Vote for me or I will kill you!!.....Tsvangari certainly has balls going up against him, even if he did win how long would he survive ?.
As there is no oil septic bully will not intervene, if Obama gets in would the policy be any different, ancestral homeland and all...''Scuse I special relationship buddies, fancy a roll in the African sand ''.
Without wanting to sound like a complete bastard but fook them. They chose to opt out of the Commonwealth, they chose Mugabe, and they chose not to be part of our Rhodesia. They made their beds and now must lye in it.

The Coalition is overstretched as it is; so how could we get involved, even if we wanted to? Sure we could assassinate him but one of his cronies would step in and nothing would change. The only people who could change things are the African Nations and they seem content to accept his dictatorial rule, just as we accept Gordon Brown’s. Why should we, or the Septics, save the world?

Still I am just a student with no real world experience so don’t take it that I actually know what I am talking about.

Honestly don't know where we go from here. There's a school of thought that says it isn't our problem any more- it's attractive, certainly, but I don't think that we can morally walk away. So much of what is going on there can be traced back to the actions of the British govt.

In 1980 there was understandable relief on the part of the progressive consensus that granting independence to Mugabe was some sort of victory- despite the fact that we presided over a hopelessly rigged election and refused to recognise the 1979 Smith-Muzorewa settlement.

The issue was that by that time colonialism had come to be seen as a bad thing. That just left the small matter of the Rhodesian whites. It's not good enough simply to say that they were racist or that they had stolen someone else's country. When the BSAC pioneer columns went into Matabeleland the persecution of Aborigines in Australia, and Maoris in NZ, was in full swing. If Rhodesia had got going 100 years earlier we would not be having this problem. (I'm not suggesting Rhodesia was right, by the way, just that you have to understand how it all came about).

The principal fault of the Rhodesian pioneers was that within their own lifetime their way of life came to be seen by most of the world as abhorrent. This is something that needs to be got straight before we pontificate from our safe berths in the northern hemisphere.

As a result, when the independence movements of the 50s and 60s swept through Africa, we had a self-governing colony where the white minority was sizeable, mature, and not used any longer to being told what to do by London. Many Rhodies by that stage were 3rd or 4th generation country born and therefore just as African as anyone else on the continent.

What they recognised was that their own life and country were in danger, and that prompted them to proclaim UDI. Ian Smith ran a very tight ship, and the RLI and Selous Scouts, whilst being deeply scary people, achieved a great deal in their counter-insurgency war. Ultimately though, there were atrocities on both sides, and the situation in 1980 meant that an awful lot of people were relieved that the violence wasn't worse after independence.

Mugabe showed very quickly, through the early 80s Matabeleland massacres, that he wouldn't brook any kind of dissent. Until the late 90s, therefore, an easy truce was reached between most sectors of the popluation and there was a great deal of stability. Once the farmers threw in their lot with the MDC, however, it was time to crush them- and this started the descent into the current hell.

To be perfectly honest, so many people are suffering in that poor country now that any sanctions we imposed couldn't make the populations' life much worse, but could weaken the government. Newspapers have argued in the last couple of days that this wouldn't work- citing the fact that sanctions had no effect on Smith. The difference here is that Rhodesia in 1965 was a thriving and internally stable country with a fine government and civil service, Zimbabwe clearly is not.

The one parallel that can be drawn between then and now is that the role of South Africa is crucial. It was apartheid South Africa which brought about the downfall of Smith through withdrawing their air support and police reserves from the bush war unless Smith and van der Byl agreed to talks on multiracial elections. This, coupled with the daring raid on the Salisbury fuel reserves, forced Smith's hand. The difficulty is who is going to force Mugabe's hand? South Africa needs to wake up to the disaster unfolding on its border. Britain needs to be ready to pour in aid and whatever other help we can give as soon as there is a change of government.

We have a responsibility to Zimbabweans of all races to restore the fortunes of this country. It ought to be one of Africa's success stories. It's also an issue that goes beyond what some of you may remember as Gerald Nabarro's witterings about standing up for "kith and kin," or the newreels of Eric Sykes and Whacko! Jimmy Edwards going out to entertain the Rhodesian troops in the late 70s. Zimbabwe needs to be a succes for the benefit of all who live there. It's not just about being misty eyed about white settlers (or even excoriating them).

Sorry, that was an awful lot longer than I intended- it's just an issue that is very close to my heart.
In 2005 there was an endorsement by world leaders of a new doctrine called 'Responsibility to Protect', which is an attempt to try to enforce the pre-existing obligatio erga omnes, which UN members seem to have conveniently forgotten. The new doctrine theoretically confers a duty and power to prevent genocide though non-Western nations are wary of endorsing this doctrine, currently being promoted by Britain, because they fear it will be abused. Britain's intervention in Iraq upon rather dubious grounds does not exactily strengthen our argument!
The sooner someone drops a paratrooper sniper into that neck of the woods and puts a set of cross-hairs on the Hitler-tashed problem, the better. I'm not convinced that things will get better with the opposition, but maybe they'd be more willing to accept help!
Where is South Africa who have the military capability to sort the scum Mugabe and his henchmen out?

It's hard to believe that Mugabe was once flavour of the month and invited to Buck House.


Lantern Swinger
Its a no win situation either way.

Mugabe is without doubt an evil old man but the trouble may well be caused by those under him who are afraid of what would happen to them if the MDC won.

While I agree that something should be done it is difficult to see what. IF (and it is a huge IF) the UK were to try something it simply reinforces Mugabe's arguement that we are acting as a colonial power. Those supporting an ousting of Mugabe could turn against us etc. - where have we seen this happen before?

If nothing is done then a lot of inocent people continue to suffer.

The only hope - and it is not one I would put money on to work - is that South AFrica and other African states intervene. Sadly it is something that only Africa can sort out because if the West does get involved one particular side or tribe will be supported and the others will be alienated.

I guess you have to look at the Christian ethics.Speaking as someone on the outside of all religions I know damn well in an arab country a suicide bomber would have him well in pieces by now.
These people are too decent to apply what's needed,been there, and it's a waste of a garden of food for all Africa.
Just think,feed Africa from there and we will have no more Bob Geldof on our screens!
I dont think Mugabe is still actually still in charge, I reckon he is now a Puppet for the Chiefs of Police and the Generals he has bolstered all these years, plus it looks to me as though he may be suffering a brain disorder bro
ught about through Tertiary Syphillis for which the best cure is 5.56 mm centred on the forehead.

Mugabe is a figurehead, an idol to the people of Zimbabwe. It is his underdogs that are the force of evil. This is not to say Mugabe is not. It is a bit like the Sadam Hussein and Iraq scenario.

And we no what happened there.

Regards, Chris



Read The Times from cover to cover today - stuck on a train to London and not an awful lot else to do. Read an article about Mugabe which almost made me sick - how Brown and the rest of the world can sleep in their beds at night just saying "ooh - things in Zimbabwe aren't good" completely evades me. I'm not saying we should do anything military - even if we wanted to we couldn't, but we could do a hell of a lot more than we're doing now. Telling the rest of the African nations to get their fingers out of their collective arses would be a start.

Have a look and see - it really amazes me how humans could do this.
The Times, 19 Jun 08
Its the old story ---give a country [thats formely been a colony of a western power ] back to its people and they eventually revert to
tribal systems .
Bad news bit with Zimbabwe is that the people are quite subserviant and have been living within a good law abiding country till now. Only thing being wrong is the fact that the 'president ' won't step down . As his controlling party is in charge of the Armed Forces ,Police etc. they are enforcing his stay in power. The next round of voting will be a farce and
totally 'rigged' so Mugabe will remain with his government and cronies.

Ok so let him stay ----- there will be an eventual revolution of the masses
and the genocide etc -the usual peacekeeping UN forces and the charity aid and eventually the Zimbaweans might get a country again.

:nemo: :nemo:
Surely no one is suggesting that the West interfere in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation. We are constantly being lectured about how naughty that is! Its about time the Africans took some responsibility for their own welfare and sorted out Mugabe themselves.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
Oil_Slick Current Affairs 37
S Current Affairs 14
D Current Affairs 35

Similar threads

Latest Threads

New Posts