a black party.

White people built one half of South Africa and destroyed the other. Putting the two together again, while having to deal with the spectre of HIV and enormous poverty is not something that is going to be fixed easily. Not just because it's a hard job, but also because even creating someone to do it may still take some time.

South Africa will never get back to what is apparently your vision of it: 1950s America with picket fences and funny accents and exotic animals. That is because it was never like that. There was always this ugly mess brushed under the carpet, thanks to one of the most unfair political, social and economic systems ever created. If you want to brush it back, say so. Don't beat around the bush.
Putting the two together, is impossible, because they don't go together. I won't lie, I'd rather have some of the people be able to live in a stable, first world industrialized Western country even if others can't, than have it how it is now where soon NOBODY will be able to live in a stable, first world industrialized Western country.

All of Africa was fucked up, and South Africa (both Apartheid and post Apartheid) are no expection, except that Apartheid ZA was just a bit less fucked up because atleast SOME of it's population could live in a Western country. Brushing it back, would be containment. Revealing it, let's it spread to the rest of the country and destroy the entire country.

That's how I think. It's not nice, not friendly, but it is realistic.

If it isn't a race issue, how do you explain how African countries have gone in the toilet economically and socially since the white Europeans and Africans have left the continent?
Because government is a powerful tool. It was developed in Europe over hundreds of years, and with it all the philosophical, moral and economic rules which placed restrictions on the exercise of government power.

When the colonial powers left (not that they'd followed the rules of being in government themselves, so they didn't exactly leave a good role model) the people who followed were fighters. They were independence campaigners, warlords, populists, what have you. They did what had to be done to reach their goals, and they certainly didn't care much about the liberal philosophical tradition that developed in Europe alongside the institutions of the state.

Some of them had honestly good goals for their countries, and you'll find that there were some leaders in that first generation who were quite successful. Many others turned out to be less honest in their goals, and they ended up mimicking the old colonial governments in everything but name.

Add to that the different tribes, religions and political groups within these countries which created constant conflict - which in turn made it more likely that government was seen only as a tool to win them.

Soviet-style socialism and the Cold War did the rest.

I'd say it seems very likely that he will lead the party by the time elections come around, and he seems to think so.
The ANZ these days is a divided bunch. Mbeki was toppled by the internal rivalries, and it's not at all certain that other factions couldn't emerge.

And that's not even mentioning that the law could still bring him down.

http://www.economist.com/world/africa/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10286490
http://www.economist.com/world/africa/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10328276

Also, politics in South Africa and in Africa in general is almost always a race issue.
Of course it is. But the fact that Zuma is a dickhead doesn't have any racial implications.

This is about the ANZ falling to pieces from the inside out, which is a rather more mundane, purely party-political issue. And, of course, once again a reiteration that populism is a bad thing - which is a curious issue for you in particular to want to delve into.

Putting the two together, is impossible, because they don't go together. I won't lie, I'd rather have some of the people be able to live in a stable, first world industrialized Western country even if others can't, than have it how it is now where soon NOBODY will be able to live in a stable, first world industrialized Western country.

All of Africa was fucked up, and South Africa (both Apartheid and post Apartheid) are no expection, except that Apartheid ZA was just a bit less fucked up because atleast SOME of it's population could live in a Western country. Brushing it back, would be containment. Revealing it, let's it spread to the rest of the country and destroy the entire country.

That's how I think. It's not nice, not friendly, but it is realistic.
God, more white man 'born to rule' crap, please Atlantian I think we all know that this entire thread was meant to be your own anti-ANC racist diatribe.

I find your view on this curious considering what I've seen you write on immigration...
Please, expand on that, if you please.

... any I agree Zuma is an odious little toad with outdated, abhorrent views that seem to justify bullying, misogyny and homophobia. It is also a shame that he is in a position to become president (and I thought Mbeki was scraping the bottom of the barrel).
Agreed.

But anyway, the "best" thing to come from the case against him a couple of years ago. Jacob Zuma's 101 Uses for a Condom

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7979/1347/400/Zuma-condomuse.jpg
:D:D It's funny but at the same time so pathetic and sad.

SA hopefully will go down the socialist road.

That's how I think. It's not nice, not friendly, but it is realistic.
It's also incredibly racist. What you're saying is that black people can't govern themselves. White South Africa was a sealed-off colony in a sea of savages and you're just lamenting its loss. You couldn't give a shit about anything or anyone else.

The funny thing is that you would call that "realistic".

Please, expand on that, if you please.

I just got the impression you think it best if peoples stay within their locales. Defending a state that operate to defend immigrants' interests at the expense of the indigenous people doesn't seem to be a logical continuation.

Sorry If I'm not explaining myself well. I was intending to go to bed but I've been following this topic and this thread piqued my interest despite my tiredness.

SA hopefully will go down the socialist road.

What flavour will it go down though?

EDIT: Mixed metaphores = proof, far too tired.

What flavour will it go down though?
The CPSA is Marxist-Leninist I believe, which is my line.

I love how the OP idiotically equates Zuma with black leadership, as if blacks are a single collective entity and that he represents them as a whole. There are a lot of anti-ANC blacks. Lucas Mangope, Mangosuthu Buthelezi...need I continue?

What flavour will it go down though?
Stalinist Soviet Style dictatorship, if Eureka Australis had things his way.
I just got the impression you think it best if peoples stay within their locales.
Not totally. I don't have a problem with small scaled controlled immigration, indeed diverse languages, food, faces and opinions are healthy. I have a HUGE problem with large scale uncontrolled immigration which threatens the ethnic and cultural stability and make up of a state and threatens the state with balkanization.
Defending a state that operate to defend immigrants' interests at the expense of the indigenous people doesn't seem to be a logical continuation.
But it can be argued that ZA is not the Black's to defend against as it was founded, built and controlled by Whites. There was never a country called "South Africa" until Europeans came. They didn't immigrate there and take it over.
Sorry If I'm not explaining myself well. I was intending to go to bed but I've been following this topic and this thread piqued my interest despite my tiredness.
No problem at all and I'm glad it piqued your interest. Quite an interesting discussion if I do say so myself.

SA hopefully will go down the socialist road.

It already did, under apartheid.

In fact, Soviet economists in the late 1980s noted that the state-owned portion of South Africa's industrial sector was greater than that in any country outside the communist bloc. The South African government owned and managed almost 40 percent of all wealth-producing assets, including iron and steel works, weapons manufacturing facilities, and energy-producing resources. Government-owned corporations and parastatals were also vital to the services sector. Marketing boards and tariff regulations intervened to influence consumer prices. Finally, a wide variety of laws governed economic activities at all levels based on race.

here (http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+za0079))

It's also incredibly racist. What you're saying is that black people can't govern themselves.
Statistically speaking, they havn't done a very well job of it. But it's not like I get happy about that fact. I don't WANT them to fail.
White South Africa was a sealed-off colony in a sea of savages and you're just lamenting its loss.
Well, it was.
You couldn't give a shit about anything or anyone else.
I care about alot of things. That's why I'd rather that atleast some people can live a good life, than rather nobody can. By that logic, you don't give a shit about anyone, if you're willing to let EVERYONE live in shit for the sake of racial equality.
The funny thing is that you would call that "realistic".
It is. The real world is hardly so nice, and Africa is probably the meanest.
God, more white man 'born to rule' crap, please Atlantian I think we all know that this entire thread was meant to be your own anti-ANC racist diatribe.
I didn't need to make this thread to tell people how I feel about the ANC. Everyone knew that already, duh.
This is about the ANZ falling to pieces from the inside out, which is a rather more mundane, purely party-political issue. And, of course, once again a reiteration that populism is a bad thing - which is a curious issue for you in particular to want to delve into.
Yes and of course everyone is hoping for that, but until that happens, things don't look good and I won't be holding my breath.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4615019.stm

Stalinist Soviet Style dictatorship, if Eureka Australis had things his way.

Oh..

fantastic.

Not totally. I don't have a problem with small scaled controlled immigration, indeed diverse languages, food, faces and opinions are healthy. I have a HUGE problem with large scale uncontrolled immigration which threatens the ethnic and cultural stability and make up of a state and threatens the state with balkanization.

But it can be argued that ZA is not the Black's to defend against as it was founded, built and controlled by Whites. There was never a country called "South Africa" until Europeans came. They didn't immigrate there and take it over.

Admittedly SA is a rather recent invention. But I think that irrelevant. Even though it was created (for the sake of arguement lets call it a successor state to the various original colonies and such that where white controled and in the area) by Europeans, that doesn't escape the fact they usurped land from distinct cultures already in the area.

(Which, if being arch, one could describe as large scale and uncontrolled, as well as upsetting the ethnic and cultural stability ;). Though that can be rather tiresome)

As far as I can see you are arguing aparteid's legitimacy rest on the fact that it was there for several decades. Which isn't compelling (imo). Now, I'm no black nationalist. So I don't think the europeans should leave (though I'm thankful that in my case some did...), but I don't think a majority should be disenfranchised and marginalised just so a minority can enjoy the priveleges they held a few decades ago.

No problem at all and I'm glad it piqued your interest. Quite an interesting discussion if I do say so myself.

Indeed. Though I fear I'm going to make worse errors than mixed metaphore before long.

And that your a racist.

For once we agree.

It already did, under apartheid.
here (http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+za0079))

I'm not sure that means it can be necessarily be called socialist.

Other terms leap to mind before at any rate.

I didn't need to make this thread to tell people how I feel about the ANC. Everyone knew that already, duh.

And that your a racist.

It already did, under apartheid.



here (http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+za0079))

Don't know what your point is, but Marxism isn't state control of the means of production, it's proletarian control over the relations in production. State ownership is not a socialist concept I am afraid, in fact it's pre-Marx. To the Marxist, there is no 'democracies' or 'republics' or 'monarchies', there is only the dictatorship of the bourgeois and the dictatorship of the proletariat, the state can only serve one class because the interests of both are in contradiction, so class struggle continues until one dictatorship or the other is in power.

I care about alot of things. That's why I'd rather that atleast some people can live a good life, than rather nobody can. By that logic, you don't give a shit about anyone, if you're willing to let EVERYONE live in shit for the sake of racial equality.

I dare say that even in Mugabe's Zimbabwe and (possibley) Zuma's SA, at least some people will live a good life.

This isn't a sound reason to support oligarchy (unless one is certain they'll be an oligarch I suppose).

Statistically speaking, they havn't done a very well job of it. But it's not like I get happy about that fact. I don't WANT them to fail.
So then why do you talk about Zuma, but not about Mandela, Museveni, Kagame, Chissano, Kofour and Zenawi?

There is no racial element here. It's just that the 20th century hasn't been particularly conducive to producing effective leadership in Africa, and that there is a complete lack of an ethical framework that is needed to stop people pulling shit like Kibaki just did.

I care about alot of things. That's why I'd rather that atleast some people can live a good life, than rather nobody can. By that logic, you don't give a shit about anyone, if you're willing to let EVERYONE live in shit for the sake of racial equality.
No, the difference is that you approach it from an angle of "the blacks can't do it better anyways". I think they certainly can, and Apartheid was preventing it.

Yes and of course everyone is hoping for that, but until that happens, things don't look good and I won't be holding my breath.
South African politics is a lot more complex than you think. The DA actually holds important positions in city councils and the like, and some run-of-the-mill issues, like renaming streets and cities to make them sound Zulu have been fought hard and with the support of many people, including blacks.

The challenge for the DA is to present themselves not so much as the opposite of the ANZ, but rather as an alternative for the average black voter. Zuma can only make that easier.

Atlantian seems to buy into the 'White Man' myth, that western Europeans and descendants are naturally ingenious, resourceful people, and that on a purely biological argument blacks will lead to countries being run down and tyrannical. In reality it's the colonial capitalism in the first place which gave Africa it's problems, Atlantian truly represents a 'pass the blame' racialist revisionist.

You also forgot that SA may have nuclear weapons. :(
They decommissioned them.
He certainly can't be any worse than Nelson Mandela. That's for damn sure.
Erm. Looks a lot to me like he's going to be a worse leader than Nelson Mandela was...

Also, I have yet to have my question answered, Nelson Mandela, the great liberator of South Africans, when he was released from prison who was the first person he went abroad to see and thank?

Who was it?

Also, I have yet to have my question answered, Nelson Mandela, the great liberator of South Africans, when he was released from prison who was the first person he went abroad to see and thank?

Who was it?

I thought you were being rhetorical.

Botha wasn't it?

What does this prove?

I thought you were being rhetorical.

Botha wasn't it?

What does this prove?

Fidel Castro.

Fidel Castro.

Meh, though I know he did visit Botha. Just wasn't sure how soon after he was released.

Anyway, as I asked, what point are you making?

Meh, though I know he did visit Botha. Just wasn't sure how soon after he was released.

Anyway, as I asked, what point are you making?

My point is that the struggle against Apartheid was primarily a socialist struggle against the bourgeois apartheid class.

Could you try to make a poll that isn't obviously racist?

No, he really can't. Surely you've seen his work before now.

No, he really can't. Surely you've seen his work before now.

Yes. But I believe in free will. ;)

My point is that the struggle against Apartheid was primarily a socialist struggle against the bourgeois apartheid class.
"Class warfare is treason."


http://www.orlyowl.com/quiterly.jpg

I disagree. The poll insinuates there is a difference between black and white leaders not leaders who may be incompetent or competent. However, if one looks at the history of Africa since the end of colonialism, the idea that more black African leaders are incompetent than white African leaders may be a valid assumption.

Can anyone name one African country where the people and country have prospered more under black African leadership than under either white African or colonial leadership? That might be a very interesting thesis for a history major.

The only counmtry in post-colonial history to not have one civil war, uprising, coup, etc. is Botswana. It is also the most economicly prosperous nation in southern Africa with a gdp above US$11,000. The only down fall of the nation is that it has the second highest AIDS ranking in the world after Swaziland.
The main problem with Africa is that the nations where granted independance before the population was capable of governing themselves.

My point is that the struggle against Apartheid was primarily a socialist struggle against the bourgeois apartheid class.
Which is why South Africa is now *drumroll* capitalist!

This is also quite interesting:
He [Zuma] praised Thabo Mbeki's government for presiding over an uninterrupted period of economic growth but insisted that this growth needed to be accelerated in order to close the gap between the rich and poor.
Not much evidence of a plan to redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor. If anything, that looks like like more liberal economics to come.

The only counmtry in post-colonial history to not have one civil war, uprising, coup, etc. is Botswana. It is also the most economicly prosperous nation in southern Africa with a gdp above US$11,000. The only down fall of the nation is that it has the second highest AIDS ranking in the world after Swaziland.
The main problem with Africa is that the nations where granted independance before the population was capable of governing themselves.
Interestingly, one of my sister's best friends is from Botswana.

Interestingly, one of my sister's best friends is from Botswana.


It is. The only problem is that the diamond trade is still the backbone of their economy so poverty is still rather high, and the chance to move up the social ladder is still rather difficult. Still would be an interesting country to visit.

HOORAY, more reasons for racist fuckers to complain about the blacks. YEA!!!!

HOORAY, more reasons for racist fuckers to complain about the blacks. YEA!!!!
Do they really need reasons?

Do they really need reasons?

Well I would hope soo...oh nevermind I hate the french and don't really need a reason :p (Then again, who doesn't hate the french...aside from the patriotic french)

I dare say that even in Mugabe's Zimbabwe and (possibley) Zuma's SA, at least some people will live a good life.



Yes, the ruling elite will live better while the over whelming majority (both black and white) live in mass poverty and starvation. Also, for the record Mugabe is a misreable leader that turned Zimbabwe into an economic disaster, and a very openly racist nation. Zimbabwe is nowadays a nation of mass unemployment, poverty, and inflation that is some of the highest in history. The government had to start to produce $750,000 dollar notes just to try and combat the inflation.

Well I would hope soo...oh nevermind I hate the french and don't really need a reason :p (Then again, who doesn't hate the french...aside from the patriotic french)

The "I hate the French" jokes are as stale as the Chuck Norris ones...

Do they really need reasons?

They seem to desperately snatch onto any that come by. I used to think they were living this "I'll show them all!" delusion, but I'm pretty sure now they need to prove to themselves that they're not... well, racist fuckers.

Also, forgot to add, I hate this motherfucker just for wearing Cheetah skin. I love Cheetahs, and there is no doubt in my mind that they deserve life more than this animal does.
It's leopard.

So, I just think it's interesting that it is "unacceptable" to bring up the idea that South Africa is on a worse path with Black Leadership, yet when I do, 39% voted that it IS on a worse path with Black Leadership and 48% voted it's not. (I'm not counting the 4 votes in favor of Zuma because I assumed those were joke-votes)

That vote right there means that if there are enough reasons and issues why some people may think that South Africa is on a worse path with Black leadership, than there is most certainly a ground to discuss such things without saying "omg racist racist racist" and then trying to shove it under the rug and ignore it because it deals with racial politics.

So, I just think it's interesting that it is "unacceptable" to bring up the idea that South Africa is on a worse path with Black Leadership, yet when I do, 39% voted that it IS on a worse path with Black Leadership and 48% voted it's not. (I'm not counting the 4 votes in favor of Zuma because I assumed those were joke-votes)

That vote right there means that if there are enough reasons and issues why some people may think that South Africa is on a worse path with Black leadership, than there is most certainly a ground to discuss such things without saying "omg racist racist racist" and then trying to shove it under the rug and ignore it because it deals with racial politics.

Here's the problem. Of course, criticizing a black person does not make you a racist. Not everyone who criticizes a black leader does it because he's black.

However, when one has demonstrated a history of racist thought and action, whenever that person does something that might be motivated by racism...he's sort of lost the benefit of the doubt.

Yes, criticizing a black person doesn't automatically make you a racist, but when we're dealing with you, it's sort of akin to the grand imperial wizard in full KKK regalia with a swastika armband standing in front of a burning cross holding a noose in one hand and a "kill the niggers" placard in another saying "what, just because I criticized a black person I'm automatically a racist?"

Your single act, alone, does not form a basis for how you are viewed. You have a long history of it however.

There are no words. The article speaks for itself.:rolleyes:Yes, yes it does. It tells me to find a reliable source.

Despite TAI's poor choice of a "news" medium, Zuma is an idiot. A dangerous populist of a politician-idiot.

Here's the problem. Of course, criticizing a black person does not make you a racist. Not everyone who criticizes a black leader does it because he's black.

Your single act, alone, does not form a basis for how you are viewed. You have a long history of it however.
Oh come onnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn. Don't compare me to some KKK grand wizard, that's incredible. What I do is discuss sensative racial and ethnic politics that sit uncomfterably in the stomach's of the generally left-wing population on this board, that's all. I don't "hate Black people" and certainly don't do any of the stuff you just listed in that post above. I'm sure most people here find these discussions uncomfterable, but that does not mean they arn't worth discussing and I certainly am not making them up.....as I always take them from current or recent historical issues/conflicts.....
Yes, yes it does. It tells me to find a reliable source.

Despite TAI's poor choice of a "news" medium, Zuma is an idiot. A dangerous populist of a politician-idiot.
Oh yaaaay.....more...."It's FOX News so that means they invented it in a back room with a crayon and nothing in it has anything to do with reality."

Puh-lease, it's getting fucking old. I'm not a neo-conservative but the fact is that Fox News, while sure, it has a neo-con bias, is still an acceptable news source an doesn't just make up articles on African leaders. Does the article tend to show him in a negative, rather than positive light, you bet it does. Is it possible NOT to show this piece of shit excuse for a human in a positve light rather than a negative, I doubt it...and if the article did, than that would be a bias much that needs to be worried about much more, because then they would be defending a rapist, anti-White, corrupt, ignorant (on AIDS), soon to be tyrant who want's to "Africanize" South Africa's White farms.

Oh yaaaay.....more...."It's FOX News so that means they invented it in a back room with a crayon and nothing in it has anything to do with reality."Well, no. It's just a worthless source, since anything it prints needs to be corroborated with something reliable to see what FOX decided to spin. But since you'd have a reliable source in the first place, there's no need for FOX at all. The lack of another source is enough to discredit a FOX news article.

Puh-lease, it's getting fucking old. I'm not a neo-conservative but the fact is that Fox News, while sure, it has a neo-con bias, is still an acceptable news source an doesn't just make up articles on African leaders. Ooh. It's getting old, is it? Smash-tastic argument there. That certainly makes it an "acceptable" news source.
Does the article tend to show him in a negative, rather than positive light, you bet it does. Is it possible NOT to show this piece of shit excuse for a human in a positve light rather than a negative, I doubt it...and if the article did, than that would be a bias much that needs to be worried about much more, because then they would be defending a rapist, anti-White, corrupt, ignorant (on AIDS), soon to be tyrant who want's to "Africanize" South Africa's White farms.Largely irrelevant points. When I want to find out the bad stuff about Zuma, I'll read it in a source that isn't interested in digging up as much shit as they can find, whether it sticks to him or not.

I have nothing against publishing editorials, but they should clearly be marked to avoid blurring the distinction between themselves and regular, factual articles. FOX news fails at that simple criteria.

(Then again, who doesn't hate the french...aside from the patriotic french)
Me?

Oh come onnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn. Don't compare me to some KKK grand wizard, that's incredible. What I do is discuss sensative racial and ethnic politics that sit uncomfterably in the stomach's of the generally left-wing population on this board, that's all. I don't "hate Black people" and certainly don't do any of the stuff you just listed in that post above. I'm sure most people here find these discussions uncomfterable, but that does not mean they arn't worth discussing and I certainly am not making them up

Uh huh, and I bet you have muslim friends too, huh?

I don't think we should involve the rascism thing when talking about a possible President like Zuma, he's not worth the effort, he's worth criticising though. I'm not sure how the French got involved.:confused:I'd guess the poll kind of throws the whole racism thing into the discussion.

I don't think we should involve the rascism thing when talking about a possible President like Zuma, he's not worth the effort, he's worth criticising though. I'm not sure how the French got involved.:confused:

Uh huh, and I bet you have muslim friends too, huh?
1, but she doesn't practice, just comes from a Muslim family. Other than that, nope, no I don't. There's arn't so many Muslims here at my University. Just a few and I havn't seen any (that you can tell, atleast) in my classes this semester.

Would you mind replying to what I wrote instead of going totally off subject?

1, but she doesn't practice, just comes from a Muslim family. Other than that, nope, no I don't. There's arn't so many Muslims here at my University. Just a few and I havn't seen any (that you can tell, atleast) in my classes this semester.

Would you mind replying to what I wrote instead of going totally off subject?

When your poll is extremely racist, it kinda skews the whole matter and makes people think you're racist.

Which, with your track-record, isn't that difficult.

When your poll is extremely racist,
So? Are you saying we should ignore any race-related politics, which are very common in Africa? And it's not like the topic of "is South Africa better under White or Black leadership" is not discussed in South Africa. Ever spoken to an Afrikaaner? So just because racial politics are by definition racist, means we ignore them and do not discuss them because they do not sit comfterably in the stomachs of some?

So? Are you saying we should ignore any race-related politics, which are very common in Africa? And it's not like the topic of "is South Africa better under White or Black leadership" discussed in South Africa. Ever spoken to an Afrikaaner? So just because racial politics are by definition racist, means we ignore them and do not discuss them because they do not sit comfterably in the stomachs of some?

Oh god, don't start banging on about 'liberals' and 'the left' again, it's getting old.

As Celtlund has amply illustrated, as have others, your poll is racist. A plain and simple fact. If you had changed 'Black leadership' to 'Zuma' or 'Competent' or somesuch, it wouldn't be. As it is, you've biased the entire thread towards a racist slant.

Of course such matters should be discussed; it's a political debate forum, so to say it shouldn't would be odd, quite frankly. But your apparent inability to not give it a racist slant is what's causing the problems.

As Celtlund has amply illustrated, as have others, your poll is racist.
And I'm saying, naturally it IS because it deals with racial politics, which is by definition racist. And those racial politics take place in South Africa, a nation where race and racial issues are extremely relevant and important to discuss.

So, as you have said, this is a political forum and we should discuss these matters. Thus, I see no problem here.

So? Are you saying we should ignore any race-related politics, which are very common in Africa? And it's not like the topic of "is South Africa better under White or Black leadership" is not discussed in South Africa. Ever spoken to an Afrikaaner? So just because racial politics are by definition racist, means we ignore them and do not discuss them because they do not sit comfterably in the stomachs of some?Well, being racist about it detracts from the overall discussion. A non-racist question corresponding to the racist "Is South Africa better off under Black or White leadership?" would be "Who would be the best leader of South Africa?" Making the skin color of the person an important qualification is simply dimwitted, and defending the decision to make it an important part of the discussion is dimwitted as well. You can argue that there currently are no qualified leaders that have dark skin without being racist. You just have to focus on the qualifications of all involved.

And I'm saying, naturally it IS because it deals with racial politics, which is by definition racist. And those racial politics take place in South Africa, a nation where race and racial issues are extremely relevant and important to discuss.

So, as you have said, this is a political forum and we should discuss these matters. Thus, I see no problem here.

I fail to see why. What's the difference between Zuma, an apparently hutjob who is black, and white or other skin-colour nutjobs who ran other nations? There's no need to label the poll with that.

It's akin to having a poll about the '08 US elections with options such as 'American is doomed under Black leadership' or somesuch. I fail to see what race has to with it, unless you're one of a tiny racist minority who somehow feel that skincolour automatically makes you suspect for political leadership, or that being coloured makes you inept or ineffective as a politician.

I fail to see why. What's the difference between Zuma, an apparently hutjob who is black, and white or other skin-colour nutjobs who ran other nations? There's no need to label the poll with that.
Because when the White government was in power, it was pro-Afrikaaner and anti-Black, and now when the Black government is in power, it has been pro-Black and anti-Afrikaaner. Thus, racial politics are much more important and cut and dry than in America. In America, if a white man is president, it is not an anti-Black, pro-White government...and vice versa for if Obama is president. That's why you can't compare.
Well, being racist about it detracts from the overall discussion. A non-racist question corresponding to the racist "Is South Africa better off under Black or White leadership?" would be "Who would be the best leader of South Africa?" Making the skin color of the person an important qualification is simply dimwitted, and defending the decision to make it an important part of the discussion is dimwitted as well. You can argue that there currently are no qualified leaders that have dark skin without being racist. You just have to focus on the qualifications of all involved.
But race is important IN South Africa, thus it should be important in any discussions about South African politics. Just because racial politics may not be anywhere near as important in say America, doesn't mean Americans discussing South Africa's racial relations have to avoid it because is not relevant in America's politics to the same extreme.

But race is important IN South Africa, thus it should be important in any discussions about South African politics. Just because racial politics may not be anywhere near as important in say America, doesn't mean Americans discussing South Africa's racial relations have to avoid it because is not relevant in America's politics to the same extreme.Bullshit. South Africans being racist is no excuse for you to be. To claim otherwise speaks either of self-delusion or blatant dishonesty.

If you think race has no impact or effect on African politics

...or, more to the point, on every alarmist, bigoted thread you make.

You add cheetahs as an afterthought.... your main problem, as evidenced again by the most emphasis you place on your highlights of the article, is in "Africanizing" Africa and taking away the glorious effects of the European ubermensch.

Saying that race is an issue is quite irrelevant... it may well be, but you always MAKE it an issue because YOU are a racist.

Would you mind replying to what I wrote instead of going totally off subject?

There's nothing to say with the article. The man is a nut job, everybody here is fully aware he's a nut job. End of discussion, nothing further to add.

The only remaining question is why you felt the need to ascribe or link his nut job qualities with his race. Since we've already established, beyond any measure, the man is nuts, the only question is why you felt the need to make the issue racial, instead of simply a question of this man's competance.

And the answer is simple..you're a racist.

...How is it legitimate to "Africanize" a country that was founded, built and run by Europeans?*:rolleyes:

Uh huh, and I bet you have muslim friends too, huh?

Or in TAI's case, "I hate Leftists and want them all to be raped tortured and murdered but I have Leftist friends."

The Atlantian islands: Mud-blood! Blood Traitors! :p

And I’m saying, naturally it [TAi’s poll] IS [racist] because it deals with racial politics, which is by definition racist.
How is racial politics by definition racist?

You seem to be confusion ‘discussion of politics concerning race’ and ‘racism’. Two very different things.

You’re at it again TAi, mixing up your strange bigoted attitudes with genuine political discussion. A few days ago you displayed an inability to discuss possible EU membership for Turkey without howling about your paranoia of immigration and Islam, and now you apparently can’t discuss African politics without resorting to racial slurs.

Most distasteful.

:rolleyes:
I'm still awaiting my answer....?
Or in TAI's case, "I hate Leftists and want them all to be raped tortured and murdered but I have Leftist friends."
I'm pretty sure that's an offense, putting words in my mouth that I clearly didn't say. Trolling or flamebaiting or flaming or something like that....
How is racial politics by definition racist?
How is it not? 'Racism' is not just "lolz, I hate niggazzz and jooos cuz they iz smellin bad".

How is it not? 'Racism' is not just "lolz, I hate niggazzz and jooos cuz they iz smellin bad".

...But that is the jist of what racism is? Its bigoted, unsubstantiated assumptions about an entire ethnic group or racial group that usually ignores all evidence to the contrary of said bigoted claims.

You make the claim that black africans can't run a government by themselves, perhaps because you believe them to be 'inferior', based on the actions of one man who everyone here agrees is a bonafide 'lunatic' and 'idiot'.

Are you really all that surprised that most people here thinks your racist? Especially with your track record concerning muslims?

And here's the solution:

http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=10064458
The rise of the buppies

THIRTEEN years after the first democratic elections, signs of the growing affluence among South Africa's black majority—once largely deprived of wealth and opportunities by apartheid—are increasingly visible. In small pockets of Soweto, Johannesburg's biggest township, smart houses and fancy cars are no longer rare—and Soweto's house prices are going up at a dizzying speed, by 39% in the past year, more than double the national average.

As a tribute to this new black spending power, Soweto's vast Maponya mall was recently opened by Nelson Mandela. It boasts an eight-screen cinema and chic retailers usually found only in Johannesburg's rich (and still mostly white) suburbs. On a continent still divided between the poor masses and a tiny but very rich elite, South Africa's black middle class, sometimes—not always affectionately—known as “buppies” (black up-and-coming professionals), is on the rise.

[...]

If a large, independent black middle class can arise, with educated voters capable of properly judging government policies, then South Africa can move from a de facto one-party state into a proper democracy. Do you think these people would want to vote for someone like Zuma?

They are the people the DA should target to break the racial divide that is hurting democracy at the moment. Unfortunately the article also hints that a lot of these middle class people owe their money to affirmative action-type policies by the ANZ, so perhaps they'd be no more likely to switch than the poor. But their kids will think differently.

And here's the solution:


If a large, independent black middle class can arise, with educated voters capable of properly judging government policies, then South Africa can move from a de facto one-party state into a proper democracy. Do you think these people would want to vote for someone like Zuma?

They are the people the DA should target to break the racial divide that is hurting democracy at the moment. Unfortunately the article also hints that a lot of these middle class people owe their money to affirmative action-type policies by the ANZ, so perhaps they'd be no more likely to switch than the poor. But their kids will think differently.

Weirdly, the one group I don't particularly feel sorry/bad for these days are the Black South Africans.

It's the Cape Coloureds. They're the ones being really left outside by both the current Black leadership and the previous White one.

And here's the solution:

http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=10064458


If a large, independent black middle class can arise, with educated voters capable of properly judging government policies, then South Africa can move from a de facto one-party state into a proper democracy. Do you think these people would want to vote for someone like Zuma?

They are the people the DA should target to break the racial divide that is hurting democracy at the moment. Unfortunately the article also hints that a lot of these middle class people owe their money to affirmative action-type policies by the ANZ, so perhaps they'd be no more likely to switch than the poor. But their kids will think differently.
If a large educated independent Black middle class arises, then we will have a different situation to discuss.... However, like you said, and like the article said, these new buppies have strong ties to ANC and I don't see that changing and think you seem far too optomistic about their children. Look at this part of the (highly fascinating) article:

This may chime with another frequent observation. The government's policy of black economic empowerment, a form of affirmative action that is meant to redress apartheid's injustices, has spurred the growth of the black middle class. But some people (for instance, the South African Institute of Race Relations) say it has limited the new class's independence from the ruling elites—an independence which, it is argued, is essential for consolidating democracy and bolstering a political opposition. Provocatively, the institute suggests that this mirrors much of the white middle class's acceptance of racial and authoritarian policies under apartheid.

In this sense, South Africa's buppies may differ from Western yuppies. Few of them are self-made entrepreneurs. And it remains to be seen how much more the black middle class can grow. Poor education limits the social mobility of far too many South Africans: 57% of them live on less than 3,000 rand ($437) a year, and between 25% and 40%, depending on definitions, have no proper job.

If a large educated independent Black middle class arises, then we will have a different situation to discuss....
That depends on whether you've turned all reasonable all of a sudden. If this is about race, then nothing changes. If it's about economics and politics, then something does.

The gag is of course that when it's about economics and politics, talking about race misses the point and wastes valuable time the government should be using to find economic and political solutions.

The Atlantian islands, yesterday negroids and Hispanics overrun my neighborhood, they stole our car, urinated on our lawn, shot our friends and raped our children while chanting Allu Ackbar and leftist taunts. What do you I do?:eek:

How is it not? ‘Racism’ is not just “lolz, I hate niggazzz and jooos cuz they iz smellin bad”.
As your poll, and general attitude, demonstrate, racism can be much more subtle.

But I still don’t see how a discussion of racial politics is necessarily racist. For example, how is a discussion involving how the Black community of the US will react to Obama potentially being the next POTUS (a discussion of racial politics) racist?

The Atlantian islands: Mud-blood! Blood Traitors! :p

The Atlantian islands, yesterday negroids and Hispanics overrun my neighborhood, they stole our car, urinated on our lawn, shot our friends and raped our children while chanting Allu Ackbar and leftist taunts. What do you I do?:eek:
Got anything meaningful to add?

Eugh. He might be popular with the shittier bits of South Africa, but electing a man who seems to be like a cross between Idi Amin and Robert Mugabe would be a fucking terrible idea for the country.



Very true. I am hardly staggered, however, that democracy throws up a seemingly interminable queue of such men in the developing world, although I did think South Africa was something of an exception to the post-colonial norm in Africa.

Only twenty years and ZA has gone down the toilet. Afrikaners are persecuted everywhere, Boer farmers are mercilessly slaughtered in a black-sponsored genocide, and no one in the world seems to care. What about us? What about the Afrikaner?

By the way:

http://www.africancrisis.co.za/Home.php
http://www.stopboergenocide.com/166210/index.html

Only twenty years and ZA has gone down the toilet. Afrikaners are persecuted everywhere, Boer farmers are mercilessly slaughtered in a black-sponsored genocide, and no one in the world seems to care. What about us? What about the Afrikaner?


You don't matter because in the eyes of the West you don't belong there. Even though I never fully understood how people could say this because if that is the case then every African needs to get the hell out of Europe and everyone (white, black, Asian, etc.) needs to get out of the western hemishpere. Also, you are seen as the evil colonial oppressors.

edit: Western ideology is strange sometimes, huh.

You don't matter because in the eyes of the West you don't belong there. Even though I never fully understood how people could say this because if that is the case then every African needs to get the hell out of Europe and everyone (white, black, Asian, etc.) needs to get out of the western hemishpere. Also, you are seen as the evil colonial oppressors.

edit: Western ideology is strange sometimes, huh.

Well, I know this isn't your view, but let me say that it is stupid and hypocritical for those who say it. Don't they realize the black Bantu arrived around the same time as the Dutch colonists? The Bantu were the ones that wiped out the Khoisan! Furthermore, it was not the Boer but the BRITISH who instituted apartheid policies and oppressed the blacks and coloureds--the same British that put the Boer in concentration camps that murdered a majority of the farmers' children. Stupid, just stupid.

What about the Afrikaner?
Well, first of all the West doesn't care about Africa, I think we've all learned that. Refreshingly enough, skin colour makes no difference there.

Secondly, there are only two things to do: try and defend the land as best as possible (if an angry mob comes to burn your house down, I personally have no problem if people choose to get rifles and angry, angry dogs) and convince neighbours, workers and bureaucrats that you must play a role in the future of Country X - and organise yourself in legitimate political parties. Not ones that look back to the "good old days" and fly swastikas, but 21st century, modern, progressive parties. And those two things put together can perhaps change things.

But don't expect help from the outside. Beyond the Commonwealth, people probably don't know what an Afrikaner is.

Only twenty years and ZA has gone down the toilet. Afrikaners are persecuted everywhere, Boer farmers are mercilessly slaughtered in a black-sponsored genocide, and no one in the world seems to care. What about us? What about the Afrikaner?

Whilst it's objectionable, it rather seems to be a case of 'Pot, meet the kettle' at the moment. You sow what you reap, etc.

This isn't about white leadership versus black leadership you racist fuck, this is about bad leadership versus good leadership. Especially when his leading critics are from within the cabinet, and the current President.

Whilst it's objectionable, it rather seems to be a case of 'Pot, meet the kettle' at the moment. You sow what you reap, etc.
I don't think you can honestly say that farmers in Zimbabwe for example actually sowed what ended up happening to many of them. And by the same token, there are a lot of white South Africans now who were kids when Apartheid ended (I know because I know a lot of them who now live here). They didn't sow anything either.

Collective punishment is bad either way. Especially since attacking white people will in all likelihood be counterproductive from an economic standpoint too.

I don't think you can honestly say that farmers in Zimbabwe for example actually sowed what ended up happening to many of them. And by the same token, there are a lot of white South Africans now who were kids when Apartheid ended (I know because I know a lot of them who now live here). They didn't sow anything either.

Collective punishment is bad either way. Especially since attacking white people will in all likelihood be counterproductive from an economic standpoint too.

Oh no, of course not. Collective punishment is awful; you'll forgive the rather lame adjectives and condemnations, I hope, as flu is making it rather difficult.

I was merely pointing out to the rather biased poster that complaining in such terms is rather hypocritical in the bombastic way he posted.

http://www.foxnews.com/images/335555/0_61_011008_SecurityBarrier02.jpg
Jacob Zuma, South Afrika's Next President: Exposed



There are no words. The article speaks for itself.:rolleyes:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,321785,00.html

Slowly but surely, South Africa plunges to the depths of the rest of the continent. What a pathetic waste of life that man is. Hopefully he will "have an accident" and the country will avoid the death sentance his leadership brings. If not, ZA's leadership may go to the way of Mugabe....

Also, forgot to add, I hate this motherfucker just for wearing Cheetah skin. I love Cheetahs, and there is no doubt in my mind that they deserve life more than this animal does.

This article also begs the questions. Is it legitimate to "Africanize" a country that was founded, built and run by Europeans? Europeans who's culture, blood, history, family sweat and tears are in this nation aswell? Well, is it?

And this is why my family left South Africa/Rhodesia. *nods* I feel for all you poor bastards who stayed.

Only twenty years and ZA has gone down the toilet. Afrikaners are persecuted everywhere, Boer farmers are mercilessly slaughtered in a black-sponsored genocide, and no one in the world seems to care. What about us? What about the Afrikaner?
Yeah, right.

It's almost enough to make me want to emigrate, but I love this place far too much for that.

Our government is so ineffectual anyway it probably wont make much difference, and as for what was said about things going the way of Zim, I don't think the DA and ID would merge with the ANC at any date, and support for the foremost is continually growing. Especially in the Western Cape. Even the black population here don't support the ANC much at all.

The truth is in this country it's the people that make a difference, always has been, not whoever is in power. And even though you can't see them there are a lot of people here committed to making a better country, to progress. But nobody wants to report the good stuff, it's not dramatic, it doesn't sell.
Doesn't mean it's not there, it just means it's less visible.

That depends on whether you've turned all reasonable all of a sudden. If this is about race, then nothing changes. If it's about economics and politics, then something does.
But of course for me it's always been a mixture of culture, race, politics, economics...with some being more important than others.
The gag is of course that when it's about economics and politics, talking about race misses the point and wastes valuable time the government should be using to find economic and political solutions.
I disagree though...race is important to most people in the world, and just because you are a super individualist and deny the idea of race or even community, doesn't mean everyone else does.
Only twenty years and ZA has gone down the toilet. Afrikaners are persecuted everywhere, Boer farmers are mercilessly slaughtered in a black-sponsored genocide, and no one in the world seems to care. What about us? What about the Afrikaner?
Nobody cares about Afrikaaner because they are looked upon as being the "left overs from Europes racist past exploiting Africa."
Secondly, there are only two things to do: try and defend the land as best as possible (if an angry mob comes to burn your house down, I personally have no problem if people choose to get rifles and angry, angry dogs) and convince neighbours, workers and bureaucrats that you must play a role in the future of Country X - and organise yourself in legitimate political parties. Not ones that look back to the "good old days" and fly swastikas, but 21st century, modern, progressive parties. And those two things put together can perhaps change things.
But that can be difficult to do if the government (and leader) in power are outspokenly African nationalist and anti-White..and are pro-africanization....
But don't expect help from the outside. Beyond the Commonwealth, people probably don't know what an Afrikaner is.
Well, due to the White flight from ZA, we actually have alot of Afrikaaner here in Florida...though most people don't know that name..they would just call them White Africans or South Africans. We also have a suprisingly large number of Jewish Afrikaaner.

Well, due to the White flight from ZA, we actually have alot of Afrikaaner here in Florida...though most people don't know that name..they would just call them White Africans or South Africans. We also have a suprisingly large number of Jewish Afrikaaner.I've been wondering where your intrest came from, all of a sudden.

Yeah, right.
Eh, what?

(I'm looking for an English word for "Ausland"..is there one? I can only think of international, but that isn't the same at all)."Overseas" generally means the same thing, although it shouldn't apply to other American countries and it also applies to Alaska and Hawaii in some cases.

I've been wondering where your intrest came from, all of a sudden.
I've actually always been interested in South Africa and it's politics, as they have a very ...unique...situation there. Also, we have some South African family friends (who left ZA for Florida, like I said. They are Jewish and left ZA a couple years after Apartheid ended, because they didn't want to live under black rule anymore) and then I have my own South African friends that I've met.

But really, and I know I've said this before, one of my majors is International Relations and Comparitive Politics....simply focusing on American politics bores me..I've always been into global politics, with a main focus on Europe, I admit. I also travel often which gives me even more interest in international politics. (I'm looking for an English word for "Ausland"..is there one? I can only think of international, but that isn't the same at all).

Well, I know this isn't your view, but let me say that it is stupid and hypocritical for those who say it. Don't they realize the black Bantu arrived around the same time as the Dutch colonists? The Bantu were the ones that wiped out the Khoisan! Furthermore, it was not the Boer but the BRITISH who instituted apartheid policies and oppressed the blacks and coloureds--the same British that put the Boer in concentration camps that murdered a majority of the farmers' children. Stupid, just stupid.


Completely agree.

Eh, what?
What, are we genuinely expected to believe there's going to be a genocide against Afrikaniers?

What, are we genuinely expected to believe there's going to be a genocide against Afrikaniers?

It would not be terribly surprising if it did happen.

But cheer up, maybe this guy will just get AIDS and die.

It would not be terribly surprising if it did happen.
Yes, it would. I can't see any evidence of potential genocide in South Africa. It simply isn't going to happen.

But cheer up, maybe this guy will just get AIDS and die.
Quite likely given his opinions how how to prevent it, although I wouldn't wish it upon anyone. Instead, he'll go down in history as a nonentity and a nobody, and a bit embarassing in a few decades time.

Jacob Zuma, like Thabo Mbeki before him and Nelson Mandela before him are neo-colonial stooges who do not represent progress for South Africa or redemption for the masses of African people living in South Africa.

To narrow the discussion to the failings of Zuma in abstraction of the social, economic and political reality of the majority of the people who live in that nation does them a disservice. It would make Zuma just a bad apple in the barrel without busting open the spoilage affecting nearly the entire leadership of modern South African politics.

The fact is, Zuma does not represent Africanization of the political economy of South Africa. He represents the traitorous and anti-worker interests of South Africa's black elite/bourgeois. He represents the interest of an ever hungry capitalist world economy which plans to bleed Africa of its resources and leave the people of the continent in abject poverty.

To "expose" Zuma and not the political machine/party that created him is to disarm the people of South Africa and throughout the world as to who really stands on the side of justice and what is to be done there to make justice happen. Where is the condemnation of the political party that trained, elevated and sanctioned the man? Where is the exposure of how the masses live and the mechanisms put in place by the ANC government to ensure the system stays as it is?

I support the Africanist position on how to transform the land, social and political economy questions in that nation. Just because an African wraps himself in the garbs of his ancestors does not make him a legitimate proponent of an Africanist strategy. Zuma has no principled history in defining or defending an Africanist line. His attempt to appeal to the masses of African people is smoke and mirrors. An attempt to make himself the "people's man" without ever having to address the structural contradictions in his society. There are legitimate questions the masses of African people have about employment, the land, education, housing and the rest of it... to allow Zuma to throw out his dishonest ideals about an "Africanizing" the South African government is truly a crime.

To simply replace Zuma with another imperialist neo-colonial stooge is not the answer, its is only a cover up of the real crisis that the people most overturn. The article does nothing for advancing the struggle of the South African people or their allies around the world.

This article also begs the questions. Is it legitimate to "Africanize" a country that was founded, built and run by Europeans? Europeans who's culture, blood, history, family sweat and tears are in this nation aswell? Well, is it?

So why is it black folk scare you?

I disagree though...race is important to most people in the world, and just because you are a super individualist and deny the idea of race or even community, doesn't mean everyone else does.
You said that before, but it doesn't really change the truth of the matter. If the problem is that people are uneducated and poor, throwing out white people (or black people or whatever) doesn't address the problem, no matter how important it is to people.

But that can be difficult to do if the government (and leader) in power are outspokenly African nationalist and anti-White..and are pro-africanization....
Obviously. But I'd still say that white landowners are in a better position to stay and keep their lives than, say, Albanian Muslims were in Srebrenica.

Yes, it would. I can't see any evidence of potential genocide in South Africa. It simply isn't going to happen.
I didn't say I already saw it started, just that if events did suddenly take that turn, I would not find it surprising.


Quite likely given his opinions how how to prevent it, although I wouldn't wish it upon anyone.
I'll make an exception in this guy's case.

I didn't say I already saw it started, just that if events did suddenly take that turn, I would not find it surprising.
And I said that there is no evidence to suggest that it could happen.

I'll make an exception in this guy's case.
Why? He's just a silly man who is going to go down in history as a nobody.

Personally, I think all this bigoted nonsense about "black leadership" is nothing but an oblique attack on the possibilities of Obama becoming president. And upcoming MLK Jr day. Psychologically this is called transference.

Personally, I think all this bigoted nonsense about "black leadership" is nothing but an oblique attack on the possibilities of Obama becoming president. And upcoming MLK Jr day. Psychologically this is called transference.
Had I been an alien with no prior knowledge of South African history, and I just read this thread, I think I'd be excused for thinking that apartheid didn't happen, South Africa was a prosperous, well governed and well respected country until a gang of black racists (with some cruel hivemind) took over and the country is now in a state of collapse and about to commit genocide against whites, and Jacob Zuma his Hitler reincarnate.

Personally, I think all this bigoted nonsense about "black leadership" is nothing but an oblique attack on the possibilities of Obama becoming president. And upcoming MLK Jr day. Psychologically this is called transference.

You're a clever one, you.

And I said that there is no evidence to suggest that it could happen.
Of course it COULD happen: all of human history is evidence that it COULD! I do not consider it particularly likely, but neither would I find it very surprising, that's all.


Why? He's just a silly man who is going to go down in history as a nobody.
He could do a lot of damage first. Mugabe is a very silly man too.