Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site watrose.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!watnot!watrose!gdvsmit
From: gdvsmit@watrose.UUCP (Riel Smit)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Namibia ( Re: South African Blacks
Message-ID: <7645@watrose.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 29-Oct-85 18:45:00 EST
Article-I.D.: watrose.7645
Posted: Tue Oct 29 18:45:00 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 30-Oct-85 05:39:54 EST
References: <1556@utcsri.UUCP>
Distribution: can
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 16

Vassos Hadzilacos made a statement about South African troops illegally
occupying Namibia to which I responded and he replied with a short 
history of Namibia.  While I would like to make this answer more
substantial, I first have to hunt down a few references (otherwise he'll
never believe me), so I will post my full answer later.

Just in short: I did not say anything about the illegality of the
troops being there.  I was objecting to two statements:

  1) Namibia is a dictatorship, and
  2) Namibia is "occupied" by SA troops.

As for 1), after re-reading Vassos's original posting I realized that he
did not say it in so many words, so I will give him the benefit of the
doubt. As for 2), I guess it depends on how you define "occupied".  But,
more later.