Can someone explain why we're celebrating Nelson Mandella?

[Smith]

Dont care for the man but I agree with him on this. We are the only country to ever nuke a city.. 2 actually. An to this day we are dropping bombs on people with drones cause someone we dont like might be in the group.. But at the same time screaming about our rights being violated cause someone might fly that same drone over our house. Cause apparently natural rights given by god were only given to people in the USA.

 

We are a nation that thinks we are better than everyone else an we have became a nation forever in search of our next war.

Well aren't you a Daisy. It's really sad that this is perceived as truth. Over simplifying out of context history and reassembling it to reflect ones ideology is exactly what has made South Africa the hell hole it has become.

Edited December 14, 2013 by Smith

[RobertNashville]

He was a communist and an (at least indirect) terrorist. He also was the major reason apartheid was ended and democratic government instituted in South Africa.

 

Pick the parts of the man you love and hate, I suppose.

 

- OS

As was also pointed out by Glenn Beck (and then others); upon his release from prison he sought peace at a time when one word from him would have plunged South Africa in a blood letting war that would have killed tens if not hundreds of thousands. That single act alone makes him, at least, worth of note. He also, as was pointed out, a former head of state and as such it's certainly appropriate for Obama to go to the memorial service as did many others.

[Jonnin]

Dont care for the man but I agree with him on this. We are the only country to ever nuke a city.. 2 actually. An to this day we are dropping bombs on people with drones cause someone we dont like might be in the group.. But at the same time screaming about our rights being violated cause someone might fly that same drone over our house. Cause apparently natural rights given by god were only given to people in the USA.

 

We are a nation that thinks we are better than everyone else an we have became a nation forever in search of our next war.

 

Nuking your enemy is not an atrocity.   Triply so when that enemy attacked us without reason, without warning, and triply so given the horrors that japan visited upon the southern chinese population.

 

I would say you have a point with the drones, but honestly I lack the ethics to care.   I personally would nuke them too. 

[leroy]

From our buddies at Moonbattery Blog: http://moonbattery.com/?p=40122

 

More here: http://iowntheworld.com/blog/?p=215920

 

More here: http://south-africa-pig.blogspot.com/2008/05/execution-by-necklacing.html#chitika_close_button

 

I remember when this was goin on....

 

leroy

Edited December 11, 2013 by leroy

[Guest RebelCowboySnB]

Nuking your enemy is not an atrocity.   Triply so when that enemy attacked us without reason, without warning, and triply so given the horrors that japan visited upon the southern chinese population.

You may have had a differing opinion if Iraq had nuked (insert US city here). As for no reason, we were supplying war items to japans enemies an had clearly taken sides an were making threats. Right or wrong we picked a fight.

Edited December 11, 2013 by RebelCowboySnB

[bersaguy]

I just hope they don't drag this out as long as they did Michael Jackson's life story. He was in the news over a year with people praising him and his actions and I think he really deserved nothing more but the dirt that is covering him right now but that is.............. jmho

[Peace]

You may have had a differing opinion if Iraq had nuked (insert US city here). As for no reason, we were supplying war items to japans enemies an had clearly taken sides an were making threats. Right or wrong we picked a fight.

 

o...... k.......

 

Our good old USA is not, has never been, and will never be perfect... the reasons for that are, well... us. humans.  BUT you will find few .. narry a single joe here who will take the side that the United States "picked a fight" with Japan ... like some school kid who didn't know better.... 

 

I should leave it there,... 

 

 

    Some fights you pick.  Some fights pick you.  When the latter is inevitable, making no preparations for it would be evidence of either lack of brains or lack of the will to live.  We showed neither of those traits... and in our actions before WWII, we hoped to avoid as costly a war as it turned out to be.

 

 

 

Dad gummit... .  look:

 

     Mandela said what he said about the USA because:

1) he could... you can say whatever you want when your words do not command actions - and therefore have very little chance of producing consequences.

2) he didn't think one sovereign country should be able to exert military pressure/action within the border of a seperate sovereign country - technically unprovoked in order to preserve its (the invading country's) stability (seeking to enhance/maintain national security and economy).

     I struggle with my own thoughts about us and Iraq -- thoughts that I cannot know enough to substantiate, so I have to just let it be history... unfortunate for our brave soldiers who were lost or wounded - and their families who have lost loved ones and unfortunate for the countless thousands of innocent civilians who were maimed or killed in the middle of it.  The bottom line is... I can't know for certain whether it was all necessary or not - doesn't mean I don't wish that I could know.

 

     In theory, I agree with Mandela.  In practice, his line of thinking was full of utopian cow patties.  I would be a complete and utter pacifist if I thought it would actually bring and sustain peace.  I am of the opinion that pacifism will only bring peace in limited quantity and for a limited time.  Total pacifism is essentially a surrender - a gift of power to some psychopathic person or group who will laughingly take it, smile at you, and feel big about themselves knowing that "you" are at their mercy.  What they do with that power is unknown; what is known is that the pacifist will have no say in it.

 

     In South Africa - during the end of Apartheid, the amount of power Mandela wielded was inexplicably large.  He was able to extend "forgiveness", and resist vengeance precisely because he wielded the power to incite massive civil unrest and anhilate the entire country.  

 

     While great wisdom can come from an old warrior.  We have to be full of care to evaluate their words in light of their outlook and current goals.  Mandela wanted peace.  Al ***** hadn't flown planes into his buildings or threatened to terrorize his citizens indefinitely.  

 

     In the late afternoon of 9/11/01, I was called out of a meeting in a small town in rural South Africa.  I was informed of the attack... by the time I knew - both towers were already down.  There was no danger.  There was no "war" declared from Al ****** to SA.  That is the difference.  I don't know how Iraq ranked on our threat assessment, but it aparently did, and we acted.  

Edited December 11, 2013 by Peace

[Guest RebelCowboySnB]

No I am saying we picked a fight with Japan knowing full well what we were doing. It may have been the right thing to do to but we were not hit by an unprovoked attack an the people in charge were not suppressed.

 

The people were not behind us joining the war. They needed a reason for the public to back us going to war.

 

 

Declassified in 1994

 

0p-16-F-2 ON1 7 October 1940
Memorandum for the Director

Subject: Estimate of the Situation in the Pacific and
Recommendations for Action by the United States.

1. The United States today finds herself confronted
by a hostile Germany and Italy in Europe and by an equally
hostile Japan in the Orient. Russia, the great land link between
these two groups of hostile powers, is at present neutral, but
in all probability favorably inclined towards the Axis powers,
and her favorable attitude towards these powers may be expected
to increase in direct proportion to increasing success in their
prosecution of the war in Europe. Germany and Italy have been
successful in war on the continent of Europe and all of Europe
is either under their military control or has been forced into
subservience. Only the British Empire is actively opposing by
war the growing world dominance of Germany and Italy and their
satellites.

2. The United States at first remained coolly aloof
from the conflict in Europe and there is considerable evidence
to support the view that Germany and Italy attempted by every
method within their power to foster a continuation of American
indifference to the outcome of the struggle in Europe. Paradoxically,
every success of German and Italian arms has led to further
increases in United States sympathy for and material support of
the British Empire, until at the present time the United States
government stands committed to a policy of rendering every
support short of war the changes rapidly increasing that
the United States will become a full fledged ally of the British
Empire in the very near future. The final failure of German
and Italian diplomacy to keep the United States in the role of
a disinterested spectator has forced them to adopt the policy of
developing threats to U.S. security in other spheres of the world,
notably by the threat of revolutions in South and Central America
by Axis-dominated groups and by the stimulation of Japan to further
aggressions and threats in the Far East in the hope that by these
mean the Unites States would become so confused in thought
and fearful of her own immediate security as to cause her to
become so preoccupied in purely defensive preparations as to
virtually preclude U.S. aid to Great Britain in any form. As a
result of this policy, Germany and Italy have lately concluded
a military alliance with Japan directed against the United States
If the published terms of this treaty and the pointed
utterances of German, Italian and Japanese leaders can be believed,
and there seems no ground on which to doubt either, the three
totalitarian powers agree to make war on the United States,
should she come to the assistance of England, or should she
attempt to forcibly interfere with Japan's aims in the Orient and,
[2]
furthermore, Germany and Italy expressly reserve the right to
determine whether American aid to Britain, short of war, is a
cause for war or not after they have succeeded in defeating
England. In other words, after England has been disposed of
her enemies will decide whether or not to immediately proceed
with an attack on the United States. Due to geographic conditions,
neither Germany nor Italy are in a position to offer any
material aid to Japan. Japan, on the contrary, can be of much
help to both Germany and Italy by threatening and possibly even
attacking British dominions and supply routes from Australia,
India and the Dutch East Indies, thus materially weakening
Britain's position in opposition to the Axis powers in Europe.
In exchange for this service, Japan receives a free hand to seize
all of Asia that she can find it possible to grab, with the
added promise that Germany and Italy will do all in their power
to keep U.S. attention so attracted as to prevent the United
States from taking positive aggressive action against Japan.
Here again we have another example of the Axis-Japanese
diplomacy which is aimed at keeping American power immobilized,
and by threats and alarms to so confuse American thought as to
preclude prompt decisive action by the United States in either
sphere of action. It cannot be emphasized to strongly that
the last thing desired by either the Axis powers in Europe
or by Japan in the Far East is prompt, warlike action by the
United States in either theatre of operations.

3. An examination of the situation in Europe leads
to the conclusion that there is little that we can do now,
immediately to help Britain that is not already being done.
We have no trained army to send to the assistance of England,
nor will we have for at least a year. We are now trying to
increase the flow of materials to England and to bolster the
defense of England in every practicable way and this aid will
undoubtedly be increased. On the other hand, there is little
that Germany or Italy can do against us as long as England
continues in the war and her navy maintains control of the
Atlantic. The one danger to our position lies in the possible
early defeat of the British Empire with the British Fleet falling
intact into the hands of the Axis powers. The possibility of
such an event occurring would be materially lessened were we
actually allied in war with the British or at the very least
were taking active measures to relieve the pressure on Britain
in other spheres of action. To sum up: the threat to our security
in the Atlantic remains small so long as the British Fleet
remains dominant in that ocean and friendly to the United States.

4. In the Pacific, Japan by virtue of her alliance
with Germany and Italy is a definite threat to the security
of the British Empire and once the British Empire is gone the
power of Japan-Germany and Italy is to be directed against the
United States. A powerful land attack by Germany and Italy
through the Balkans and North Africa against the Suez Canal
with a Japanese threat or attack on Singapore would have very
serious results for the British Empire. Could Japan be diverted
or neutralized, the fruits of a successful attack on the Suez
Canal could not be as far reaching and beneficial to the Axis
powers as if such a success was also accompanied by the virtual
elimination of British sea power from the Indian Ocean, thus
[3]
opening up a European supply route for Japan and a sea route for
Eastern raw materials to reach Germany and Italy, Japan must be
diverted if the British and American ( ) blockade of Europe
and possibly Japan (?) is to remain even partially in effect.

5. While as pointed out in Paragraph (3) there is
little that the United States can do to immediately retrieve
the situation in Europe, the United States is able to effectively
nullify Japanese aggressive action, and do it without lessening
U.S. material assistance to Great Britain.

6. An examination of Japan's present position as
opposed to the United States reveals a situation as follows:

Advantages Disadvantages

1. Geographically strong position 1. A million and a half men
of Japanese Islands. engaged in an exhausting war
on the Asiatic Continent.
2. A highly centralized strong 2. Domestic economy and food
capable government. supply severely straightened.

3. Rigid control of economy on 3. A serious lack of sources of
a war basis. raw materials for war. Notably
oil, iron and cotton.
4. A people inured to hardship 4. Totally cut off from supplies
and war. from Europe.
5. A powerful army. 5. Dependent upon distant overseas
routes for essential supplies.
6. A skillful navy about 2/3 6. Incapable of increasing
the strength of the U.S. Navy. manufacture and supply of war
materials without free access
to U.S. or European markets.
7. Some stocks of raw materials. 7. Major cities and industrial
centers extremely vulnerable
to air attack.
8. Weather until April rendering
direct sea operations in the
vicinity of Japan difficult.

7. In the Pacific the United States possesses a very strong
defensive position and a navy and naval air force at present
in that ocean capable of long distance offensive operation. There
are certain other factors which at the present time are strongly
in our favor, viz:

A. Philippine Islands still held by the United States.
B. Friendly and possibly allied government in control
of the Dutch East Indies.
C. British still hold Hong Kong and Singapore and
are favorable to us.
D. Important Chinese armies are still in the field
in China against Japan.
E. A small U.S. Naval Force capable of seriously
threatening Japan's southern supply routes
[4]
already in the theatre of operations.
F. A considerable Dutch naval force is in the
Orient that would be of value if allied to U.S.

8. A consideration of the foregoing leads to the
conclusion that prompt aggressive naval action against Japan by
the United States would render Japan incapable of affording any
help to Germany and Italy in their attack on England and that
Japan itself would be faced with a situation in which her navy
could be forced to fight on most unfavorable terms or accept
fairly early collapse of the country through the force of blockade.
A prompt and early declaration of war after entering into suitable
arrangements with England and Holland, would be most effective
in bringing about the early collapse of Japan and thus eliminating
our enemy in the pacific before Germany and Italy could strike
at us effectively. Furthermore, elimination of Japan must surely
strengthen Britain's position against Germany and Italy and, in
addition, such action would increase the confidence and support
of all nations who tend to be friendly towards us.

9. It is not believed that in the present state of
political opinion the United States government is capable of
declaring war against Japan without more ado; and it is barely
possible that vigorous action on our part might lead the
Japanese to modify their attitude. Therefore, the following
course of action is suggested:

A. Make an arrangement with Britain for the use of
British bases in the Pacific, particularly
Singapore.
B. Make an arrangement with Holland for the use of
base facilities and acquisition of supplies
in the Dutch East Indies.
C. Give all possible aid to the Chinese government
of Chiang-Kai-Shek.
D. Send a division of long range heavy cruisers to
the Orient, Philippines, or Singapore.
E. Send two divisions of submarines to the Orient.
F. Keep the main strength of the U.S. fleet now in
the Pacific in the vicinity of the Hawaiian Islands.
G. Insist that the Dutch refuse to grant Japanese
demands for undue economic concessions,
particularly oil.
H. Completely embargo all U.S. trade with Japan,
in collaboration with a similar embargo imposed
by the British Empire.

10. If by these means Japan could be led to commit an
overt act of war, so much the better. At all events we must be fully
prepared to accept the threat of war.

A. H. McCollum
CC-0p-16
0p-16-F
File
[5]
0p-16-F-2 ON1 7 October 1940
Summary
1. The United States is faced by a hostile combination of
powers in both the Atlantic and Pacific.

2. British naval control of the Atlantic prevents hostile
action against the United States in this area.

3. Japan's growing hostility presents an attempt to open sea
communications between Japan and the Mediterranean by an
attack on the British lines of communication in the
Indian Ocean.

4. Japan must be diverted if British opposition in Europe is
to remain effective.

5. The United States naval forces now in the Pacific are
capable of so containing and harassing Japan as to nullify
her assistance to Germany and Italy.

6. It is to the interest of the United States to eliminate
Japan's threat in the Pacific at the earliest opportunity
by taking prompt and aggressive action against Japan.

7. In the absence of United States ability to take the
political offensive, additional naval force should be
sent to the orient and agreements entered into with Holland
and England that would serve as an effective check against
Japanese encroachments in South-eastern Asia.
[6]
Comment by Captain Knox

It is unquestionably to out general interest
that Britain be not licked - just now she has a stalemate
and probably cant do better. We ought to make it certain
that she at least gets a stalemate. For this she will probably
need from us substantial further destroyers and air reinforcements
to England. We should not precipitate anything in the
Orient that should hamper our ability to do this - so long as
probability continues.

If England remains stable, Japan will be cautious
in the Orient. Hence our assistance to England in the Atlantic
is also protection to her and us in the Orient.

However, I concur in your courses of action
we must be ready on both sides and probably strong enough
to care for both.
D.W.K.
Re your #6: - no reason for battleships not
visiting west coast in bunches.

Edited December 11, 2013 by RebelCowboySnB

[R_Bert]

Twice, I have visited the Apartheid Museum in Johannesburg. Regardless of his political leanings, one cannot walk through that place without being deeply affected. The photographs, and the paraphernalia are haunting. 

Edited December 11, 2013 by R_Bert

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Interesting take on what happened in South Africa.

 

http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/12/the_road_to_genocide_is_paved_with_liberal_intentions.html

[Dolomite`s Breezy]

Why is anyone surprised that this happened with Obama? nothing learned yet?

[Links2k]

I celebrate Mr Mandela because after his release from prison he could have become a bitter, vengeful leader of a million man killing machine exacting punishment on his perceived enemies. Yet he chose peace. People who love money and material things can weep over the loss of prosperity, but I celebrate the humanity.

I have mentioned this before somewhere. In the very near future when America becomes a majority of brown people, will you want your neighbors treating your children, grandchildren and great grandchildren in the matter that history teaches us that their ancestors were treated by America? Keep in mind that not everyone is seduced by gold and trinkets. Edited December 15, 2013 by LINKS2K

[Smith]

I celebrate Mr Mandela because after his release from prison he could have become a bitter, vengeful leader of a million man killing machine exacting punishment on his perceived enemies. Yet he chose peace. People who love money and material things can weep over the lose of prosperity, but I celebrate the humanity.

I have mentioned this before somewhere. In the very near future when America becomes a majority of brown people, will you want your neighbors treating your children, grandchildren and great grandchildren in the matter that history teaches us that their ancestors were treated by America? Keep in mind that not everyone is seduced by gold and trinkets.

so the rampant genocide that has been going on across South Africa and nearly every neighbouring country since the revolution is the peace you speak of? Are you reading the links?
liberals are great. the results and reality don't matter as long as the intention feels "right". I also like how liberals have no problem with universals when they speak of America's faults, yet rail at the idea that their hero's are accountable for the actions of people following their ideology.
Very interesting indeed.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I thought that link I posted, by Selwyn Duke, hit it fairly well. There is a lot of forgetfulness when the media is on one of their rampages,

which is what happened with Mandela.

 

Like I said earlier, it is appropriate for US presidents to visit funerals for foreign dignitaries, but this one didn't pan out to be for a foreign

dignitary, but a world class tyrant. Political correctness ruled this one, or it was just a gathering of elites. When he bows, to a foreign

dignitary, which is against protocol, all he does is submit. This love fest for liberals was really appalling. They spent too much time

adoring themselves to show respect for one of their own. Much less the fun Obama had with the blonde.

[leroy]

The now deceased Nelson Mandela, the ANC and the present government of South Africa are far from being fair, honest, or kind... They are, in fact, murderous, corrupt and  brutally unkind...  The white apartied government of South Africa on it's worst days was never as corrupt or brutal as what they have now; the only difference is that now, their oppressors are black....

 

South Africa will straighten up its problems when the people of south africa get rid of the demagogues, rogues, and psychopaths who are systematically deceiving, murdering, oppressing and leading its citizens around like children...When the black south africans decide that their white neighbors are not the enemy and realize that the present apparatchiks of government are responsible for their plight; and when they actually take some steps to clean that problem up; they will make some real progress toward rebuilding south africa...

 

I liken the problem in south africa to the problem here in the good ole usa in lots of locations; principally in the crime ridden, ratty bluer big cities where machine politics rule and the citizens are voluntary serfs... The south africans are more "real" serfs than they are citizens and free men... The difference is that in south africa they are using police power and the bayonet to keep them that way....The truth is that white folks aint doin this; black demagogues and would-be dictators are doin it... There is simply no way ya can pin the present problems in south africa on "whitey"...Black majority rule and "one man one vote" has been in place in south africa for over 23 years (...since the early nineties, i think...)...

 

I dont think we can learn a dammed thing about race relations, how to run government, or how to get along together as fellow citizens from thugs like those currently running south africa or zimbabwe other than how not to do it...

 

leroy

[Links2k]

to
so the rampant genocide that has been going on across South Africa and nearly every neighbouring country since the revolution is the peace you speak of? Are you reading the links?
liberals are great. the results and reality don't matter as long as the intention feels "right". I also like how liberals have no problem with universals when they speak of America's faults, yet rail at the idea that their hero's are accountable for the actions of people following their ideology.
Very interesting indeed.

I find it interesting you skipped the entire intent of my post. I also find it interesting how Americans can point out everyones faults but our own.

Sir, the peace that I speak of is that Mr Mandela didn't go Nat Turner on every pale face in South Africa. That was the intent of my post. Edited December 15, 2013 by LINKS2K

[Smith]

I find it interesting you skipped the entire intent of my post. I also find it interesting how Americans can point out everyones faults but our own.

Sir, the peace that I speak of is that Mr Mandela didn't go Nat Turner on every pale face in South Africa. That was the intent of my post.

No your intent was clear as was mine. Not really sure what Nelson Mandela and South Africa has to do with America's imperfections. This was a discussion of South Africa and Nelson Mandela. How that turns into an American problem is beyond me but then again that is what liberals do. When they can't defend their hero's or position on the sole basis of their merits, they start making the equivalency arguments and turn the discussion about someone or something else.

 

Nelson Mandela and South Africa's issues are one of the truly few instances where the situation is as autonomous as it could be on the world stage.

[Links2k]

No your intent was clear as was mine. Not really sure what Nelson Mandela and South Africa has to do with America's imperfections. This was a discussion of South Africa and Nelson Mandela. How that turns into an American problem is beyond me but then again that is what liberals do. When they can't defend their hero's or position on the sole basis of their merits, they start making the equivalency arguments and turn the discussion about someone or something else.
 
Nelson Mandela and South Africa's issues are one of the truly few instances where the situation is as autonomous as it could be on the world stage.

Somewhere in your tiny little universe you must have offended someone by calling them a liberal. It won't work on me. I've also been here long enough to know the format of most arguments here. Your opinion or hostility won't change my mind about Mr Mandela. Have a good night.

[Smith]

Somewhere in your tiny little universe you must have offended someone by calling them a liberal. It won't work on me. I've also been here long enough to know the format of most arguments here. Your opinion or hostility won't change my mind about Mr Mandela. Have a good night.

Haha, we've had similar discussions before. Liberal is a descriptive term for a particular world view that conveys context without having to write an essay to establish a contrast. ;) Not necessarily intended as an insult towards you.

 

That being said the notion that Mandela brought peace is not even close to reality. I have friends who live on the outlays of South Africa and family that have traveled in the area extensively and that reality coincides with what my research, own time in Africa, and many other observers have opined.

 

As I have said before I think Mandela genuinely believed in what he was doing and had the best of intentions but that does not absolve him from the consequences of his choices. Just because he did not make it as bad as it could have been doesn't mean he isn't responsible for the genocides that continue after over 20 years of his government. He also didn't stop what was/is going on.

 

It's kinda like defending Hitler because he didn't kill as many people as he could have and applauding his restraint.

[Randall53]

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

You know, this kind of carp happens every day in Middle Schools all over the USA and is expected from immature children. It's a pretty sad state of affairs that our narcissistic "president" has the same level of maturity as a 13 year old.

[gun sane]

I agree with what radio host Don Imus said:  "Nelson Mandela is a leader Barack Obama should try to emulate...He could start by spending 27 years in prison."

[Spiffy]

By definition our founding fathers were terrorists too. Why do we celebrate them?

 

I don't remember reading where John Adams or Ben Franklin tied a tire around someone's neck and set it on fire.

[Links2k]

Haha, we've had similar discussions before. Liberal is a descriptive term for a particular world view that conveys context without having to write an essay to establish a contrast. ;) Not necessarily intended as an insult towards you.

That being said the notion that Mandela brought peace is not even close to reality. I have friends who live on the outlays of South Africa and family that have traveled in the area extensively and that reality coincides with what my research, own time in Africa, and many other observers have opined.

As I have said before I think Mandela genuinely believed in what he was doing and had the best of intentions but that does not absolve him from the consequences of his choices. Just because he did not make it as bad as it could have been doesn't mean he isn't responsible for the genocides that continue after over 20 years of his government. He also didn't stop what was/is going on.

It's kinda like defending Hitler because he didn't kill as many people as he could have and applauding his restraint.

I removed this comment because I remembered that I no longer care to fight with people on the internet. The op asked a question About Mandela and I gave my opinion. Have a good day. Edited December 15, 2013 by LINKS2K

[StumpyBeagle]

So Barry, George, Bill and Jimmy all go to pay their respects to Mandela. The flags in the United States flags were ordered flown at half mast. I would not consider Mandela an  ally of the United States. What pisses me off is not one of the four living Presidents could drag their sorry asses to England to Margret Thatcher's Funeral. Obama sent George Shultz and James A. Baker two ex-secretaries of state. She was not just our staunchest ally, she was a true best friend to the United States. She and Reagan saved millions of lives with the fall of the Berlin Wall and the fall of Communism in Russia. Our flags were not even ordered to flown at half mast after her passing, but mine did.

[Randall53]

So Barry, George, Bill and Jimmy all go to pay their respects to Mandela. The flags in the United States flags were ordered flown at half mast. I would not consider Mandela an  ally of the United States. What pisses me off is not one of the four living Presidents could drag their sorry asses to England to Margret Thatcher's Funeral. Obama sent George Shultz and James A. Baker two ex-secretaries of state. She was not just our staunchest ally, she was a true best friend to the United States. She and Reagan saved millions of lives with the fall of the Berlin Wall and the fall of Communism in Russia. Our flags were not even ordered to flown at half mast after her passing, but mine did.

Amen!!!! Just goes to show you how far down the slope we are.