• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Zimbabwe: Mugabe Tells All White Farmers they Must Give Up Their Land and 'Go'

How so?

Whites have a history of exploitation in Rhodesia/Zimbabwe.

It's time for them to get theirs.
Not a valid reason.
 
Not a valid reason.

Well, I guess that takes us away from debate to opinion so I'll just sit out till another more interesting matter comes up on this board.
 
Well, I guess that takes us away from debate to opinion so I'll just sit out till another more interesting matter comes up on this board.
Debate is almost always about opinion.
This is no different.
In your opinion the actions of some evil individuals decades ago, who happened to have white skin, justify Mugabe's actions today.

In my opinion that is a stupid opinion, and any argument supporting it is flawed in the extreme.
 
Exactly. It's Socialist, an in that sense probably the closest to Orthodox Marxism there is in the world currently.

Huh ?

Jesus H man, pick up a book.

Or do a bit of objective research for a change.

Scandinavian countries are heavily vested in and benefit ftom the concept of PROFIT and have used the concept of Free Markets to build massive amounts of wealth.

From Corporate income taxes lower than our own to lax banking regulations that have allowed trillions in wealth to be stashed away tax free for decades Scandinavian Countries are definitively Capitalist

Marxism.....Lol !

Marx was a moron with more beard than brains.
 
I'm shocked that anyone is actually defending this. It's pure racial discrimination and it's wrong, it's indefensible.

edit: oh, that guy.

Yeah that's weird.
 
I think most USA Americans see this from a jaundiced perspective. Right, White, Christians marched in lockstep to dominate Rhodesia. he worm turned and the Native owners regained the power to teke back what had been taken from them. Right, White, USA Christians must be able to picture their own blowback if the USA Native American Indians were to regain their power to take back what had been taken from them. "Might does not make right." Mugabe is good for Africans, even if he is a turd.

how is a racist criminal like Mugabe good for Africans
 
White, USA Christians must be able to picture their own blowback if the USA Native American Indians were to regain their power to take back what had been taken from them.

That's revisionism. Nothing was illegally taken or stolen from North American indigenous population. It was all done legally under the international laws at the time, the same laws that all international laws are based upon today, Vattel's Law of Nations.

England, France, Portugal, Germany, Russia, the United States all used the Law of Nations. (Spain not so much so.) Any competent judge who's not an activist judge who legislates from the bench today has a copy of the "Law of Nations" next to him.

Vattel's Law of Nations, Book 1, Chapter XVlll.

Excerpts:

§ 208. A question on this subject.

>" But it is questioned whether a nation can, by the bare act of taking possession, appropriate to itself countries which it does not really occupy, and thus engross a much greater extent of territory than it is able to people or cultivate. It is not difficult to determine that such a pretension would be an absolute infringement of the natural rights of men, and repugnant to the views of nature, which, having destined the whole earth to supply the wants of mankind in general, gives no nation a right to appropriate to itself a country, except for the purpose of making use of it, and not of hindering others from deriving advantage from it. The law of nations will, therefore, not acknowledge the property and sovereignly of a nation over any uninhabited countries, except those of which it has really taken actual possession, in which it has formed settlements, or of which it makes actual use. in effect, when navigators have met with desert countries in which those of other nations had, in their transient visits, erected some monument to show their having taken possession of them, they have paid as little regard to that empty ceremony as to the regulation of the popes, who divided a great part of the world between the crowns of Castile and Portugal.1

There is another celebrated question, to which the discovery of the New World has principally given rise. It is asked whether a nation may lawfully take possession of some part of a vast country, in which there are none but eratic nations whose scanty population is incapable of occupying the whole? We have already observed (§ 81), in establishing the obligation to cultivate the earth, that those nations cannot exclusively appropriate to themselves more land than they have occasion for, or more than they are able to settle and cultivate. Their unsettled habitation in those immense regions cannot be accounted a true and legal possession; and the people of Europe, too closely pent up at home, finding land of which the savages stood in no particular need, and of which they made no actual and constant use, were lawfully entitled to take possession of it, and settle it with colonies. The earth, as we have already observed, belongs to mankind in general, and was designed to furnish them with subsistence: if each nation had, from the beginning, resolved to appropriate to itself a vast country, that the people might live only by hunting, fishing, and wild fruits, our globe would not be sufficient to maintain a tenth part of its present inhabitants. We do not, therefore, deviate from the views of nature, in confining the Indians within narrower limits, However, we cannot help praising the moderation of the English Puritans who first settled in New England; who, notwithstanding their being furnished with a charter from their sovereign, purchased of the Indians the land of which they intended to take possession.2 This laudable example was followed by William Penn, and the colony of Quakers that he conducted to Pennsylvania..."<

Vattel: The Law of Nations: Book I
 
Exactly.

Social Darwinism is a Bitch.

Hahah! A Communist named Buddha is espousing Social Darwinism? A hole has been torn in the fabric of spacetime.
 
Hahah! A Communist named Buddha is espousing Social Darwinism? A hole has been torn in the fabric of spacetime.

It's funny how many assault so vehemently an ideology they don't even understand.
 
Debate is almost always about opinion.
This is no different.
In your opinion the actions of some evil individuals decades ago, who happened to have white skin, justify Mugabe's actions today.

In my opinion that is a stupid opinion, and any argument supporting it is flawed in the extreme.

And yet you say there's a debate to be had.

Contradiction :doh
 
That's revisionism. Nothing was illegally taken or stolen from North American indigenous population. It was all done legally under the international laws at the time, the same laws that all international laws are based upon today, Vattel's Law of Nations.

England, France, Portugal, Germany, Russia, the United States all used the Law of Nations. (Spain not so much so.) Any competent judge who's not an activist judge who legislates from the bench today has a copy of the "Law of Nations" next to him.

Vattel's Law of Nations, Book 1, Chapter XVlll.

Excerpts:

§ 208. A question on this subject.

>" But it is questioned whether a nation can, by the bare act of taking possession, appropriate to itself countries which it does not really occupy, and thus engross a much greater extent of territory than it is able to people or cultivate. It is not difficult to determine that such a pretension would be an absolute infringement of the natural rights of men, and repugnant to the views of nature, which, having destined the whole earth to supply the wants of mankind in general, gives no nation a right to appropriate to itself a country, except for the purpose of making use of it, and not of hindering others from deriving advantage from it. The law of nations will, therefore, not acknowledge the property and sovereignly of a nation over any uninhabited countries, except those of which it has really taken actual possession, in which it has formed settlements, or of which it makes actual use. in effect, when navigators have met with desert countries in which those of other nations had, in their transient visits, erected some monument to show their having taken possession of them, they have paid as little regard to that empty ceremony as to the regulation of the popes, who divided a great part of the world between the crowns of Castile and Portugal.1

There is another celebrated question, to which the discovery of the New World has principally given rise. It is asked whether a nation may lawfully take possession of some part of a vast country, in which there are none but eratic nations whose scanty population is incapable of occupying the whole? We have already observed (§ 81), in establishing the obligation to cultivate the earth, that those nations cannot exclusively appropriate to themselves more land than they have occasion for, or more than they are able to settle and cultivate. Their unsettled habitation in those immense regions cannot be accounted a true and legal possession; and the people of Europe, too closely pent up at home, finding land of which the savages stood in no particular need, and of which they made no actual and constant use, were lawfully entitled to take possession of it, and settle it with colonies. The earth, as we have already observed, belongs to mankind in general, and was designed to furnish them with subsistence: if each nation had, from the beginning, resolved to appropriate to itself a vast country, that the people might live only by hunting, fishing, and wild fruits, our globe would not be sufficient to maintain a tenth part of its present inhabitants. We do not, therefore, deviate from the views of nature, in confining the Indians within narrower limits, However, we cannot help praising the moderation of the English Puritans who first settled in New England; who, notwithstanding their being furnished with a charter from their sovereign, purchased of the Indians the land of which they intended to take possession.2 This laudable example was followed by William Penn, and the colony of Quakers that he conducted to Pennsylvania..."<

Vattel: The Law of Nations: Book I

Rationalizing rape and depredation :roll:

Let me know when your birth day comes around, so I can get you a slave whip! :lol:
 
Rationalizing rape and depredation :roll:

Let me know when your birth day comes around, so I can get you a slave whip! :lol:

Rape ?

Which tribe are you referring to ?

You are aware that the Emancipation Proclamation didn't cover Native American tribes. They continued to practice slavery until the turn of the century into 1900.
 
Rape ?

Which tribe are you referring to ?

You are aware that the Emancipation Proclamation didn't cover Native American tribes. They continued to practice slavery until the turn of the century into 1900.

Are you trying to deny that the white man didn't rape the Natives? Talk about revisionism!

Your point? (the second line)
 
Are you trying to deny that the white man didn't rape the Natives? Talk about revisionism!

Your point? (the second line)

Who actually committed these rapes you speak of ?

Any credible documentation besides revisionist history ?

You identify yourself as being a communist and you need no explanation how the radical left uses revisionism to advance their agenda.
 
Who actually committed these rapes you speak of ?

Any credible documentation besides revisionist history ?

You identify yourself as being a communist and you need no explanation how the radical left uses revisionism to advance their agenda.

Good golly God, I think I should just crawl back into the economics sub-forum, at least there I don't need to post links to widely accepted historic Facts.
 
Good golly God, I think I should just crawl back into the economics sub-forum, at least there I don't need to post links to widely accepted historic Facts.

They are only accepted facts by those who didn't question the source.

You have those who believe if it's on the internet, it must be true.

You have those who read a history book and believe it must be true.

There are those who were indocernated in our schools after the 1960's and didn't challenge their teachers, instructors and proffesors and are misinformed.

Then you have some who get their history from what history is written from.

Guess where I got my history from ?
 
Debate is almost always about opinion.
This is no different.
In your opinion
the actions of some evil individuals decades ago, who happened to have white skin, justify Mugabe's actions today
.

In my opinion that is a stupid opinion, and any argument supporting it is flawed in the extreme.




What justifies the actions of those White racists?

Could you fill us in?




100 years from now we'll look back on all of this racist stupidity and laugh.

But right now it's having an enormous impact on innocent peoples lives all over this planet.
 
Last edited:
Need any help from Stormfront?
 
how is a racist criminal like Mugabe good for Africans



Mugabe has upended the tighty-white, right Christian 1% that controlled that Nation. I know your sympathies are with the 1% and inherited wealth, but this is definitely a fine case as exemplified by the Battel's Law of Nations in post 82 by ApacheRat. Might makes Right, don't ya' know, and Mugabe got the Might. Now the 1% will suffer and the bankers, but the poor, 99%, suffer business as usual, and get some small satisfaction by being able to say; "screw a bunch of Right, White Christians!" Don't you think?
 
Mugabe has upended the tighty-white, right Christian 1% that controlled that Nation. I know your sympathies are with the 1% and inherited wealth, but this is definitely a fine case as exemplified by the Battel's Law of Nations in post 82 by ApacheRat. Might makes Right, don't ya' know, and Mugabe got the Might. Now the 1% will suffer and the bankers, but the poor, 99%, suffer business as usual, and get some small satisfaction by being able to say; "screw a bunch of Right, White Christians!" Don't you think?

I was hoping after Mugabe proved he was no Mandela-someone would have whacked his incompetent racist ass.
screwing the whites leads to starvation. its called cosmic payback
 
I was hoping after Mugabe proved he was no Mandela-someone would have whacked his incompetent racist ass.
screwing the whites leads to starvation. its called cosmic payback

And then as Mugabe buggers the white boys, the IMF and World Bank will put sanctions on Zimbabwe and, just like Iraq and Slick Willie Clintoon, perhaps a half a million children will starve. That'll be because of the sanctions, not Mugabe, but the tighty white and right Christians will blame Mugabe. Mugabe is a turd, but blowback is predictable, and there is no doubt he is on the side of blacks and Mugabe's family bank accounts.
 
And then as Mugabe buggers the white boys, the IMF and World Bank will put sanctions on Zimbabwe and, just like Iraq and Slick Willie Clintoon, perhaps a half a million children will starve. That'll be because of the sanctions, not Mugabe, but the tighty white and right Christians will blame Mugabe. Mugabe is a turd, but blowback is predictable, and there is no doubt he is on the side of blacks and Mugabe's family bank accounts.

Mugabe has really done a bang up job for the blacks
 
Good golly God, I think I should just crawl back into the economics sub-forum, at least there I don't need to post links to widely accepted historic Facts.


You make some pretty ridiculous statements over their too.
 
And yet you say there's a debate to be had.

Contradiction :doh
Well that's only my opinion.

Obviously you disagree.

Thus, equally obviously, there is debate to be had.
 
What justifies the actions of those White racists?

Could you fill us in?




100 years from now we'll look back on all of this racist stupidity and laugh.

But right now it's having an enormous impact on innocent peoples lives all over this planet.
Nothing justifies it.

Such activities cannot be justified.
 
Back
Top Bottom