NationStates Jolt Archive

As the governments of other countries, including other African countries, don't seem to give a shit, does anyone have any idea what the people of a country that's not in Zimbabwe (such as the people of the UK or USA - those who want to do something anyway) can do to get rid of the psycho?

(Note: I've just seen far too many ridiculous "defences" of him, despite the reports from INSIDE the country of his brutality. So if you're going to start defending him in this post, I'm just going to pretend you didn't say a word.)

I don't think anyone can deny the problems he has caused, but the UK and USA have already enough on their hands to warrant invading another country and bringing stability (which they really haven't been too successful at in Iraq).

What can we do about Zimbabwe?nothing.
not much anyways.

We can easily improve the situation in Iraq and Somalia.. but i see nothing practical for Zimbabwe.

(Note: I've just seen far too many ridiculous "defences" of him, despite the reports from INSIDE the country of his brutality. So if you're going to start defending him in this post, I'm just going to pretend you didn't say a word.)
prove from this forum pls.

as for what to do, give him something that hurries up the progress of his syphilis.

Get a CIA hitman to put the bastard out of his misery then send in the UN to "oversee" elections.

It would be better not to intervene, because he is not going to last much longer anyway. Although there will be suffering for the people of Zimbabwe in the short term, it is better than the long-term consequences of having intervention from outside (Iraq being a prime example of how outside meddling makes life for ordinary citizens much worse).

We could hold a collection and use the money to hire a ninja assassin.

It would be better not to intervene, because he is not going to last much longer anyway. Although there will be suffering for the people of Zimbabwe in the short term, it is better than the long-term consequences of having intervention from outside (Iraq being a prime example of how outside meddling makes life for ordinary citizens much worse).

The Iraqi screw-up is different though - first, it was done for oil, and second, it was done by a government. I'm asking what the ordinary people can do.

The Iraqi screw-up is different though - first, it was done for oil, and second, it was done by a government. I'm asking what the ordinary people can do.meh.. i dont know... I guess we could always teach the people of Zimbabwe insurgency techniques and asymmetric warfare. After all that how we earned our freedom.
And give them shiploads of MANPADS and IEDs.

The Iraqi screw-up is different though - first, it was done for oil, and second, it was done by a government. I'm asking what the ordinary people can do.

Very little - they export nothing that can be boycotted. Keeping people aware of the situation is the best option.

(Note: I've just seen far too many ridiculous "defences" of him, despite the reports from INSIDE the country of his brutality. So if you're going to start defending him in this post, I'm just going to pretend you didn't say a word.)

Where are these "defences"?

Ultimately, all we can really do is slap on the trade barriers and sit it out.

Mugabe hasn't done anything that threatens or endangers anyone outside Zimbabwe, so we have no pretext to intervene. It's a Zimbabwean problem, and either they will deal with it and be the stronger for it, or the whole country will disappear into the history books, and it's territory will be annexed by it's neighbours.

Why is everyone commenting on what we can do when the OP asks what the people of Zimbabwe can do?

It's an interesting question because one would hope the good people of Zimbabwe would rise up and overthrow him now - it's like banks or prisons. If everyone took their money out of a bank it would collapse, if every prisoner revolted the guards could do nothing.

We don't. It takes a competing force to rally people to a cause and, unfortunately, there's no guarantee of what that force might be, it could just be another dicatator.

How much can a people, of whom I always believe the majority just want to live their life, coordinate to create a stable country - it takes time and honest education and a good leadership to sustain those.

What's the tipping point for a stable country?

Why is everyone commenting on what we can do when the OP asks what the people of Zimbabwe can do?

It's an interesting question because one would hope the good people of Zimbabwe would rise up and overthrow him now - it's like banks or prisons. If everyone took their money out of a bank it would collapse, if every prisoner revolted the guards could do nothing.

We don't. It takes a competing force to rally people to a cause and, unfortunately, there's no guarantee of what that force might be, it could just be another dicatator.

How much can a people, of whom I always believe the majority just want to live their life, coordinate to create a stable country - it takes time and honest education and a good leadership to sustain those.

What's the tipping point for a stable country?

Actually he seems to be asking what the ordinary people of other countries can do about it.

Actually he seems to be asking what the ordinary people of other countries can do about it.

Ha ha - I'm a complete idiot :)

Ha ha - I'm a complete idiot :)

No you aren't - I missed it first time as well.

No you aren't - I missed it first time as well.

That might just mean you are too :)

What can we do - aiya, what can we do?

If I think too much about all the things that should be done in this world it causes great grief.

The entire issue of Africa is so complex, I'm reading Half of a Yellow Sun right now and I wonder where the need for war becomes necessary to halt the slow attrition of a people.

As the governments of other countries, including other African countries, don't seem to give a shit, does anyone have any idea what the people of a country that's not in Zimbabwe (such as the people of the UK or USA - those who want to do something anyway) can do to get rid of the psycho?

(Note: I've just seen far too many ridiculous "defences" of him, despite the reports from INSIDE the country of his brutality. So if you're going to start defending him in this post, I'm just going to pretend you didn't say a word.)

Nothing, really.

I say make him President of the US. And just see what happens.

Usually I defend these guys, but he is whacked out. I do think he is trying to do what is best for his country, but just not the right way and spiraled out of control and he is trying to maintain what control he can.

Ridiculed.

Not much...he has to collapse on his own. Ideally, he lose it like Amin and invade another country only to have them bring down the wrath of God on his government and overthrow it.

(Note: I've just seen far too many ridiculous "defences" of him, despite the reports from INSIDE the country of his brutality. So if you're going to start defending him in this post, I'm just going to pretend you didn't say a word.)

NO WAY!!! Robert Mugabe is a saint!! He's the best thing to happen to Africa, He's turned Zimbabwe into a Marxist PARADISE!!!!!! You are a RACIST FOOL!!!!!





SARCASM
:)

Get a CIA hitman to put the bastard out of his misery then send in the UN to "oversee" elections.

Sorry, that happened in the Congo I believe, the UN troops ended up hanging the prime minister and installing a US back government.

He should be killed, a bomb from an airplane or a cruise missile would do the trick, or someone could shoot him with a rifle.

The last time we had a real chance to act was back in 1978.

But as usual, the UN failed to act appropriately

Sorry, that happened in the Congo I believe, the UN troops ended up hanging the prime minister and installing a US back government.

Sounds pretty good to me. Zimbabwe has plenty of black people to exploit.

Sounds pretty good to me. Zimbabwe has plenty of black people to exploit.

Did I also fail to mention the civil war?...

MAD. Mutually Assured Diahrea. People have suggested Mutually Assured Dresses, but they always get me a bad one. Plus, I'm a dude.

We could hold a collection and use the money to hire a ninja assassin.

I think that the CIA has a contingency fund for those procedures, but hey, there is really nothing of value in Zimbabwe, the Colonists have already taken all the resources, and I don't think there is much crude oil there. Hence we do nothing.

He should be killed, a bomb from an airplane or a cruise missile would do the trick, or someone could shoot him with a rifle.

All what these people can afford is a machete, it has proven efficient in the past, but cumbersome to carry.

In any case, don't send any western troops to "free" them.

The only reason why people there even remotely want to support Mugabe is because he wants to keep western powers out of his nation.

I doubt things will improve or that anyone would be remotely gratefull if those same western powers start invading them again.

So you either put more presurre on its almost dead economy (which if it doesn't collapse within 2 years then it never will') or find things that have leverage over the administration such as south africa which still refuses to take action against the regime. (Which isnt that odd due to the fat they are in a sense brothers in a revolutionary sense, because they both have rises against a opressive white goverment)

Usually I defend these guys,

Honest question: why would you defend any kleptocrat?

but he is whacked out.

Indeed.

I do think he is trying to do what is best for his country, but just not the right way and spiraled out of control and he is trying to maintain what control he can.

Not agreed. He's just another in a long line.

As the governments of other countries, including other African countries, don't seem to give a shit, does anyone have any idea what the people of a country that's not in Zimbabwe (such as the people of the UK or USA - those who want to do something anyway) can do to get rid of the psycho?
Realize that you can't police the world and hope that the people of Zimbabue do something about it?

I agree with Dakini. It betrays utter arrogance to believe that one has a right to police the world.

Ultimately, all we can really do is slap on the trade barriers and sit it out.

Mugabe hasn't done anything that threatens or endangers anyone outside Zimbabwe, so we have no pretext to intervene. It's a Zimbabwean problem, and either they will deal with it and be the stronger for it, or the whole country will disappear into the history books, and it's territory will be annexed by it's neighbours.

They're our fellow human beings for fuck sake. Of course we have a pretext to intervene. Besides, Saddam Hussein wasn't harming people outside his country

I agree with Dakini. It betrays utter arrogance to believe that one has a right to police the world.

It's not about policing the world. It's about helping our fellow humans.

How easy would it be to send a poisonous package to the terrorist?

And how easy would it be to get ALL of the country's adults to storm the terrorist's accomodation and get rid of him? After all, there's a larger population than him and his cronies

What you should remember is that if Mugabe was white and oppressing the population, and distributing land to his buddies (rather like the previous governemnt) all the lefties would be jumping up and down demanding sanctions, aid for the people trying to overthrow him, saying we should kick the oppressor out etc etc etc etc etc

They're our fellow human beings for fuck sake. Of course we have a pretext to intervene. Besides, Saddam Hussein wasn't harming people outside his country

Hussein did not follow the agreement that ended the first gulf war. In the first war, he most certainly did threaten others.

Mugabe has harmed no one but his own. And no, that isn't a good enough reason to invade a country and impose our will upon it - and that is what you are supporting. That philosophy has a name - colonialism.

The problem with colonialism is that it assumes we know better than the locals do. The history of colonialism shows that said assumption is always wrong.

People die. Sometimes, a lot of people die. Most of the time, there is absolutely nothing we can do about it.

Get used to it.

It's not about policing the world. It's about helping our fellow humans.

You should write for the Guardian. I have never heard such utter tripe; the whole point of policing is to "help our fellow humans" by ensuring that laws designed to protect them are upheld.

That particular illogicality resolved, try this; THEY DON'T WANT US. Mugabe has ever drawn what popularity he has from his opposition to old colonial powers, and for such a string advocate of democracy such as yourself, surely the democratic "fuck off" Zimbabwe have sent the UK should suffice.

As the governments of other countries, including other African countries, don't seem to give a shit, does anyone have any idea what the people of a country that's not in Zimbabwe (such as the people of the UK or USA - those who want to do something anyway) can do to get rid of the psycho?

(Note: I've just seen far too many ridiculous "defences" of him, despite the reports from INSIDE the country of his brutality. So if you're going to start defending him in this post, I'm just going to pretend you didn't say a word.)

Two things, jack and shit, and jack left town.

Nothing, they don't have any oil. Duh.

It's not about policing the world. It's about helping our fellow humans.
Yeah, and sometimes the only way to help people is to stand back and let them help themselves. I mean, if they ask for external support then it should be given, but swooping in there and overthrowing their government (as shitty as it may be) is only going to cause resentment.

Get a CIA hitman to put the bastard out of his misery then send in the UN to "oversee" elections.

We'd have to be careful about that, considering that we could throw Zimbabwe into chaos in doing so, or end up getting another dictator.

Perhaps people should just insist that their respective governments stop sending aid to the country. The people starve anyway as Mugabe doesn’t let food aid get to the people – it only fattens his supporters. When even his supporters have trouble feeding their families, you might see a little change. If the people of Zimbabwe don’t want to do anything about Mugabe (aside from a small majority grumbling that they might vote for the opposition if there were an election) then we should let them suffer the consequences of their own choices.

That humanitarian aid could be going to other places in the world.

Get a CIA hitman to put the bastard out of his misery then send in the UN to "oversee" elections.Just like Castro.

Perhaps people should just insist that their respective governments stop sending aid to the country. The people starve anyway as Mugabe doesn’t let food aid get to the people – it only fattens his supporters. When even his supporters have trouble feeding their families, you might see a little change. If the people of Zimbabwe don’t want to do anything about Mugabe (aside from a small majority grumbling that they might vote for the opposition if there were an election) then we should let them suffer the consequences of their own choices.

That humanitarian aid could be going to other places in the world.

It's my understanding that a lot of aid to Zimbabwe has already been stopped. I believe several countries don't even send food aid anymore.

I know I'm going to get flamed endlessly for this, but I don't care. If the west hadn't shafted Rhodesia then there wouldn't be any problems with Zimbabwe, or Robert Mugabe. In fact, they'd probably be better off than most of Africa.

Call me a colonialist, call me a racist, whatever....

I know I'm going to get flamed endlessly for this, but I don't care. If the west hadn't shafted Rhodesia then there wouldn't be any problems with Zimbabwe, or Robert Mugabe. In fact, they'd probably be better off than most of Africa.

Call me a colonialist, call me a racist, whatever....

I'd heard, and I've nothing to back this up though I might, just might, try and check it out, that Mugabe formed his hard-line stance against white farmers after he was snubbed during a visit to the UK.

I forget what the snub was but I think it was public - the idea was that, having been snubbed on the world stage, he went hard line, driving out farmers who were, given more hazy memory on my part, doing something for Zimbabwe's exports.

I think Zimbabwe was doing relatively ok before he went hardline.

I'd heard, and I've nothing to back this up though I might, just might, try and check it out, that Mugabe formed his hard-line stance against white farmers after he was snubbed during a visit to the UK.

I forget what the snub was but I think it was public - the idea was that, having been snubbed on the world stage, he went hard line, driving out farmers who were, given more hazy memory on my part, doing something for Zimbabwe's exports.

I think Zimbabwe was doing relatively ok before he went hardline.

It was doing okay. Food export was it's primary trade.

Bread-basket to basket-case in six months. That takes talent.:rolleyes:

I know I'm going to get flamed endlessly for this, but I don't care. If the west hadn't shafted Rhodesia then there wouldn't be any problems with Zimbabwe, or Robert Mugabe. In fact, they'd probably be better off than most of Africa.

Call me a colonialist, call me a racist, whatever....

Your obviously ignorant then of what colonialism is.

Your obviously ignorant then of what colonialism is.

Which is what? Exploitation? Why is it then that when Rhodesia existed it was exporting food, and was referred to as the "bread basket of southern Africa"? Now they're wracked by famine, have record unemployment and inflation (among the worst in Africa I might add), and are aid recipients? Mugabe's "land reforms" did nothing to help his nation. All they did was take land away from the white farmers, and place it in the hands of his ministers. I don't have to justify what I said, look at the current state of Zimbabwe. Its quite tragic really.

It was doing okay. Food export was it's primary trade.

Bread-basket to basket-case in six months. That takes talent.:rolleyes:

Right - from what I understand with a modicum of research is that the UK promised Mugabe help with Land Reform with the caveat that he should wait 10 years after independence for 'things to settle down'.

They then effectively reneged on that where, although Major secured funds to help, those funds were never implemented by Blair.

Hence, by 2000, Mugabe decided to go ballistic on the matter.

The event I seem to be referring to was Peter Tatchell's attempt to have Mugabe arrested in London while on a visit in 1999, though I think in reality there's a long slide of events that led to this given Zimbabwe was already in severe trouble and therefore internal pressure for land reform was already huge.

I know I'm going to get flamed endlessly for this, but I don't care. If the west hadn't shafted Rhodesia then there wouldn't be any problems with Zimbabwe, or Robert Mugabe. In fact, they'd probably be better off than most of Africa.

Call me a colonialist, call me a racist, whatever....
Considering that the white minority had actually come to an agreement with the African nationalists who weren't involved in the civil war, had held free and fair elections, and had an African nationalist government before Mugabe came to power, and before sanctions were lifted, shafted is a good way of putting it. But, I suppose hindsight is easy for armchair politicians.

Considering that the white minority had actually come to an agreement with the African nationalists who weren't involved in the civil war, had held free and fair elections, and had an African nationalist government before Mugabe came to power, and before sanctions were lifted, shafted is a good way of putting it. But, I suppose hindsight is easy for armchair politicians.

Before is the operative word here. Rhodesia was facing trade sanctions, and a refusal of the international community to acknowledge its existance. They had no choice in the matter.

Which is what? Exploitation? Why is it then that when Rhodesia existed it was exporting food, and was referred to as the "bread basket of southern Africa"? Now they're wracked by famine, have record unemployment and inflation (among the worst in Africa I might add), and are aid recipients? Mugabe's "land reforms" did nothing to help his nation. All they did was take land away from the white farmers, and place it in the hands of his ministers. I don't have to justify what I said, look at the current state of Zimbabwe. Its quite tragic really.
Well you might notice that I have never defended Mugabe, nor do I intend to. But your framing of a system that was fundamentally based on exploitation and racism to be some kind of benevolent paternalistic system for the 'noble savage' ignores alot of the realities of how Africa got colonized, and the price paid by the Africans for 'progress'. Mugabe and other tinpots are as much a opportunistic product of the colonialism and it's use as a political tool, eg. Remember how Amin came to power.

As the governments of other countries, including other African countries, don't seem to give a shit, does anyone have any idea what the people of a country that's not in Zimbabwe (such as the people of the UK or USA - those who want to do something anyway) can do to get rid of the psycho?

In truth, there is nothing much that we can do at all as much as I would love to kick his sorry butt in the slates to hell.