jdobbin Posted July 2, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 OK, thanks for clarification, that pretty much concludes the logical part of this discussion. There's no logical arguments against "I believe". By extension, should we also assume your belief in the "engagement" strategy, despite all the clear signs in reality of its successes so far? I have shown you where there was success. You refused to see it. You have not shown me how your disengagement will work. I have never seen it work. Examples? What was said is "same role as in N.Ireland", please read carefully. I disagree. We were asked in Northern Ireland even though we hadn't actually been disengaged. Then shouldn't we be able to see those "conditions and questions" in reality, not only your saying so? Already done so but you didn't accept them. Sorry, a bit slower, collapse of S.U. has weakend opposition to SA regime and that caused it (the regime) to abandon apartheid? Am I the only one noticing a slight jump of logic here? In any case, this isn't really relevant to the discussion. You brought up South Africa and how sanctions worked. They didn't. Change happened there for other reasons. Yet we all know the result. It happened after sanctions were deployed, and even more importantly, clear unambiguous condemnation of apartheid around the world, not during "productive engagement" or whatever, decades. Another case of stretching the reality to my vision of how it should be (have been)? None of it worked. Ever. It was disengagement and it didn't influence South Africa no matter how much we pat ourselves on the back for it. No surprise, many of us see only what they want to see. Since you haven't shown me anything, I didn't see anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.