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

RE: Zimbabwe, Why No Foreign Intervention?

Wed Mar 21, 2007 2:02 am

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 49):
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.

Why should the burden only pertain to "other African countries"?
Look at how he deals with opposition. Perhaps they don't want the same to happen to them.
Bring back the Concorde
 
sw733
Posts: 5876
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 6:19 am

RE: Zimbabwe, Why No Foreign Intervention?

Wed Mar 21, 2007 2:06 am

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 49):
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.

The same can be said for a lot of South American countries and Hugo Chavez...or a lot of East Asian countries and Kim Jong Il...or a lot of Middle Eastern countries and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, if we're talking about crazy dictators.

I'm not defending my country...I wish Namibia and other regional countries would be a little stronger against Mugabe...but we're not the only ones, and we're not the only region.
 
Banco
Posts: 14343
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2001 11:56 pm

RE: Zimbabwe, Why No Foreign Intervention?

Wed Mar 21, 2007 2:10 am

Quoting Superfly (Reply 50):
Why should the burden only pertain to "other African countries"?

Because they are in the best position to do something about it? South Africa is, certainly. But as for intervention by the likes of Britain or the US, it still comes back to the point I made earlier - there's no access to Zimbabwe without the approval of surrounding states. Unless they show some desire for intervention (and the lead is taken from South Africa), there's zilch anyone else can do.
She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
 
Dougloid
Posts: 7248
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 2:44 am

RE: Zimbabwe, Why No Foreign Intervention?

Wed Mar 21, 2007 2:13 am

I'm just betting there are a fair number of people who are saying in their heart of hearts that old Ian Smith wasn't such a bad fellow after all. Certainly Mugabe's stewardship would have been merely pathetic if it was not so monstrous.


Some have said there's no oil in the place. The state department thinks there's a lot of other stuff: Here's what they say.

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/5479.htm
If you believe in coincidence, you haven't looked close enough-Joe Leaphorn
 
Superfly
Posts: 37705
Joined: Thu May 11, 2000 8:01 am

RE: Zimbabwe, Why No Foreign Intervention?

Wed Mar 21, 2007 2:17 am

Quoting Banco (Reply 52):
there's no access to Zimbabwe without the approval of surrounding states.

Understood. There is an obvious geographical barrier.
Now if our government had the same will and desire to overthrow Mugabe as in Irag, you think neighboring countries would put up a fight against us a resist?
Bring back the Concorde
 
PlymSpotter
Posts: 10595
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2004 7:32 am

RE: Zimbabwe, Why No Foreign Intervention?

Wed Mar 21, 2007 2:17 am

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 3):
Why aren't we in Zimbabwe? The same reason we aren't in Rawanda, The Congo, Sudan or Somolia.



Quoting MKEdude (Reply 10):
Put it pretty well.

Not to be picky, but I thought that the US had assisted recently with interventions in Somalia?

If Britain ever tried to do anything about the Zimbabwean leadership, then Mugabe and cronies would all cry Colonialism, and make out to the people that we were coming back to re-instate our former empire. Considering that many of the people are already stupid enough to believe every word that he says, it would result in a messy situation at best, and a full scale war/civil war at worst. Still, the kind of actions which Mugabe makes happen throughout Africa, it's only being highlighted so much because so many ex-patriots were displaced from their land.


Dan Smile
...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
 
ME AVN FAN
Posts: 12970
Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 12:05 am

RE: Zimbabwe, Why No Foreign Intervention?

Wed Mar 21, 2007 2:19 am

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 49):
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.

well, here is section 4 of the Charter of the African Union :
-
Article 4: Principles. The Union shall function in accordance with the following principles: Sovereign equality and interdependence among Member States of the Union; Respect of borders existing on achievement of independence; Participation of the African peoples in the activities of the Union; Establishment of a common defence policy for the African Continent; Peaceful resolution of conflicts among Member States of the Union through such appropriate means as may be decided upon by the Assembly; Prohibition of the use of force or threat to use force among Member States of the Union; Non-interference by any Member State in the internal affairs of another; The right of the Union to intervene in a Member State pursuant to a decision of the Assembly in respect of grave circumstances, namely war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity; Peaceful co-existence of Member States and their right to live in peace and security; The right of Member States to request intervention from the Union in order to restore peace and security; Promotion of self-reliance within the framework of the Union; Promotion of gender equality; Respect for democratic principles, human rights, the rule of law and good governance; Promotion of social justice to ensure balanced economic development; Respect for the sanctity of human life, condemnation and rejection of impunity and political assassination, acts of terrorism and subversive activities; Condemnation and rejection of unconstitutional changes of governments.
-
> WEB : www.anc.org.za/ancdocs/pubs/umrabulo/umrabulo15/constitution.html
- - >> www.sahistory.org.za/pages/specialpr...cts/african-union/constitution.htm
-
and you may see that one of the most important parts is """ Non-interference by any Member State in the internal affairs of another "" and now you wish they would forget exactly one point which has been stressed as of paramount importance in numerous meetings of the state-leaders ?
-
 
Banco
Posts: 14343
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2001 11:56 pm

RE: Zimbabwe, Why No Foreign Intervention?

Wed Mar 21, 2007 2:24 am

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 55):
and make out to the people that we were coming back to re-instate our former empire.

And yet ironically enough, the people of Sierra Leone were delighted to see British intervention, and wanted a re-colonisation - to the sheer horror of the Foreign Office. Big grin

And actually, that particular intervention gives the lie to accusations that Britain, at least, is only interested in oil or naked self-interest. Sierra Leone was a classic case of military intervention for humanitarian purposes.
She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
 
PlymSpotter
Posts: 10595
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2004 7:32 am

RE: Zimbabwe, Why No Foreign Intervention?

Wed Mar 21, 2007 2:28 am

Quoting Banco (Reply 57):
And yet ironically enough, the people of Sierra Leone were delighted to see British intervention, and wanted a re-colonisation - to the sheer horror of the Foreign Office.

Yes that was highly amusing! But, when it comes down to it, they recognised that under the protection of the colony, living conditions were much safer, and hopefully now that we have trained (and still are training) their national army, the people will continue to feel safe and free under their own protection.


Dan Smile
...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
 
ME AVN FAN
Posts: 12970
Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 12:05 am

RE: Zimbabwe, Why No Foreign Intervention?

Wed Mar 21, 2007 2:34 am

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 55):
many of the people are already ...... enough to believe every word that he says

suppose that this applies also to other far more "sophisticated" countries !
-
 
andessmf
Posts: 5689
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 8:53 am

RE: Zimbabwe, Why No Foreign Intervention?

Wed Mar 21, 2007 2:34 am

Quoting Banco (Reply 57):
the people of Sierra Leone were delighted to see British intervention

Was it not similar in Ivory Coast?

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 55):
then Mugabe and cronies would all cry Colonialism, and make out to the people that we were coming back to re-instate our former empire.

That is still a refrain used by many to avoid making required changes, this does not apply to Africa alone.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 54):
Now if our government had the same will and desire to overthrow Mugabe as in Irag, you think neighboring countries would put up a fight against us a resist?

Yes. Because other would be afraid that their people would start demanding the same increase in their quality of life, thereby eroding their power base.

Quoting SW733 (Reply 51):
The same can be said for a lot of South American countries and Hugo Chavez...or a lot of East Asian countries and Kim Jong Il...or a lot of Middle Eastern countries and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, if we're talking about crazy dictators.

If the whole world demanded actual changes and reform, instead of politicizing every conflict, this world would be a much better place.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 50):
Why should the burden only pertain to "other African countries"?

Because otherwise you will have others used whatever the current mantra is to criticize intervention. And last I checked, there 'should' be other countries capable of intervention, besides the US, UK, or Australia.

And as aside to that, these are the same countries who took the initiative to defend other countries in WWII.
 
Banco
Posts: 14343
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2001 11:56 pm

RE: Zimbabwe, Why No Foreign Intervention?

Wed Mar 21, 2007 2:36 am

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 60):
Was it not similar in Ivory Coast?

I don't know enough about it - you'll need to explain, I'm afraid.
She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
 
sw733
Posts: 5876
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 6:19 am

RE: Zimbabwe, Why No Foreign Intervention?

Wed Mar 21, 2007 2:51 am

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 60):
If the whole world demanded actual changes and reform, instead of politicizing every conflict, this world would be a much better place.

Very true...someday perhaps...someday hopefully.
 
SJCRRPAX
Posts: 961
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2005 2:29 am

RE: Zimbabwe, Why No Foreign Intervention?

Wed Mar 21, 2007 3:18 am

Interesting question, but a somewhat complex answer. Zimbabwe IMHO is the worst run government in the world, but it originally started as being democratically elected, but the elections now are almost certainly rigged. So how do you get rid of a democratically elected government? Zimbabwe has created most of its own problems, but the left side of the political isle in the US, and I assume UK was originally very happy when Rhodesia became Zimbabwe. Remember Steve Wonders song, about them "Jammin and Dancin in the Streets"? So the left got what they wanted and everybody should be happy. A lot of Zimbabwe's problems can be traced to their land redistribution policys. Large populations depend on large commercial farms, if you want to divide your land into 40 acre subsistance farms than your country will not be able to grow food for the large population. Zimbabwe proceeded to destroy all commercial farms, giving them back to the natives. But a lot of the population of Zimbabwe was not really native at all, but had migrated from other parts of Africa. In any case most all of the farm land was controlled by White Farmers, but they had been on that land for generations, and for the most part it was originally scrub land that the natives were never able to figure out how to farm. So now we stick Mugabe's cronies on the land, and guess what the population starves. To speak out against this you'll be labeled a racist. Nobody cared when the white farmers were killed, and forced off the land. I think the left thinks the native population will magically learn to farm the land without the tools or agriculture education.

Quoting QANTAS077 (Thread starter):
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!

While I am on my soap box I'd like to address this type of flippant remark people make about oil. The importance of oil to the world economy cannot be understated. A disruption of oil coming from the Persian Gulf would bring the entire world into an economic recession unequaled in history. People will die from the recession. This is not just about big oil losing some profit, this is about millions of people losing jobs, people starving, wars breaking out, much worse than what happened between WWI and WWII. Keeping the oil flowing is not just a USA interest but is a world wide interest. Sure the world should get off the oil habit but it is not going to happen for many more years. There is no hypocrisy in the USA protecting vital oil regions of the world and ignoring an area where it has no interest. Ignoring the fact that the USA is quite busy right now, how do you displace a democratically elected govenment without the anti-USA crowd going crazy?
 
Superfly
Posts: 37705
Joined: Thu May 11, 2000 8:01 am

RE: Zimbabwe, Why No Foreign Intervention?

Wed Mar 21, 2007 3:47 am

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 60):
If the whole world demanded actual changes and reform, instead of politicizing every conflict, this world would be a much better place.

 checkmark 
The best comment I've read by you in a political forum.

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 60):
Yes. Because other would be afraid that their people would start demanding the same increase in their quality of life, thereby eroding their power base.

Can't really make heads or tails of that one.  confused 

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 60):
Because otherwise you will have others used whatever the current mantra is to criticize intervention. And last I checked, there 'should' be other countries capable of intervention, besides the US, UK, or Australia.

So now your speaking up UK and Australia?
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 4:36 am

Quoting Superfly (Reply 64):
Can't really make heads or tails of that one.

Let me see if I can explain it better:

For example, Warsaw Pact countries had different levels of repression. If one of those countries had a little problem, like Hungary in 1956, the other Warsaw Pact countries would have no interest in helping out to try to eliminate that excess repression, as doing so would give their own population reasons to kick them out. This bears out as to what happened when the Iron Curtain fell, once one country was liberated, the population in other countries demanded and got the same.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 64):

So now your speaking up UK and Australia?

Yes.

I am a history fanatic, and love reading about it. And IMHO, what is going on in a worldwide political sense now is nothing more than a repeat of previous times.
 
ba747yyz
Posts: 371
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2006 2:55 pm

RE: Zimbabwe, Why No Foreign Intervention?

Wed Mar 21, 2007 5:25 am

Because they would all look like idiots especially the British if they got rid of a dictator they and the rest of the world installed after they forced the collapse of white ruled Rhodesia.
 
RichardPrice
Posts: 4474
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 5:12 am

RE: Zimbabwe, Why No Foreign Intervention?

Wed Mar 21, 2007 5:47 am

Quoting BA747YYZ (Reply 66):
Because they would all look like idiots especially the British if they got rid of a dictator they and the rest of the world installed after they forced the collapse of white ruled Rhodesia.

Uhm, we didnt install anyone, Mugabe won in free elections in 1980 after fighting a guerilla war against the white minority government.
 
PlymSpotter
Posts: 10595
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2004 7:32 am

RE: Zimbabwe, Why No Foreign Intervention?

Wed Mar 21, 2007 5:49 am

Quoting BA747YYZ (Reply 66):
Because they would all look like idiots especially the British if they got rid of a dictator they and the rest of the world installed after they forced the collapse of white ruled Rhodesia.

I think you are getting Britain confused with somebody called Ian Smith, who had been leading Rhodesia before the externally controlled election of 1980. He did not have the backing of the UK government or of the Monarchy here, and the state of Rhodesia was not formally recognised by most countries including the UK and US because of this.


Dan Smile
...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
 
RJdxer
Posts: 3523
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 1:14 am

RE: Zimbabwe, Why No Foreign Intervention?

Wed Mar 21, 2007 6:12 am

Quoting SW733 (Reply 40):
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.



Quoting QANTAS077 (Thread starter):
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!

Yeah, I'm paranoid alright.  boggled 
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, and a road that goes forever. I'm going to Texas!
 
ba747yyz
Posts: 371
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2006 2:55 pm

RE: Zimbabwe, Why No Foreign Intervention?

Wed Mar 21, 2007 6:12 am

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 67):
Uhm, we didnt install anyone, Mugabe won in free elections in 1980 after fighting a guerilla war against the white minority government.

The problem is Ian Smith had a huge disadvantage in that he had no trading partners and as a resault had to spend over 40% of his GDP on defense, and actually if he had been black i'm sure he would have had US support since Mugabe was being supported by communists in Mozambique.

Although this may seem racist Zimbabwe was far better off under the whites because it was sustainable, and even in the darkest days of the bush war the average Zimbabwian (both black and white) was better off under Smith, having no rights is better than being killed! In fact many people have said if Smith was black he would have been the best leader in African history.

Ironically Zimbabwe is now a relatively good place to be a white millionaire assuming your friends or at least not an enemy of Mugabe.
On the bright side Mugabe is 83, how much longer can he still rule -- even if he is getting the best healtcare in Zimbabwe.
 
PlymSpotter
Posts: 10595
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2004 7:32 am

RE: Zimbabwe, Why No Foreign Intervention?

Wed Mar 21, 2007 6:22 am

Quoting BA747YYZ (Reply 70):
if he had been black i'm sure he would have had US support since Mugabe was being supported by communists in Mozambique.

Well the US were largely influenced by the UK to distance themselves from Smith's government, and later to removed their consulate from Harare. I think it could be fair to say that Mugabe is suffering from perhaps a little of his age, leading to paranoia about being over-thrown, certainly this could explain the more and more frequent attacks on anyone who dares to oppose him, his party, or his views.


Dan Smile
...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
 
RichardPrice
Posts: 4474
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 5:12 am

RE: Zimbabwe, Why No Foreign Intervention?

Wed Mar 21, 2007 6:27 am

Quoting BA747YYZ (Reply 70):

The problem is Ian Smith had a huge disadvantage in that he had no trading partners and as a resault had to spend over 40% of his GDP on defense

The problem is that during hte 1960s, former British colonies in Africa were all gaining their independance, and as a result democratic rule through election. The white minority government of Rhodesia wanted special dispensation to remain in power unilaterally after independance, but Britain was unwilling to impose such a rule on the country.

This forced Ian Smith to declare independance without the support of Britain, causing the civil war which led to the eventual breakdown of white rule in 1980.

I cant comment on the rest of your post, because i havent experienced it.
 
QANTAS077
Topic Author
Posts: 5196
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2004 5:08 pm

RE: Zimbabwe, Why No Foreign Intervention?

Wed Mar 21, 2007 8:00 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.

lol...good to see you care about your fellow man! glad you can think on my behalf too, but i can tell you from now i couldn't give a flying fist %&$# about Bush or the "mission accomplished" in Iraq. Its a legitimate question, one which you think has some round about meaning...We've seen opposition leaders being bashed, refused travel & a nation starving because of a leader that has no moral conscience...and the best the world can come up with is more sanctions. if it wasn't such a desperate situation it'd be laughable.

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 41):
Because this quote sounds exactly like something Bush did, and I can assure you 077 opposes the action in Iraq.

so what if i oppose the Iraq war...it has nothing to do with this thread so don't try and put words in my mouth or divert from the issue that is Zimbabwe! you haven't earnt that right, champ. I can make the distinction between Iraq & Zimbabwe...i actually give a shit about the planet and the people who inhabit it...its a shame others didn't feel the same.

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?

i'm from australia...

i really couldn't give a shit who gets rid of Mugabe..fact is that he needs to go & go soon for the benefit of the people & the nation, its not about to happen at the ballot box because the govt has to much control over elections. It just astounds me that we're willing to make the nation suffer even more by imposing sanctions that don't hit the regime, but directly affect the population. when have sanctions ever hurt those in power? there hasn’t been enough African pressure on Zimbabwe. I know President Obasanjo of Nigeria was prepared to be very tough but President Mbeki of South Africa was never prepared to be very tough with Mugabe. If those two, South Africa and Nigeria, had been able to lead a general southern African push to try and get Zimbabwe to reform its ways, then I think that could have been effective.

surely its in Sth Africas best interests to have a successful Zimbabwe? they already have a huge problem with illegal immigrants from Zimbabwe, its affecting the unemployment problems that south africa already has.
 
andessmf
Posts: 5689
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 8:53 am

RE: Zimbabwe, Why No Foreign Intervention?

Wed Mar 21, 2007 8:04 am

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!

Please tell us how this quote of yours does not apply to Iraq.
 
sw733
Posts: 5876
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 6:19 am

RE: Zimbabwe, Why No Foreign Intervention?

Wed Mar 21, 2007 10:07 am

Quoting QANTAS077 (Reply 73):
It just astounds me that we're willing to make the nation suffer even more by imposing sanctions that don't hit the regime

It has happened before...most recently with North Korea

Quoting QANTAS077 (Reply 73):
I know President Obasanjo of Nigeria was prepared to be very tough but President Mbeki of South Africa was never prepared to be very tough with Mugabe

Obasanjo is a joke of a leader himself...not as ruthless and dictatorial as Mugabe, of course, but not too great of a leader (or a guy) either.
 
bill142
Posts: 7864
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2004 1:50 pm

RE: Zimbabwe, Why No Foreign Intervention?

Wed Mar 21, 2007 10:37 am

Quoting Monteycarlos (Reply 19):
Perhaps not unlike other areas of the globe?

Exactly like other areas of the globe. Yet, outside influences tend to dictate otherwise.

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

Yeah for sure. Once the US and its allies with draw their troops, they're going to nuke the place. The Trillion dollar investment hasn't had the expected returns  Yeah sure
 
ba747yyz
Posts: 371
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2006 2:55 pm

RE: Zimbabwe, Why No Foreign Intervention?

Wed Mar 21, 2007 10:42 am

You know interestingly according to Smith in his memoirs he says that the entire problem is as a resault of the election of a Labour government in the UK, and that he and the Conservatives reached an understanding of gradual majority rule, actually quite similar to the Lancaster House Agreement, but the Labours wanted immidiate majority independance so Smith felt threatned and declared UDI.
In fact all of Zimbabwe's problems are the resault of Mugabe breaking the LHA, and also the British government stopping payments to Whites and Blacks to buy and stall land in the late 90's -- precisely when Zimbabwe's real troubles began. Hate to sound partisan here but sounds like Labour screwed up Rhodesia/Zimbabwe twice.
 
RJdxer
Posts: 3523
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 1:14 am

RE: Zimbabwe, Why No Foreign Intervention?

Wed Mar 21, 2007 12:46 pm

Quoting QANTAS077 (Reply 73):
if it wasn't such a desperate situation it'd be laughable.

Tell me how it's any different than what has been happening in Africa for tens of centuries? It's tribe against tribe, only now they are gussied up with different names.
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, and a road that goes forever. I'm going to Texas!
 
ME AVN FAN
Posts: 12970
Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 12:05 am

RE: Zimbabwe, Why No Foreign Intervention?

Wed Mar 21, 2007 2:25 pm

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 65):
what is going on in a worldwide political sense now is nothing more than a repeat of previous times.

-
Well, if you love it, you can compare the "African Union" to the "Hansa", a union of governments, intent on preserving the power of the established rulerships and the existing borderlines.
-

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 71):
Mugabe is suffering from perhaps a little of his age

in short, is the old chap SENILE ??
-

Quoting BA747YYZ (Reply 77):
according to Smith in his memoirs he says that the entire problem is as a resault of the election of a Labour government in the UK, and that he and the Conservatives reached an understanding of gradual majority rule,

Ian Smith was a liar. He in those times gave a famous speech, declaring "there will NOT be majority rule in Rhodesia in 1000 years " ! So that to speak of an "agreement" clearly betrayed his character. It may be necessary that Mugabe lead his country for many years in quite a considerate and productive manner, but in recent years somehow became extreme. And that is what I call senility. A doctor may find a Latin expression of some 50 digits of course.
-
 
jwenting
Posts: 9973
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2001 10:12 pm

RE: Zimbabwe, Why No Foreign Intervention?

Wed Mar 21, 2007 3:26 pm

simple reason: Mugabe is black and therefore doing anything against him would be seen as racist by the western left.
I wish I were flying
 
Banco
Posts: 14343
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2001 11:56 pm

RE: Zimbabwe, Why No Foreign Intervention?

Wed Mar 21, 2007 5:26 pm

Quoting BA747YYZ (Reply 77):
and that he and the Conservatives reached an understanding of gradual majority rule

Except there's no mention of anything like that in the documents released under the Thirty Year rule, many of which do pertain to Zimbabwe. Smith is trying to re-write history for his own benefit so he looks less like a racist white-supremacist who lost.

The sadness for Zimbabwe is that I can recall the high levels of optimism when Mugabe started out. It seemed that Zimbabwe was the model nation of de-colonisation, with a stable, democratic government, and affluent economy and decent race relations. All thrown away.

Things may now be coming to a head. The apparent torture of Morgan Tsvangirai seems to have taken things to a new level, and there are at least indications that Zimbabweans may have had enough.
She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
 
User avatar
Braybuddy
Posts: 6665
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 8:14 pm

RE: Zimbabwe, Why No Foreign Intervention?

Wed Mar 21, 2007 5:51 pm

Quoting QANTAS077 (Thread starter):
Zimbabwe, Why No Foreign Intervention?

Maybe there's no need now:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...le/2007/03/20/AR2007032001422.html
 
prosa
Posts: 5389
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2001 3:24 am

RE: Zimbabwe, Why No Foreign Intervention?

Thu Mar 22, 2007 3:37 am

Irony of ironies, the white commercial farmers who were forced off their lands a few years ago have been the fortunate ones. Most of them went next door to Mozambique, where the government made land available, and today are doing quite well for themselves. Mozambique itself has benefitted from the arrangement. Meanwhile, back in Zimbabwe, the misery continues.
"Let me think about it" = the coward's way of saying "no"

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Aaron747, Arion640, B747Saeed, Blotto, Bongodog49, FlyingColours, HALtheAI, L0VE2FLY, michi, Slash787 and 277 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