NationStates Jolt Archive

Apparently it was talked about under Blairs leadership of an invasion of Zimbabwe by UK forces. Would it have made things better in the long run if Mugabe would have been taken out?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7100737.stm

Make love, not war!

I personally don't think that invading the country would do any good.

It would most likely just result in wars among the people, then people waging war against the English soldiers, then Zimbabwe would want to attack England, so from how I see it: Invading Zimbabwe = bad!

Would we get to keep it? If so, I support invasion.

I support a peaceful overthrow of Mugabe. However, if push comes to shove, I'm sure a well-placed informant and a few Delta operators could off him without much hassle.

great, so go from instability to worse instability.

Mugabe came to power as an anti-colonial leader, a U.K invasion would only rally troops to his cause. The U.K doesn't have the troop numbers, the political will or a mandate for invasion of Zimbabwe. African nations must learn to fight for democracy, it cannot be forced upon them by foreign powers.

If only the surrounding African countries would be less apathetic to the plight of Zimbabweans...

I'd like to know what Mugabe's plans would involve in the event of an invasion, possibly a voodoo curse :eek:

As badly as Zimbabweans want Mugabe gone, I highly doubt they want foreigners - especially their former colonizers - to do it. And even if it was popular with Zimbabweans, it would raise a shitstorm in the Third World, especially Africa, and would almost irreparably sour the U.K.'s relationship with Africa.

No, invading countries to depose its leader never works. Look at Iraq.

If only the surrounding African countries would be less apathetic to the plight of Zimbabweans...

Most of them have too many problems of their own to worry about.

Anglo-Zanzibar War take 2!

Most of them have too many problems of their own to worry about.
Some indeed do, but South Africa’s attitude towards Zimbabwe, especially refugees, is pretty appalling.

Some indeed do, but South Africa’s attitude towards Zimbabwe, especially refugees, is pretty appalling.

If what I'm told is correct, poverty is endemic in certain areas of South Africa, and they've got enough problems dealing with the legacy of apartheid to be able to justify washing their hands of Zimbabwe.

Can we please, please, please, please, plllleeeeeaaasssssseeee just take Zimbabwe back? It really would be nice of us.

No point, there's nothing to take over apart from what government has looted from the people.

If what I’m told is correct, poverty is endemic in certain areas of South Africa, and they’ve got enough problems dealing with the legacy of apartheid to be able to justify washing their hands of Zimbabwe.
Obviously it’s not a perfect place, but SA has a relatively large and prosperous economy. Large enough to take on some refugees from Mugabe’s madness.

Certainly large enough to afford criticism of Mugabe and his regime, which, AFAIK, has not been forthcoming from the leaders of SA.

Can we please, please, please, please, plllleeeeeaaasssssseeee just take Zimbabwe back? It really would be nice of us.
No, fraid not.

‘We’ had no right to take it in the first place, and ‘we’ certainly have no claim over the land or its people now. Incidentally, my grandfather worked in south-eastern Africa for the Foreign Office when Zimbabwe and Zambia were known as Northern and Southern Rhodesia, back in the 50’s.

Send Blackwater in

Obviously it’s not a perfect place, but SA has a relatively large and prosperous economy. Large enough to take on some refugees from Mugabe’s madness.

Certainly large enough to afford criticism of Mugabe and his regime, which, AFAIK, has not been forthcoming from the leaders of SA.


No, fraid not.

‘We’ had no right to take it in the first place, and ‘we’ certainly have no claim over the land or its people now. Incidentally, my grandfather worked in south-eastern Africa for the Foreign Office when Zimbabwe and Zambia were known as Northern and Southern Rhodesia, back in the 50’s.

I don't know enough about South Africa to make any judgement with authority, however I'd imagine there's an element of truth in that. By the same measure, would South African intervention be seen as western intervention by proxy?

I still think we should take it back anyway. We'd probably do a better job of running it than Mugabe.

Apparently is was talked about under Blairs leadership of an invasion of Zimbabwe by UK forces. Would it have made things better in the long run if Mugabe would have been taken out?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7100737.stm

What? A European country invading Africa? Are we back in the 1850s again?

What? A European country invading Africa? Are we back in the 1850s again?
African countries were invaded in WWII also.

African countries were invaded in WWII also.

Yes, I'm well aware of that. I figured the colonial period would make the better joke.

Most of them have too many problems of their own to worry about.

Plus there's also an unwritten rule in Africa: You keep your nose out of my country, I'll keep mine out of yours. Which is why African countries raised such an uproar when, in 1979, Tanzania invaded Uganda and ousted Amin. Not because they sympathized with Amin, but because they feared that:

A) It would set a precedent
B) They did not want to criticize Ugandan human rights, lest they come under scrutiny themselves

If we invade, could someone on mainland in Europe convince everyone else to give us a titanic, nation-destroying boot up the arse?

Restore Rhodesia!

Restore Rhodesia!

YES.

Restore Rhodesia!
You mean racist imperialism, right?

The picture of Mugabe in that article is priceless.

Pfhhh. The West tries to help people and they thank us with terrorist attacks. Fuck them.

Zimbabwe isn't threatening anyone but it's own citizens. In all honesty, we have no good reason to go in - it's the people of Zimbabwe's problem, it's the people of Zimbabwe's fault, and we both are not and should not be involved.

Zimbabwe isn't threatening anyone but it's own citizens. In all honesty, we have no good reason to go in - it's the people of Zimbabwe's problem, it's the people of Zimbabwe's fault, and we both are not and should not be involved.

Agreed.

I'm not for an invasion... But if Mugabe is overthrown and a new democratic government is established, the UK could send peacekeepers to help the new government if needed and if requested by the new government...

I personally don't think that invading the country would do any good.

It would most likely just result in wars among the people, then people waging war against the English soldiers, then Zimbabwe would want to attack England, so from how I see it: Invading Zimbabwe = bad!
Zimbabwe could talk about striking back against Britain as much as it damned well wants, it's not like it's going march all the way across Africa, across the Straits of Gibraltar and then mainland Europe to get us.

I do hope that Mugabe gets overthrown or dies soon, it'd do the country, and Africa, a hell of a lot of good. There was a time when the country fed all of those around it, now it struggles to feed its own people.

Sending British peacekeepers in would be brilliant, but I doubt it would happen. First of all, I don't think the British public would look favourably onto another deployment of our forces after the farce of Iraq, as well as the fact that a British presence in Zimbabwe after the death of Mugabe or the collapse of his government might well be counter-productive, as it might look like that the UK was indeed behind any coup or death, so fueling more war than peace.

I also remember my dad a few years ago saying something along the lines of "I once supported that man. Where did it all go wrong?" as he was once the British left's darling in Africa (Mugabe, that is).

The answer to Zimbabwe's starvation and problems? It's called 'Rhodesia'

The answer to Zimbabwe's starvation and problems? It's called 'Rhodesia'
Because re-colonising it wouldn't exacerbate problems already existing in both nations.

You mean racist imperialism, right?

:rolleyes:

Patience, Mugabe is not going to last much longer anyway - allowing Zimbabwe to sort out its own problems is going to produce a longer lasting solution than any outside interference.

I think Iraq has shown us how effective invasion is in solving the problems of a nation under a dictator.

I think Iraq has shown us how effective invasion is in solving the problems of a nation under a dictator.

well the embargo has been lifted so Iraq's largest problem is now gone :)

I'm not for an invasion... But if Mugabe is overthrown and a new democratic government is established, the UK could send peacekeepers to help the new government if needed and if requested by the new government...Could, but I doubt they'd be too welcome. It would be much better for the continent if the AU managed to get its act together and send a viable force capable of the job in that event.

Restore Rhodesia!

The answer to Zimbabwe’s starvation and problems? It’s called ‘Rhodesia’
Oh crap, no.

The British state did enough damage to Africa the first time round; why would installing an apartheid colonial government do any good whatsoever?

:( Thought this was going to be about the Beatles finally becoming a hit in Zimbabwe.

How about we just aid the opposition groups? And by "aid" I mean "give them Abrams tanks."

While I still maintain that sovereignty is overrated, in the case of Zimbabwe, they're reaping the fruits of the seeds they planted with Mugabe's populism and all that, so why the hell should we interfere?

Because we can stop human suffering?

Zimbabwe isn't threatening anyone but it's own citizens. In all honesty, we have no good reason to go in - it's the people of Zimbabwe's problem, it's the people of Zimbabwe's fault, and we both are not and should not be involved.

While I still maintain that sovereignty is overrated, in the case of Zimbabwe, they're reaping the fruits of the seeds they planted with Mugabe's populism and all that, so why the hell should we interfere?

British government advisor: "We decided several years ago that an invasion of Zimbabwe would be a bad thing and did not do it."

Zimbabwe's response: "Look, they're trying to colonise us again!"

And I thought they spoke English in Zimbabwe.

It would be fun to see Mugabe on a rotisserie, basted. Then again, not even war criminals and traitors get that treatment these days. Maybe we can ship him to Gitmo or Abu Ghraib. But they're US, not UK. So sad, considering water-boarding and sensory deprivation are fun.

http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q100/TheSteveslols/gtfogrowswearybullshitptu8.jpg

Damn right he does.

Anglo-Zanzibar War take 2!

Zanzibar is in Tanzania, not Zimbabwe.

:( Thought this was going to be about the Beatles finally becoming a hit in Zimbabwe.

LOL. That would be good!

Invading Zimbabwe wouldn't be a good idea. It's impractical, we're already stretched to breaking point in Iraq and Afghanistan (Both mistakes for Britain) to the point where we can't even garrison the Falklands properly. So what makes us think we can possibly invade some African country single-handedly? You'd get people whining a lot about 'imperialism' (Though the fact we hold a veto in the security council means there's not much they could do about it). Even if we did invade the place, it wouldn't change anything. You'd probably eventually get someone else in who's just as bad as Mugabe. If we tried changing it back to Rhodesia you'd just get the rest of the world whining even more about imperialism. Also, why should we bother? The people of Zimbabwe were pretty happy to have Mugabe in at first and even fairly recently, the farm theft policy seemed to be pretty popular among the people. They wanted their independence and self-determination, so let them deal with it.

Because we can stop human suffering?

Probably the worst reason of the lot. You can do that anywhere - go join Habitat for Humanity or the Peace Corps or support the rebuilding of Bosnia. There's human suffering everywhere - let's not waste resources imposing a solution on people who don't want it.

They, and the rest of Africa wanted independence from the colonial masters. They got it and now look at the mess there in, I say just leave them to get on with it and stop all aid. Money could be better spent on our own problems, not there’s that they started themselves by wanting independence.

If what I'm told is correct, poverty is endemic in certain areas of South Africa, and they've got enough problems dealing with the legacy of apartheid to be able to justify washing their hands of Zimbabwe.

Can we please, please, please, please, plllleeeeeaaasssssseeee just take Zimbabwe back? It really would be nice of us.
FOR RHODESIA! HUZZZZZAH!

Anyway - as if they could stop the UKF.

It's a very ambitious task for Robert. Does he plan an airborne or seaborne invasion of the UK?

No, invading countries to depose its leader never works. Look at Iraq.

Correct, you don't invade you send in a small group to eliminate him

They, and the rest of Africa wanted independence from the colonial masters. They got it and now look at the mess there in, I say just leave them to get on with it and stop all aid. Money could be better spent on our own problems, not there’s that they started themselves by wanting independence.
Yeah, damn those uppity darkies! Got what they deserved, wot!


Puh-leeeease.

Why settle with being a tyrant when you can be an attention whore too!

It's a very ambitious task for Robert. Does he plan an airborne or seaborne invasion of the UK?
I think he means more that if the UK invaded, he'd be ready, rather than that Zimbabwe would be able to invade the UK ;)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elgregia
It's a very ambitious task for Robert. Does he plan an airborne or seaborne invasion of the UK?

I think he means more that if the UK invaded, he'd be ready, rather than that Zimbabwe would be able to invade the UK

My little joke, I realise Zimbabwe is a land-locked country. Of course it would have to be airborne.

Mind you, he could pay another country to do it. With all of his degrees he might be smart enough to convince someone. He could offer a billion Zimbabwean dollars and the other country might not realise that he was only giving them 38 Swiss francs.

He could ask every country Britain has had a war(s) with I suppose. Nah, that would cost too much in stamps.

If he did invade, would you have to call him "Sir" because of his honorary knighthood?

Make love, not war!

hippy. everyone knows smokin a j and starting a drum circle is more viable.

Maybe Britain should invade Japan, I hear it's hunting Wales.

Patience, Mugabe is not going to last much longer anyway - allowing Zimbabwe to sort out its own problems is going to produce a longer lasting solution than any outside interference.

I agree. Revolutions are not a good idea. The last thing Zimbabwe needs is more instability. I am sure that other power bases within his party have been planning for an eventual power transfer, and certainly there are signs that certain people within the party have been in contact with the South Africans about a post-Mugabe situation.

This is not a time to rock the boat, and even if it were (and it isn't, an orderly and planned trasnfer of power is what's needed) the UK should first seek the opinions an input of the Commonwealth as a whole before deciding on a course of action. Anything else would only further harm our diplomatic standing.

No it isn't.

Oh yes it is.

Stop fooling around, the Japanese might take the hump.

Maybe Britain should invade Japan, I hear it's hunting Wales.

LOL

Does the UK even have that kind of muscle anymore?

I mean this is 2007 not 1857...

Does the UK even have that kind of muscle anymore?

I mean this is 2007 not 1857...
I think at full strength, our military would be capable of invading Zimbabwe successfully. Our army is bigger, better trained and equipped and our air force is far superior. But at the moment we're badly overstretched with Iraq and Afghanistan so I doubt that we could.

Does the UK even have that kind of muscle anymore?

I mean this is 2007 not 1857...
Err, yes.

The reason that we're not Super Winning in Iraq is basically because we're going up against the civilian population, and such things don't facilitate the use of a tank's main gun, high-calibre artillery support, MLRS usage, some of our more powerful air-dropped munitions and indeed cruise missiles.

Unlike fighting the Zimbabwean army, in which case the gloves are basically off.

Err, yes.

The reason that we're not Super Winning in Iraq is basically because we're going up against the civilian population, and such things don't facilitate the use of a tank's main gun, high-calibre artillery support, MLRS usage, some of our more powerful air-dropped munitions and indeed cruise missiles.

Unlike fighting the Zimbabwean army, in which case the gloves are basically off.

bah, none of that could possibly have any effect

Oh crap, no.

The British state did enough damage to Africa the first time round; why would installing an apartheid colonial government do any good whatsoever?

Well, for starters the people could eat instead of starve to death, rebuild civil institutions, benefit from foreign expertise, do justice on people like Mugabe, have stability and security.

The British Empire did a world of good for Africa and can continue to do so.

Well, for starters the people could eat instead of starve to death, rebuild civil institutions, benefit from foreign expertise, do justice on people like Mugabe, have stability and security.
I don’t see why this can’t happen without an apartheid colonial government. It’s not the fact that a black African is in charge that’s the reason Zimbabwe is so buggered, it’s the fact that said black African happens to be Robert Mugabe.

The British Empire did a world of good for Africa and can continue to do so.
*whispers*

We don’t have an empire any more. Been quite some time, actually. See all the countries that keep beating the UK at sports? Yeah, they’re independent now.


The British Empire, along with the French, German et al, fucked Africa. It’s still recovering.

Oh crap, no.

The British state did enough damage to Africa the first time round; why would installing an apartheid colonial government do any good whatsoever?

Um...there have only been two nations in history with apartheid: Namibia (then South West Africa) and South Africa.

No thinking person would call Rhodesia a paragon of human rights and racial equality, but it was far better than South Africa, and many independent African nations, for that matter.

The British Empire did a world of good for Africa and can continue to do so.

The bad things it did far outweigh the good.

No thinking person would call Rhodesia a paragon of human rights and racial equality, but it was far better than South Africa, and many independent African nations, for that matter.
OK, folks weren’t segregated in Southern and Northern Rhodesia (as I thought they were), so we can’t call it apartheid.

But my point still stands; returning to white minority rule would be idiocy to the extreme.

First of all; I think Mugabe should be removed from power. He's not just a dictator, but he's obviously as mad as a hatter.

Unfortunately, due to Mugabe having stamped out not just the opposition, but any attempt at opposing him, the ideal of a revolution is hard to conceive.

Also, I fully agree that any UK (and thus USA or EU) backed attempt to overthrow him, would, at best, strengthen his argument or, at worst, make him a martyr.

I'd like to know a little more about his potential "heir", before I would back any attempt to remove him "using other means". In other words: Is Mugabe a one-man lunatic asylum with total control over his minions, or the mouthpiece of a political movement, heir apparent in tow?

If the latter is correct.......better the devil we know?

In addition (and I am aware of T. Blair's megalomania): What would be the long term objectives of a UK invasion? Once Mugabe was removed, what would be the next move? I smell "Iraq Pt 3".

I also worry about the possible consequences for the rest of Africa (South Africa in particular) if Mugabe's poison is allowed to spread, unchecked, beyond the borders of Zimbabwe. It could have dire consequences for the stability of the region.

As an afterthought: I feel that Britain is entirely capable of invading Zimbabwe (at least initially) succesfully. Don't look at "World Military Strength" comparison charts, they are deceptive. The UK has the second largest "Power Projection" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_projection) force in the world. It can place a great number of military equipment and troops, anywhere in the world at reasonably short notice. Only the USA has greater military logistical capability.

Only the USA has greater military logistical capability.[/I]

I thought China would be stronger than Britan

I thought China would be stronger than Britan

Did you read my post properly?

Power Projection.

China does not have the ability to move it's forces out outside China, Britain does. This is my entire point.

No, invading countries to depose its leader never works. Look at Iraq.

Umm. Saddam Hussein was executed. Where have you been?

Did you read my post properly?

Power Projection.

China does not have the ability to move it's forces out outside China, Britain does. This is my entire point.

The article you used says India and China are increasing their "seaborne power projection abilities", I think we should strike before it's too late

edit: sorry I was distracted when I read your post

Umm. Saddam Hussein was executed. Where have you been?

He meant replacing it with a better government

My dad's family is from Rhodesia. We still have relatives there, and they're not doing so good because they're white. I'm not saying Rhodesia was perfect, but it was a hell ofa lot better than Zimbabwe is now. It would probably have the same level of prosperity if some other member of the majority had been elected instead of Mugabe. The reason he was a bad choice in the first place? He is an ultranationalist marxist guerilla! Those don't make good leaders!

From http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7104552.stm

The former prime minister of Rhodesia, Ian Smith, has died aged 88.

The cause of his death is unknown but he had been ill for some time at a residential home in South Africa.

He illegally declared independence from Britain in 1965 and his white minority government led the country for 14 years amid international scorn and sanctions.

Following a bitter bush war with black nationalists, his government was overthrown by Robert Mugabe in 1979, leading to the creation of Zimbabwe.

The BBC's James Robbins says that to the end of his days Ian Smith was convinced that Rhodesians, black and white, would have fared better under his leadership than in the Zimbabwe of Robert Mugabe and his Zanu-PF party.

Steeped in the colonial values of his Scottish immigrant father, our correspondent says Mr Smith was a born leader with a distinguished war record as an RAF fighter pilot.

He helped to found the right-wing Rhodesian Front, which came to power in 1962, and when the-then prime minister, Winston Field, baulked at the prospect of seizing independence, the party turned to Smith, who gave them what they wanted.

I can't mourn the man but, well, Zimbabwe has had its fair share of shitty leaders, I suppsoe.

I can’t mourn the man but, well, Zimbabwe has had its fair share of shitty leaders, I suppsoe.
I was just about to post this.

I’ll have to talk to my Grandfather about this; I believe he left what was then Southern Rhodesia about the time Smith gained power. I don’t think he was too happy with the way things were going...

The article above makes things look more cut-and-dried than they really were. The Rhodesian government was never truly overthrown; Ian Smith's government made an agreement to end a vicious civil war that neither side was actually capable of winning.

Mugabe was the one that convinced Smith that white Rhodesians could stay in the country. Amazing what a difference 25 years of power can make to a deranged mind.

The article you used says India and China are increasing their "seaborne power projection abilities", I think we should strike before it's too late

edit: sorry I was distracted when I read your post

Oh I don't know if you'd be up to taking on India and China. You might run the risk of an uprising in Bradford for starters.

I thought China would be stronger than Britan

Well it's stronger than glass but it's not stronger than plastic though. That's why one's maiden aunt always keeps the china in the cabinet and gives your kids plastic beakers to drink from.

It is no concern of England's, thus there is no point going in. Zimbabwe will never be in a position to cause the English public harm, so really I cannot imagine why we would even consider such an act. Frankly this would top even the utter absurdity of invading Iraq and Afghanistan.