NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2007-09-14-zimbabwe-pets_N.htm?csp=15

I feel sorry for these people. Their government has taken one of the most productive agricultural countries in Africa into the depths of starvation. Why? More importantly, what the hell is the UfrigginN. doing to help these people? What can the UN or any other county do?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2007-09-14-zimbabwe-pets_N.htm?csp=15

I feel sorry for these people. Their government has taken one of the most productive agricultural countries in Africa into the depths of starvation. Why? More importantly, what the hell is the UfrigginN. doing to help these people? What can they UN or any other county do?

You want the UN to step in to help? I think the Buffalo Bills have a better track record of success than the UN has.

If it weren't so fucking tragic, the thought that Bob Mugabe made a bet with Kim Jong-Il on who can fuck up their country the fastest would be comedy goldmine. Instead expect to see an increase in Zimbabwean refugees in the near future.

You want the UN to step in to help? I think the Buffalo Bills have a better track record of success than the UN has.

I wish they would but I know they won't. :mad:

Yum, pets. I'd love a barbeque Sparky!

Seriously, this is sad. I wish there were something to do that I could help.

Yum, pets. I'd love a barbeque Sparky!

Seriously, this is sad. I wish there were something to do that I could help.

Of course most of us aren't qualified to "Get that dumbfuck Mugabe out of there".

I can't really say I feel massive sympathy for them. They're the ones who kicked out the white, food producing farmers.

I can't really say I feel massive sympathy for them. They're the ones who kicked out the white, food producing farmers.

Uh. No. That would be Bob Mugabe and his cock-sucking inner circle. I suppose you blame the North Koreans for Kim Jong-Il's asshattery too eh?

:rolleyes:

Uh. No. That would be Bob Mugabe and his cock-sucking inner circle. I suppose you blame the North Koreans for Kim Jong-Il's asshattery too eh?

:rolleyes:

Well, yeah, they supported him.

Maybe if countries had intervened (in a positive way of course) back during the Rhodesian Bush War, all of this could have been prevented.

Oh well. C'est la Vie said the old folks it goes to show you never can tell...

This is very sad for both the people and animals.

Filthy oppressive heads of state basking in luxury while their populations starve.

Well, yeah, they supported him.

Then it stands to follow that every American ought to be held responsible for Shrubya's global incompetence for electing him twice then, and rightly so.

Well, yeah, they supported him.

50 years ago, maybe. But nobody knew just how depraved that regime was until the 1970's, when the economy started going to shit and the Kim family started really going nuts.

How was the food situation in Rhodesia? How many were starving?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2007-09-14-zimbabwe-pets_N.htm?csp=15

I feel sorry for these people. Their government has taken one of the most productive agricultural countries in Africa into the depths of starvation. Why? More importantly, what the hell is the UfrigginN. doing to help these people? What can the UN or any other county do?

The U.N. cannot intervene because with the way they are set up, either a significant portion of the populace or a government must request intervention. Without that request, the U.N.'s hands are tied.

What I find rather curious, is how, in the U.S. at least, what has happened in Zimbabwe has gone unreported. No mention of the discrimination and outright murder of White citizens, no mention of anything. Of course, the same is true for the chaos in South Africa. It's an untouchable news story. Is it any different in Britain and Europe? :confused:

Then it stands to follow that every American ought to be held responsible for Shrubya's global incompetence for electing him twice then, and rightly so.

No, just the people that voted for him. You can't hold the Gore supporters responsible for Shrubya, they tried to prevent Shrubya from getting into office in the first place. If more people had listened to me, this would be the state of the nation: global warming has been stopped; gasoline costs 19¢ a gallon; George W. Bush is Baseball Commissioner; welfare and Social Security have been reformed and America now enjoys universal health care; Gore helped develop an anti-hurricane/tornado machine; and the federal surplus is down to eleven trillion dollars.

Oh, and Man-Bear-Pig is dead.

No, just the people that voted for him. You can't hold the Gore supporters responsible for Shrubya, they tried to prevent Shrubya from getting into office in the first place. If more people had listened to me, this would be the state of the nation: global warming has been stopped; gasoline costs 19¢ a gallon; George W. Bush is Baseball Commissioner; welfare and Social Security have been reformed and America now enjoys universal health care; Gore helped develop an anti-hurricane/tornado machine; and the federal surplus is down to eleven trillion dollars.

Oh, and Man-Bear-Pig is dead.

True, but the point of that snide remark was that Ferrous Oxide was Blaming the Victims, implying that it was the average powerless North Korean or Zimbabwean's fault that Kim and Mugabe are free to go apeshit turning their respective countries into Fourth World sinkholes.

What I find rather curious, is how, in the U.S. at least, what has happened in Zimbabwe has gone unreported. No mention of the discrimination and outright murder of White citizens, no mention of anything. Of course, the same is true for the chaos in South Africa. It's an untouchable news story. Is it any different in Britain and Europe? :confused:

Why should that be a problem? We have too many of our own problems to deal with that are going unreported and untouched. Why is it always "world first, America last"? Quick let's send billions to save some starving country but let's send cents to do something here.

Why?

Mugabe is a fool or a theif, and my money is on both.

More importantly, what the hell is the UfrigginN. doing to help these people?

What they can, which isn't very much really..
Here're some examples:
http://www.undp.org.zw/
http://www.unaids.org/en/Regions_Countries/Countries/zimbabwe.asp
http://harare.unic.org/content/view/22/58/

What can the UN or any other county do?

Not much really. Some countries are like some alkies or druggies - they have to hit rock bottom before they can get fixed. And some are simply unfixable.

How was the food situation in Rhodesia? How many were starving?

It was much better. Rhodesian actually had an economic boom in the 60s and early 70s. Even up until the late 90s it was OK.

What I find rather curious, is how, in the U.S. at least, what has happened in Zimbabwe has gone unreported. No mention of the discrimination and outright murder of White citizens, no mention of anything. Of course, the same is true for the chaos in South Africa. It's an untouchable news story. Is it any different in Britain and Europe? :confused:

I don't think it's an untouchable story. It's more of a case of disaster fatigue. Large parts of the continent simply blend into one big bleeding unhealable mass that's been going on so long that people just don't care any more. I remember a comment from a good friend of mine, who's interested in foreign affairs, made upon reading a news story about one of Africa's wars in the Economist: "Oh look another war in Africa. I can skip that, they're all the same." And that was almost 20 years ago....

And yet nobody gives a damn about all the dogs and cats that get skinned alive for a better quality fur, to make nice hats and stoles for the western world to buy. In Zimbabwe it's for survival, in China it's for cruel profit.

What I find rather curious, is how, in the U.S. at least, what has happened in Zimbabwe has gone unreported. No mention of the discrimination and outright murder of White citizens, no mention of anything. Of course, the same is true for the chaos in South Africa. It's an untouchable news story. Is it any different in Britain and Europe? :confused:

In Europe we get "world news" nothing is untouchable or edited (certainly not in England and France) and the slaughter and expelling of white farmers from their land is "years" old news. Remember that there is no crude oil in Zimbabwe, so why should the US government care about some Africans, they don't care much about their own African -Americans.

Uh. No. That would be Bob Mugabe and his cock-sucking inner circle. I suppose you blame the North Koreans for Kim Jong-Il's asshattery too eh?

:rolleyes:

If they were so damn unhappy, there would have been a revolution by now. It proves that yet again, another African country waiting for the 'white man' to intervene in their own fuck up.

If it weren't for South African, the whole fucking continent would be a complete basketcase.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2007-09-14-zimbabwe-pets_N.htm?csp=15

I feel sorry for these people. Their government has taken one of the most productive agricultural countries in Africa into the depths of starvation. Why? More importantly, what the hell is the UfrigginN. doing to help these people? What can the UN or any other county do?

You want results? Well let’s get Western nations (especially England) to lift off their sanctions placed on Zimbabwe because it isn't affecting the Zimbabwean regime. The real intention of the sanctions is just to piss off the Zimbabwean citizens and revolt against Mugabe but that would only culminate to chaos. America wants the same thing done to North Korea, they want China (North Korea’s main supplier of fuel, food, and production materials) to halt its shipments of food and fuel to North Korea. By starving the North Korean people, America expects the Korean people would blame their misfortunes against Kim and kick him out. That’s why America always seems disappointed against China because China doesn’t want to be next to a broken nation (which might lead to millions of North Korean refugees fleeing into China).

As Kyronea mentioned, the UN has to recieve a request for aid from the Zimbabwean government or a significant portion of the populace before they can do anything. It's simply the way the UN works.

If the UN could intervene anywhere at anytime countries like the US and others would all cry "Disrespect of sovereignty!". Which is what this boils down to.

"Lol but Teh UN does teh nothing! Rwanda and Bosnia lol!1!"

Oh yes. Also, please don't believe all that propaganda that says that the UN does shit to help, and never gets anything right. Because that's just not true. UN agencies such as UNICEF, UNESCO and the WHO work wonders when they're left unhampered by individual countries politics.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2007-09-14-zimbabwe-pets_N.htm?csp=15

I feel sorry for these people. Their government has taken one of the most productive agricultural countries in Africa into the depths of starvation. Why? More importantly, what the hell is the UfrigginN. doing to help these people? What can the UN or any other county do?

As we have noted before, nothing. It is not our place to police the world, nor should it be.

More importantly, what the hell is the UfrigginN. doing to help these people? What can the UN or any other county do?
Does the UN ever do things like send food to starving nations and deal it out to the masses? If they don't and somebody else does, maybe that somebody else should get on that and we could fund that organization.

Apart from that, turning the country into a warzone will only make things worse for the civillians, not to mention that countries in the western world should not attempt to police it.

The AU should invade...

If they were so damn unhappy, there would have been a revolution by now. It proves that yet again, another African country waiting for the 'white man' to intervene in their own fuck up.

If it weren't for South African, the whole fucking continent would be a complete basketcase.

The 'white men' intervening has already caused enough problems in Africa.

The 'white men' intervening has already caused enough problems in Africa.

I agree that America and Europe's invovlement in Africa throughout the 20th century made things a lot worse for them, but at this point in time, we can't leave them to settle everything out themselves. Many things can be resolved diplomatically, but the UN needs to put the time and effort into doing so.

If this was a dictator, I would be more concerned. But the Zimbabwans elected this guy. You reap what you sow, I guess.

[ what the hell is the UfrigginN. doing to help these people?
It keeps trying to help and Mugabe keeps telling them to get away / takes their offers and eats a million and one energy biscuits all to himself and chucks the rest in the bin, before blaming the political opposition.
What can the UN or any other county do?
Shoot Mugabe and give Britain back Zimbabwe, so it gets run properly. Yeah, fine, we were horrible to the non-white citizens, but at least people didn't have to kill their pets to get enough food, indeed Rhodesia produced about all the food Africa needed.

If this was a dictator, I would be more concerned. But the Zimbabwans elected this guy. You reap what you sow, I guess.
He is a dictator. Read up on Mugabe.

He has soldiers in the voting booths looking at who people vote for, and if it's not Mugabe, they get the crap beaten out of them and usually lose their homes and jobs.

If they were so damn unhappy, there would have been a revolution by now.
It'd be the lamest revolution ever, since nobody gets to eat much other than Mugabe's chums.

"RISE UP, PEOPLE OF ZIMBABWE AND - ach.. argh... well there goes today's glucose... tommorow, I'll finish that insp- zzzzzz"
It proves that yet again, another African country waiting for the 'white man' to intervene in their own fuck up.
Zimbabwe isn't looking for money and stability from rulers from Europe, that's just what it actually needs.
If it weren't for South African, the whole fucking continent would be a complete basketcase.
North Africa isn't a basket case, to be honest.

He is a dictator. Read up on Mugabe.

He has soldiers in the voting booths looking at who people vote for, and if it's not Mugabe, they get the crap beaten out of them and usually lose their homes and jobs.

If that were true, why did he win the 2002 presidential elections with such a small majority?

If that were true, why did he win the 2002 presidential elections with such a small majority?
Because the elections weren't as rigged as they were in the 1990s, because perhaps Mugabe was feeling inclined to step down due to his age, despite claims that about 40-50% of rural areas weren't allowed to have opposition members overseeing the votes to ensure their fairness and the fact that people with dual nationality, who were usually against Mugabe, were stripped of thier right to vote.

North Africa isn't a basket case, to be honest.

Let's see... From west to east, we have Western Sahara, Morocco, Mauritania, Algeria, Tunisia, Niger, Chad, Libya, Egypt, and Sudan.

All of them are fucked up to some degree. Not on the scale of Zimbabwe, but still, you cannopt say they aren't all basket cases.

Let's see... From west to east, we have Western Sahara, Morocco, Mauritania, Algeria, Tunisia, Niger, Chad, Libya, Egypt, and Sudan.

All of them are fucked up to some degree. Not on the scale of Zimbabwe, but still, you cannopt say they aren't all basket cases.
North Africa, by European definitions, is basically Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya and Egypt, as in the states which are on the Med. None of which are all that bad at all.

Chad, Mauritania, Niger and Sudan are a complete mess, but they're not on the Med, so we don't consider them to be North Africa as such. As to Western Sahara, nobody outside of the region really cares about that particular issue.

North Africa, by European definitions, is basically Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya and Egypt, as in the states which are on the Med. None of which are all that bad at all.

Chad, Mauritania, Niger and Sudan are a complete mess, but they're not on the Med, so we don't consider them to be North Africa as such. As to Western Sahara, nobody outside of the region really cares about that particular issue.

Part of that depends on how you define NAfrica. The nations I listed are what were considered N. Africa when I did my poli sci degree.

Even if we discount half of them, you end up with:

Morocco/Western Sahara - long ongoing civil war
Algeria - have you not paid attention to the news at all in the last 15 years?
Tunisia - The closest call to not being a basket case. Sure it's not as bloody as the rest, but a represive dictatorship by any other name...
Libya - 40 odd year dictatorship exporting terrorism.
and Egypt - nasty dictatorship and home base of IUslamic fundamentalist terrorism.

Nope. Not a one I'd say wasn't a basket case.

Morocco/Western Sahara - long ongoing civil war
With relatively few deaths, and outside of the Western Sahara region, it's not that bad at all a country, especially in the relatively metropolitan cities.
Algeria - have you not paid attention to the news at all in the last 15 years?
Has calmed down, a lot. Yeah, fine, last week was bad, but it's hardly the mid-nineties all over again.

Most people doing relatively fine.
Tunisia - The closest call to not being a basket case. Sure it's not as bloody as the rest, but a represive dictatorship by any other name...
Oh noes, a dictatorship... Jesus Christ, come on, that doesn't somehow make it a crappy place to live.
Libya - 40 odd year dictatorship exporting terrorism.
Doesn't make it a basket case.

The people are well-fed and it's a fairly rich nation, it's not a poorly run country by any means.
Egypt - nasty dictatorship and home base of IUslamic fundamentalist terrorism.
Yeah, apart from the fact that it isn't any kind of home base for Islamic fundamentalist terrorism, because they crack down on it.

People hardly starving, especially by African standards, not really a basked case, although the closest on this list outside of Algeria.
Nope. Not a one I'd say wasn't a basket case.
That's because your definition of a basket case is utterly woeful.

Would you rather live well-fed in an alright house in a dictatorship, or starve to death in a democracy?

The dictatorship wins every time, unless you're some kind of die-hard idealist.

I agree that America and Europe's invovlement in Africa throughout the 20th century made things a lot worse for them, but at this point in time, we can't leave them to settle everything out themselves. Many things can be resolved diplomatically, but the UN needs to put the time and effort into doing so.

And yet, the speaking out by other African leaders is a deafening silence; no African leader is willing to stand up an condemn Rob and his band of lackies - to be blatantly cynical, all those African leaders are as guilty as Rob in their refusal to speak out and do something.

Its convient to blame 'the white man' but you look at the countries that got off their ass after colonialisaton and made something of it - Malaysia and Singapore are two I can think off the top of my head - which are successful.

I agree that America and Europe's invovlement in Africa throughout the 20th century made things a lot worse for them, but at this point in time, we can't leave them to settle everything out themselves. Many things can be resolved diplomatically, but the UN needs to put the time and effort into doing so.

Europe should've explored the continent while letting the natives be. The 'Prime Directive' should always be followed.