Maybe you disagree, maybe you think they don't. That's up to you, but note, the failed Wakandaist state of Zimbabwe's offering $3.5 billion it doesn't have to coax white farmers back. Good luck with that cash incentive.
Ride On
Utter scorn to the UK's commie leadership for selling that country down the river. So-called "Lord" Carrington, you're a complete, unmitigated, traitorous disgrace. Now watch, you corrupt, Marxist African fools, while the Chinese own and rape you.
In the meanwhile, the US has a decision to make.
In the meanwhile, the US has a decision to make.
AFRICOM,
LSP
I would say that is a macro example of my late father's, "Belly flapping principal".
ReplyDeleteThe Chinese will be thrilled to come in, strip mine, and leave a disaster behind. It's what they do.
ReplyDeleteChina. Yep.
ReplyDeleteHmmmm. BFP, I like it, WSF.
ReplyDeleteLL, I have a feeling China's investment in taking over Africa may not end well. Just a feeling.
ReplyDeleteA right menace, Kid.
ReplyDeleteOh, I agree about our commie politicians, but they merely took advantage of the opportunity given to them by the intentional, mandated, forced dismantling of The British Empire by … The US’ commie politicians!
ReplyDeleteDo you ever wonder where you got all those Pacific and worldwide bases from? Yep, they were demanded as part of the cost of getting US involvement during WW2 – what, you thought/pretended you did it out of the goodness of your hearts? Remember Suez? France and Britain forced to remove themselves as ‘colonials’ under significant threat and sanctions from the US, whilst the US did considerably more with Panama … Oh, but it’s different when you do it isn’t it. (Let’s not mention the many propaganda efforts too such as the agreement, demand, that the Pacific was your back-yard whilst the Atlantic was ours [the only US ships in the Atlantic were the Liberty ships … we bought from you] and so when Australia was left unprotected it was … our fault somehow).
Care to check just who pushed for the ‘decolonising’ of every one of those now failed states via the UN? That would be The US.
The immediate destruction of The Empire, and all its predictable consequences, was forced on us by … you and yours.
The (literally) only thing worse than being The US’ enemy is to be The US’ ally and seen as a competitor (for the record, we didn’t finally finish paying for all that help, ‘you saving us’, you sold, I mean provided us in WW2 until … 1975).
Want to lay blame for the many and various failed former colonial countries? There’s plenty to go around, but the bulk should rightly be laid right at your feet.
As to every one of those counties lamenting failure and Chinese imperialism? I just say ... "Miss us yet?".
As a loyal son of the Empire, I have a certain sympathy with that POV, Anon. Loyal to the US too though, 2 passports, you see.
DeleteApologies LSP but as pro-American as I am (I've spent most of thirty years fighting alongside Americans, I'd have emigrated if they still let a white, hetero, Christian, ex-military male like me in) there's a strain of anti-British sentiment expressed by many of your compatriots that 'seems' to be just accepted as unquestioned fact.
ReplyDeleteThe rewriting of history to exclude us (Seen any war movie where we're even there, well except as incompetent idiots of course) goes beyond what even the French do.
Don't get me wrong, I'd rather America was in charge than any of the alternatives, because it's not just 'western civilisation' that is the pinnacle of current societal development, but specifically Anglo-western civilisation. Individual and property rights, limitations placed on governments and, that conspicuously Anglo ideal, of 'fair play' are all severely limited, or even lacking elsewhere even in Europe. (The political/judicial trend away from the Anglo 'that which is not expressly forbidden is allowed' towards the Germanic 'that which is not expressly allowed is forbidden', both here and there, is .... worrying though).
So, all I'm saying is, you've been 'The Big Dog' since the fifties, effectively there's been an American hegemony (and no real complaints about that from me) but you don't then get to pretend that, despite all the many positives, all those negatives are 'nothing to do with us'.
I shall now, carefully, climb off my soapbox.
Anon, you drive a compelling two and four! I especially like this:
ReplyDelete"specifically Anglo-western civilisation. Individual and property rights, limitations placed on governments and, that conspicuously Anglo ideal, of 'fair play'"
Well said, Sir/Ma'am. But please be careful lest you incur the awful heli-minigun ire of Beans.
Just sayn.
In the meanwhile, I woke up on time for Mass this morning and realized myself a member of the Abwher. Oh well. And I was polite to the servers. Hunh. Hello Moseley.
What can I say, win some, lose some.
Hhmmnn, how does this work? Lord Carrington and Margaret Thatcher being 'commie'? Lord Carrington went on to be Secretary General of NATO (which excluded communist state members from recollection) in what was arguably the alliance's most successful period 1982-89 (no war and end of the Warsaw Pact and Cold War). Still, some people called Henry Ford a communist, so there we go...
ReplyDeleteAnon 8:00 AM
ReplyDeleteI’m not sure whether you’re being disingenuous, ill informed, or are just trying to score some imagined political point.
Rhodesian independence, the UDI in 1964, was a result, as I indicated, of the UN demands to deconstruct The Empire. It was the Wilson (Labour) government [as leftist a bunch of pantywaists as this country has ever suffered] that began the farce, making unrealistic demands (at the behest of the UN) that effectively led to the disaster that is modern Zimbabwe.
By 1979 it was a shambles that allowed no good outcome, but Lord Carrington, you may remember, was the one who ‘persuaded’ Lady Thatcher not to recognise the fledgeling government of Abel Muzorewa. His preferred option of “bringing all the competing factions together” led predictably to the disaster we see now. (What would a UANC government have achieved under him?)
So ‘the commies’ I was referencing, were those in the Foreign Office (the camel corps), Wilsons government and the UN. Carrington, unfortunately, was left with no good option and, I believe, made the wrong choice. Lady Thatcher, by then had more important things on her plate than fighting an already fait accompli. (and formerly being one of 'her boys' I take exception to any suggestion of my slandering her name).
Why blame the camel corps? Because Carrington wasn’t familiar with Africa and relied on their (biased) advice. Anyone with even the slightest familiarity with African politics could see the outcome of any ‘compromise’ agreement (with a bunch of ZANU and ZAPU marxist terrorists).
As the old African hands say “Africa wins again”. (Just as it has in South Africa).
Anons, dam commies get everywhere.
ReplyDelete