Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!lll-crg!lll-lcc!qantel!ihnp4!cbatt!clyde!watmath!watnot!watrose!gdvsmit
From: gdvsmit@watrose.UUCP (Riel Smit)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: SWAPO, RSA, Angola
Message-ID: <8157@watrose.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 26-Sep-86 14:24:47 EDT
Article-I.D.: watrose.8157
Posted: Fri Sep 26 14:24:47 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 30-Sep-86 00:32:59 EDT
References: <746@mit-vax.UUCP>
Reply-To: gdvsmit@watrose.UUCP (Riel Smit)
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 20

In article <746@mit-vax.UUCP> oaf@mit-vax.UUCP (Oded Feingold) writes:
>  ... South Africa has no legal  presence  in Namibia ...
>  ... Its  continuing occupation  of that country
>is on a moral par with the USSR's continuing occupation of  the Baltic
>states
I would have compared it more with the "continuing occupation" of the
Northern Marianas by the USA, but that might be stretching it a bit.
However, you are of course free to your opinion.
     
>    South Africa will never give  up Namibia  peacefully
Don't bet on it - I think you will be pleasantly surprised in the not too 
distant future.
     
As for the rest of your lucubration - at least it is a, dare I say fresh,
approach to finding a solution to the Namibian question.  I can see at
least one problem though:
>                                          Of course, he'd  have to win
>the war in 90 days, or the War Powers act would stop him.
The British had similar ideas at the turn of the century ...  Or do you
think Reagan should "test" one of his nuclear warheads?