Heavymetal From Ireland, joined May 2015, 4 posts, RR: 0 Posted (13 years 4 months 4 days ago) and read 1109 times:
Seems like a favorite past-time of ivory-tower , mostly but not always European snobbish types on this board is to spit their disgust over US policy that they see as arrogant, tyrannical and inhuman.
So. Where are your posts about Robert Mugabe?
In a few short years, this thug has managed to take one of Africa's post-colonial bright spots into the morass of dictaorship.The latest:
HARARE, Zimbabwe -- Zimbabwe's free press has been declared dead after parliament passed a bill essentially gagging independent journalists.
Critical reporting of the government is effectively banned under the proposed law, which requires the signature of President Robert Mugabe.
Britain and the United States, who have been calling for sanctions against Zimbabwe over its human rights record, immediately condemned the move.
The Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Bill, which was passed on Thursday ahead of the country's presidential elections next month, makes it illegal for domestic journalists to operate without government accreditation.
Foreign correspondents will only be allowed into the country to cover specific events.
You people take such joy as dissing the US, but when it comes to genuine evil, you get uncomfortable. After all this is a poor (US's fault), exploited (colonial system)indigenous people determining their own destiny right?
Hypocrisy. You're all as guilty of it as the right wingers you despise.
Cfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (13 years 4 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 1064 times:
Heh, heh. You're right. You can't blame the U.S. for this problem so why raise it?
Perhaps it is becasue there is a certain amount of fatalism about sub-saharan africa Let's face it none of the black-governed countries in Africa can be classified as anything but third-world. Zimbabwe and South Africa used to be developing quite nicely, but Zimbabwe went south in the 80s and never looked back, and South Africa is struggling to avoid going down the same path.
I can hear the mudslinging against my "racist" views getting started. The racism card is a useful one to use when you don't want to look at the real issues. The Zimbabwan government is claiming that these laws were necessary because of foreign interferance and racism. The sad part is that there are some people who will believe it.
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13387 posts, RR: 77
Reply 2, posted (13 years 4 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 1058 times:
Whenever the UK get's involved, we are being 'racist' or 'colonialist'.
Look how the other corrupt thugs in the region always close ranks with him.
I've said before on here how strange it is that all those 'anti-capitalist' protestors never mention the likes of Mugabe and his ilk when talking about 3rd world poverty.
Zimbabawe should easily be able to feed itself, and be prosperous, but now famine threatens.
Here we go again......
Hepkat From Austria, joined Aug 2000, 2341 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (13 years 4 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 1046 times:
This issue hasn't caught America's attention simply because it has very little interest in Zimbabwe. There's no oil at stake, no diamonds, no cheap labor market, practically nothing of value to the U.S. economy.
You're right, this is hypocracy on a grand scale. If the U.S. government's so concerned with human rights, freedom of speech and all these lovely values, why not step in and put an end to Mugabe once and for all? One of those cheap, aging bombs dropped on top of his palace will do just fine.
By not taking a stand, the U.S. is clearly showing it only gives a damn when oil or some rich foreign market is at stake.
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13387 posts, RR: 77
Reply 4, posted (13 years 4 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 1033 times:
Mugabe only threatens his own people, and you would be the first to scream if the US, or the UK, took armed action against him.
I'd love to see his many expensive homes, brought with the nation's money, provide nice targets for RAF aircraft.
But will that help the people?
If Mugabe was training and/or harbouring international terrorists it would be a different matter.
Whatever is done or not done, the West will be in the wrong to some, and the mobs who preach 'anti-capitalism' and profess concern for the 3rd world, have been oddly silent on Mugabe and others.
Ryanb741 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2002, 3222 posts, RR: 15
Reply 7, posted (13 years 4 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 1022 times:
I agree, Mugabwe is a b*stard. There has been loads of media attention in the UK about it - Britain just tried to get Zimbabwe suspended from the commonwealth, but it was vetoed by other Commonwealth nations.
I used to think the brain is the most fascinating part of my body. But, hey, who is telling me that?
Travelin man From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3566 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (13 years 4 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 991 times:
"By not taking a stand, the U.S. is clearly showing it only gives a damn when oil or some rich foreign market is at stake."
Uh Hepkat, do you remember a place called Bosnia? Do you remember that while Europe dithered in its own backyard, the US took the lead in stopping genocide? I'm pretty sure Bosnia is neither oil-producing or a "rich foreign market."
Or how about Somalia? We TRIED to help there, and we got our soldiers killed for it. I don't recall Somalia being an oil producer or a "rich foreign market."
Too bad your disdain for the US blinds you to facts.
Aviatsiya, sorry, but you too have overlooked this. Frankly, the old European colonial powers that controlled virtually all of Africa should be a little more involved and held responsible for the current state of most sub-Saharan African nations. Primarily, though, the people of those countries should take more responsibility.
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13387 posts, RR: 77
Reply 10, posted (13 years 4 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 984 times:
Actually the UK offered help in land reform in the early 80's, but Mugabe was more interested in using his NORTH KOREAN trained 5th brigade to slaughter his political opponents, their families and villages.
The African Commonwealth members vetoed kicking him out of the organisation, no doubt heeding the principle of people living in glass houses not throwing stones.
I don't care what one group says, where are the demonstrators outside the Zimbabwean embassies?
Of course there are none, the red star is part of Zanu PF's flag, like so many of these demonstraters banners after all.
Blaming the Cold War for events in Africa now is desperate.
Yyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16438 posts, RR: 55
Reply 11, posted (13 years 4 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 976 times:
Mugabe is actually a black Hitler, deliberately targeting the prosperous white minority (because they are white) & stripping them of their land & possessions and sanctioning their killing.
Zimbabwe's best days were as a UK colony (as Rhodesia). The economy was strong, infrastructure was maintained, there was a thriving & growing private sector that whites & blacks participated in.
Indeed, virtually all of Black Africa had better run economies as European colonies. They have clearly made a collective cock-up of it since independence, despite massive investment & loans from the West.
it's time for the West to write-off southern Africa & let it sink or swim on its own.
As for South Africa under apartheid, as inhumane as that political environment was, black South Africans thru-out the 70s and 80s had a higher PCI than any black African country. So it could be argued that there is not a single African government today that treats its citizens as human beings (to paraphrase Aviatsiya)
Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
Heavymetal From Ireland, joined May 2015, 4 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (13 years 4 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 953 times:
Get your head out of your arse! With your nonsense about people not giving a shit.
Thank you for proving my point. Nice long rant. From the third paragraph on down as you spout off inanely about Kuwait and Namibia (I think you got Middle Earth in there too huh?) & about all the evil westerners responsible for the injustice of what's happening in Zimbabwe....you use the "Mugabe" exactly one time.
Saa737-244 From South Africa, joined Jan 2000, 32 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (13 years 4 months 3 days ago) and read 885 times:
Zimbabwe is not a nice place to be right now, just from an economic standpoint alone. Inflation last year was 112%, and the Zimbabwean Dollar now only buys 1.8 US cents (at the official exchange rate - on the street, even less). Prices of certain staple foods have been pegged by the government, with the result that only a fraction are now available through shops as producers try to find alternative channels to avoid having to sell at a loss (the government doesn't compensate producers for any shortfall in costs).
The "disruptions" on the farms (that's a topic in itself) have meant that this year's grain and maize harvest is about 40% of what it has been in the past - not enough to feed everyone, and there's no money in the treasury to buy from outside the country. To say that famine threatens sounds almost like an understatement. Unemployment is about 66%, and about the same percentage of the population are living below the poverty line.
The South African Government's Department of Home Affairs has estimated that up to 500 Zimbabweans are crossing (legally or illegally) into South Africa PER DAY. And you think the Aussies have a refugee problem...
Refugee centres are being prepared in the border areas for the anticipated flood of refugees that will occur when the results of the to-be-crooked presidential election next month are released, and the violence that will follow.
Should the presidential election go off under free and fair conditions, there is little doubt that leader of the opposition, Morgan Tsvangirai, will win it. Unfortunately "free and fair" is not in Mugabe's plan for this election.
The ordinary Zimbabwean people know who is REALLY to blame for their current woes, and it's not Britain or any other Western country, it's their own corrupt leadership, particularly Robert Mugabe. Even his own political party, ZANU-PF, knows that he is a liability (note the rebellion within the ranks last week when ZANU was unable to get a majority to approve the media bill at first attempt, and several members spoke out against its unconstitutionality).
The political madness in Zimbabwe is almost comical at times. Just this week a 17-year old activist for the opposition Movement for Democratic Change, Mark Spicer, was abducted and beaten up by some ZANU thugs. He was found the next morning tied to a tree, and promptly arrested by the police ... the charge: kidnapping and assault.
It seems that only in Zimbabwe is the victim charged with the very crime that has been visited upon them.
The leaders of the SADEC (Southern African Development and Economic Community) region are mostly muted in their criticism of Mugabe. They tell him what they don't like him doing, he tells them he will stop, they go away, he carries on regardless.
Many people (especially Westerners) have been calling for President Thabo Mbeki of South Africa (the regional "superpower") to denounce Mugabe once and for all and pull the economic plug on him (South African sanctions brought down the previous regime in that country within months, the Rhodesian government of Ian Smith). This is not going to happen, though - the African National Congress (governing party of South African) has two qualities which are irritating (for a lack of a better word) to a Westerner, but are part and parcel of the party's culture: they value loyalty above principle (Mugabe was their ally during the anti-apartheid struggle) and decision-making is a collective activity (which means that consensus on divisive issues is often unattainable).
Should the US get involved? Beyond the "smart sanctions" being mooted at the moment by Colin Powell, definitely not! This is not a situation that requires Western military or physical intervention. Humanitarian aid for the soon-to-be-starving Zimbabweans, yes, but the neighbouring countries are quite capable of handling the situation should it get completely out of hand.
SADEC has a mutual agreement that permits military intervention in member states where the democratic process in that country has been derailed. A few years back this happened in Lesotho (a military coup), and within 48 hours troops from South Africa and Botswana crossed into Lesotho and took control back from the usurpers. Should the Zimbabwean presidential election result in a civil war, these same two countries would be ready to send in their troops. The consequence of such an action, though, would be that, just as in Lesotho, some of the soldiers will be going home in body bags.
There are no winners in this situation in Southern Africa. The biggest losers are the poor (in both senses of the word) people of Zimbabwe. They are the legacy that Robert Mugabe's 22 years of rule leaves. May he, and not them, rot in the hell he has created.
Delta-flyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 2676 posts, RR: 6
Reply 18, posted (13 years 4 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 867 times:
I agree, the US should not get involved. Based on recent US failures, I would say that we should only get involved if our interest warrants. Doing purely humanitarian acts is rewarded by killing our troops and world-wide condemnation and outrage. If we are to elicit such reactions, then there may as well be something in it for us.
Incidentally, on a cross-Canada rail trip in 1972, I met a Rhodesian couple who were looking to sell their farm back home and buy a farm in Canada. I hope they made it. They certainly had the foresight to realize that things back home could only get worse.