South Africa plan to take white-owned land with no compensation

[MUTGR]

Originally Posted by prospectheightsresident

On the one hand, I agree with you and wouldn't want us getting involved militarily for something like this (i.e. there's no human death, etc., as a result). On the other hand, it is very much America's business who we decide to engage in trade with, etc. Thus, I'd have no problem if we placed sanctions on South Africa because we disagreed with this policy.

I'm not advocating for the US getting involved, but there is certainly human death. Some are calling it genocide.

We've often gotten involved with those situations.

[Huckleberry3911948]

Hard to believe in the face of the fact that the newly acquired native owned farms —taken from Dutch farm owners —have a 90% failure rate
These were previously prosperous farms
The explanation by the new owners for failure????
Discrimination and corruption

[jbgusa]

Originally Posted by Boer

It's my opinion that if your country stood against the white government in South Africa you should now offer Asylum to all the white people that remain in Africa because it is clear that they are not welcome there and that their future is precarious because of your countries actions. All the people that screamed out against the white governments and demanded they step down have got what they wanted...now the question is are you going to do the right thing for the people that live their lives in danger because of your geopolitical agenda.

I agree as far as asylum goes. There is now a "well-founded fear of persecution."

Originally Posted by Boer

Perhaps if the white people in South Africa would have followed the American model of colonization they'd be in a better position today of course you know what that means.

Originally Posted by Boer

Being of South African racial Heritage I always got a kick out of Americans commenting on the South African model because the American model was a thousand times worse!

General Smallpox did most of that work.

Originally Posted by Boer

They bought or won the land plain and simple they own it, taking it away from them is theft plain and simple. You may not like the circumstances they bought it under or the price they paid but just like New York it is purchased or won fair and square.

Mistreating the racial majority, however, wsa not needed.

Originally Posted by Boer

The suggestion that you can't own land in a country because of your race is preposterous. They just don't like the fact that their forefathers sold it or lost it in a conflict. It might not be politically correct but this is how it has been throughout world history.

Agreed. This kind of thing was supposed to be in the U.N.'s wheelhouse. They have much disappointed.