₦airaland Forum

patches689:
The sum total of nigerias efforts to fight apartheid: a letter

Well done

*clap*

Diplomatic action led by Nigeria FINALLY defeated Apartheid , while your ANC peoples Soweto violence and Bushmen freedom fighters failed to achieve for many wasted years of fighting !
.

agaugust:
Diplomatic action led by Nigeria FINALLY defeated Apartheid , while your ANC peoples Soweto violence and Bushmen freedom fighters failed to achieve for many wasted years of fighting !
.

Hahahahhaha

You think the world powers gave a sh1t about your irrelevant nation?

Nuclear armed partheid south africa was playing the great game with the great states

Your letters meant and did nothing

If you wish to allegde they did - PROVIDE A CITATION

...

ssaengine:
...

Beautiful picture

jln115:
Dude putting a hashtag with the word fact after it doesn't make it a fact!

You just don't love truth. The hashtag hasn't suffered an abuse of use yet, it isn't startin with me. My submissions are facts and backed by history. The botha regime did its best to hide the casualties of the war. He had reasons: if word spread round the apartheid soldiers are being mowed in Angola, there would have been grave repercussions at home in south Africa which, at that time had militarized streets already. Thus your generals doctored the report for domestic expediencies backed by American mercenaries and CIA. Christopher, the chief press secretary Of the Regan(?) Administration was also falsifying results for the American press.

The lies was all uncovered after Angolan troops besieged your forces for days with no communication getting through to pretoria. It was a total lockdown.

Botha flew to the battle theatre in panic and anxiety. That was why you called for negotiations. If you could win the war, you would never have agreed to and sat down to negotiation.

You would never had conceded Namibia.

You south Africans are impossible. YOU admit to nothing. I am yet to see a people so dishonest with their own self-accessment. You have carried the art of self-deception so long, you're blind to reality now.

SOUTH Africa is a floating junk of debris, you belong to the past. Start honest rebuilding and stop pretending to lead Africa, you're all still groping in the dark.

jln115:
the fall of the Soviet Union mate, as I said before.

No link. The defeat by Angola resulted in your leaving Namibia.

patches689:
Hahahahhaha

You think the world powers gave a sh1t about your irrelevant nation?

Nuclear armed partheid south africa was playing the great game with the great states

Your letters meant and did nothing

If you wish to allegde they did - PROVIDE A CITATION

Below is Obasanjor's letter to the British prime minister in 1986, Margaret Thatcher:


[b]Dear Margaret,

After our meeting on Sunday, I write as one committed democrat to another.Yours is an old country with a lengthy democratic tradition; mine a new country undergoing a press of nation-building. But as democrats, we can be frank with each other.

As you know, I came to the EPG (Eminent Persons’ Group) mission with reluctance. It was difficult enough for me as an African and especially as a Nigerian to contemplate exchanging pleasantries with those responsible for the institutionalised oppression of so many of my brothers and sisters.

My repugnance was exacerbated by the widely held perception that the EPG was a substitute for action won by you at Nassau for the benefit of P.W. Botha. However, I persuaded myself that whatever the odds, the prize was so great that I should overcome my personal feelings.

Not that I was prepared for what we found. As you know, even Tony Barber – a frequent traveller to South Africa – was appalled by what he was to see in that other South Africa which visitors seldom see. We jointly expressed our shock and dismay in our report.

I have seen extremes of poverty and of oppression in many parts of the world. But South Africa unashamedly moulds both elements into a system which enables the white minority to enjoy a “Dallas” lifestyle at the expense of the great majority forced to endure conditions as degrading as anything I have seen anywhere.

In our discussions, Malcolm Fraser and I tried to convey the true nature of the system and were against cosmetic changes which have merely softened the face of apartheid.

However, such was our discussion that I must ask: Did you even read our report?

I infer from what you said that afternoon that you had not. You concentrated on the trivia of the Government’s “reforms” – like the welcome but essentially insignificant repeal of the Mixed Marriages Act – and ignored their implacable opposition to changes in the basic pillars of apartheid.

As we emphasised, to begin to dismantle apartheid, the Population Registration Act and the Group Areas Act must be repealed without being replaced by some measure designed to achieve the same ends under a different guise.

You gave credence to the dangerous notion that the political rights of the dispossessed can be adequately met by what President Botha calls “group rights” at the expense of individual rights and freedoms. Despite all the talk of “power sharing” between different communities, our inescapable conclusion was that this was a cloak for power remaining in white hands, and the essentials of apartheid continuing unchanged.

Nor have you any appreciation of the issue of violence. The apartheid system has an inherent violence which, through forced removals and the creation of barren homelands, has created the fiction of a white land and through the barrel of the gun, denies blacks any form of legitimate political expression.

We are all opposed to violence other than in self-defence. Why should blacks not have a right to defend their own families, homes and freedoms?

Your “moral revulsion” for sanctions struck me as unconvincing. The economic sanctions you so energetically pursued against Poland, Afghanistan and Argentina were brushed aside in your determination to withhold their application to South Africa. Yet to many of us there is only one significant difference: the victims in South Africa are black. Is sauce for the Aryan goose not sauce for the Negroid gander?

Your concentration of the economic effectiveness of sanctions is disingenuous if not hypocritical. Sanctions were imposed against Poland, Afghanistan and Argentina as political expressions of outrage.

Nor can your opposition be based on any assessment of where the best interests of Britain lie. Your country has considerable trade with South Africa, but this is dwarfed by that enjoyed with the rest of Africa: it cannot be in Britain’s interests to encourage them to place their orders elsewhere.

Further, your appearance as an apologist challenges the democratic forces in South Africa to seek help from whatever quarter they can. The longer-term consequences for Britain, the United States and the West could be considerable.

But most of all, I was dismayed by your lack of vision. You offered no action as an alternative to sanctions. You insisted that nothing whatever be done – even though in the final analysis you moved a little. There is no vision of a way ahead; simply a forlorn hope that P.W. Botha would experience a “Road to Damascus” conversion on the road to Soweto. Such hopes are in vain.

Sooner or later, Botha or his successor will be driven to negotiate meaningfully. Sir Geofferey’s visit again confirmed that Botha is not yet under sufficient pressure to do so – despite a dwindling rand, escalating inflation, a declining economy and mounting violence. More pressure must come.

I must tell you that many people around the world view your continued opposition to sanctions as founded on instinct, not logic and as displaying a misguided tribal loyalty and myopic political vision. The consequences of such perceptions are far-reaching for a country which has traditionally claimed the high ground of principle.

Not only does the mental laager of the Boer seem to be mirrored in your own attitudes, but his fatal concessions of too little, too late are paralleled by your actions.

I am glad that the Commonwealth has moved on without you and I know that sooner rather than later, Britain will have to join us. I also know that apartheid will end, and its demise will be the product of a combination of internal and external pressures. The equation is a simple one. The less the external pressure, the greater will be the price to be paid internally.

Those who seek to minimise sanctions and their effect will have the blood of thousands, if not millions, of innocents on their hands and on their consciences. My heart will be heavy but my hands will be clean. Will yours?

(General Olusegun Obasanjo was Head of the Federal Military Government of Nigeria 1976 – 79 when he handed over power to an elected civilian government. He was later elected President[/b] of Nigeria from 1999-2007.)


Nigeria has always been the mouth piece of Africa, while you were slaving. We have always provides leadership which you have benefitted. Stop your baseless banter and embrace history.

lezz:
No link. The defeat by Angola resulted in your leaving Namibia.

So then by your logic the cubans were defeated as well??

lezz:
[b]Below is Obasanjor's letter to the British prime minister in 1986, Margaret Thatcher:

country with a lengthy democratic tradition; mine a new country undergoing a press of nation-building. But as democrats, we can be frank with each other.

As you know, I came to the EPG (Eminent Persons’ Group) mission with reluctance. It was difficult enough for me as an African and especially as a Nigerian to contemplate exchanging pleasantries with those responsible for the institutionalised oppression of so many of my brothers and sisters.

My repugnance was exacerbated by the widely held perception that the EPG was a substitute for action won by you at Nassau for the benefit of P.W. Botha. However, I persuaded myself that whatever the odds, the prize was so great that I should overcome my personal feelings.

Not that I was prepared for what we found. As you know, even Tony Barber – a frequent traveller to South Africa – was appalled by what he was to see in that other South Africa which visitors seldom see. We jointly expressed our shock and dismay in our report.

I have seen extremes of poverty and of oppression in many parts of the world. But South Africa unashamedly moulds both elements into a system which enables the white minority to enjoy a “Dallas” lifestyle at the expense of the great majority forced to endure conditions as degrading as anything I have seen anywhere.

In our discussions, Malcolm Fraser and I tried to convey the true nature of the system and were against cosmetic changes which have merely softened the face of apartheid.

However, such was our discussion that I must ask: Did you even read our report?

I infer from what you said that afternoon that you had not. You concentrated on the trivia of the Government’s “reforms” – like the welcome but essentially insignificant repeal of the Mixed Marriages Act – and ignored their implacable opposition to changes in the basic pillars of apartheid.

As we emphasised, to begin to dismantle apartheid, the Population Registration Act and the Group Areas Act must be repealed without being replaced by some measure designed to achieve the same ends under a different guise.

You gave credence to the dangerous notion that the political rights of the dispossessed can be adequately met by what President Botha calls “group rights” at the expense of individual rights and freedoms. Despite all the talk of “power sharing” between different communities, our inescapable conclusion was that this was a cloak for power remaining in white hands, and the essentials of apartheid continuing unchanged.

Nor have you any appreciation of the issue of violence. The apartheid system has an inherent violence which, through forced removals and the creation of barren homelands, has created the fiction of a white land and through the barrel of the gun, denies blacks any form of legitimate political expression.

We are all opposed to violence other than in self-defence. Why should blacks not have a right to defend their own families, homes and freedoms?

Your “moral revulsion” for sanctions struck me as unconvincing. The economic sanctions you so energetically pursued against Poland, Afghanistan and Argentina were brushed aside in your determination to withhold their application to South Africa. Yet to many of us there is only one significant difference: the victims in South Africa are black. Is sauce for the Aryan goose not sauce for the Negroid gander?

Your concentration of the economic effectiveness of sanctions is disingenuous if not hypocritical. Sanctions were imposed against Poland, Afghanistan and Argentina as political expressions of outrage.

Nor can your opposition be based on any assessment of where the best interests of Britain lie. Your country has considerable trade with South Africa, but this is dwarfed by that enjoyed with the rest of Africa: it cannot be in Britain’s interests to encourage them to place their orders elsewhere.

Further, your appearance as an apologist challenges the democratic forces in South Africa to seek help from whatever quarter they can. The longer-term consequences for Britain, the United States and the West could be considerable.

But most of all, I was dismayed by your lack of vision. You offered no action as an alternative to sanctions. You insisted that nothing whatever be done – even though in the final analysis you moved a little. There is no vision of a way ahead; simply a forlorn hope that P.W. Botha would experience a “Road to Damascus” conversion on the road to Soweto. Such hopes are in vain.

Sooner or later, Botha or his successor will be driven to negotiate meaningfully. Sir Geofferey’s visit again confirmed that Botha is not yet under sufficient pressure to do so – despite a dwindling rand, escalating inflation, a declining economy and mounting violence. More pressure must come.

I must tell you that many people around the world view your continued opposition to sanctions as founded on instinct, not logic and as displaying a misguided tribal loyalty and myopic political vision. The consequences of such perceptions are far-reaching for a country which has traditionally claimed the high ground of principle.

Not only does the mental laager of the Boer seem to be mirrored in your own attitudes, but his fatal concessions of too little, too late are paralleled by your actions.

I am glad that the Commonwealth has moved on without you and I know that sooner rather than later, Britain will have to join us. I also know that apartheid will end, and its demise will be the product of a combination of internal and external pressures. The equation is a simple one. The less the external pressure, the greater will be the price to be paid internally.

Those who seek to minimise sanctions and their effect will have the blood of thousands, if not millions, of innocents on their hands and on their consciences. My heart will be heavy but my hands will be clean. Will yours?

(General Olusegun Obasanjo was Head of the Federal Military Government of Nigeria 1976 – 79 when he handed over power to an elected civilian government. He was later elected President[/b] of Nigeria from 1999-2007.)


Nigeria has always been the mouth piece of Africa, while you were slaving. We have always provides leadership which you have benefitted. Stop your baseless banter and embrace history.

Still acting as though anyone gives a sh1t about a letter!

Hahahahahahah

Clown

lezz:
You just don't love truth. The hashtag hasn't suffered an abuse of use yet, it isn't startin with me. My submissions are facts and backed by history. The botha regime did its best to hide the casualties of the war. He had reasons: if word spread round the apartheid soldiers are being mowed in Angola, there would have been grave repercussions at home in south Africa which, at that time had militarized streets already. Thus your generals doctored the report for domestic expediencies backed by American mercenaries and CIA. Christopher, the chief press secretary Of the Regan(?) Administration was also falsifying results for the American press.

The lies was all uncovered after Angolan troops besieged your forces for days with no communication getting through to pretoria. It was a total lockdown.

Botha flew to the battle theatre in panic and anxiety. That was why you called for negotiations. If you could win the war, you would never have agreed to and sat down to negotiation.

You would never had conceded Namibia.

You south Africans are impossible. YOU admit to nothing. I am yet to see a people so dishonest with their own self-accessment. You have carried the art of self-deception so long, you're blind to reality now.

SOUTH Africa is a floating junk of debris, you belong to the past. Start honest rebuilding and stop pretending to lead Africa, you're all still groping in the dark.

No citations = trolling

Are you really this desperate??

lezz:
You just don't love truth. The hashtag hasn't suffered an abuse of use yet, it isn't startin with me. My submissions are facts and backed by history. The botha regime did its best to hide the casualties of the war. He had reasons: if word spread round the apartheid soldiers are being mowed in Angola, there would have been grave repercussions at home in south Africa which, at that time had militarized streets already. Thus your generals doctored the report for domestic expediencies backed by American mercenaries and CIA. Christopher, the chief press secretary Of the Regan(?) Administration was also falsifying results for the American press.

The lies was all uncovered after Angolan troops besieged your forces for days with no communication getting through to pretoria. It was a total lockdown.

Botha flew to the battle theatre in panic and anxiety. That was why you called for negotiations. If you could win the war, you would never have agreed to and sat down to negotiation.

You would never had conceded Namibia.

You south Africans are impossible. YOU admit to nothing. I am yet to see a people so dishonest with their own self-accessment. You have carried the art of self-deception so long, you're blind to reality now.

SOUTH Africa is a floating junk of debris, you belong to the past. Start honest rebuilding and stop pretending to lead Africa, you're all still groping in the dark.

No citations = trolling

Are you really this desperate??

Your obsession with South Africa is disturbing

patches689:
Still acting as though anyone gives a sh1t about a letter!

Hahahahahahah

Clown

Bwahaha, you asked agaugust for citations, I went beyond that; I gave you the whole excerpt. But I know you couldn't deal with it. I love smacking illusions off your morbid face.

Buckling _idiot.

patches689:
No citations = trolling

Are you really this desperate??

Your obsession with South Africa is disturbing

Have you honestly dealt with any citiations or excerpt I have provided? You evasive,debate-unworthy, cyber-recluse.

I keep chasing you from pillar to post, I expect to see you up in the trees hiding when I light the fire up your arse.

lezz:
You just don't love truth. The hashtag hasn't suffered an abuse of use yet, it isn't startin with me. My submissions are facts and backed by history. The botha regime did its best to hide the casualties of the war. He had reasons: if word spread round the apartheid soldiers are being mowed in Angola, there would have been grave repercussions at home in south Africa which, at that time had militarized streets already. Thus your generals doctored the report for domestic expediencies backed by American mercenaries and CIA. Christopher, the chief press secretary Of the Regan(?) Administration was also falsifying results for the American press.

The lies was all uncovered after Angolan troops besieged your forces for days with no communication getting through to pretoria. It was a total lockdown.

Botha flew to the battle theatre in panic and anxiety. That was why you called for negotiations. If you could win the war, you would never have agreed to and sat down to negotiation.

You would never had conceded Namibia.

You south Africans are impossible. YOU admit to nothing. I am yet to see a people so dishonest with their own self-accessment. You have carried the art of self-deception so long, you're blind to reality now.

SOUTH Africa is a floating junk of debris, you belong to the past. Start honest rebuilding and stop pretending to lead Africa, you're all still groping in the dark.

Wow the amount of bullshiit you type is truly unbelievable, honestly dude you should stop quoting that forum of yours, you look like a retaard when you do.

lezz:
No link. The defeat by Angola resulted in your leaving Namibia.

No Link, the fall of the Soviet Union led to us leaving Namibia.

agaugust:
When did SADF or SANDF ever win a war it fought (as it's own war not proxy) in it's entire history?

Every place South African military led ordinary peace keeping intervention is still in chaos, AU is now proposing to send troops to Burundi to stop civil war, C.A.R is about split into two by civil war.

Everything South African military touches magnetizes failure, your non-achivement in simple interventions is written all over African history that is why UN cannot trust your always failing army and asked a less fanciful Tanzanian army to command and control SANDF in Congo war....all your Southy military can do is internet photography self advertisements
.

WW1 Namibian campaign, Border War to name 2 major wars in our history.

Rest of your post is worthless B.S.

jln115:
Wow the amount of bullshiit you type is truly unbelievable, honestly dude you should stop quoting that forum of yours, you look like a retaard when you do.

And it hurts you because it exposes you for the up-belly fish that you are. What has the fall of the soviet union got to do with Namibia.

You admitted it was because of the Russia that you couldn't take Angola, so you already admitted to defeat.

You don't negotiate with those you can defeat. You defeat them. Your lies are weak and you're losing your mind trying to hold onto this.

You should fall on your face.

jln115:
No Link, the fall of the Soviet Union led to us leaving Namibia.

Try harder. You don't sound convincingconvincing or factual.

lezz:
Try harder. You don't sound convincingconvincing or factual.

That was exactly the point retaard, i sounded like you!!

lezz:
And it hurts you because it exposes you for the up-belly fish that you are. What has the fall of the soviet union got to do with Namibia.

You admitted it was because of the Russia that you couldn't take Angola, so you already admitted to defeat.

You don't negotiate with those you can defeat. You defeat them. Your lies are weak and you're losing your mind trying to hold onto this.

You should fall on your face.

Let me try to explain to you in a simple manner that you hopefully can understand: Soviet Union=Threat=BufferZone=Nambia....No Soviet Union=NoThreat=NoBufferZone=IndependentNamibia

? When did i admit it was because of Russia that we couldn't take Angola? We were a stone through away from Luanda, it was the US that stoped us from annexing Angola.

jln115:
That was exactly the point retaard, i sounded like you!!

You're cracking under the weight of your own repetitive denials.

You admitted here you didn't defeat Angola because of Russian involment, which didn't go anywhere beyond supply of armoury. You had American mad tanks.

So why deny the obvious and lace me with your frustrated diatribe when you run out of point?

The SANDF in all its form has never won a battle it has led in living memory. Tiny Angola dragged you through the mud and left your troops crying for Botha to OK nuclear

I want to show you what's like to be a south African without media hype. Look yourself in the mirror and see the doubt and denial in your own eyes.

lezz:
Bwahaha, you asked agaugust for citations, I went beyond that; I gave you the whole excerpt. But I know you couldn't deal with it. I love smacking illusions off your morbid face.

Buckling _idiot.

And what is your source?

lezz:
Have you honestly dealt with any citiations or excerpt I have provided? You evasive,debate-unworthy, cyber-recluse.

I keep chasing you from pillar to post, I expect to see you up in the trees hiding when I light the fire up your arse.

And what is your source?

jln115:
Let me try to explain to you in a simple manner that you hopefully can understand: Soviet Union=Threat=BufferZone=Nambia....No Soviet Union=NoThreat=NoBufferZone=IndependentNamibia

? When did i admit it was because of Russia that we couldn't take Angola? We were a stone through away from Luanda, it was the US that stoped us from annexing Angola.

Let me Zulu down to your level for easier comprehension.

Boers wanted the entire sandc to strengthen the hold of apartheid regime. Other countries especially Angola has been pushing for independence amongst southern African countries.

Your neighbours' anti-apartheid sentiments were growing stronger. Botha fears it is coming home and decided to quell the feud abroad before it spreads home and Zulus become wiser.

So the Boers backed regimes that promised to support apartheid in most southern African neighbouring countries, they interfered militarily and politically throughout the region for self-preservation.

When Angola proved unyielding, military option was the last resort for South Africa. The Angolans being so tiny only had teenage Cuban girls for pilots who shot the over hyped south African air force out of the skies.

You were backed by American mercenaries and amour. But you suffered defeat.

America pleaded on your behalf for negotiations, once the Angolan troops encircled the SANDF. In order to clear the last vestige of apartheid influence from the region, Angola demanded the independence of Namibia.

You can twist your points but it doesn't change history.

When Jacob Zuma went on a military parade and remembrance in Angola 2009, he acknowledged the facts and praised the Angolan military for humiliating the apartheid army.


Now whose report is more credible, Zuma, your president or that of a self-doubting, ego-haunting ,e-wanderer like you?

patches689:
And what is your source?

Now you're beginning to have the similitude of a half-literate buffoon who can attempt to ask questions.

Do you want the source which proves all you've denied?

Or the one that established you're frightened man, who employs internet trolling for personal validation?

lezz:
Let me Zulu down to your level for easier comprehension.

Boers wanted the entire sandc to strengthen the hold of apartheid regime. Other countries especially Angola has been pushing for independence amongst southern African countries.

Your neighbours' anti-apartheid sentiments were growing stronger. Botha fears it is coming home and decided to quell the feud abroad before it spreads home and Zulus become wiser.

So the Boers backed regimes that promised to support apartheid in most southern African neighbouring countries, they interfered militarily and politically throughout the region for self-preservation.

When Angola proved unyielding, military option was the last resort for South Africa. The Angolans being so tiny only had teenage Cuban girls for pilots who shot the over hyped south African air force out of the skies.

You were backed by American mercenaries and amour. But you suffered defeat.

America pleaded on your behalf for negotiations, once the Angolan troops encircled the SANDF. In order to clear the last vestige of apartheid influence from the region, Angola demanded the independence of Namibia.

You can twist your points but it doesn't change history.

When Jacob Zuma went on a military parade and remembrance in Angola 2009, he acknowledged the facts and praised the Angolan military for humiliating the apartheid army.


Now whose report is more credible, Zuma, your president or that of a self-doubting, ego-haunting ,e-wanderer like you?

hahahahah dude your fvcking delusional, It was never the NPs mission to take over the entire SADC, if it was then they would've taken Lesotho, Swaziland, Mozambique and Botswana within weeks if that was their intention.

And the only backing we had from the US was a political one, they never had troops fighting on the ground, neither did they provide any armour to the SADF. And after the fall of the Soviet Union they retracted their backing and proposed that we pull out of Angola, and we obliged.

And im not twisting any facts mate im citing them exactly as how they happened, your the one making up a fictional history of SA

And all Zuma did was thank Angola for their fight against apartheid, something Nigeria didnt do, he said nothing of how the Angolan forces defeated the SADF...Im mean how could he? They failed to win a single battle!!

P.S your Trolling sucks Bro!!

patches689:
And what is your source?

Its forum mate!! plus a bit of his own imagination!

lezz:
You're cracking under the weight of your own repetitive denials.

You admitted here you didn't defeat Angola because of Russian involment, which didn't go anywhere beyond supply of armoury. You had American mad tanks.

So why deny the obvious and lace me with your frustrated diatribe when you run out of point?

The SANDF in all its form has never won a battle it has led in living memory. Tiny Angola dragged you through the mud and left your troops crying for Botha to OK nuclear

I want to show you what's like to be a south African without media hype. Look yourself in the mirror and see the doubt and denial in your own eyes.

WHEN DID I ADMIT RUSSIA STOPPED THE SADF FROM DEFEATING ANGOLA?? quote were i said that!! We were about to annex Angola, so why would i say that?

And which American tanks did we have? enlighten me, please!!

The SADF didnt lose a single battle during the border war mate!! so how did Angola drag us through the mud??

jln115:
WHEN DID I ADMIT RUSSIA STOPPED THE SADF FROM DEFEATING ANGOLA?? quote were i said that!! We were about to annex Angola, so why would i say that?

And which American tanks did we have? enlighten me, please!!

The SADF didnt lose a single battle during the border war mate!! so how did Angola drag us through the mud??

And why didn't you annex Angola? What changed your mind to negotiate?

Why was your casualties a classified information. Only the death of influential africaaner sons were reported privately to their parents.

Stop the meaningless back and forth. Why did bothercleft his comfy office in Pretoria to the battle theatre in Angola. Since you could so easily annex Angola?

Zuma has officially acknowledged the Angolan army. Your opinion on nairaland is confined to the trashcan.

This thread doesn't make sense again! Some miscreants have managed to turn this interesting thread into place of trading insults....
Walks out of thread.
I will return when u start posting reasonable things that this thread was initially meant for..

lezz:
And why didn't you annex Angola?1. What changed your mind to negotiate?

2. Why was your casualties a classified information. Only the death of influential africaaner sons were reported privately to their parents.

Stop the meaningless back and forth. 3. Why did bothercleft his comfy office in Pretoria to the battle theatre in Angola. Since you could so easily annex Angola?

4. Zuma has officially acknowledged the Angolan army. Your opinion on nairaland is confined to the trashcan.

1. After the fall of the Soviet Union et al, we obviously lost the political backing of the USA, there was no threat from the Soviet Union or communism anymore thus no reason to Annex Angola, the US in simple terms told us to get the fvck out of Angola and we obliged!

2. Again with your fantasies, when was our casualty list EVER classified?

3. Moral

4. Yes he acknowledge the Angolan army for having the balls to fight against one of the top 10 militaries in the world at that time, that doesnt mean they achieved anything!

jln115:
hahahahah dude your fvcking delusional, It was never the NPs mission to take over the entire SADC, if it was then they would've taken Lesotho, Swaziland, Mozambique and Botswana within weeks if that was their intention.

And the only backing we had from the US was a political one, they never had troops fighting on the ground, neither did they provide any armour to the SADF. And after the fall of the Soviet Union they retracted their backing and proposed that we pull out of Angola, and we obliged.

And im not twisting any facts mate im citing them exactly as how they happened, your the one making up a fictional history of SA

And all Zuma did was thank Angola for their fight against apartheid, something Nigeria didnt do, he said nothing of how the Angolan forces defeated the SADF...Im mean how could he? They failed to win a single battle!!

P.S your Trolling sucks Bro!!

Hmm, your Zulu-in-arms, Mzilakazi said as much. Just scroll to last night's posts. You had US mercenaries. Matter of fact, the Angolan army would have fenced your troops till they starved to death if it wasn't for the American mercenaries. You had British and American tanks, you lying thief.

So the soviet union collapsed and proposed you pulled out of Angola and Namibia? How's a dying man negotiating from the point of strength?

See how desperate your ill-written fiction is? The soviet union is collapsing, the SANDF should be dictating the terms of negotiations, not they asking you to concede Namibia and pull outta Angola. Your lie is so very unconvincing.


It's clear your troops were having their arses whooped that's why you surrendered to the negotiation table, pulled out of Angola with your tails behind your back and forewent your ambition in Namibia.

Simple fact.