Debates
29 May 10
29 May 10
2 edits
Originally posted by AThousandYoungYou mean the "three main antagonistic guerrilla movements turned into heavily armed parties - the MPLA, UNITA and FNLA" -- who declared the "People's Republic of Angola", the "Social Democratic Republic of Angola" and the "Democratic Republic of Angola" respectively -- not to mention FLEC, "armed and backed by the French government", which "declared the independence of the Republic of Cabinda"?
The people who signed the independence agreement with Portugal and set up a new national government.
There never was a viable national government of Angola during that period, so your question is senseless.
By the way, Angolan independence was not exactly negotiated -- it was a fait accompli after the Carnation Revolution in Portugal.
29 May 10
Originally posted by Bosse de NageHow come it didn't fragment into several small nations? Were the Angolans so opposed to peace that they couldn't get along for the benefit of the people?
You mean the "three main antagonistic guerrilla movements turned into heavily armed parties - the MPLA, UNITA and FNLA" -- who declared the "People's Republic of Angola", the "Social Democratic Republic of Angola" and the "Democratic Republic of Angola" respectively -- not to mention FLEC, "armed and backed by the French government", which "declared th ...[text shortened]... ly negotiated -- it was a fait accompli after the Carnation Revolution in Portugal.
Or was it American mind control satellites that caused Angolans to pull the trigger killing Angolans? Or were all the killers foreigners?
29 May 10
1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de NageYes. One might praise it for subduing the traitors, or one might condemn it for violently conquering it's neighbor, the Confederacy. I tend toward the former.
If I asked 'how did the United States conduct itself during the Civil War' -- would you consider it a viable question?
29 May 10
Originally posted by AThousandYoungIt effectively did fragment into various enclaves run by warlords, such as Unita's Jonas Savimbi.
How come it didn't fragment into several small nations? Were the Angolans so opposed to peace that they couldn't get along for the benefit of the people?
Or was it American mind control satellites that caused Angolans to pull the trigger killing Angolans? Or were all the killers foreigners?
The warlords fought each other for control of the country, each backed by various foreign powers: the USSR, the USA, South Africa, Cuba, France ... There's still fighting going on in Cabinda.
You know how it is: each party thinks it's got to fight because it is right and because it will be wiped out if it doesn't.
Anyhow, to answer your original question (I think), the MPLA did quite well to get itself recognised as the legitimate government and kill Savimbi as well, finally bringing off a peace.
29 May 10
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI didn't say 'the Union', I said 'the United States' -- an entity that did not exist so long as there was civil war.
Yes. One might praise it for subduing the traitors, or one might condemn it for violently conquering it's neighbor, the Confederacy. I tend toward the former.
29 May 10
Originally posted by AThousandYoungNope. The British Empire just got smaller; it's unified government did not change at any stage. In the Civil War, there were two separate governments, two presidents. Just as there were once two Popes, with two separate Papacies!
Nonsense. That's like saying the British Empire didn't exist during the American Revolution.
Civil war is like schizophrenia, or in the case of Angola, multiple personality disorder.
29 May 10
Originally posted by AThousandYoungNo, he was the legitimate leader of the MPLA, self-declared top dog party of Angola, but in fact not really. The first national Angolan elections took place in 1992.
This seems to be the man I should be focussing on. He seems to have been the legitimate Angolan leader since 1979. Do you agree?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Eduardo_dos_Santos
29 May 10
Originally posted by Bosse de NageSecession means to leave a political organization, not to dissolve it. The South abandoned the Constitution and President and made their own. They stopped being of the USA (unless as traitors) when they declared independence.
Nope. The British Empire just got smaller; it's unified government did not change at any stage. In the Civil War, there were two separate governments, two presidents. Just as there were once two Popes, with two separate Papacies!
Civil war is like schizophrenia, or in the case of Angola, multiple personality disorder.
I think I got the info from you I wanted though. So it seems like the Angolans perservered in the face of horrific struggle. Good for them!