QANTAS077
Topic Author
Posts: 5196
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2004 5:08 pm

Zimbabwe, Why No Foreign Intervention?

Tue Mar 20, 2007 8:40 am

it astounds me whats going on in Zimbabwe, we have a brutal dictator who's resorting to violence against opposition members and the world seems to think its perfectly acceptable! why the fuck hasn't a multinational force gone in and removed this tyrant?

other than the fact Zimbabwe has no oil, what viable reason do we have for standing by and allowing this to happen? hypocrisy at its stinking best!

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...story/0,20867,21411589-601,00.html
 
JAL777
Posts: 2453
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2003 10:13 pm

RE: Zimbabwe, Why No Foreign Intervention?

Tue Mar 20, 2007 9:00 am

Sadly... dead African kids aren't worth the network news airtime.  Sad
 
MKEdude
Posts: 960
Joined: Thu May 05, 2005 9:55 am

RE: Zimbabwe, Why No Foreign Intervention?

Tue Mar 20, 2007 9:08 am

Quoting QANTAS077 (Thread starter):
Zimbabwe has no oil,

DING DING DING DING DING!! We have a winner!

Does anyone honestly believe that we would be neck deep in Iraq right now if there wasn't all that black gold under the sand?
"You can't be a real country unless you have a beer and an airline." Frank Zappa
 
MDorBust
Posts: 4914
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 10:10 pm

RE: Zimbabwe, Why No Foreign Intervention?

Tue Mar 20, 2007 9:14 am

Quoting MKEdude (Reply 2):
DING DING DING DING DING!! We have a winner!

Does anyone honestly believe that we would be neck deep in Iraq right now if there wasn't all that black gold under the sand?

And just how much of that oil is the US getting?

About the same we were getting before the war, zilch.

Now, wouldn't France have invaded Iraq if oil was the motivating force it's made out to be?

I've got a better answer as to why no one is interveening in African nations. It never comes to any good. Remeber that whole Euro colonization bit? How did that go? Anyone remember the Mog? How did that go for us?

Why aren't we in Zimbabwe? The same reason we aren't in Rawanda, The Congo, Sudan or Somolia.
"I KICKED BURNING TERRORIST SO HARD IN BALLS THAT I TORE A TENDON" - Alex McIlveen
 
AsstChiefMark
Posts: 10465
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2004 2:14 pm

RE: Zimbabwe, Why No Foreign Intervention?

Tue Mar 20, 2007 9:17 am

We're going in alphabetical order. They'll have to wait their turn. And it'll be a long wait. We're going to have our hands full for a while when we reach "S".

[Edited 2007-03-20 02:20:19]
Red tail...Red tail...Red tail...Red tail...Red tail...Red tail...Red tail...Red tail...Damned MSP...Red tail...Red tail
 
dl021
Posts: 10836
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 12:04 pm

RE: Zimbabwe, Why No Foreign Intervention?

Tue Mar 20, 2007 9:36 am

If the world is so worried about Mugabe then there's nothing stopping them from sending a couple of divisions worth of troops......
Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
 
MKEdude
Posts: 960
Joined: Thu May 05, 2005 9:55 am

RE: Zimbabwe, Why No Foreign Intervention?

Tue Mar 20, 2007 9:38 am

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 3):
And just how much of that oil is the US getting?

About the same we were getting before the war, zilch.

I didn't say it worked.
"You can't be a real country unless you have a beer and an airline." Frank Zappa
 
BMIFlyer
Posts: 8064
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2004 7:11 am

RE: Zimbabwe, Why No Foreign Intervention?

Tue Mar 20, 2007 9:49 am

I'm sure Mugabe will be taken care of in due course, trust me on that one  Wink




Lee
Sometimes You Can't Make It On Your Own
 
tz757300
Posts: 2741
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2005 6:21 am

RE: Zimbabwe, Why No Foreign Intervention?

Tue Mar 20, 2007 10:00 am

Quoting QANTAS077 (Thread starter):
what viable reason do we have for standing by and allowing this to happen?

I personally think that the problematic African countries now (including Zimbabwe) are more violent than Iraq. Its also, way more spread out so people can hide better, border control is nil at best, and I'm very sure health issues with the whole continent would render most forces pretty unusable. Just no real good plan to help out with the violence.

Quoting MKEdude (Reply 2):
Does anyone honestly believe that we would be neck deep in Iraq right now if there wasn't all that black gold under the sand?

We arn't getting oil from Korea or the Balkans and we are still there, so why are we in Iraq? A genuine problem with the governemnt(s) or an issue that was/is there.
LETS GO MOUNTAINEERS!
 
lowrider
Posts: 2542
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 3:09 am

RE: Zimbabwe, Why No Foreign Intervention?

Tue Mar 20, 2007 10:05 am

Its not like the US has the troops to spare right now. Between our own borders and the war in Iraq, I would say we are pretty well tapped. Besides, it seems like everytime we intervene, we get criticized for policing the world and forcing our culture on others. Why not ask China to step in? They are not short on manpower. Between them, the EU, and the UN, they should be able to get it sorted out, right?
Proud OOTSK member
 
MKEdude
Posts: 960
Joined: Thu May 05, 2005 9:55 am

RE: Zimbabwe, Why No Foreign Intervention?

Tue Mar 20, 2007 10:07 am

Quoting TZ757300 (Reply 8):
We arn't getting oil from Korea or the Balkans and we are still there, so why are we in Iraq? A genuine problem with the governemnt(s) or an issue that was/is there.

Korea is a carryover from the cold war. But look at the DPRK today; The people are suffering (starving) under a tyrannical dictator, and we know they have WMD because they told us!

If Iraq is the benchmark for intervention than Kim should have gotten his ass blown off years ago.

As for why we got involved in Bosnia...

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 3):
The same reason we aren't in Rwanda, The Congo, Sudan or Somalia.

Put it pretty well.
"You can't be a real country unless you have a beer and an airline." Frank Zappa
 
RJdxer
Posts: 3523
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 1:14 am

RE: Zimbabwe, Why No Foreign Intervention?

Tue Mar 20, 2007 11:05 am

Quoting MKEdude (Reply 2):
Does anyone honestly believe that we would be neck deep in Iraq right now if there wasn't all that black gold under the sand?

Do you drive a car? How big is your carbon footprint? You're burning electricity right now reading this. Thanks for helping to quell global warming.  boggled 
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, and a road that goes forever. I'm going to Texas!
 
prosa
Posts: 5389
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2001 3:24 am

RE: Zimbabwe, Why No Foreign Intervention?

Tue Mar 20, 2007 11:23 am

South Africa would have an interest in ousting Mugabe because it's being burdened by a flow of refugees from Zimbabwe. It may be reluctant to do so, however, given the danger of a protracted guerilla war.
"Let me think about it" = the coward's way of saying "no"
 
MKEdude
Posts: 960
Joined: Thu May 05, 2005 9:55 am

RE: Zimbabwe, Why No Foreign Intervention?

Tue Mar 20, 2007 11:55 am

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 11):
Do you drive a car? How big is your carbon footprint? You're burning electricity right now reading this. Thanks for helping to quell global warming.

And your point is? Besides dodging the issues I mean.
"You can't be a real country unless you have a beer and an airline." Frank Zappa
 
Banco
Posts: 14343
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2001 11:56 pm

RE: Zimbabwe, Why No Foreign Intervention?

Tue Mar 20, 2007 6:02 pm

The reason for the lack of any intervention is because the leading regional power South Africa won't countenance it. Zimbabwe is land-locked. Without permission from the surrounding countries, how would you suggest we get there? Parachute drops? Invade perfectly innocent Mozambique? The likes of Blair have expressed a wish to "do something" about Zimbabwe in the past, but the simple truth is that it is for South Africa to take the lead on this, and they won't, because of a misguided belief that African nations must stick together.
She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
 
monteycarlos
Posts: 2018
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2005 5:16 pm

RE: Zimbabwe, Why No Foreign Intervention?

Tue Mar 20, 2007 6:25 pm

Quoting QANTAS077 (Thread starter):
other than the fact Zimbabwe has no oil

Probably more to do with the fact that they don't have any weapons of mass destruction. Hmmmm... yes, that must be it. After all, we did find a stack of them in Iraq did we not?

Remember the Rwandan conflict, or even Sierra Leone... or the Ivory Coast... or the Congo... or Uganda (Catch the drift). It seems that African conflicts post-Somalia are something the US and its allies are steering clear of. Perhaps it is due to the lack or riches, or perhaps it is due to a lack of resources in troops and equipment. Who knows?

Perhaps something the U.N. should be making a better stance towards?
It's a beautiful night to fly like a phoenix...
 
disruptivehair
Posts: 565
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2007 9:28 pm

RE: Zimbabwe, Why No Foreign Intervention?

Tue Mar 20, 2007 6:46 pm

We're not intervening in Africa because we never do.

Besides, we'd be idiots to start something with Zimbabwe now; Mugabe can't possibly have much time left. Why start a war when the dictator's about to kick the bucket? Makes no sense.
 
bill142
Posts: 7864
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2004 1:50 pm

RE: Zimbabwe, Why No Foreign Intervention?

Tue Mar 20, 2007 6:54 pm

Zimbabwe isn't hurting anyone (except it's own people of course) the only reason it gets any attention is because Mugabe goes around trying to create a scene. Zimbabwe is like a lot of other African nations, corrupt, failing economy and no real democratic process. A lot are in the middle of a civil war. There has been unrest in Sudan for years, and genocide has been happening here as well as in Rwanda. Not to mention the on going conflict in Somalia which the UN sent in US peace keepers in the mid 90s and turned out to be a massive failure.

It's simply impractical for the rest of the world to police Africa. Africa needs to fix itself from within.
 
disruptivehair
Posts: 565
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2007 9:28 pm

RE: Zimbabwe, Why No Foreign Intervention?

Tue Mar 20, 2007 6:56 pm

Quoting Bill142 (Reply 17):
It's simply impractical for the rest of the world to police Africa. Africa needs to fix itself from within.

Either that or Europe needs to do more to clean up the mess; after all it is largely responsible for a good deal of it. Africa's still in its post-colonial hangover phase.
 
monteycarlos
Posts: 2018
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2005 5:16 pm

RE: Zimbabwe, Why No Foreign Intervention?

Tue Mar 20, 2007 6:59 pm

Quoting Bill142 (Reply 17):
Africa needs to fix itself from within.

Perhaps not unlike other areas of the globe?
It's a beautiful night to fly like a phoenix...
 
RichardPrice
Posts: 4474
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 5:12 am

RE: Zimbabwe, Why No Foreign Intervention?

Tue Mar 20, 2007 7:20 pm

Quoting QANTAS077 (Thread starter):
why the fuck hasn't a multinational force gone in and removed this tyrant?

Regime change is illegal under international law - thats why theres been no multinational force.

As much as everyone hates whats going on in Zimbabwae, its not our country, its their country and we have no right to go in and change anything.

Allowing regime change would legitimise the invasion of a country because you didnt like their leadership - and who precisely gets to decide what leadership should be liked and what shouldnt? Who gets to have their opinion used as the measuring stick?


Quoting Disruptivehair (Reply 18):

Either that or Europe needs to do more to clean up the mess; after all it is largely responsible for a good deal of it. Africa's still in its post-colonial hangover phase.

Ahh yes, the same old argument 'Europe left it in a very bad state' - explain all the countries that, despite being ex-colonies, are doing extremely well.

Some countries did very well with what we left them, some didnt. Theres no way you can blame that on us.
 
sw733
Posts: 5876
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 6:19 am

RE: Zimbabwe, Why No Foreign Intervention?

Tue Mar 20, 2007 7:22 pm

Like has been said before...the West has zip to gain from helping out Zimbabwe. Take the US - when is the last time we (I say we because I am also an American citizen in addition to Namibian) helped out an African country that we had nothing to gain from? SOMALIA...and a few years after that, look what happened...RWANDA. Past the French/Belgians, there was really no Western interaction in that (and you can say even with the French/Belgians, there really wasn't), and a large part of that was because of Somalia and the American soldiers who, well, got slaughtered there.

I know all that I am saying has been said before on this thread, but as someone who has studied African politics for a while, I want to put my backing behind these beliefs...there just is really nothing to gain for the West to go into Zimbabwe other than a good face on the news...and is that good face worth getting more soldiers killed? And look at Iraq...it isn't so much of a good face anyways 4 years later, even with all the soldiers killed.

Zimbabwe is a great place with great people...I have always enjoyed my time there. I just hope someday soon Mugabe will kick the bucket, and somehow, just SOMEHOW, that once amazing country can get back to where it was just 10, 15, 20 years ago.
 
Banco
Posts: 14343
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2001 11:56 pm

RE: Zimbabwe, Why No Foreign Intervention?

Tue Mar 20, 2007 7:36 pm

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 20):
Ahh yes, the same old argument 'Europe left it in a very bad state' - explain all the countries that, despite being ex-colonies, are doing extremely well.

Including Zimbabwe, until Mugabe wrecked an affluent and democratic nation.
She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
 
disruptivehair
Posts: 565
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2007 9:28 pm

RE: Zimbabwe, Why No Foreign Intervention?

Tue Mar 20, 2007 7:49 pm

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 20):
Ahh yes, the same old argument 'Europe left it in a very bad state' - explain all the countries that, despite being ex-colonies, are doing extremely well.

Some countries did very well with what we left them, some didnt. Theres no way you can blame that on us.

The ex-colonies that are doing well have been ex-colonies for a long time. We also had less of a problem with Europeans constantly diddling in our affairs after we threw the British out.

And yeah...I CAN blame the Europeans for some of Africa's problems. Mugabe screwed Zimbabwe up mostly on his own, but I haven't seen the British being terribly forceful; all Tony Blair has done is throw hissy fits.
 
Banco
Posts: 14343
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2001 11:56 pm

RE: Zimbabwe, Why No Foreign Intervention?

Tue Mar 20, 2007 7:51 pm

Quoting Disruptivehair (Reply 23):
but I haven't seen the British being terribly forceful; all Tony Blair has done is throw hissy fits.

Oh, do tell. What would you have him do?
She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
 
disruptivehair
Posts: 565
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2007 9:28 pm

RE: Zimbabwe, Why No Foreign Intervention?

Tue Mar 20, 2007 7:55 pm

Quoting Banco (Reply 24):
Oh, do tell. What would you have him do?

More than what he's doing now. For example, the UK still imports goods from Zimbabwe. I know, because I see them in Tesco and Sainsbury's. Economic sanctions would be an excellent place to start. Also, he could stop deporting Zimbabwean asylum seekers. Would YOU want to go back to that hellhole?
 
Banco
Posts: 14343
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2001 11:56 pm

RE: Zimbabwe, Why No Foreign Intervention?

Tue Mar 20, 2007 8:00 pm

Quoting Disruptivehair (Reply 25):
For example, the UK still imports goods from Zimbabwe

So making the people of Zimbabwe suffer even more? Great idea.

Quoting Disruptivehair (Reply 25):
Also, he could stop deporting Zimbabwean asylum seekers. Would YOU want to go back to that hellhole?

As I recall, that specific instance got blocked by the courts. And given the number of Zimbabweans who are actually here it's hardly general policy.
She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
 
RichardPrice
Posts: 4474
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 5:12 am

RE: Zimbabwe, Why No Foreign Intervention?

Tue Mar 20, 2007 8:08 pm

Quoting Disruptivehair (Reply 23):
The ex-colonies that are doing well have been ex-colonies for a long time. We also had less of a problem with Europeans constantly diddling in our affairs after we threw the British out.

Kenya - 1963.
Botswana - 1960.
British Cameroons - 1961.
Part of Libya - 1951.
Egypt - 1922.
Gambia - 1965.
Ghana - 1957.
Nigeria - 1954.
Malawi - 1964.
Sudan - 1956.
Swaziland - 1956.
Tanzania - 1961.
Zanzibar - 1963.
Zimbabwe - 1965.

Now, the only one that doesnt fit into the same timeframe there is Egypt, but the rest all fit into a 10 year period. Why have some of those former colonies done very well, and why have some done drastically badly? Leadership, thats why.

Quoting Disruptivehair (Reply 25):
Economic sanctions would be an excellent place to start.

Yes, lets starve the general populace like savages. That will teach Mugabe a lesson for sure.
 
disruptivehair
Posts: 565
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2007 9:28 pm

RE: Zimbabwe, Why No Foreign Intervention?

Tue Mar 20, 2007 8:16 pm

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 27):
Yes, lets starve the general populace like savages. That will teach Mugabe a lesson for sure.

I seem to remember large and sometimes violent protests in the UK in favor of sanctions against South Africa. Nobody worried about them starving.

Let's just all be honest here...the UK has not done anything to help Zimbabwe because it doesn't care. There, doesn't it feel better to be honest?
 
Banco
Posts: 14343
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2001 11:56 pm

RE: Zimbabwe, Why No Foreign Intervention?

Tue Mar 20, 2007 8:18 pm

Quoting Disruptivehair (Reply 28):
I seem to remember large and sometimes violent protests in the UK in favor of sanctions against South Africa.

A stupid comparison. South African sanctions were aimed at the affluent not the poor. And, incidentally, they didn't work either.

Quoting Disruptivehair (Reply 28):
the UK has not done anything to help Zimbabwe because it doesn't care.

Let's go back again: Apart from idiotic ideas that will cause the starvation of an already hungry population, WHAT exactly, would you have the government do?  Yeah sure
She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
 
RichardPrice
Posts: 4474
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 5:12 am

RE: Zimbabwe, Why No Foreign Intervention?

Tue Mar 20, 2007 8:25 pm

Quoting Disruptivehair (Reply 28):
I seem to remember large and sometimes violent protests in the UK in favor of sanctions against South Africa. Nobody worried about them starving.

The populace of South Africa werent starving when then consideration of economic sanctions were put forward - Zimbabwes internal economy is currently screwed, theres not enough food to go around, so its an entirely different situation. If anyone was to place economic sanctions on Zimbabwe today, it would be tantamount to murder.

Quoting Disruptivehair (Reply 28):

Let's just all be honest here...the UK has not done anything to help Zimbabwe because it doesn't care. There, doesn't it feel better to be honest?

Why should other countries pay for the piss poor decisions made by Mugabe in the past 5 years, decisions made in order to placate the mob, decisions that resulted in disasterous farming and food distribution, decisions that Mugabe made.

Why should we be every countries safety net?

Its a hard life, get used to it.
 
disruptivehair
Posts: 565
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2007 9:28 pm

RE: Zimbabwe, Why No Foreign Intervention?

Tue Mar 20, 2007 9:27 pm

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 30):
Why should other countries pay for the piss poor decisions made by Mugabe in the past 5 years, decisions made in order to placate the mob, decisions that resulted in disasterous farming and food distribution, decisions that Mugabe made.

Why should we be every countries safety net?

Its a hard life, get used to it.

When my country says things like that we get pissed on. Why should you guys be able to get away with it?
 
RJdxer
Posts: 3523
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 1:14 am

RE: Zimbabwe, Why No Foreign Intervention?

Tue Mar 20, 2007 9:41 pm

Quoting MKEdude (Reply 13):
And your point is? Besides dodging the issues I mean.

That we'd all like things to be as we want but unfortunately a lot of times they aren't. If you hadn't burned the bit of fossil fuel it took you to post that, maybe the temperature wouldn't have warmed another nth degree if you believe that sort of stuff. Same with Zimbabwe, I'm sure we'd like to go in there and make conditions better for everyone but unfortunately it's not going to happen today. Of course all this thread is, is a roundabout bash on Iraq, again. But keep trying, it's entertaining if nothing else.
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, and a road that goes forever. I'm going to Texas!
 
767Lover
Posts: 3254
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2003 6:32 am

RE: Zimbabwe, Why No Foreign Intervention?

Tue Mar 20, 2007 10:08 pm

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 32):
Of course all this thread is, is a roundabout bash on Iraq, again. But keep trying, it's entertaining if nothing else.

Yep, it is pretty transparent.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 18155
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: Zimbabwe, Why No Foreign Intervention?

Tue Mar 20, 2007 10:18 pm

Quoting Monteycarlos (Reply 15):
Perhaps something the U.N. should be making a better stance towards?

That would be a start, but without a SC resolution and a large multi-national force to enforce the resolution, it ain't going to happen.

Quoting Disruptivehair (Reply 28):
I seem to remember large and sometimes violent protests in the UK in favor of sanctions against South Africa. Nobody worried about them starving.

Apart from the Government who pretty much went against World opinion on that one*.


*In an effort to be balanced, it must be pointed out that at the time I believe SA was the UK's largest trading partner.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
disruptivehair
Posts: 565
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2007 9:28 pm

RE: Zimbabwe, Why No Foreign Intervention?

Tue Mar 20, 2007 10:33 pm

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 34):
Apart from the Government who pretty much went against World opinion on that one*.


*In an effort to be balanced, it must be pointed out that at the time I believe SA was the UK's largest trading partner.

Well, as was pointed out, people in Zimbabwe are already starving anyway. Would you rather just sit on your hands and do nothing? The United States still gets slammed for what happened in Rwanda, as if there was anything we could have done to stop it. I'm sure the British can relax since we'll very clearly get the blame for Zimbabwe too.
 
Banco
Posts: 14343
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2001 11:56 pm

RE: Zimbabwe, Why No Foreign Intervention?

Tue Mar 20, 2007 10:33 pm

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 34):
I believe SA was the UK's largest trading partner.

I shouldn't think so. The UK might possibly have been South Africa's largest trading partner, I suppose. Trouble with the South African situation was that so many after the event - even in South Africa - reckoned the British government's decision to have been the correct one, though at the time I didn't really think so.
She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
 
prosa
Posts: 5389
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2001 3:24 am

RE: Zimbabwe, Why No Foreign Intervention?

Tue Mar 20, 2007 10:45 pm

It's by no means certain that Mugabe's death would improve matters. Zimbabwe could end up as a Somalia-like failed state, with constant civil war.
"Let me think about it" = the coward's way of saying "no"
 
cornish
Posts: 7651
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2005 8:05 pm

RE: Zimbabwe, Why No Foreign Intervention?

Tue Mar 20, 2007 10:50 pm

Quoting Banco (Reply 29):
Quoting Disruptivehair (Reply 28):
I seem to remember large and sometimes violent protests in the UK in favor of sanctions against South Africa.

A stupid comparison. South African sanctions were aimed at the affluent not the poor. And, incidentally, they didn't work either.

And they certainly wouldn't work here when there are enough nations friendly enough to Mugabe to help out. As mentioned, South Africa would be highly unlikely to join an embargo, Namibia, next door, has a leader who is close to Mugabe. Countries outside the region like China, Cuba, Venezuela and others would probably provide assistance to Zimbabwe too, so that means oil would be supplied plus plenty of other things that Mugabe would need. the only people who would suffer, as mentioned above, is the average Zimbabwean that doubtless would see none of this assistance.
Just when I thought I could see light at the end of the tunnel, it was some B*****d with a torch bringing me more work
 
oly720man
Posts: 5813
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 7:13 am

RE: Zimbabwe, Why No Foreign Intervention?

Tue Mar 20, 2007 11:57 pm

No intervention because there's nothing to gain from doing it, to be honest. And, to be real-politik about it, after Alan Clarke's philosophy about such things, one group of black people killing another group of black people isn't anything to lose any sleep over in the white west. In fact we'll sell them the weapons to do it, if no-one's looking.



Central Africa is all about gold and other mineral resources (coltan, so we can have more computer chips and mobile phones, amongst other things)

http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolit...ica/Articles/TheStandardColtan.asp
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/MAD111A.html
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Africa/Business_War_Congo.html
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortu...chive/2006/05/01/8375451/index.htm
http://www.schnews.org.uk/sotw/congo.htm
wheat and dairy can screw up your brain
 
sw733
Posts: 5876
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 6:19 am

RE: Zimbabwe, Why No Foreign Intervention?

Wed Mar 21, 2007 12:05 am

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 32):
Of course all this thread is, is a roundabout bash on Iraq, again. But keep trying, it's entertaining if nothing else.

Wow...paranoia. How is it that someone from Angola who starts a thread about Zimbabwe, a local country, is a bash on Bush? Hmm...doesn't make sense to me, but ok.
 
andessmf
Posts: 5689
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 8:53 am

RE: Zimbabwe, Why No Foreign Intervention?

Wed Mar 21, 2007 12:28 am

Quoting SW733 (Reply 21):

Was Zimbabwe not a bread basket till Mugabe started to mess with things?

Quoting Oly720man (Reply 39):
No intervention because there's nothing to gain from doing it, to be honest.

There has been plenty of intervention when there is a political will to intervene.

Quoting SW733 (Reply 40):
How is it that someone from Angola who starts a thread about Zimbabwe, a local country, is a bash on Bush?

Because this quote sounds exactly like something Bush did, and I can assure you 077 opposes the action in Iraq.

Quoting QANTAS077 (Thread starter):
we have a brutal dictator who's resorting to violence against opposition members and the world seems to think its perfectly acceptable! why the fuck hasn't a multinational force gone in and removed this tyrant?
 
ME AVN FAN
Posts: 12970
Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 12:05 am

RE: Zimbabwe, Why No Foreign Intervention?

Wed Mar 21, 2007 12:31 am

Quoting MKEdude (Reply 2):
anyone honestly believe that we would be neck deep in Iraq right now if there wasn't all that black gold under the sand?

wasn't it due to WMDs and for democracy ?  Yeah sure
-

Quoting Disruptivehair (Reply 25):
For example, the UK still imports goods from Zimbabwe. I know, because I see them in Tesco and Sainsbury's. Economic sanctions would be an excellent place to start.

that b...sh... again ? Making life for the normal people miserable ? ruining the country even more ? just the same mad idea as the "economic sanctions" against Iraq in the 1990ies, which made the people fully dependent on the government, and made the normal people suffering, while the leadership lived as normal .
-

Quoting Disruptivehair (Reply 28):
sanctions against South Africa. Nobody worried about them starving.

wrong comparison. Everybody knew precisely well that nobody in a gold and diamond rich country would be starving
-

Quoting SW733 (Reply 40):
How is it that someone from Angola who starts a thread about Zimbabwe, a local country, is a bash on Bush? Hmm...doesn't make sense to me, but ok.

it does NOT. But, one of the reasons why there is not even an attempt at an intervention is that the USA and the UK are already "occupied" in Iraq. Another one of course is that Mugabe started as a guerilla leader and he or the next in command may restart a guerilla rebellion. And as other already have pointed out, Zimbabwe is landlocked, so that an intervention only could be done with the active help of a neighbour. And finally, what would be the justification ? Lack of democracy ? Brutality against opposition politicians ? or what ?
-
 
Superfly
Posts: 37705
Joined: Thu May 11, 2000 8:01 am

RE: Zimbabwe, Why No Foreign Intervention?

Wed Mar 21, 2007 12:39 am

Some people here really need to get a grip. Some of people are so damn hypersensitive about others saying unkind things about Bush and his mess in Iraq.
QANTAS077 had a very legitimate question about Zimbabwe and most of what I see is Bush-lovers hijacking this thread crying.  hissyfit 
Bring back the Concorde
 
andessmf
Posts: 5689
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 8:53 am

RE: Zimbabwe, Why No Foreign Intervention?

Wed Mar 21, 2007 12:40 am

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 42):
just the same mad idea as the "economic sanctions" against Iraq in the 1990ies, which made the people fully dependent on the government, and made the normal people suffering, while the leadership lived as normal .

IIRC, the same people who would call for economic sanctions would also be the ones blaming the sanctions for the suffering that they cause to the population. Because I certainly remember those commentaries in the news about the effects sanctions were having on the Iraqi population.
 
ME AVN FAN
Posts: 12970
Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 12:05 am

RE: Zimbabwe, Why No Foreign Intervention?

Wed Mar 21, 2007 12:56 am

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 44):
the same people who would call for economic sanctions would also be the ones blaming the sanctions for the suffering that they cause to the population. Because I certainly remember those commentaries in the news about the effects sanctions were having on the Iraqi population.

-
I am all for "sanctions" if we speak about actual weapons, but I already in the case of Apartheid South Africa was against the sanctions as such sanctions first of all in general hit the wrong people and second seldom have the desired effect. The sanctions against Iraq were so far reaching that Iraqis found it difficult to get computer supplies, car parts, household goods and most normal everyday machinery. While the leadership of course found ways to get what THEY "needed".
-
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 18155
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: Zimbabwe, Why No Foreign Intervention?

Wed Mar 21, 2007 1:40 am

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 32):
Of course all this thread is, is a roundabout bash on Iraq, again.

Jut because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you. sarcastic 

Quoting Banco (Reply 36):
I shouldn't think so. The UK might possibly have been South Africa's largest trading partner, I suppose.

Yes, that's actually what I meant - at the time SA did more trade with the UK than any other country. It's changed a bit since other countries have lifted sanctions, but the UK remains an important trade partner for SA.
http://www.southafrica.info/doing_bu..._trade/agreements/trade_europe.htm

Quoting Banco (Reply 36):
Trouble with the South African situation was that so many after the event - even in South Africa - reckoned the British government's decision to have been the correct one, though at the time I didn't really think so.

I agree - at the time, I thought our Government's objections to the sanctions were foolhardy. Now I'm not so sure sanctions ever work. Anyway, for a while I imposed my own sanctions and stopped buying Cape grapes and apples. wink 
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
sw733
Posts: 5876
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 6:19 am

RE: Zimbabwe, Why No Foreign Intervention?

Wed Mar 21, 2007 1:46 am

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 41):
Was Zimbabwe not a bread basket till Mugabe started to mess with things?

Absolutely it was...but these days, it needs to be an oil basket

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 42):
But, one of the reasons why there is not even an attempt at an intervention is that the USA and the UK are already "occupied" in Iraq

Agreed.
 
Superfly
Posts: 37705
Joined: Thu May 11, 2000 8:01 am

RE: Zimbabwe, Why No Foreign Intervention?

Wed Mar 21, 2007 1:48 am

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 46):
Jut because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you.

 rotfl   rotfl   rotfl 
Bring back the Concorde
 
andessmf
Posts: 5689
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 8:53 am

RE: Zimbabwe, Why No Foreign Intervention?

Wed Mar 21, 2007 1:54 am

Quoting SW733 (Reply 47):
but these days, it needs to be an oil basket

These days, other African countries should be more vocal about the direction Mugabe has taken this country, instead of providing tacit approval by keeping their mouths shut.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: aloha73g, cat3appr50, HKows, monale770, olle, shamrock137, shaner82 and 237 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos