Why did Reagan Veto Anti-Apartheid Act?

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by ErikBEggs, Dec 6, 2013.

  1. ErikBEggs

    ErikBEggs New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2013
    Messages:
    3,543
    Likes Received:
    25
    Trophy Points:
    0
    As we mourn the passing of Nelson Mandela.. let us not forget.. Conservatives, led by Ronald Reagan, opposed anti-Apartheid sanctions. Reagan vetoed the Anti-Apartheid act.

    Explanation?
     
  2. GlobalCitizen

    GlobalCitizen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2013
    Messages:
    8,330
    Likes Received:
    1,209
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm not sure, but if you would have watched MSNBC last night, then it's because he was racist. So was Thatcher.
     
  3. LivingNDixie

    LivingNDixie New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2013
    Messages:
    3,688
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    0
    He felt it was too strict and he wanted to pass sanctions via Executive Order.
     
  4. Curmudgeon

    Curmudgeon New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2011
    Messages:
    3,517
    Likes Received:
    43
    Trophy Points:
    0
    He was afraid that if Apartheid were ended in SA, it would be taken over by the Communists. source
     
  5. garyd

    garyd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2012
    Messages:
    56,560
    Likes Received:
    16,652
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Probably because the sanctions as deisgned would ahve done more harm than good for South African blacks.
     
  6. A Canadian

    A Canadian New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2013
    Messages:
    318
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If that is true, he was wrong.
    He likely put some U.S. companies ahead of those SA people.
     
  7. Lil Mike

    Lil Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    51,271
    Likes Received:
    22,660
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I was taking an African History course in College when sanctions and divestment were political issues, so these were topics that were brought up in class.Your argument, that it would hurt South African Blacks more than South African Whites was brought up. However our Professor (who was from Ghana) felt that was the purpose. He wanted blacks to hurt so they would rise up, kill their oppressors, revolution ect... So I don't know if he liked the peaceful transition of power in South Africa or was disgusted by it.
     
  8. HB Surfer

    HB Surfer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2009
    Messages:
    34,707
    Likes Received:
    21,899
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The Cold War and the Soviet Influence at the time... how do people not know this?
     
  9. toddwv

    toddwv Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 18, 2009
    Messages:
    30,444
    Likes Received:
    6,429
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Because Reagan was a dick with an absolutely abysmal foreign policy that we are still trying to clean up after today.
     
  10. A Canadian

    A Canadian New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2013
    Messages:
    318
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That put the U.S. on the wrong side of history more than once.
     
  11. AmericanNationalist

    AmericanNationalist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2013
    Messages:
    41,152
    Likes Received:
    20,935
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Reagan hasn't been in office for more than 30 years. It's been 6 years since Bush left office, and Obama's largely continuing the neo-hawk policy, with his "residual" force in Iraq, his wanting to commit us to Afghanistan for 10+ more years(after bragging ironically during the elections about the war draw down). He went ships ablazing, literally at Syria making us look like fools to the world while Putin calmly said "There is such a thing as negotiation".

    Then there's the terrorist support in Libya, Egypt and those Syrian 'Rebels'. Obama has outpaced Bush as the worst commander in chief of all time. So much so, that apparently he's out of the loop while his even more hawkish "security team" goes ahead, and I'm more afraid of them now when I think about it.

    Obama's a puppet president and whoever's controlling that puppet, simply doesn't have American interests or geopolitical interests in fairness.
     
  12. GlobalCitizen

    GlobalCitizen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2013
    Messages:
    8,330
    Likes Received:
    1,209
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Because they are teaching our younglings that the Cold War was an American overreaction, and thus an invention of our imagination. That leads to questions like the one in this thread...
     
  13. garyd

    garyd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2012
    Messages:
    56,560
    Likes Received:
    16,652
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There are always asses some of them have degrees. The Wisdom of Mandela and Reagan are demonstrated by the fact that as bad as things are in S.A they are still far better than they are in Zimbabwe - the former Rhodesia.
     
  14. garyd

    garyd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2012
    Messages:
    56,560
    Likes Received:
    16,652
    Trophy Points:
    113
    How was he wrong? South Africa transition from Apartheid before he left office. Historically sanctions have been used by thuggish regimes as cover to murder their opposition and then claim they starved to death because of thesanctions.
     
  15. A Canadian

    A Canadian New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2013
    Messages:
    318
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So that's why no body suggests using sanctions any more. Give me a break. The U.S. is just like the old USSR or China when they vote against sanctions when the country is a friend, the people be dammed.
     
  16. Headlesseye

    Headlesseye New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2013
    Messages:
    439
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    >>>Insults removed<<< Newsflash: Putin and Syria caved in BECAUSE Obama wanted to go in guns blazing. They would have never negotiated otherwise. Putin calmly saw he was going to get slapped around militarily before a worldwide audience and gave the US exactly what they wanted.

    As for the rest, I count more successes than failures. Obama's foreign policy record flat out crushes Bush's and compares favorably with Reagan's. Lol @ Reagan taking credit for "bankrupting" the Soviet Union when they were going broke in the 70's. Their costly foray in Afghanistan had more to do with their downfall than Reagan.

    Vetoing Anti-Apartheid policy doesn't look good for St. Ronnie. I'm sure the Deep South loved it though.
     
  17. reallybigjohnson

    reallybigjohnson Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2012
    Messages:
    8,849
    Likes Received:
    1,415
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Truman, Nixon and Jimmy Carter also gave a pass to South Africa. Reagan's primary concern was communism at the time. This isn't rocket science. If you are going to claim that Reagan was a raging racist then you also have to label Jimmy Carter as a raging racist. In both cases the need to support SA as a bulwark against communism was front and center. Of course liberals don't know ANYTHING about history at all so it isn't surprising that the OP would make an incredibly asinine assumption without bothering to check even the most basic of facts.
     
  18. reallybigjohnson

    reallybigjohnson Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2012
    Messages:
    8,849
    Likes Received:
    1,415
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What a moronic statement. THe amount of idiocy in that post is astounding. Immediately after his gaff Kerry contacted the Russians to tell them that in fact is not what he meant and even the WH went on record to say that Kerry had simply mispoken. This allowed Putin to step in and save his pet dictator Assad from the same fate that had befallen Gaddafi in Lybia. Don't post anymore unless you actually know what you are talking about.
     
  19. Steady Pie

    Steady Pie Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2012
    Messages:
    24,506
    Likes Received:
    7,247
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Sanctions are a terrible idea.

    It's the same mentality that's got you spending trillions on military offense around the world, and in possession of thousands of military bases, with unprecedented control over the world's governments.

    Fix some of your own problems before you go looking to fix others'.

    [hr][/hr]

    Not a conservative, not a liberal. I dislike sanctions generally. I dislike them against South Africa, I dislike them against Iran, I dislike them against North Korea, I dislike them against Cuba.
     
  20. Whig Out

    Whig Out Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2013
    Messages:
    446
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0
  21. AmericanNationalist

    AmericanNationalist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2013
    Messages:
    41,152
    Likes Received:
    20,935
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It's even better(or worse) than that! The Obama White House basically went on record to say "We don't expect the Syrians/Russians to agree to the deal."

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/14/after-strike-deal-on-syria-kerry-says-him-calling-it-impossible-was-diplomacy/

    (Liberals'll have to forgive the fox news link, but I can assure you Kerry made those comments). It was at the time utterly laughable, and I'm still dumbfounded.

    Between these comments, and Obama's comments on Congress:

    http://www.politico.com/story/2013/08/obama-to-speak-on-syria-96122.html

    I viewed Obama and the trio of incompetents(Hillary and Biden) as not only war mongers, but committing treason and high treason, even the "Security Team" that "advised Obama".

    When Obama said "I could, but I want your vote anyway", that was framed politically in a way to tell Congress "Vote this way, or else". Congress was already politically handcuffed by Obama. Luckily, it didn't come down to a vote but I believe Obama was setting them up in a way where they'd vote for passage anyway.

    Such foul political play, and obstruction of the Senate goes beyond the War Powers Act. He undermined the very foundation of our political processes, and if I were a senator when he made those comments I would have filed for impeachment.
     
  22. garyd

    garyd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2012
    Messages:
    56,560
    Likes Received:
    16,652
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No people still use sanctions. As a general rule it is more politicaly palatable than trying to acutally do something to solve the problem.
     
  23. Dollface

    Dollface New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2013
    Messages:
    4,563
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    This is what happens when you let a B movie actor in the Oval Office. We all know who were really pulling the strings the same fear mongers who are getting rich today
     
  24. Headlesseye

    Headlesseye New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2013
    Messages:
    439
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Weak spin job.

    President Obama got exactly what he wanted from Syria and Putin only "stepped in" because he knew Assad was doomed unless he complied with U.S. demands.

    http://www.jpost.com/Syria-Crisis/W...stroyed-all-chemical-weapons-munitions-334232

    Obama tried diplomacy--didn't get anywhere. He threatened air strikes--within months Syria disarmed its weapons. Weapons Syria denied using, mind you. Yeah, I'll put that one in the win column for our CiC.
     
  25. Andelusion

    Andelusion New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2013
    Messages:
    1,408
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    0
    A number of reasons. First Reagan already had sanctions in place to apply pressure to repeal apartheid, and saw this as usurping his personal authority in international relations. Whether it was or not, I'm not sure, but that was his take.

    Second, Reagan understood something that the moronic left never has. Sanctions do very little to harm the government, but rather tend to harm the public. Generally this results in the public hating the government making the Sanctions, to the benefit of their own government. We've seen this in Cuba. The US Sanctions have very little real effect, but the Cuban government has used the "embargo" as an excuse for everything wrong in their country.

    Reagan knew he needed sanctions to appease the moronic dumb as hell left, while at the same time he didn't want to harm the poor impoverished blacks of South Africa, who would take the brunt of any real effects of Sanctions.

    Leftist who didn't care about the function of harming poor blacks, as much as the form of being against Apartheid, pushed for much stronger Sanctions.

    By all accounts, the Sanctions had little effect on the government, which was already moving towards end Apartheid. But of course the real purpose of the entire thing, was exactly what we see today, where mindless leftist lemmings use the sanctions as a political football to beat up on Reagan, who cared more about poor south African blacks more than the leftists ever did, or ever will.
     

Share This Page