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.