Why did Reagan Veto Anti-Apartheid Act?

http://century.theguardian.com/1980-1989/Story/0,,110268,00.html

Read the whole article and you'll understand.

 

Interesting thought... but I don't buy it.

A people oppressed (as SA Blacks were), is about as bad as anything can get.

 

Johnny you should recall that the sanctions we placed on Saddam were used as a cover for the wholesale slaughter of his opposition he then claimed they starved to death because of the sanctions. Tyrannical regimes tend not to give a crap about the people they oppress.

 

OK, blocking the UN, the veto of congress, the arms to South Africa, the thousands of Cuban troops in Angola, the Russian interest in Africa, Reagan's concern about communism, etc., are all on the record.

But, the really weird thing about your post here is this idea of "jobs without being discriminated against" for blacks in South Africa.

What the heck does THAT mean? And, how could that possibly be OK?

I know that is not what our founders were after.

 

Who helped end it with economic sanctions? The one he vetoed would have hurt domestic industry that people relied on to feed their families. The later sanctions he called for and passed were more targeted and HIGHLY successful.

Now why did Jimmy Carter do nothing?

 

That does not mean SA was headed in the same direction.

Even so, I'm happy that things turned out the way they did (though they have a long way to go).

 

I consider Mandela to be one of the great men in the world if for no other reason that he is one of the only two people in the world that I know of who looked the great God power directly in the and told him to take a hike. South Africa largely has a chance to become a modern nation state almost entirely because of him and his willingness to take the road much less traveled.

You're right however there is a long way to go and the basic infrastructure of modenity a fully funtioning education system has got to get up and running first. But they are on there way with out the baggage that is sinking Zimbabwe like a stone. Part of it may be that there are three sides to the puzzle that is South Africa with the Zulu being one group alng with the Other African group whose name escapes me at the moment and the Brits.

 

xhosa. mandela was a xhosa.

 

Never suggested otherwise, and still doesn't change any thing that I said. Doesn't make any counter point at all to what I said. I don't know why people like you can't grasp this. It's fairly simple argument, backed up with statements made by Reagan, and what he wrote in his diary. So you bring up some irrelevant... but true.... factoids.... and then think you have point.

The Berlin Wall came down under Reagan, so that means that Reagan was a supporter of freedom. (notice, my factoid is just as irrelevant to this conversation as your irrelevant factoid)

Domestic companies in south Africa, were discriminating. Foreign companies operating in South Africa were not, because they were foriegn and not involved in the racism. The sanctions pushed for by the democrats would have eliminated the few non-discriminating employment available to poor south African blacks.

As I said before......

Leftists never cared about the blacks of South Africa, just as this thread proves they still don't today. You couldn't care less about poor blacks looking for work in South Africa, as much as you like this political football to kick Reagan around with.

 

SA is now the murder and rape capital of the world.

BOtswana on the other hand...now that is a nation on the path to prosperity.

 

In my time here on PF, I've learned that it doesn't matter what your side does in the past, because there will always be someone to re-write history for them.....

 

Obama is following in his footsteps...

The Muslim World Hates the U.S. More Than Ever

 

Sorry John but freedom isnt always all nice and neat and tidy. Botswana doesn't have the long standing ethnic issues that South Africa Does and it isn't just the white/black dichotomy. The Zulus have a long history of not getting on well with the xosha and the the other ethnic groups. It doesn't Help that the Afrikaaners played one against the other to good(bad) effect for more than 80 years. On top of that there is no small antipathy between the former British colonists and the Boers who are of Dutch decent and for whom the term Afrikaaner was originally created.

 

Mandela's past opposition to the Zulu's hasnt helped that situation.

For sure. That is the colonialist way. That is what they did to India too.

That is not where the violence is coming from. It is general lawlessness. It is coming from mismanagement of government service like the police forces because people untrained and new came to power very quickly and took over a job they weren't ready for yet. Vacuums are filled by idleness and crime and there you go. Iraq for example. Change over should have been more gradual. Crime is an indication of the effectiveness of police forces, not lack of internal strife - though that does help a bit.

 

Dems were opposed to the government of South Africa and saw US opposition to that government as the necessary step.

Reagan saw South Africa as an ally against communism, and thus worked hard in the UN and domestically to prevent sanctions against South Africa. Under his policy of "Constructive Engagement" he continued aid and arms to South Africa in the hopes that it would strengthen the apartheid South African government.

Bishop Desmond Tutu came to the US with his message that the South African government needed to be stopped, and that the US needed to stop helping that government. He was VERY specific about opposing Reagan's policy of "Constructive Engagement" both in that speech and in communications throughout that time. You can not claim that Tutu was interested in damaging the plight of black workers in South Africa. I remember his speech. It was an important turning point as it was both eloquent and well reported to a nation that hadn't fully awakened to the seriousness of the humanitarian catastrophe in his nation.

Republicans recognized how wrong Reagan was, and helped override Reagan's veto of harsh sanctions and end Reagan's policy of "Constructive Engagement". That step, combined with similar sanctions from many other nations, helped drive the revolution in South Africa.

 

Tutu was a commie. Agreed as to that much?

Reagan sent a black ambassador to South Africa as a message. Carter sent a white guy.
Reagan stopped military aide to South Africa - it had more effect then the economic sanctions, although they were also economic.
Reagan publicly and repeatedly called for an end to Apartheid.

[video=youtube;-UfVUiSnzsc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UfVUiSnzsc[/video]

[video=youtube;q1kvTSs75so]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1kvTSs75so[/video]

You get it yet? Just because he doesn't like your tactics to push them towards the soviets economically, doesnt mean he was for apartheid.

 

He sent a black guy? He called for an end to Apartheid? And, then what?

Reagan's actual policy, called "Constructive Engagement" included sending arms and aid for the purpose of strengthening the South African government. And, Reagan vetoed congressional efforts to stop that. And, Reagan fought against UN action against SA as well.

Reagan's policy of "Constructive Engagement" was opposed by the SA black majority.

It took the US congress, including the vast percentage of the Republican party, to end "Constructive Engagement" and that came after Bishop Desmond Tutu came to the US to point out the horrors we were supporting.

My "tactics" are to keep to a truthful record of events.

 

Nonsense. Where was LBJ speaking out against apartheid? Carter? Nixon? Ford?

Just because he didnt agree with crippling their economy and pushing them towards the soviets - he did agree with the peaceful leaders of the Zulu nation in keeping the place peaceful and making a transition to democracy as they kept the soviets at bay. Mandela's National Spear in the mean time were killing members of the Zulu nation through the barbaric practice of necklacing. Lets keep it truthful.

 

Yes, we could talk about the policies of other presidents.

Someone else mentioned Reagan and I simply corrected the record.

Mandela did NOT agree with the notion of keeping the place peaceful. The government needed to be overthrow.

 

I think you are referring to titanium. It's mined all over the world, including the US, but the major world market source outside of the old Soviet Union was South Africa. As I recall, the issue was nuclear submarines, not the space program, but I'm basing that on a faulty memory. It was US policy that we didn't want that source of titanium under control of the Soviets, which we felt would happen if a Communist ANC government took over.

 

Both were fighting for freedom then. In 1988 a military personnel graduated from U.S. Army Infantry School at Fort Benning, Georgia. He was later given the Bronze Star, National Defense Service Medal, Southwest Asia Service Medal, Non-Commissioned Officer Professional Development Ribbon, Army Service Ribbon, Kuwait Liberation Medal (Saudi Arabia).

Should we have put this ex-military man to death for all that? Of course not. At the time, Timothy McVeigh was a good man, serving his country.

Only later did he blow up a building with men, women, and children in it.

If Reagan had been given a vision of the future for both Saddam and Osama, then he would not have done what he did. As all of us would have.

But he didn't a vision. Neither have we. Grow up. You blaming Reagan for a future he could not have no, is just partisan hypocrisy.

 

Reagan believed Apartheid was hardly racist at all. He was a fool. The record is clear - he vetoed sanctions. Deny it all you want, but it happened.
http://c.washingtontimes.com/neighb...even-reagans-apartheid-veto-unified-congress/

Interestingly, you say Reagan was good because he didn't want sanctions because 'sanctions are silly' but fail to mention he INCREASED sanctions against Cuba which you say is a 'left wing nonsense tactic' - in fact he was one of the biggest advocates of harsh sanctions. He also imposed sanctions on carious other countries. Looks like Reagan was part of the 'idiotic left.' LOL but I actually agree with you on Cuba - it's failings would be readily apparent if the US ceased its trade embargo. But the US would never do that in case Cuba was actually successful, such as that which happened in Nicaragua - incidentally under Reagan too (so he exported terrorism to the country to bring its success to an end).

 

LOL! That's hilarious. So it was 'freedom' Reagan was supporting by aiding Saddam's aggressive attack on Iran which was killing hundreds of thousands if innocents and it was 'freedom' Reagan was supporting by funding Saddam's massacre of Kurdish rebels WITH US and British arms?

I mean, come on, how could Reagan have known Saddam might be a threat to the region when he was a brutal dictator who used terror and fear amongst political purges to keep power, he had started a war of aggression, deploying chemical weapons and had initiated massacres of unruly minorities within his country. I mean Reagan shouldn't have suspected anything - especially when he was a friend of the US.

 

>>>Insult Removed<<<

You just proved my point, in your own post. Did the Cuba Communist Castro government, fail because of the sanctions?

No it did not. Which is exactly why Reagan was not in favor of the Sanctions, knowing they wouldn't work.

Thanks for proving Reagan right.

 

>>>Insults/Replies Removed<<<


' Reagan&#8217;s record on South Africa was also marked by at least one embarrassing gaffe, when he told a radio interviewer in 1985: &#8220;They have eliminated the segregation that we once had in our own country &#8212; the type of thing where hotels and restaurants and places of entertainment and so forth were segregated &#8212; that has all been eliminated.&#8221; Of course, that was simply not true, and Reagan later walked the statement back. '
http://www.salon.com/2011/02/05/ronald_reagan_apartheid_south_africa/

And you're saying Reagan was a leftist idiot. And yes I agree with you I already said I did lol

So why did he impose sanctions on other countries if he thought they didnt worked? Lolol

How so? Reagan didn't impose sanctions on South Africa because he was an idiot not because he didn't like sanctions. I just gave you examples as to why you are wrong again on this point.