----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

HISTORY HAS PROVED THAT IAN SMITH WAS RIGHT

 http://bp0.blogger.com/_FfYVXX05nUI/Rs4jVLqcZjI/AAAAAAA...r.jpg

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The one-size-fits-all majority rule formula is wrong for a territory seething with numerically large-scale ethnic tensions, just as the same formula was wrong in Northern Ireland in 1922, and was a delayed action time bomb.

In Zimbabwe the 'bomb' exploded much quicker than in Northern Ireland.

TO SAY IAN SMITH WAS RIGHT IS NOT RACISM,
BUT IS MERELY TO POINT OUT THE FACT THAT THE SIMPLISTIC FORMULA OF MAJORITY RULE IN A FIERCELY DIVIDED POPULACE WAS TRIED AND ALREADY HAD BEEN SEEN TO FAIL AMONG THE TWO WHITE TRIBES OF NORTHERN IRELAND DURING 1922 TO 1968, AND A NEW, MORE SUITABLE ELECTORAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL FORMULA WAS FOUND FOR THE TWO WARRING WHITE TRIBES IN NORTHERN IRELAND IN 1973, REISSUED IN THE 1990s IN ALMOST EXACTLY THE SAME FORM AS WHAT WAS OFFERED IN 1973.

The two white tribes in Northern Ireland did not have the emotional maturity to cope with simple majority rule as offered in 1922.

Therefore to say that black Zimbabweans could not cope with simple majority rule in 1980 is not racist, but is a universal observation on the disastrous consequences that ensue in regions such as Northern Ireland and Zimbabwe where two tribes with irreconcilable differences are offered simple majority rule.

After all that had happened in Northern Ireland during the 1970s as a result of offering simple majority rule to the two white tribes in 1922 - how could Thatcher and Carrington not have learned that obvious lesson prior to their dealings with Zimbabwe. How could they not have known that offering simple majority rule to Zimbabwe guaranteed inter-tribal war and disaster in Zimbabwe, along the same lines as that which the the same blunder in Northern Ireland in 1922 had produced.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Zimbabwe was in the best possible hands and trying for the best possible future while Ian Smith was in control.

If you talk to Zimbabweans of mature age today (not indoctrinated or in the pay of Mugabe), they all speak the same:

=======================================================================
"THEY SHOULD HAVE JUST LEFT IAN SMITH ALONE. HE WAS OUR BEST HOPE."
=======================================================================

It's BLACK Zimbabweans who have said that to me, every time.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

"Of course those western liberals who were so distressed about the political and social life of Rhodesia, under Smith, remain strangely mute over the real atrocities of Mugabe, preferring, like those who preceded the Good Samaritan, to pass by on the other side to another 'politically correct' crusade.

Whatever faults Smith had pale into insignificance beside his detractors and the hoodlums and nitwits running Zimbabwe today.
Who was the best judge about Mugabe's character and intentions to provide for a stable political and economic future for all Zimbaweans: Ian Smith or Michael Auret?"
-from:  http://why-we-are-white-refugees.blogspot.co.uk/2010/01....html