This man should die!

[radioian]

Dont forget that Mugabe has bought lots of Mc Donnel Phantoms and Land Rovers over the years................thats a lot of money...................

 

[Glafna]

Now that I've thought on it.. I sortof agree with what justmee was saying(stone me.... please...).

There has been a bad history of European and North American influences in African countries, such as with India and the time of Ghandi, or the situation that "Black Hawk Down was based off of(cant remember the country, Somalia I think). I have a feeling that if foreign troops from outside Africa invaded, the people might side with the government, or whatever passed as a government.

Or they might accept them with open arms. We don't know for sure, and we won't unless Mugabe keeps this up, and someone does give the OK to move in.

 

[Spazer181]

I think what we should be looking for is an African solution to an African problem. The African Union has sent in troops in a peace keeping mission before, so if the AU decided to act this would be a viable option. I still feel that the SADC (Southern Africa Development Community) could also do more politically to solve the problem.

 

[Chalchalero]

I would point out, however, that he was voted down (likely with a majority - however such a result could not be supported by the 'Electoral Commission') in the most recent elections. He's now ramping up the violence in a desperate attempt to cling to power. As he becomes increasingly isolated, not only from the west, but also from his own neighbours and partners in the Southern Africa Development Community (SADC) his regime will necessairly topple. I greatly admire the Zambian President for his efforts in attempting to make Mugabe "see sense." At the same time, I must admit to finding the response by President Thabo Mbeki (ANC, South Africa) to be lackluster and disgusting. It's almost as bad as his government's response to the AIDS crisis. It's time for the SADC to step up and resolve this issue - an African solution to the crisis.

I love when people refer to an "African" solution to African problems. It reminds me of Burma's "Burmese Solution" to the recent cyclone: useless, ineffectual, corrupt, self-serving for the totalitarian regime, etc.

I have always agreed that the sovereignty of nations should be respected and sacrosanct. But with sovereignty comes a responsibility to your citizenry and when that responsibility has not been lived up to, then I believe you have forfeited your rights to sovereignty.

The AU has attempted only recently to try and show some interest in the mess that presently is Zimbabwe. Their answer to this crisis is to continue sending that corrupt hack Mbeki to pat Mugabe on the head and tell him what a great revolutionary hero he is.

Mugabe, strangely enough, will only talk to Thabo Mbeki....Hmmm....

THe AU is still a new organisation and perhaps needs time to figure out how to deal with Zimbabwe. It is reassuring that the SADC and the African Commission on Human and People's Rights have been debating the issue, but more obviously must be done.

You refer to Mugabe's isolation. Other than China (which loves its dictators) and South Africa, Zimbabwe has never shared close relations with anyone else in the world, and yet they have continued along quite nicely with Mugabe at the helm. Isolation has done nothing to change that.

You refer to Zambia's part in making Mugabe "see sense", but part of that comes from the fact that now the official (propaganda) press in Zimbabwe has begun a smear campaign against Zambia, accusing it of advocating for regime change in Zimbabwe.

All politics are self-serving in Africa.

I am often less than impressed with the way Africans handle African problems. Hell, they sold each other to Europeans for slavery. Their thought processes are not always easy to understand.

 

[Zingerific]

An interesting piece in Slate today discusses Equatorial Guinea and its dictator Teodoro Obiang, which the article argues is worse than Mugabe.

Why do we talk about Zimbabwe and not Equatorial Guinea? 1) Zimbabwe has a post-colonial narrative with which we are familiar, and 2) the authoritarian Equatorial Guinea sells us oil.

 

[frankfrank]

Wow.

I try to pay attention to national and international politics, and I am especially mindful of abuses of power, corruption, genocide and cruelty.

Even for me, this is the first I've never heard anything about E. G., except for some feeble news coverage about the coup attempt in 2004.

That's two people who deserve to die, because a horrific dictator in E. G. doesn't make Mugabe any better...

 

[AsianDream]

But since that was pure fiction concocted by the United States, what's stopping it from doing it again?

Mostly the fact that they got "found out" last time -

It's hard to underestimate the gullablility of the US public - but even they wouldn't believe that Zimbabwe had a secret WMD program.

Just as the US public don't seem too worried about countries (like Iran) that really do have a serious WMD program.

 

[AsianDream]

Moving into Zimbabwe to rid it of a dictator would have been a different matter. For a start it would be a matter of removing a bunch of armed thugs. Also, the people of Zimbabwe want a democratic country whereas Iraq is having democracy imposed upon it. The reason is clear, Iraq has oil Zimbabwe had food. However, it will not be long before the world will need countries like Zimbabwe to help feed it.

Correction - Zimbabwe used to have food - the regime has messed things up so badly there that from being a major food exporter - Zimbabwe now can't even produce enough food to feed its own people.

 

[Lostlover]

I don't think Europe has a leg to stand on when they moralize on Zimbabwe. They were supporters of the apartheid racist regime. NOW they want to get rid of the black racist regime?

I wish they were this gung-ho about the Nazis and fascists.

That's wishy-washy.

 

[AsianDream]

Originally Posted by AsianDream
Correction - Zimbabwe used to have food - the regime has messed things up so badly there that from being a major food exporter - Zimbabwe now can't even produce enough food to feed its own people.

There's nothing to correct, dude, he said "Iraq HAS oil, Zimbabwe HAD food". Learn to read, will you?

I was correcting this to use the habitual past participle rather than simple past.

The point is that Zimbabwe used to have (habitually) more than enough food rather than just it had food on one occasion.

Maybe you'd have understood better if I'd said Mugabee was a totally un-bodacious and bogus bad dude?

 

[falconfan]

I don't think Europe has a leg to stand on when they moralize on Zimbabwe. They were supporters of the apartheid racist regime. NOW they want to get rid of the black racist regime?

I wish they were this gung-ho about the Nazis and fascists.

That's wishy-washy.

So because of the sins of the past we should just turn a blind eye to the sins of the future?

 

[Spazer181]

^ Sins of the future? Try sins of right now. Opposition supporters are being killed (last count I saw on the BBC website had it around 85). I was glad to see Mandela step up to say this is wrong even if Mbeki won't.

 

[JackFTwist]

So because of the sins of the past we should just turn a blind eye to the sins of the future?

do you have any idea how many people were exterminated by the British, tribes, cultures exterminated?

and how white control was exercised until Mugabe got elected?

he is total scum but no one who is a part of the culture that took a century of depraved human brutality to create the massive problems of the last 20 years is in a position in offer any advice on morality or ethics

 

[Lostlover]

So because of the sins of the past we should just turn a blind eye to the sins of the future?

That's not what I'm saying.

I'm saying that some of the same countries criticizing Mugabe have absolutely no room to talk.

We invaded Iraq for no reason. And now our intervention is needed and we're offering lip service?

I wish Bush was as brave with Iraq as he is with Mugabe.

Again, I agree Mugabe is a monster but as a country America and Europe have no room to talk about intervention and what should happen considering our tragic failures of recent.

 

[Lostlover]

do you have any idea how many people were exterminated by the British, tribes, cultures exterminated?

and how white control was exercised until Mugabe got elected?

he is total scum but no one who is a part of the culture that took a century of depraved human brutality to create the massive problems of the last 20 years is in a position in offer any advice on morality or ethics

Ding ding ding.

We have a winner.

A colonial power of yesteryear (england) wants to tell Zimbabwe how to run itself. They've done enough... go away.

If I were Tsvangari (however you spell it), I'd go to the leader of the world (Bush) and tell him Zimbabwe has tons of oil (even if it's a lie). Maybe then someone who's willing to do something will intervene.

Europe's "diplomacy" is doing what it usually does... wasting time, breath and papers for useless declarations.

Times like this reaffirms to you who the sole super power is in America. The trick now is just getting America/Bush to give a damn.

 

[falconfan]

That's not what I'm saying.

I'm saying that some of the same countries criticizing Mugabe have absolutely no room to talk.

We invaded Iraq for no reason. And now our intervention is needed and we're offering lip service?

I wish Bush was as brave with Iraq as he is with Mugabe.

Again, I agree Mugabe is a monster but as a country America and Europe have no room to talk about intervention and what should happen considering our tragic failures of recent.

You realize that one of the main reasons we didn't intervene in world war II (pre-Pearl Harbor) was because of the context it had coming off of WWI were there where rumors of travesty were grossly overexaggerated. We need to view things from a frame of history but we can't stop that from seeing an isolated individual situation as isolated and individual. Mugabe and his regime has nothing to do with Iraq. Now whether we're in a strategic and logistic space to intervene is not the same question of whether someone SHOULD intervene. Stalin helped stop Hitler... a wrong stopping a wrong doesn't make that particular action any less important.

 

[Spazer181]

Stalin helped stop Hitler... a wrong stopping a wrong doesn't make that particular action any less important.

I must say that I tend to agree with that position. Mugabe is an evil man bent on destroying his country and his people. Whatever it takes to remove him from power and attempt to return Zimbabwe to a country of relative prosperity - particularly in the regional context - should (and perhaps must) be done. It is probably one of the few countries with strong agricultural potential in the region (apart from Zambia - formerly No. Rhodesia).

 

[Kulindahr]

do you have any idea how many people were exterminated by the British, tribes, cultures exterminated?

and how white control was exercised until Mugabe got elected?

he is total scum but no one who is a part of the culture that took a century of depraved human brutality to create the massive problems of the last 20 years is in a position in offer any advice on morality or ethics

So I guess since you're a part of the culture that for far more than a century has condemned gays and persecuted them, you're in no position to say those positions are wrong.

Come on, Jack, that's a ridiculous, foolish argument. You'd be having Germans in the generation after WW II "in no position" to condemn Nazi Germany, Americans once the 'Indian' wars were over "in no position' to criticize those... etc. etc.

Being in a position to offer advice on morality or ethics has nothing to do with being part of any culture, or group, or classification. You own yourself; the group you belong to doesn't own you. All it takes to be in a position to offer critique or advice is the conviction that there's something wrong, and the courage to speak up.

The liberal "oh, we've been bad!" self-castigation may make some folks feel good about themselves, but it's no guide to behavior in the real world. It's a great way to keep people from speaking up when there's something wrong -- indeed, it's a great way to shut people up while authoritarians whittle away at liberty, group by group, until tyranny emerges triumphant. There's nothing, nothing at all, that disqualifies a person, an individual, from speaking up -- the other option is a red carpet for those who would walk the road Hitler did, attacking one group, then another, then another, because everyone was remaining silent.

Anyone with a conscience not only is in a position to speak up, but has a duty to do so.

 

[JackFTwist]

the Stalin-Hitler thing is way too simplistic

Hitler sought to destroy Stalin and thus Stalin became by Hitler's action an ally

the resulting evil was Stalin's and the USSR's 45 year grip on Eastern Europe, hardly a win situation, we just swapped the doer of the evil from Hitler to Stalin and in fact extended the power and extent of the evil

and that is your analogy to Zimbabwe - because of the evil done by England right through Ian Smith, the counterforce was Mugagbe, so make your Hitler-Stalin comparisons to British extermination of peoples, exploitation of resources, and neo-apartheid government through Rhodesian independence and Ian Smith to Hitler and Mugabe to Stalin and there you have it

South Africa is a miracle because Mandela was the blessing so there was not the type of reaction we all feared in the necessary fall of apartheid

the internal Zimbabwean answer and whatever African solution there is which the international community can support is not easy to discern but we have to bear in mind who fucked it all up and created this situation - the Western colonial powers

some idle evening do some research on Cecil Rhodes views on colonial mastery and exploitation - it is chilling and there are the seeds planted of the current horror

 

[Kulindahr]

You realize that one of the main reasons we didn't intervene in world war II (pre-Pearl Harbor) was because of the context it had coming off of WWI were there where rumors of travesty were grossly overexaggerated. We need to view things from a frame of history but we can't stop that from seeing an isolated individual situation as isolated and individual. Mugabe and his regime has nothing to do with Iraq. Now whether we're in a strategic and logistic space to intervene is not the same question of whether someone SHOULD intervene. Stalin helped stop Hitler... a wrong stopping a wrong doesn't make that particular action any less important.

Excellent insight!

Moral cowardice is not a justification for refusing to act with moral courage, nor are moral failings. And to wallow in moral failings as an excuse not to act is moral cowardice.