User talk:Pudduh

Welcome!

Hello, Pudduh, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some links that can help you get started editing:

And for more detailed information:

Help pages - the instruction manual, contains everything you could possibly want to know
The five pillars of Wikipedia - our principles, or how to get on with other editors
Manual of Style - how to format articles, where to place pictures, and other stylistic matters.

All of this information can be daunting, but if you have a question and can't find the answer, you can always ask me on my talk page or go to Wikipedia:Where to ask a question. One last thing: please sign your name when leaving messages for others on article and user talk pages using (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. I hope you enjoy editing! --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 22:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers

Thank you for the welcome Sam, I'll probabbly be lurking alot but when I see someone thats either blatantly biased or defaced, I'll try my best to correct them. If it can be reverted or changed again then whats the worst that can happen?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pudduh (talk • contribs) 15:39, 7 March 2006

Exactly right. Be bold! --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 15:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! :D --Pudduh 16:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC):[reply]

Royal Navy in the 21st century

I find it interesting that you edited from the position that the article was full of POV (and it is) but then added your own POV. "leaving the Royal Navy to make do with the RAF's Harrier GR7 instead." Mark83 13:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, but that is what the Royal Navy have been left to make do with. The Sea Harrier was brought out of service roughly three or four years too early and thus presented the MoD with a problem. How exactly to save the money and provide the fleet with adequate air cover? Hence why the RAF were asked to provide their Harrier GR7s to cover.

The Fleet Air Arm were cut in order to save money. True, they will be back with the new Lightning II (Joint Strike Fighter), however as the hulls for the two new carriers have not even been laid down yet, it seems unlikely that the Fleet Air Arm will be flying from anything other than land based air strips or merged with the RAF.

Yes, that part could be re-written, but it is vital that it reflects the fact that the MoD are doing these things not to turn the Royal Navy into a so called true blue water navy but to simply cut costs.

Since I edited that, half of the Navy could be mothballed or paid off, thus making the entire article of the Royal Navy in the 21st century rather pointless as it has more or less nullified any benefit the changes that were going to be made.Pudduh 18:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zimbabwe

I disagree with you about calling Zimbabwe a dictatorship. Most African countries do not agree with you either. They are all kinds of democracy in the world! - unknown user.

A Response on Zimbabwe

Zimbabwe was removed from the Commonwealth due to the dubious nature with which it conducted elections. True, it wanted to leave but it was going to be ejected anyway. The European Union, the TUC (Trades Union Congress), the UK and the United States among other governmental and non-governmental organisations have expressed serious concerns with how opposition parties and Trade Unions are treated by ZANU-PF amid allegations of persecution, police brutality and intimidation.

The evidence is plain to see, Zimbabwe is a dictatorship. --Pudduh 20:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm african and I disagree with your characterization of Zimbabwe as dictorship. Most Africans do not agree. Europe or Britain are imperial nations and do not represent or are they the Judgers for African democracy. We in Africa do not need white imperialism, racism and white murderous of our aFRICAN BROTHERS. SORRY EUROPEAN THOUGHTS DO NOT MAKE AFRICA!!! - unknown user.

I do not see where the racism is here. There is no evidence of any Western sabotage or efforts to topple the Zimbabwean government. The international community has imposed sanctions, but these are the same as those which would have been imposed on any nation in the world. Your accusations of white imperialism is just out of date rhetoric, which with strongmen dictators like Mugabe, has done nothing to advance the cause of Africa and its people and has only served to keep them shackled with debt, poverty and infighting. That rhetoric (with Mugabe) belong in the past.

These are not 'thoughts', but facts backed up by evidence provided by respected government and NGO institutions. There is no racism or murder or any attempt at imperialism, just the simple fact that Zimbabwe is a dictatorship that has gradually been ground down due to poor governance and lack of democratic accountability.

Please define what you mean by "most africans," as I do not think the people of the Matabeleland will agree with your generalising statements.--Pudduh 16:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

End of discussion if you are a classical imperialist. Southern African nations have declared Zimbabwean elections free and fair. In future most African states will decline to have monitors from Europe. Europeans have not played a good role in observing democracy in Africa. The also declared elections in Zambia, Kenya, Tanzaqnia, Malawi etc as being unfair or incomplete. Africans will evaluate other africans. That is where we africans are headed too. I would rather trust somebody close by than a former colonialist 10,000 miles away, whose only inclination is to see his puppet in power. Zvidzai.

I like how you dodged my little point about the Matabeleland there. And actually the European Union congratulated Kenya on its election in 2002. The head of the European Union election monitors, Anders Wijkman, said:

"Notwithstanding some incidents of violence and organisational shortcomings, the overall conduct of the elections constitutes an example for other countries in the region."

I'm quite confused about this outdated and obsolete rhetoric you keep coming out with such as labelling me as a "classical imperialist" when there is little evidence to support that claim other than the fact that I have serious concern about some of the regimes that operate in Southern Africa.

Just because "most Southern African nations" declared Zimbabwean elections free and fair dosen't mean that was actually the case. For example, Russia declared elections in Belarus, the Ukraine, Georgia and Kyrgyzstan "free and fair" when the complete opposite was blatantly obvious.

And again when you say that Africans will evaluate other Africans, I do hope that includes White, Asian, Arabic and Chinese Africans and I do presume you include South African trade union COSATSU when they condemn Zimbabwe and their treatment of Trade Unionists? Somehow I doubt it.

The statement that Africans will evaluate other Africans is that of someone who is ignorant to the facts of Realpolitik in the world. There are no puppets being manipulated by any Western governments, if you really looked at the facts, you would find that the real puppets are those who take money with no questions asked from governments like China. Mugabe for instance is selling off Zimbabwe's national resources at a way below market rate in return for some spare change from the Chinese government. He is also as a result more comfortable in doing what Beijing wishes. African patriot or Chinese pawn? You decide. --Pudduh 22:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch government?

I am interested in your appellation of the former SA government as Dutch. They very clearly divorced themselves from being 'Dutch' a long time ago and indeed their own moniker is Afrikaans which means African. Holland/Netherlands was always loud in condemning this government and imposed sanctions very early. Ek weet nie of jy praat Afrikaans of nie, maar hierdie mense is geen Hollanders! It would be like me referring to England's government as the Anglo-Saxon-Norman junta or similar, ie only passingly true and bound to inflame passions somewhere. However, I am not stirring you up - simply wondering how you came by that name. Lgh. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 150.101.122.132 (talk) 05:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

You have me mistaken for the wrong guy! The person you seek is Gilawson. And for your information, we're Anglo-Saxon-Norman-Jute! --Pudduh 01:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]