Nelson Mandela speaks out against War


sophandros

Free Thinker
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/01/30/sprj.irq.mandela/index.html

Addendum by Soph: Article on European attitude toward the war, US, etc. and why being opposed to US policy is NOT the same as being opposed to US (I will only link this one): http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030210&s=alterman1



But onto what Nelson has to say:

JOHANNESBURG, South Africa (CNN) -- Former South African president Nelson Mandela has slammed the U.S. stance on Iraq, saying that "one power with a president who has no foresight, who cannot think properly, is now wanting to plunge the world into a holocaust."

Speaking at the International Women's Forum, Mandela said "if there is a country that has committed unspeakable atrocities in the world, it is the United States of America."

Mandela said U.S. President George W. Bush covets the oil in Iraq "because Iraq produces 64 percent of the oil in the world. What Bush wants is to get hold of that oil." In fact Iraq contributes to only 5 percent of world oil exports.

The Bush administration is threatening military action if Iraq does not account for weapons of mass destruction and fully cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors.

Receiving applause for his comments, Mandela said Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair are "undermining" past work of the United Nations.

"They do not care. Is it because the secretary-general of the United Nations is now a black man?" said Mandela, referring to Kofi Annan, who is from Ghana.

Blair is expected to discuss the issue of Iraq when he meets with South African President Thabo Mbeki in London Saturday, a day after the British leader's meeting with Bush.

Mandela said he would support without reservation any action agreed upon by the United Nations against Iraq, which Bush and Blair say has weapons of mass destruction and is a sponsor of terror groups, including Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network. (Full story)

Nobel Peace Laureate Mandela, 84, has spoken out many times against Bush's stance, and South Africa's close ties with Libya and Cuba irked Washington during Mandela's own presidency.

In reaction to Mandela's comments, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said Bush was grateful to the many European leaders who "obviously think differently."

"The president will understand there are going to be people who are more comfortable doing nothing about a growing menace that could turn into a holocaust. He respects people who differ with him. He will do what he thinks is right and necessary to protect our country," Fleischer said.
 

Click here to visit HBCUSportsShop
Mandela.

I would stop short of outright blasting Mandela, but I would hope that he would have remained neutral/silent on this one.
 
I am glad that Mandela said something on Iraq.

BTW he came out against terrorism when he visited Bush at the White House. The Bush administration can't have their way every time.
 
Note that Mr. Mandela is a former world leader. He fought against an oppressive system and later ran that country. He has more than earned his right to speak.
 
True EB but,,

If it wasn't for the US with all it's faults, the guy would be dead or still in prison, so why can't the guy give the US the benefit of the doubt on this one? :confused:
 
Why would he give the US the benefit of the doubt on somethin that he, along with MANY, don't agree with? What sense does that make?
 
Because,,,,

Originally posted by unknown1
Why would he give the US the benefit of the doubt on somethin that he, along with MANY, don't agree with? What sense does that make?

Because he, as well as "MANY who don't agree",,,, know deep down, Saddam is below board and would wack America's arse if given half the chance. Other than that, it's simply a pissing contest between Saddam and Bush,, and Bush/US being caught up in the UN/world opinion "red tape" of its own making; the double-edge sword as it were.

As far as "what sense does that make?", i'll assume that's a rhetorical question on your part, so I won't bother addressing it.
 
How many nations WOULDNT wack the US if given the chance? Hell that's a gimme. The question is, do they have the means to do it. According to the UN, NO! If we're going to attack every country that'd wipe us off the face of the map if given the chance, they may as well equip every b-52 with nukes and send them to every middle eastern country, NK, Japan and plenty of others.
 
The UN.

Of coarse the UN is going to say that. Look who the UN is composed of. Also, the paradigmn of "attack" is changing today. Pretty soon,, probably now, a country won't need a massive navy and army to attack the U.S. The 911 terrorists were no organized army and they took out more people than the then most powerful navy in the world, Japan at pearl harbor. They did that with commercial airliners. What could they do with a small nuke or bio-weapon? If the palestinians are willing to blow themselves up to take out civilians, I don't think terrorists would have a problem devising a plan to strike in this country with bio-weapons. The main sources for these type of assets will be countries with the ability to make them that have beef with the U.S.

No, it's not about the U.S. locking and loading on every country though. Why is it that nobody looks at what Saddam/Iraq has not done for 12 years???? He could have given up completely right after the gulf war, but he didn't and the UN did nothing and the U.S. under Clinton didn't sweat him too tuff,,,,, so if you ask me, I'd say that couldn't be further from the truth (the U.S. gearing up to go to war with every country). Plus too,, there's something hear called ELECTIONS and opposing political parties. Who's to say a democrat won't be elected in 2004 and halt confronting terrorsists decissively? If people don't like Bush/rep/U.S. policy,, vote in someone with like beliefs. Again,, this is less about really being against war and more about contesting Bush/republican foreign policy
 
Back
Top