Welcome to Gaia! ::

"South Africa to step up land seizure."

South Africa has now, having witnessed the international sock at, and the economic disaster which followed Mugabe's decision to seize land from skilled white farmers to give to untrained, illiterate and violent black militia, have now decided that it looks like a good idea to do the same.

To show the the results of the prior parallel action by Zimbabwe's President Mugabe this link illustrates the current situation.

Land redistribution which takes land from the capable white farmers who have kept these Commonwealth countries afloat both before and after Commonwealth independence, and giving the land arbitrarily to blacks with no assets, skills, training or experience is a recipe for disaster. These are not smallholdings, but massive commericial farms using advanced industrial methods and a great deal of experience.

Should we, the international community, continue to allow these African States to carry out these injustices? And when such injustices are actively putting those countries at great risk, to what extent does this make a difference to our obligation?

We tried in Iraq. We're sortof vaguely succeeding in Afghanistan.

Why not?

Let the American's mind their resources.

Anyway, if we have the power to do something to make the world a better place, why shouldn't we?

War should be treated as an extension of diplomacy if all other means fail, with the exception of conquering. It seesm to be a current trend for most leaders throughout word to treat talk as cheap. rolleyes

As for South African, considering more of the majority of black people there are better educated than almost anywhere else in African (pardon if I sound rascist). Things will continue to run relatively smoothly once the land is transfered. Everyone should be aware this stems from fears of the World Bank seizing lands from them before they do and giving them to large corporations. This fears may not be completely just but consider the World Bank or IMF can do whatever they want with the aid if the country they are giving loans to cannot sufficiently pay back.

Sortof. The Taliban are being beaten though, the NATO troops have very much the advantage at the moment and the power of the local warlords has been broken or seriously undermined in every region in which NATO troops are operating.

The Economist agrees with me, too. Where do you draw your assessment from?

The Economist runs over and above the mainstream media, this is why views aired in it hit government ministers harder than views aired in the mainstream. The writers are all in the know, and many contributors are senior Civil Servants, diplomats and captains of industry.

Nicknames don't hold much water, the fact of the matter is that for all the marksmanship and skill of the Taliban, the NATO forces are consistently making ground.

Ah for the extent of government autority, that comes after the defeat of Taliban power. We are currently breaking the Taliban, so once that is done the power will flow further.

The the government power hasn't yet reached the troublespots is no argument against the evidence that we are winning against Taliban forces.

correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't south africa the country with three capitals? and the president who can "cure aids"

i mean, the only real thing that we can do as the international community is sanction them for doing bad economics moves, but at the same time, that won't do any good as long as china is funding africa.
what can we do? bomb them for being retarded collectivist? seems like

a) an unjust reason for war
b) a gross violation of south africa's sovreignity