Smith was a 'reputable leader' why / how? Hypocracy??
2007-03-26
01:11:37
·
9 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous
in
Politics & Government
➔ Politics
The 'Last Rhodesian' - SAD. What you are is yet another example of the racism that derives from slavery. : The black man dont need to vote cause he is in-human etc. Ian Smith oppressed Blacks. He treated them like animals for a long long time - do you know how long? What did the world governments say or do??
Yet people like you can come forward and suggest that oppression aginst people cause of the color of their skin is justified. YOU give me the creeps 'Last Rhodesian'
2007-03-26
02:53:32 ·
update #1
LET ME GUESS - SMITH IS WHITE, MUGABE IS BLACK....IE smith is a jolly good fellow, mugabe is the new hitler?
2007-03-26
07:50:41 ·
update #2
Mugabe took a gem of Africa and turned it into nothing more than a useless rock.
1,400% Inflation, 60% unemployment, Argriculture destroyed, all service industries destroyed, curable diseases killing at an unprecedented rate due to no money for drugs.
In this light Iain Smith indeed looks like a reputable leader to me.
2007-03-26 01:27:56
·
answer #1
·
answered by Blitzhund 4
·
3⤊
0⤋
Ian Smith had his country's best interests at heart even if that included with holding the vote from the majority black population. His reasoning for doing this was because he foresaw what was happening across Africa with the "Winds of Change" policy and did not want to see Rhodesia descend into the political, social and economic mess it is in nowadays. Toward the end of the Bush War when it was clear that Rhodesia's strategic reserves were running short Smith suggests a power sharing arrangement with Bishop Abel Muzowera as nominal Prime Minister. Unfortunately for Rhodesia, Muzowera was not black enough and too much of a moderate for Britain's Callaghan and Wilson regimes. Short of Britain sending in her own army, the British were determined that Mugabe and his leftist thugs were going to take power. Smith may have lacked the imagination and/or political power to bring about peace for all Rhodesians/Zimbabweans but he did not torture or trample on the basic human rights of his own people and contrary to what the media will tell you, white Rhodesians had no intention of implementing an apatheid style system in Rhodesia. There is a big difference between white Rhodesians and South Africans and we never saw eye to eye with each other which is one reason why South Africa did very little to help bring about total Rhodesian independence.
EDIT: You do not seem to understand what I said. I did not say I agreed with Smith's policy of denying the native African person the vote I merely stated that it was the best thing Smith could think of to hold back the Winds of Change that had already ravaged Africa. If Smith had advocated power sharing from the start with the moderate black leaders and not the fully signed up Marxists like Nkomo or Mugabe Zimbabwe wouldn't be in the mess it is in now. I specifically stated that Smith didn't have the imagination or political power to end the standoff any other way. Smith only tried to power share when it was all but too late for Rhodesia. So how do you judge me to be a racist? Or is it because my skin colour is white and I was born by chance in Africa that you automatically assume I am racist? You give me the creeps with your avatar. Not sure who you are trying to emulate but choosing a picture of a man who looks like Slobodan Milosovic does not give you much credibility.
2007-03-26 09:26:22
·
answer #2
·
answered by Golf Alpha Nine-seven 3
·
1⤊
1⤋
O.k,they both were bad but the crimes that are being done as we speak by Mugabe are twice as bad as Smith was,what I do not understand is why is he getting away with it,perhaps Mr.Blair if looking in ,will answer that?or how come the Americans haven`t stuck their nose in?to rescue those being tortured by the regime that Robert Mugabe is running?
2007-03-26 11:13:59
·
answer #3
·
answered by edison 5
·
2⤊
0⤋
How old are you? If you could remember the '60s and '70s, you'd know Ian Smith was villified in the West. His only friends were Apartheid South Africa and right-wing Brits like the late Lord Salisbury who were seen as a fringe.
Anyway, he left Rhodesia in much better shape than it has been left after 27 years of 'self-rule'. Smith left one of Africa's strongest economies, Mugabe has made it one of the poorest.
2007-03-26 10:03:13
·
answer #4
·
answered by Dunrobin 6
·
1⤊
1⤋
Ian Smith was totally villified in his time. I remember it well as I was living in Rhodesia at the time. But Ian Smith did not commit any of the crimes that Mugabe is busy doing now.
2007-03-26 08:16:46
·
answer #5
·
answered by celianne 6
·
5⤊
0⤋
Iain Smith led that country Mugabe is destroying it
www.all-about-britain.com
2007-03-26 08:16:41
·
answer #6
·
answered by eurobichons 3
·
3⤊
0⤋
to label Bob as a 'demon" is an understatement.
One cannot compare him with Ian Smith.
Granted that Smith,with the old colonial rule repressed the nationals,but He did not commit such gross human rights violations/atrocities as Mugabe.
2007-03-26 08:18:49
·
answer #7
·
answered by Basil P 4
·
3⤊
0⤋
If you have seen the way Mugabe treats his people that says it all. He was born a DEMON and will die one. He is downright evil down to his little Hitler moustache and all. There can be no comparison whatsoever.:(
2007-03-26 08:15:39
·
answer #8
·
answered by Duisend-poot 7
·
2⤊
0⤋
i will no doubt be called a racist for this statement but ask any zimbabwian farmer this question? the black population have turned the bread basket of africa in to a hell hole this has nothing to do with the colour of their skin but more to do with their lack of skills in farming white farmers that built these farms and were successful were turfed off their thriving farms and their business's are ruined its a travesty any one else agree?
2007-03-26 14:22:14
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋