oaf@mit-vax.UUCP (Oded Feingold) (09/21/86)
>The prospect of a Soviet client next door was certainly a factor, [why SA attacked Angola, possibly with US backing, when it became clear MPLA was going to win] >but another one (and the reason for continuing cross-border raids by >the South Africans), is the SWAPO bases in Angola. With the MPLA in >power, SWAPO would have (and indeed got) a free hand and stepped up >their terrorist/guerrilla activities across the border. > >The official South African position is that they don't have a fight >with Angola, only with SWAPO. [Riel Smit] ------------------------------ What Meneer Smit does note mention is that South Africa has no le- gal presence in Namibia (= Southwest Africa, home of SWAPO). RSA (then USA, Union of South Africa) took it from the defeated Germans in 1919. It may have had a fig-leaf of trusteeship under a League of Nations mandate, but that was null and void after WWII, since the fig-leaf issuer was dead. Its continuing occupation of that country is on a moral par with the USSR's continuing occupation of the Baltic states, compounded by RSA's policy of enslaving black hominids. South Africa will never give up Namibia peacefully - there's ex- ploitable mineral wealth there. Also, independent niggers in Namibia might support their brothers in RSA - can't have that. (Note that I'm not arguing with Mr. Smit, though I would cheerfully question whether RSA merely intended to forestall support for SWAPO - my guess is that they wanted Lebensroom and more slaves. Nice country.) Reagan likes his military so much, why doesn't he use it to free Namibia from RSA's ongoing rape? It would be good training, a serious test of force projection against a tough and determined enemy, would get him off the hook on the sanctions issue, and wouldn't be perceived as an attack on RSA since that's a separate country (so the f***ing Helmses and Falwells wouldn't have a clear-cut beef.) He'd win the admiration of our friends (and fear of our enemies, who'd count him nutty enough for any adventure - this includes the Sandinistas,) and since he isn't running for re-election, he won't pay the political cost of our casualties. If he wants to do Bush and the Republicans a favor, he should have the job DONE by election day 1988, (no pissing around - go out there and get to war) so they'd have a victory to crow about. Just as only Begin and not the labor gummint in Israel could sign a pact with Egypt, and only Nixon the flaming anti-communist and no Democratic predecessor or successor could get in bed with Mao with a chance of political survival, so only Reagan could survive striking such a powerful blow for human freedom. Of course, he'd have to win the war in 90 days, or the War Powers act would stop him. We all know how Congress is too cowardly to do the right thing. Will he do it? Write the white house now and suggest it. It's never too late for a good non-nuclear war. (Watch, I'll bet Sevener will complain I'm a war-monger. what I'm really curious about is whether Riel Smit will blast me, and show his true colors.) -- Oded A. Feingold MIT AI Lab 545 Tech Square Cambridge, Mass. 02139 {allegra|ihnp4!mit-eddie}!mit-vax!oaf OAF@OZ.AI.MIT.EDU 617-253-8598
gdvsmit@watrose.UUCP (Riel Smit) (09/26/86)
In article <746@mit-vax.UUCP> oaf@mit-vax.UUCP (Oded Feingold) writes: > ... South Africa has no legal presence in Namibia ... > ... Its continuing occupation of that country >is on a moral par with the USSR's continuing occupation of the Baltic >states I would have compared it more with the "continuing occupation" of the Northern Marianas by the USA, but that might be stretching it a bit. However, you are of course free to your opinion. > South Africa will never give up Namibia peacefully Don't bet on it - I think you will be pleasantly surprised in the not too distant future. As for the rest of your lucubration - at least it is a, dare I say fresh, approach to finding a solution to the Namibian question. I can see at least one problem though: > Of course, he'd have to win >the war in 90 days, or the War Powers act would stop him. The British had similar ideas at the turn of the century ... Or do you think Reagan should "test" one of his nuclear warheads?