NationStates Jolt Archive

Robert Mugabe has struck again this week, demolishing the homes of thousands of opposition supporters and forcing them into the countryside. This is, in my view, totally unacceptable. But what do you think the international community should do to deal with this vile man and what do you think we could do to persuade other African leaders to see him for what he really is.

Robert Mugabe has struck again this week, demolishing the homes of thousands of opposition supporters and forcing them into the countryside. This is, in my view, totally unacceptable. But what do you think the international community should do to deal with this vile man and what do you think we could do to persuade other African leaders to see him for what he really is.

No. Since the US has been castigated for acting without UN authority in dealing with a foreign dictator, it would be a bad thing for the US to repeat that, and go into Zimbabwe. We would be accused of being racists, at the very least.

No, the UN should get together, and the US should abstain from any involvement. If the UN is so great, then I'm sure that France can lead the way and handle the problem. I'm sure that as soon as the UN forces take over the country, there will be absolutely no insurgency whatsoever, and that Mugabe will quietly step down when the first UN plane arrives.

No.

It is tragic and inhumane what Mugabe is doing, but this does not justify us 'doing' anything more than is already being done to Zimbabwe.

What would be useful is to provide resources for neighbouring states (not the richest places in the world) so that they can cope with the innevitable influx of refugees.

No.

It is tragic and inhumane what Mugabe is doing, but this does not justify us 'doing' anything more than is already being done to Zimbabwe.

What would be useful is to provide resources for neighbouring states (not the richest places in the world) so that they can cope with the innevitable influx of refugees.

Funny. I was all ready to deliver a funny sucker-punch, but then I read your post, and I've changed my mind about it. I agree with you wholeheartedly. In fact, your second statement is brilliant.

My hat off to you.

No.

It is tragic and inhumane what Mugabe is doing, but this does not justify us 'doing' anything more than is already being done to Zimbabwe.

What would be useful is to provide resources for neighbouring states (not the richest places in the world) so that they can cope with the innevitable influx of refugees.

We shouldn't even do that.

That would be interference. We might accidentally feed people who are opposed to Mugabe. No, we have to be completely impartial on this. At the very least, the US should stay out, and let the fully competent government of Mugabe do its thing.

After all, who are we to criticize Mugabe? Few nations at the UN have room to talk about abuse of power at one point or another.

No, we should find out who the truly ethically and morally pure nations are, and send them to assist Mugabe in completing his reforms.

Nuke it? :D

There, I'm done being insensitive. But really, there is so much that the world can do short of military action, and if "white" nations went in, it would be condemned by coloured ones, and African nations aren't going to go in they've got their own problems...

Should we do something about Zimbabwe?

Do they have oil? If no, then we won't do anything about them..lol

Nuke it? :D

There, I'm done being insensitive. But really, there is so much that the world can do short of military action, and if "white" nations went in, it would be condemned by coloured ones, and African nations aren't going to go in they've got their own problems...

The US should never go into Zimbabwe. Even if authorized by the UN.

No, on any Zimbabwe vote, the US should abstain, and let the UN handle it. After all, we are told that the UN is so much wiser and better at handling this sort of thing than the US. We all remember what a great job the UN did in Rwanda, don't we?

WL - like I said... nuke it!

The UN can't do shit... and whatever they do would only make it worse.

Do they have oil? ;)

WL - like I said... nuke it!

The UN can't do shit... and whatever they do would only make it worse.

No, if you nuke it, Fass will say we're violating someone's human rights.

Better to change the channel and ignore it. After all, the wonderful, wise, all-knowing, and perfect international community in the form of the UN, will intervene as long as the US abstains (which we should).

I'm sure they'll do just as good a job as they did in Srebrenice and Rwanda.

not that i would ever support war really

but

if we werent over extended already, going into zimbabwe would be a good way to get a US base in africa. we need a presence in africa and if we can do some good at the same time, its almost a win/win (cept for the dead people)

Do they have oil? ;)

Hehehe, beat you to it. ;)

not that i would ever support war really

but

if we werent over extended already, going into zimbabwe would be a good way to get a US base in africa. we need a presence in africa and if we can do some good at the same time, its almost a win/win (cept for the dead people)

No, we don't need a presence in Africa. The French intervene in African countries all the time, and everyone in the EU thinks the French are wiser, smarter, and more capable of getting good results than the Americans.

After all that French intervention, Africa hasn't really improved, so I think it's a waste of time for the US to intervene. Besides, the French will get mad at us because we're stepping on their turf.

If someone gives me a gun and a plane ticket to Zimbabwe, I'll go kill the racist Marxist son of a bitch. No, I'm not kidding. I'm dead serious.

Robert Mugabe has struck again this week, demolishing the homes of thousands of opposition supporters and forcing them into the countryside. This is, in my view, totally unacceptable. But what do you think the international community should do to deal with this vile man and what do you think we could do to persuade other African leaders to see him for what he really is.
Actually, the US has come out and urged the S. Africans to do something about it and we have pledged air and logistics support to anyone willing to do something about it. No one has taken us up on our offer. What follows is pure speculation as to why. The only real way to stop the fighting at this point would be to divide the country along ethnic lines a la Yugoslavia. The various politicos are worried that this would set precedent for other african countries that keep having civil wars, which it would. Since they are power-hungry bastards they dont' want to give up any of their power.

Do they have oil? ;)
Sudan does, which is why the French and Chinese blocked the move to officially condemn what is going on there as ethnic genocide. They have contracts with the authority in Khartoum.

If you mean the United States- No-they are on their own. We already seem to have the rest of the world angry with us, so why dont we save our own lives, time and of course our cash-finish a few outstanding projects and then focus on domestic problems.

I'm sure if the problem were really that bad, the UN and Europo would do something, right? And they are usually both decisive and effective when it comes to needed action.
I mean, they would never sit around gabbing like a bunch of wash women while masses of people were being victimized. Would they?

Robert Mugabe has struck again this week, demolishing the homes of thousands of opposition supporters and forcing them into the countryside. This is, in my view, totally unacceptable. But what do you think the international community should do to deal with this vile man and what do you think we could do to persuade other African leaders to see him for what he really is.

We should just send him a copy of the entire Beavis and Butthead series on DVD. That should take care of him.

Actually, the US has come out and urged the S. Africans to do something about it and we have pledged air and logistics support to anyone willing to do something about it. No one has taken us up on our offer. What follows is pure speculation as to why. The only real way to stop the fighting at this point would be to divide the country along ethnic lines a la Yugoslavia. The various politicos are worried that this would set precedent for other african countries that keep having civil wars, which it would. Since they are power-hungry bastards they dont' want to give up any of their power.


I dont know why the hell we would do that-so some cocksucker can claim our smart bombs destroyed a crippled baby hospital and a church?

Just get everyone to put sanctions on them, and watch them crumble like South Africa did. Mugabe gets kicked out, and no-one gets accused of imperialism.

Or, even more peacefully, just wait until Mugabe finally dies of old age. I'd give him another five years maximum. Problem with this one is that it means that the Zimbabweans have to suffer him for a while.

We should just send him a copy of the entire Beavis and Butthead series on DVD. That should take care of him.

Or Barney tapes.

Just get everyone to put sanctions on them, and watch them crumble like South Africa did. Mugabe gets kicked out, and no-one gets accused of imperialism.

Or, even more peacefully, just wait until Mugabe finally dies of old age. I'd give him another five years maximum. Problem with this one is that it means that the Zimbabweans have to suffer him for a while.

If you do sanctions, then people will say we're baby killers.

Nope. The US should do NOTHING. The US should abstain from any vote in the Security Council that deals with Zimbabwe. And the US should not provide any support or troops for any action in Zimbabwe.

I don't want the US to be accused of killing babies, shooting people, dropping bombs, evil sanctions, torture, interrogation, illegal imprisonment, bad peacekeeping, bias, racism, helping whitey, colonialism, or anything else that you can think of.

Point of fact, if the US just helps, we're screwed because we'll be accused of acting without UN authority. And if the US acts under UN authority, we'll be accused of using the UN to our own aims. And no matter what we do, or how it works out in Zimbabwe, everyone in the world will declare it bad, evil, and a failure.

So the rest of the world can do this one entirely on their own. And we'll sit back and critique.

Or Barney tapes.

Gah! Now that's just cruel ....

Do it.

So the rest of the world can do this one entirely on their own. And we'll sit back and critique.


I'm quite sure they are diligently making a plan right now that will remove the bad guys, not hurt the good guys and will be finished within 24 hours.
It may cost them a fortune and they'll have nothing to gain, but I know they cant stand by just talking while innocents are being slaughtered.

I'm quite sure they are diligently making a plan right now that will remove the bad guys, not hurt the good guys and will be finished within 24 hours.
It may cost them a fortune and they'll have nothing to gain, but I know they cant stand by just talking while innocents are being slaughtered.

Yes, the UN Blue Helmets will arrive on commercial airliners. Mugabe will come out to meet them, and he will surrender peaceably forthwith. All of his supporters will realize the error of their ways, and give up their guns to the UN forces without firing a shot - indeed, forming an insurgency against the UN, or murder squads against their political opponents will not even cross their minds.

And everyone will realize how great the UN is, and how wise and well it operates without the US.

Just get everyone to put sanctions on them, and watch them crumble like South Africa did. Mugabe gets kicked out, and no-one gets accused of imperialism.

Or, even more peacefully, just wait until Mugabe finally dies of old age. I'd give him another five years maximum. Problem with this one is that it means that the Zimbabweans have to suffer him for a while.

Mugabe will keep power within his own circle. His Zanu PF party would make sure that electoral victory was certain. This circle of misery will only continue until Mugabe is removed. Surely it would be possible to "eliminate" him somehow. Or, as my father, who is quite old says, "Send in the paras! One battalion ought to sought this lot out! Bah!" It is the only way.

Mugabe will keep power within his own circle. His Zanu PF party would make sure that electoral victory was certain. This circle of misery will only continue until Mugabe is removed. Surely it would be possible to "eliminate" him somehow. Or, as my father, who is quite old says, "Send in the paras! One battalion ought to sought this lot out! Bah!" It is the only way.

No, it's not. If the US or UK goes in there, everyone else in the world, and half the people in each country will say it's a fuckup - evil, abusive, and wrong.

No, let the UN do this all by itself.

When the US has no more internal problems, then we can worry about zimbabwe.

No. Since the US has been castigated for acting without UN authority in dealing with a foreign dictator, it would be a bad thing for the US to repeat that, and go into Zimbabwe.
We means the US automatically? I assumed it meant...WE THE WORLD?

The US should never go into Zimbabwe. Even if authorized by the UN.

No, on any Zimbabwe vote, the US should abstain, and let the UN handle it. After all, we are told that the UN is so much wiser and better at handling this sort of thing than the US. We all remember what a great job the UN did in Rwanda, don't we?
:rolleyes:
Oh I see...it's either the US or the UN without the US? Ah.

We means the US automatically? I assumed it meant...WE THE WORLD?
As the OP is British, I assumed it meant either the UK, or the world in general as well.

However WL is right. The US needs to keep out of this one. Firstly it has nothing to do with the US. Secondly Zimbabwe does not have any resources that the US wants. Thirdly the US military is already overstretched.

When the US has no more internal problems, then we can worry about zimbabwe.

that will never happen

all the more reason not to do anything, as people like WL and Lickers are recommending.

I agree.

I'm sick of all the whining by the rest of the world when we go in and take bad people out.

Let Europe do it.
------------------------

if we're gonna send Mugabe entertainment, how about something really bad like Gigli?

Beavis and Butthead is great stuff... and Barney will simply remind him of children, whom he will no doubt begin murdering (moreso...) upon being reminded by Barney.

We means the US automatically? I assumed it meant...WE THE WORLD?

No, a lot of people usually mean the world, but when the UN really wants something done, like a major intervention, they will ultimately ask the US to at least participate.

Who are we to tell the people of Zimbabwe (and their victims) how to live?

No matter what US forces did there, and no matter what mandate they were given by the UN, people would say the US was there doing the wrong thing, and had only manipulated the UN into letting it do it.

So fuck'em. Let them kill each other, burn down each others' houses, rape each other, starve each other, and let the UN, without the US at all, rescue them.

Who's we? Civil society? Governments? International Organisms? Penguins?

If you mean you and me individually, I think we should keep a close eye on Mugabe's government, distribute and comment the disturbing news to raise awareness about the problem; start to build pressure.

If you mean our governments and international organizations, like the UN or the AU (like Blair asked a few days ago), then the problem is more delicate. So far, Mugabe can't be said to have broken Zimbabwean law, and he is the head of a legitimately recognized government, plus the abuses haven't been properly investigated. Furthermore, Zimbabwe is still a sovereign country, which means they would have to ask for international help/intervention, or the situation would have to be much worse before moving.

That's the state of international relations and that's why not much can be done right now, even if it looks that something should.

No, it's not. If the US or UK goes in there, everyone else in the world, and half the people in each country will say it's a fuckup - evil, abusive, and wrong.

No, let the UN do this all by itself.

And what then, dearest Legs, should the UN do this all by itself, and things turn out really very well? What then?

The veil fallen, the world realizes it can get by nicely without some busybody would-be self-appointed "world policeman" constantly breathing down its' neck, and...?

I'll take a wild speculative stab and submit America would never stand still for not being the center of international attention. Not for a minute. I'd even go so far as to say that, IMO, America might just try manufacturing crises in order to both undermine the UN, and underscore the US' indispensibility to the stability of the world (i.e., let us keep having our way, or we'll make things unstable).

However WL is right. The US needs to keep out of this one. Firstly it has nothing to do with the US. Secondly Zimbabwe does not have any resources that the US wants. Thirdly the US military is already overstretched.
All good reasons. Though they sound much less sarcastic and pouty when you list them:).

And what then, dearest Legs, should the UN do this all by itself, and things turn out really very well? What then?

The veil fallen, the world realizes it can get by nicely without some busybody would-be self-appointed "world policeman" constantly breathing down its' neck, and...?



This may be your ultimate nocturnal emmision, but its never going to happen. Deep inside-you already know it.
I would actually love to see it happen. We would save more cash than your GNP and we wouldnt have to listen to any crap.
Except of course, those with opinions against the US are sore losers, but even worse when they win.

"World Policeman"? More like World Guidance Counselor. Dont try to imply that everyone else is all grown up and capable of functioning on their own and playing nice with their neighbors.

So fuck'em. Let them kill each other, burn down each others' houses, rape each other, starve each other,

Like they have been since the dawn of time.

However WL is right. The US needs to keep out of this one.

Secondly Zimbabwe does not have any resources that the US wants.

Agreed. We have all we need with the conga line of overladen oil tankers from Iraq. This Iraq war was just what we needed. We are swimming is all the black gold we're absconding from the Iraqi people.

No-really. Gasoline is topping $2.05 per gallon here in NJ.

Agreed. We have all we need with the conga line of overladen oil tankers from Iraq. This Iraq war was just what we needed. We are swimming is all the black gold we're absconding from the Iraqi people.

No-really. Gasoline is topping $2.05 per gallon here in NJ.

just topping 2.05? hell, i live in texas and i paid 2.13 for gas the other day. fucking bastards, i want my $1.00 gallon of gas back.

just topping 2.05? hell, i live in texas and i paid 2.13 for gas the other day. fucking bastards, i want my $1.00 gallon of gas back.


Yeah-thats for regular unleaded at a place that is always a few cents cheaper than everyone else.

$1.00 a gallon would be nice. I remember those days well.

maybe when we start extracting the oil beneath Utah we'll see those days again.

And what then, dearest Legs, should the UN do this all by itself, and things turn out really very well? What then?

The veil fallen, the world realizes it can get by nicely without some busybody would-be self-appointed "world policeman" constantly breathing down its' neck, and...?

I'll take a wild speculative stab and submit America would never stand still for not being the center of international attention. Not for a minute. I'd even go so far as to say that, IMO, America might just try manufacturing crises in order to both undermine the UN, and underscore the US' indispensibility to the stability of the world (i.e., let us keep having our way, or we'll make things unstable).

Yeah we might try to create a crises by claiming that a nation in the middle east has WMD's, then when we get there and don't find any we can claim that WMD's weren't the reason we invaded in the first place . . .

. . . wait a minute . . .

Agreed. We have all we need with the conga line of overladen oil tankers from Iraq. This Iraq war was just what we needed. We are swimming is all the black gold we're absconding from the Iraqi people.

No-really. Gasoline is topping $2.05 per gallon here in NJ.

Nice over reaction there. All I was implying is that there was no self interested reason for intervening. I was not implying that the US is stealing the oil from Iraq, but to deny that wanting a stable and secure supply of oil from the middle east was not a factor in the US administration's decision to intervene in Iraq would be quite ridiculous.

Nice over reaction there. All I was implying is that there was no self interested reason for intervening. I was not implying that the US is stealing the oil from Iraq, but to deny that wanting a stable and secure supply of oil from the middle east was not a factor in the US administration's decision to intervene in Iraq would be quite ridiculous.

Well, Alien Born-if that is the case, you have my appology. I misunderstood your statement-but thats my fault. I was expecting a lot of Anti-Amercian bias and assumed thats what you were stating. Foolish on my part-it is easy to take something out of context in this discussion form-print only- and I'll take responsibilty for a misdirected response.

Thanks for taking the time in re-stating your meaning in a way even I could understand. We are in agreement.

Who are we to tell the people of Zimbabwe (and their victims) how to live?

No matter what US forces did there, and no matter what mandate they were given by the UN, people would say the US was there doing the wrong thing, and had only manipulated the UN into letting it do it.

So fuck'em. Let them kill each other, burn down each others' houses, rape each other, starve each other, and let the UN, without the US at all, rescue them.

I presume you're being ironic? :rolleyes: You're coming off as bitter and stupid.

Noone critisized the US when they defeated the Axis in WW2. Millions complained about the US killing thousands of innocent people in Iraq and Afghanistan, though.

Some people have already given very good suggestions about what the US should do about this case. I agree with helping neighbouring nations welcome refugees.

EDIT: Typo, sorry.

Yeah we might try to create a crises by claiming that a nation in the middle east has WMD's, then when we get there and don't find any we can claim that WMD's weren't the reason we invaded in the first place . . .

. . . wait a minute . . .

if we'd left Iraq to the UN, Saddam Hussein would still be in power.

...wait a minute...

if we'd left Iraq to the UN, Saddam Hussein would still be in power.

...wait a minute...


And he likely would have used the weapons of mass destruction everyone with a brain capable of funtioning knows he had, but the UN gave him more than ample time to cart them off to hide with friends.

if we'd left Iraq to the UN, Saddam Hussein would still be in power.

...wait a minute...

Thats fine, and there would have been more suport for the war had THAT been given as a reason instead of weapons that weren't there.

.

Noone critisized the US when they defeated the Axis in WW2. Millions complained about the US killing thousands of innocent people in Iran and Afghanistan, though.

Some people have already given very good suggestions about what the US should do about this case. I agree with helping neighbouring nations welcome refugees.


You havent been in here long-history has already been revised and we have learned that the US actually DIDNT play much of a role in defeating the Axis in WWII.

The US hasnt killed "thousands of innocent people in Iran". And if you meant to say Iraq- no- the US hasnt killed thousand of innocent people there either. Nor has the US killed thousands of innocent people in Afghanistan.

You havent been in here long-history has already been revised and we have learned that the US actually DIDNT play much of a role in defeating the Axis in WWII.

The US hasnt killed "thousands of innocent people in Iran". And if you meant to say Iraq- no- the US hasnt killed thousand of innocent people there either. Nor has the US killed thousands of innocent people in Afghanistan.

Because our bombs never go off target and if the target is in a populated area our bombs can tell the diference between the people in that area that we're trying to kill and the civilians.

Because our bombsnever go off target and if the target is in a populated area our bombs can tell the diference between the people in that area that we're trying to kill and the civilians.


No-thats a foolish tactic to put words in my mouth that I didnt come close to saying or intending.

I stated the US has not killed thousands of innocent people in Iran, Iraq or Afghanistan.

While on the subject, there is no other country in the world that has spent more time, money and effort into producing and deployin weapons that significantly reduce death and injury to civilians and limit damage to unintended targets. None

No-thats a foolish tactic to put words in my mouth that I didnt come close to saying or intending.

I stated the US has not killed thousands of innocent people in Iran, Iraq or Afghanistan.

How do you think the thousands of innocent people are asumed to have died?

While on the subject, there is no other country in the world that has spent more time, money and effort into producing and deployin weapons that significantly reduce death and injury to civilians and limit damage to unintended targets. None

There is no other country in the world that has spent more time, money and effort into producing and deploying weapons. Full stop.

How do you think the thousands of innocent people are asumed to have died?
I think what he's trying to say is that the US is not specifically trying to kill thousands of civilians. Yes sometimes the bombs hit a house full of children, war is like that (esp. when fighting in an urban environment) but to say that all of the civilians killed in Iraq and Afghanistan were because of the US is faulty logic, considering the terrorists have targeted civilians before, criminal activity has obviously accounted for several, and in a few cases the terrorists simply take their dead and parade them around as "innocent victims"

And all this has exactly what to do with Zimbabwe?

that will never happen

all the more reason not to do anything, as people like WL and Lickers are recommending.

I agree.

I'm sick of all the whining by the rest of the world when we go in and take bad people out.

Let Europe do it.

I dont think anyone should worry about zimbabwe but zimbabwe. If the US will always have internal problems, then the US should never worry about external problems that doesnt directly involve it.

I must admit, I'm a little dissapointed with my boy W on this one - we most definatly should be kicking some ass in zimbabwe

they're living in the clutches of a ruthless dictator and we have the power and with it the responsibility to help them out no matter what the color of their skin

I must admit, I'm a little dissapointed with my boy W on this one - we most definatly should be kicking some ass in zimbabwe

they're living in the clutches of a ruthless dictator and we have the power and with it the responsibility to help them out no matter what the color of their skin

You do not have the spare resources at the moment. This means that like it or not you do not have the power.

More importantly though, you do not have the responsability. The US needs to learn that it is not responsible for everything that happens everywhere. If Mugabe wants to alienate his own people he has the right to do so. He was elected to power (no matter how suspiciously) and as such any action against him would be dubious at best.

It is amusing to see every person in power that acts in a way that goes against the sensibilities of the West being described as a dictator. I am not supporting Mugabe's actions, but any opposition to him should have occurred at the time of the election, not now when he starts acting in ways you don't like.

You do not have the spare resources at the moment. This means that like it or not you do not have the power.

More importantly though, you do not have the responsability. The US needs to learn that it is not responsible for everything that happens everywhere. If Mugabe wants to alienate his own people he has the right to do so. He was elected to power (no matter how suspiciously) and as such any action against him would be dubious at best.

It is amusing to see every person in power that acts in a way that goes against the sensibilities of the West being described as a dictator. I am not supporting Mugabe's actions, but any opposition to him should have occurred at the time of the election, not now when he starts acting in ways you don't like.

Well, the US could probably do something if it wished, to be honest. Fund radical anti-government groups, get the CIA involved heavily, and when the time is right, use a few carrier groups to obliterate his military power, allowing the radical groups to overthrow the government without heavy government opposition. If the people wanted change, they would support the rebels...

Not that I support action like this.

You do not have the spare resources at the moment. This means that like it or not you do not have the power.

like hell we don't - how many men do we have sitting in the US? 1 million? 1.1 million?

More importantly though, you do not have the responsability. The US needs to learn that it is not responsible for everything that happens everywhere.

then who does? if anyone has a responsibility to defend their fellow men its us

If Mugabe wants to alienate his own people he has the right to do so.

if you read the news he's doing a little more than "alienating"

He was elected to power (no matter how suspiciously) and as such any action against him would be dubious at best.

we've ousted elected leaders before and no one complained

It is amusing to see every person in power that acts in a way that goes against the sensibilities of the West being described as a dictator.

what else would you call a man who unfairly clings to power by the use of force and opression?

I am not supporting Mugabe's actions, but any opposition to him should have occurred at the time of the election, not now when he starts acting in ways you don't like.

it was an election - how were we supposed to oppose him?

And what then, dearest Legs, should the UN do this all by itself, and things turn out really very well? What then?

The veil fallen, the world realizes it can get by nicely without some busybody would-be self-appointed "world policeman" constantly breathing down its' neck, and...?

I'll take a wild speculative stab and submit America would never stand still for not being the center of international attention. Not for a minute. I'd even go so far as to say that, IMO, America might just try manufacturing crises in order to both undermine the UN, and underscore the US' indispensibility to the stability of the world (i.e., let us keep having our way, or we'll make things unstable).

I'd go so far as to say that the UN would fuck it up way more than the Americans ever dreamed of. Probably result in Mugabe staying in power, minus a few million of his detractors, shot into open pits in front of UN troops.

Then the UN troops will be dealing with an insurgency of their own. Of course, the UN is committed then to nation building, a sport previously reserved for nation states. It will, of course, fail more miserably. And for much longer - no nation that "believes" in the UN can afford to say, "we won't send our children to die in that place".

Then they'll sound an awful lot like Americans.

How do you think the thousands of innocent people are asumed to have died?


Where are there thousands of innocent people dead? In Iraq's mass graves, when sadaam was still in power?

In half the countries of Africa?

What people are you talking about? Thousands of innocent people have NOT been killed in Iraq or Afgahanistan as a result of US military action. It sounds good,to those that need to believe that, but it is not a fact.

More innocent civilians have been killed by insurgent bombs and suicide bombers than have been killed by the US military.

More innocent civilians have been killed by insurgent bombs and suicide bombers than have been killed by the US military.

Yes, more have, but it doesnt change the fact that thousands of innocents HAVE died directly because of the US. Just because it isnt on purpose, or not only the US, doesnt mean the US hasnt done it.

Yes, more have, but it doesnt change the fact that thousands of innocents HAVE died directly because of the US. Just because it isnt on purpose, or not only the US, doesnt mean the US hasnt done it.


Far more where being arrested, tortured and killed daily for years before the US went and took the scumbag and his sons out.
Mass graves are full of men,women and children that were shot and then bulldozed over.
We have the stories of friends of sadaam's sons being killed on their wedding nights after their new brides were gang-raped. Soccer players that didnt perform tortured and killed. Videotapes of rape sessions of alleged dissenters family members-how long do we go on? Purge after purge to keep the Iraqi citizens scared and in line. It worked-there was certainly no one in Iraq that would have overthrown this piece of shit and he would have lived out his insane, yet comfortable life in one of numerous palaces, a billionaire on money from crooked deals with his buddies in france,germany and russia, while he blamed the US for santions that were starving the babies and depriving them of medicine.

I'm not saying I feel good about innocents being hit by mistake-no US soldier wants to hurt a civilian.
But dont tell me about them-We are all aware. We arent gloating over it. Tell yourself if it makes you feel better, but dont waste your breath telling me about it.

a billionaire on money from crooked deals with his buddies in france,germany and russia, while he blamed the US for santions that were starving the babies and depriving them of medicine.

A. You seem to forget the US companies who benefited the most off of food for oil?

B. The Sanctions were harming the people. Just because he said it doesnt make it false.

A. You seem to forget the US companies who benefited the most off of food for oil?

B. The Sanctions were harming the people. Just because he said it doesnt make it false.


No-there is no rebuttal. France,Germany and Russia all made more money in the oil for food deals.

sadaam had BILLIONS in cash. BILLIONS. He could have fed,clothed housed and educated everyone in his country. But he decided to leave them struggling in the dust, till he decided to randomly torture and kill them, on a whim.

Now he is in a cell eating raisin bran and doritos.

Yes, more have, but it doesnt change the fact that thousands of innocents HAVE died directly because of the US. Just because it isnt on purpose, or not only the US, doesnt mean the US hasnt done it.

You do realize that innocent people sometime get killed during war? Even by the good side? The sad truth is that sometimes war is the only option, it is always the worst option but sometimes the only one. I would highly doubt that US soldiers kill Iraqis on purpose, not one of the Military bloggers I read from soldiers that are in Iraq have ever said that they have killed an innocent Iraqis on purpose. I'm not denying that innocent Iraqis haven't been killed by the US military, but that is the price of war. In 50 years, if Iraq is a stable, democratic, and free country will you still say Saddam or one of his sons should have been allowed to remain in power?

As for Zimbabwe, I believe that international investigators should be sent over and look over the situation. From their report a course of action, if any, could be decided in a matter of weeks not months, or years in the case of Sudan, that it would normally take the UN to decide what to do.

No-there is no rebuttal. France,Germany and Russia all made more money in the oil for food deals.

sadaam had BILLIONS in cash. BILLIONS. He could have fed,clothed housed and educated everyone in his country. But he decided to leave them struggling in the dust, till he decided to randomly torture and kill them, on a whim.

Now he is in a cell eating raisin bran and doritos.

Actually, I'm pretty sure that 52% of the money made in under the table Oil For Food deals was with us. That's right. The US accounts for more of the Oil For Food smuggling than all the other countries put together.

Edit: US Backed Illegal Iraq Oil Deals. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1485649,00.html) And don't give me that "It's a liberal newspaper" bullshit. Sure their commentary may be colored, but they cite a Senate investigations commitee release. Find me evidence that what they're saying is false if you wish to make such a claim, otherwise you're just plugging your ears.

The UN should authorize South Africa to intervene. They are close by, they have a very capable military, and they haven't made a mess of their country since the institution of majority rule.

The UN should authorize South Africa to intervene. They are close by, they have a very capable military, and they haven't made a mess of their country since the institution of majority rule.

they should have done it by themselves by now - but alas, the ANC government is a piece of crap. would we let thing kind of thing happen in Canada?

The UN should authorize South Africa to intervene. They are close by, they have a very capable military, and they haven't made a mess of their country since the institution of majority rule.

They don't want to intervene. The South African Government is friendly with Zimbabwe. They pretend that the rights abuses aren't going on, as disgusting as this is. Many African leaders still regard Mugabe as the "Liberator" who wrestled the nation from the hands of the old white Rhodesian Government, which was appalingly racist.

They don't want to intervene. The South African Government is friendly with Zimbabwe. They pretend that the rights abuses aren't going on, as disgusting as this is. Many African leaders still regard Mugabe as the "Liberator" who wrestled the nation from the hands of the old white Rhodesian Government, which was appalingly racist.

well perhaps they will when the inevitable flood of starving refugees comes knocking on their door.... thats why Tanzania went after Amin back in the 1970s after all. The OAS is becoming more active lately, hopefully they will get off their ass too

The US simply doesn't have the manpower to intervene on the needed scale right now... we are overstretched as it is fighting an ill advised war.

Robert Mugabe has struck again this week, demolishing the homes of thousands of opposition supporters and forcing them into the countryside. This is, in my view, totally unacceptable. But what do you think the international community should do to deal with this vile man and what do you think we could do to persuade other African leaders to see him for what he really is.\

They Do, that's why they support his regime.
The main reason that Africa is the way Africa is, is because of Africa's leadership.
These're people who sell their Diamonds to finance genocides for tribal reasons while their people starve in diseased ignorance, then come cup-in-hand to the International Community to get a bit of aid-that they promptly use as leverage against their populations.

Ethiopia
Uganda
Somalia
Liberia
Sudan..etc.


They see Mugabe as one of them-they won't do a damned thing, for fear someone else will use it as precedent to act against 'em.

I don't think the U.S. has a dog in this fight-but Britain does, and if Britain asks, I think we'd go.
I don't think Britain will ask.

The U.N won't ask, because most of the member-nations are just as well-run and humanitarian as Robert Mugabe's regime.
(Though a good chunk of htem are worse...)
Zimbabwe is just another light going out on the Dark Continent. One among many.