The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > South Africa no longer deserves to host 2010 World Cup > Comments

South Africa no longer deserves to host 2010 World Cup : Comments

By Peter Roebuck, published 20/4/2007

It is inconceivable that a prestigious football event can be held in a country that holds hands with the wickedness of President Mugabe

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
Fair enough Peter Roebuck but, by the same token, should China host the Olympics in 2008?

Apart from suppressing civil liberties at home, China threatens Taiwan with invasion, is dispossessing Tibetans of their land and is blocking action against Sudan in the Security Council
Posted by Stephany, Sunday, 22 April 2007 3:22:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Politically speaking 90% of all countries in Africa are basket cases, sports is perhaps the way out for African countries. Depriving them a chance of hosting the world cup or any major sporting event is harming the average African.

Question is whether she has the resources or know-how to host major events seeing as talents are emigrating from the country in droves.
Posted by Philip Tang, Sunday, 22 April 2007 6:40:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Its so easy to fulminate about the action we should take against other countries - when the results of those actions will never be seen by us.

I was in RSA when armchair activists were bravely forcing themselves to forgo their usual South African tipple and downing inferior Spanish reds to do their bit against apartheid from the comfort of Australian and English wine bars.While, in RSA black families that had lived and worked for generations in Cape vineyards suddenly became homeless, hungry, jobless and died in droves.

When all the giants like Kodak, Apple etc. pulled out no whites suffered, but thousands of black street kids appeared in the towns, babies starved to death, violence became endemic.

So yeah, now, lets teach them another lesson and take sporting events away once again. Its not the rural kids whose only hope of making something of themselves is through sport who support Mgabe. Its not desperate parents who strive to afford a pair of footie boots for their kid to give him a chance of escaping the poverty trap who support Mgabe.

The violence, horror and crime in South Africa is intolerable but much less publicised than in Zimbabwe. But hey,lets all make it just that little bit worse so we can pat ourselves on the back for our sanctimonious solutions to other countries problems. It won't, after all, be any skin off our noses.
Posted by Romany, Wednesday, 25 April 2007 2:57:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree with the author of this article. South Africa should lose its right to host the World Cup. However, to assert that it should lose this right because it has chosen to support Mugabe, is an over simplification of the broader issues. For starters, if I was a soccer fan, the last place I would want to take my family to watch sport is a major city in South Africa. Law and order is non-existent and public transport is so unreliable that one is likely to be stranded or dumped in just the kind of neighbourhood you don’t want to be in. Having said that, the fact that there are now literally millions of starving and desperate refugees from Zimbabwe in South Africa, particularly in the northern provinces, doesn’t exactly improve the situation.

The reality is that, like Zimbabwe, South Africa is in constant decline. Obviously, Zimbabwe is much worse at this point. Since independence from the ‘barbaric Rhodesian regime’, life expectancy in Zimbabwe has gone from 70 to 45, inflation has multiplied by over 500%, 1 in 4 people are now infected by HIV, literacy levels have halved and the infancy death rate quadrupled. The figures reflecting just how bad it has got in Zimbabwe are endless. However, let’s not forget Zimbabwe had a ten year head start on South Africa, and Rwanda a 20 year head start on Zimbabwe etc etc.

In any case, it would seem to me that losing the Football World Cup would be beneficial to South Africa. If nothing else, the regime in South Africa would be advised to deflect international attention long enough for it to hoard away billions from the treasury as Mr Mugabe has done in Zimbabwe.
Posted by wre, Friday, 27 April 2007 9:04:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To suggest that what is happening in Zimbabwe is no worse than what is happening in many other countries is incorrect. Genocide is occuring in Zimbabwe. It is not hundreds, thousands, or tens of thousands dying in Zimbabwe, but hundreds of thousands. Some estimates range into a couple of million. Rather than actively committing this genocide, like those committed by the Germans during WW2 or in Rwanda in the 1990's this one is being committed largely like that of 1917 in Turkey against the Armenians, or in China under Mao- No need for death camps when you can just starve people to death.
Posted by dozer, Monday, 30 April 2007 7:19:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The more I think about meher baba's comments, the more I disagree with them. (Hope meher's still following the thread.) The difference between Australia's approach to the Solomons and East Timor, and South Africa's approach to Zimbabwe, is that Australia is actually doing something constructive in these two countries and is actively engaged, risking its own service personnel and investing large sums of money- precisely what Roebuck is advocating SA should do in Zimbabwe. Meher's analogy does not make sense.

It should also be noted that if you want to influence the policy of a government which doesn't care if it is isolated from the international community, there is little you can do short of military intervetion. Sanctions, despite their best intention, will always hurt the innocent, and rarely affect the position of the government. The judgement must be made to whether it is less immoral to allow a despot to remain in power and continue to kill his country's people, or to kill many of his country's people in the process of deposing him.
Posted by dozer, Tuesday, 1 May 2007 4:29:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy