|
|
Post by RavynousHunter on Oct 7, 2011 16:34:43 GMT -5
I believe that was intentional.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Oct 7, 2011 17:02:59 GMT -5
I believe that was intentional. Just a little bit. |
|
|
|
Post by Yaezakura on Oct 7, 2011 17:11:11 GMT -5
Eeh, the Dalai Lama's goals aren't any peach garden, but...yeah. Fuck off, China. You do not own the world, you just fuck more than the rest of us. Kinda have to agree with this. It's a bit hard for me to care when a guy who's trying to reinstall his own oppressive regime is oppressed in turn. |
|
|
|
Post by scotsgit on Oct 7, 2011 18:05:33 GMT -5
Oh, very intelligent of you. You can't even use words correctly. And yet that one sentence of Vene's had more intelligence in it than all your posts put together. |
|
|
|
Post by HarleyThomas1002 on Oct 7, 2011 19:45:10 GMT -5
Oh, very intelligent of you. You can't even use words correctly. Doesn't mean you're any less of a stupid. |
|
|
|
Post by RavynousHunter on Oct 7, 2011 22:03:03 GMT -5
I believe that was intentional. Just a little bit. You mean I got something right? Hell, the world's gonna fuckin end... |
|
|
|
Post by priestling on Oct 8, 2011 2:19:39 GMT -5
I'll save you a seat at the Ragnarok bar, Ravy.
|
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Oct 8, 2011 3:44:03 GMT -5
That's what the white farmers like to think anyway. Amazing how they're the ones with the experience of, you know, running farms. Generally these farms are latifunda, where black farmers do the work and white owners take the profit. That's the standard Southern African colonial arangement, anyway. In fact, the British in Kenya were so angry at being outcompeted by far more efficient local farmers that they stole ever more of their land (not one inch of land in south Africa has ever be owned by a white man, by the way), leaving a huge population on such a small lot they could not continue to farm it. Then the British arrested the entire population and tortured virtually all of it. Nice blokes. |
|
|
|
Post by scotsgit on Oct 8, 2011 6:10:37 GMT -5
Amazing how they're the ones with the experience of, you know, running farms. Generally these farms are latifunda, where black farmers do the work and white owners take the profit. That's the standard Southern African colonial arangement, anyway. In fact, the British in Kenya were so angry at being outcompeted by far more efficient local farmers that they stole ever more of their land (not one inch of land in south Africa has ever be owned by a white man, by the way), leaving a huge population on such a small lot they could not continue to farm it. Then the British arrested the entire population and tortured virtually all of it. Nice blokes. If you want to look at another country, you can look at Zimbabwe and tell me about the farmers that Mugabe has installed there and try and tell me what a wonderful job they're doing. Then look at Mozambque where the white farmers from Zimbabwe fled and are now gainfully employed running farms there and where there isn't the same risk of starvation now that they're showing people how to run farms. Contrary to what you think, in both SA and Zimbabwe, the farmers weren't just sitting back raking in the cash, but actually involved in the work of it. Which is why, once they lost their land, organisations such as the UN employed them to teach farming to people in countries such as Afghanistan. |
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Oct 8, 2011 20:47:26 GMT -5
Generally these farms are latifunda, where black farmers do the work and white owners take the profit. That's the standard Southern African colonial arangement, anyway. In fact, the British in Kenya were so angry at being outcompeted by far more efficient local farmers that they stole ever more of their land (not one inch of land in south Africa has ever be owned by a white man, by the way), leaving a huge population on such a small lot they could not continue to farm it. Then the British arrested the entire population and tortured virtually all of it. Nice blokes. If you want to look at another country, you can look at Zimbabwe and tell me about the farmers that Mugabe has installed there Well, if you're looking at the first 20 years of the program (1979-1999), you'd have to say it was successful- as the Economist did in 1989. I'm not sure that other factors (famine, war, government indebtedness and corruption, inflation, trade sanctions and an end to British subsidies) haven't turned the policy around in the last 11 years. Mozammbique is 1) Not at war 2) Has no hyperinflation 3) Is allowed to trade 4) Has had rapid, aid-driven growth 5) But only in a very narrow segment of society. Those white 'owners' never owned shit, something recognised by all parties at the Lancaster House Agreement. The real owners either lie dead in some mass grave or work for the pseudo-owners. |
|
|
|
Post by RavynousHunter on Oct 9, 2011 3:10:15 GMT -5
I'll save you a seat at the Ragnarok bar, Ravy. I'll join ya once I'm done sparring with Thor. |
|
|
|
Post by scotsgit on Oct 9, 2011 5:47:29 GMT -5
If you want to look at another country, you can look at Zimbabwe and tell me about the farmers that Mugabe has installed there Well, if you're looking at the first 20 years of the program (1979-1999), you'd have to say it was successful- as the Economist did in 1989. I'm not sure that other factors (famine, war, government indebtedness and corruption, inflation, trade sanctions and an end to British subsidies) haven't turned the policy around in the last 11 years. And funnily enough when the white farmers showed people how to run the farms (which is a part of the agreement you're choosing to ignore) then they worked, however, when they were taken away will-nilly then they all started to fail. Or are you going to tell me that there's no starvation in Zimbabwe? And has had the benefit of experienced white farmers fleeing Zimbabwe to work there: The government of Mozambique has acknowledged this, why you can't is beyond me. The only pseudo-owners I can see are the ones installed by Mugabe. And mass graves? Where? I know in the last ten years there's been a few in Zimbabwe, now, who was it that caused that, surely not your friend Mr. Mugabe, he's as innocent as Hugo Chavez..... |
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Oct 9, 2011 6:51:49 GMT -5
Well, if you're looking at the first 20 years of the program (1979-1999), you'd have to say it was successful- as the Economist did in 1989. I'm not sure that other factors (famine, war, government indebtedness and corruption, inflation, trade sanctions and an end to British subsidies) haven't turned the policy around in the last 11 years. And funnily enough when the white farmers showed people how to run the farms (which is a part of the agreement you're choosing to ignore) As far as I can see, that is actually an imaginary part of the agreement. When the government started to give the land away to former soldiers (an idea also tried in Australia and the US, so it's not that far-out), not to mention government family-members, they were not able to put the land to good use. Black farmers also tended to produce staples (small grains production had increased by 163%), were working far smaller farms (without the economy of scale or poorly-paid menial labourers), without easy access to credit and without the productivity bonuses of heavy machinery. Tobacco, maize, coffee and tea production has, therefore, suffered, I doubt this is a major factor. Mozambique farmers, after all, have been doing it as long (in many cases, longer) than the white Zimbabwean psuedo-owners. Nonsense. The white colonialists who shot the people born to the land and then approprated it for themselves were thieves. That's why 70% of the country was white-owned in 1979- theft. Presumably the victims of old Cecil were buried somewhere. I want to make it very clear. I don't not think Mugabe is a good president (in fact, I think he's got not a few charges to face under domestic Zimbabwean law, even some under international). But not everything in Zimbabwe is entirely his fault. I don't get the Chavez-hatred. He's an elected president. I mean, you might disagree with a properly independent Venezuelan economy, but he's elected. He doesn't go around rounding up opponents, he doesn't fake elections, he doesn't steal land off its owners. Anybody who calls Chavez a dictator is trolling. |
|
|
|
Post by brendanrizzo on Oct 9, 2011 10:06:56 GMT -5
I don't get the Chavez-hatred. He's an elected president. I mean, you might disagree with a properly independent Venezuelan economy, but he's elected. He doesn't go around rounding up opponents, he doesn't fake elections, he doesn't steal land off its owners. Anybody who calls Chavez a dictator is trolling. Didn't he try to install a cult of personality and no limits on how many times he could get re-elected? (Which he actually got, if I recall correctly.) Nope, no dictatoriality here... |
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Oct 9, 2011 10:11:27 GMT -5
I don't get the Chavez-hatred. He's an elected president. I mean, you might disagree with a properly independent Venezuelan economy, but he's elected. He doesn't go around rounding up opponents, he doesn't fake elections, he doesn't steal land off its owners. Anybody who calls Chavez a dictator is trolling. Didn't he try to install a cult of personality and no limits on how many times he could get re-elected? (Which he actually got, if I recall correctly.) Nope, no dictatoriality here... You're right, that's not even anywhere close to a dictatorship. A dictator wouldn't allow his/her subjects to make the choice to re-elect them in the first place. |
|
