NationStates Jolt Archive

I sure hope so. The country should collapse into chaos, and they deserve it too.
You don't think the people there are suffering enough already?

EDIT: My thread.

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/africa/03/10/zimbabwe/index.html

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't that mean the foreign companies will leave Zimbabwe?

I sure hope so. The country should collapse into chaos, and they deserve it too.

Hey, if the Germans deserved what they got for electing Hitler, the Zimbabweans deserve what they get for electing Mugabe.And what if they didn't?

You don't think the people there are suffering enough already?

EDIT: My thread.

Hey, if the Germans deserved what they got for electing Hitler, the Zimbabweans deserve what they get for electing Mugabe.

Zimbabwe shouldn't get a single dollar for support from the West.

The end of Zimbabwe is we.

It's commonly accepted that they did.No it's not.

And what if they didn't?

It's commonly accepted that they did.

No it's not.

Uhh... yeah, it is.

Uhh... yeah, it is.I'd ask you to prove that, but that would be beside the point, really. Instead, please prove that the Germans deserved it, and then that by extension, the Zimbabweans deserve what they're suffering through as well. After which you can go ahead and explain why Germans deserve dollars from the West and Zimbabweans don't.

Uhh... yeah, it is.

Are you suggesting that it's commonly accepted that the Red Army was justified in committing mass rape and its other war crimes?

Interesting world you live in right there.

I don't accept it, everybody else in the West does. Besides, the situations are different: Mugabe was elected, Hitler was appointed.This isn't proof of anything except that your earlier statement was entirely false...

Mugabe was "elected" in an election characterized by widespread fraud and voter intimidation. He has never won a free and fair election.

Are you suggesting that it's commonly accepted that the Red Army was justified in committing mass rape and its other war crimes?

Interesting world you live in right there.

I'd ask you to prove that, but that would be beside the point, really. Instead, please prove that the Germans deserved it, and then that by extension, the Zimbabweans deserve what they're suffering through as well. After which you can go ahead and explain why Germans deserve dollars from the West and Zimbabweans don't.

I don't accept it, everybody else in the West does. Besides, the situations are different: Mugabe was elected, Hitler was appointed.

What, even the first time he was elected?

Yes.

This isn't proof of anything except that your earlier statement was entirely false...

Hey, I don't run the West, I just live in it.

Well, whatever. They still deserve shit for not overthrowing him.

Believe me, they would if they could.

Oh, how hard can it be?

Without guns, pretty hard.

Mugabe was "elected" in an election characterized by widespread fraud and voter intimidation. He has never won a free and fair election.

What, even the first time he was elected?

Besides, you're all missing the point. It's about what's going to happen to Zimbabwe now.

Just javelin the guy when he's out on a publicity adventure. Crisis over.

Not when his motorcade is surrounded by police, soldiers, et. al. It really isn't as easy as you make it out to be. If it were that easy, he'd have been killed ages ago.

Yes.

Well, whatever. They still deserve shit for not overthrowing him.

And nobody's answered my question; does this mean that foreign firms will leave?

Believe me, they would if they could.

Oh, how hard can it be?

Without guns, pretty hard.

Just javelin the guy when he's out on a publicity adventure. Crisis over.

Not when his motorcade is surrounded by police, soldiers, et. al. It really isn't as easy as you make it out to be. If it were that easy, he'd have been killed ages ago.

Or maybe the people just like him?

Or maybe the people just like him?

Many people also liked JFK.

Or maybe the people just like him?

And obviously everybody in the Soviet Union loved Stalin, otherwise he would have been killed. The near omnipresent KGB, informants, and hundreds of bodyguards had nothing to do with it, oh no.

[/sarcasm]

Or maybe the people just like him?

Are you for serious?

Do you realize the numerous difficulties that such an attempt would actually entail?

And obviously everybody in the Soviet Union loved Stalin, otherwise he would have been killed. The near omnipresent KGB, informants, and hundreds of bodyguards had nothing to do with it, oh no.

[/sarcasm]

Well, the Russians weren't trying particularly hard to prevent it in 1917.

Well, the Russians weren't trying particularly hard to prevent it in 1917.

...you mean when an entire nation was caught up in a world-changing conflict that shook the nation to its core and weakened the state to the degree required for a revolution to be successful? A revolt that took hundreds of thousands and months of time?

Yes, because that's a fair and apt comparison...

Well, the Russians weren't trying particularly hard to prevent it in 1917.

Umm, Stalin didn't rise to power in 1917..

Oh, and the Russians did try, ever heard of the White Army? I wouldn't call 6 years of civil war "not trying particularly hard".

The end of Zimbabwe would be much more acceptable if it could be managed without the end of an awful lot of Zimbabweans.

But that's never been how things worked there, has it?

Once before, a group of African tribes, in the middle of getting slaughtered by other African tribes, invited in European settlers, and the whole sordid Rhodesia affair got started. But Europe has learned its lesson now, and if another million are to die in Zimbabwe, expect many solemn proclamations, denunciations, fund raisers, and tears, followed by "we can never let a tragedy like this happen again!", again.

Umm, Stalin didn't rise to power in 1917..

Oh, and the Russians did try, ever heard of the White Army? I wouldn't call 6 years of civil war "not trying particularly hard".

The White Army? That was hopeless. To put it in perspective, the Whites were allied with the US, France, the UK and Japan AND STILL LOST.

And Lenin was a good as Stalin.

...you mean when an entire nation was caught up in a world-changing conflict that shook the nation to its core and weakened the state to the degree required for a revolution to be successful? A revolt that took hundreds of thousands and months of time?

Yes, because that's a fair and apt comparison...

Sure, why not? Zimbabwe's in just as bad a situation now. You don't like it, overthrow it.

And what if they didn't?

It doesn't matter if they deserve it or not, it's hard to get too much worse than 24,000% inflation and 80 percent unemployment.

Mugabe is just getting rid of that last 20% employment. He has to make it a perfect disaster.

It's hard to understand why there's no revolts at all. I mean, if the people were revolting and failing, that I can understand, but they don't seem to even care that their country is going (has gone) to hell. Either they support Mugabe, or they are stupidly devoted to democracy.

All he has to keep happy are his henchmen. They're the ones with guns. Everyone else is mostly in the "unarmed and disorganized" category, which puts them in the "we're fearful sheep" situation.

If his henchmen are happy looting the country, Mugabe could be their leader until the day he dies of old age.

It doesn't matter if they deserve it or not, it's hard to get too much worse than 24,000% inflation and 80 percent unemployment.

Mugabe is just getting rid of that last 20% employment. He has to make it a perfect disaster.

It's hard to understand why there's no revolts at all. I mean, if the people were revolting and failing, that I can understand, but they don't seem to even care that their country is going (has gone) to hell. Either they support Mugabe, or they are stupidly devoted to democracy.

It's never too late to bring back Rhodesia and make that land again the bread basket of Africa.

It doesn't matter if they deserve it or not, it's hard to get too much worse than 24,000% inflation and 80 percent unemployment.

Can it get any worse. Try 100000% like it is now.

Sure it can get worse. When Mugabe and his henchmen resort to cannibalism.

The White Army? That was hopeless. To put it in perspective, the Whites were allied with the US, France, the UK and Japan AND STILL LOST.

And Lenin was a good as Stalin.



Sure, why not? Zimbabwe's in just as bad a situation now. You don't like it, overthrow it.

You have a rather skewed view of history, sir. The Russian Revolution didn't end for two years, and there were a number of times when the White forces seemed on the verge of winning the conflict. I would also reiterate and emphasize that Russia was in the midst of a conflict that changed the geo-political nature of the world, and had been at war for three years before the revolution began.

In no way can the situation in Zimbabwe be compared; there is no Army that can rise up and support those against Mugabe, and no effective structure to oppose Mugabe, not to mention no weaponry or leadership. May I remind you that there were a number of failed revolutions prior to 1917 stretching back to the early 19th Century, if not before.

It's hard to understand why there's no revolts at all. I mean, if the people were revolting and failing, that I can understand, but they don't seem to even care that their country is going (has gone) to hell. Either they support Mugabe, or they are stupidly devoted to democracy.

Well, if you can't afford food, it's hard to summon the energy to fight, especially when your opponents have guns and at least minimal training (and no misgivings about killing women and children). It's not that they are devoted to Mugabe, it's that there is literally nothing for the Zimbabwean people to do without suffering from potential genocide.

[QUOTE=Sanmartin;13515160]It doesn't matter if they deserve it or not, it's hard to get too much worse than 24,000% inflation and 80 percent unemployment.QUOTE]

Can it get any worse. Try 100000% like it is now.

It isn't easy to revolt if you are in a constant search for food.

Learned it in 'History' several years ago.

You must think if you're always searching for food you will not be able to spend your time to protest. You'll be busy with surviving.

It isn't easy to revolt if you are in a constant search for food.

Learned it in 'History' several years ago.

Well, according to what I've learnt, lack of food is an extremely common cause of revolution.

Hey, I don't run the West, I just live in it.I'm not taking your word for anything unless its backed up by substantial references.

I'm not taking your word for anything unless its backed up by substantial references.

We can still laugh at what Mugabe is doing to his own people though.

Without guns, pretty hard.And pretty hard with guns too. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer_hall_putsch)

We can still laugh at what Mugabe is doing to his own people though.Only if you're a heartless bastard...

Since it's obvious there is so much unemployment... why not give the 80% in need of work something to do?

Arm them... the opposition. What better way to expedite the process than to arm the disgruntled to the teeth. Give them everything they need for an armed revolution.

White-on-black racism is bad.

Black-on-white racism is equally bad and does nothing to fix the problem of racism. Mugabe's racist policies will destroy what little economy his country has now. Furthermore, black-on-black racism (ancient tribal prejudices and hatred, Moslem vs. Christian vs. traditional beliefs, etc.) are the cause of most of Africa's misery. The white people are usually just a convenient scapegoat. "Look over at those guys! They're the problem! Don't look at what we're doing!"

Are you suggesting that it's commonly accepted that the Red Army was justified in committing mass rape and its other war crimes?

Uh...
I don't think it was justified. I think, though, that most people find understandable the outrage and the downright hate that many, many soviet soldiers felt against Germany.
Luckily, not all Soviet units in Germany transformed their hate into mass rapes and murders; some officers were able to direct that hate towards the Nazis alone. Even when the Red Army occupied Berlin: some parts of the city were theatre of atrocities against the civilians, some weren't.

Only if you're a heartless bastard...

Crying about the situation won't solve anything. And we in the US are officially suspended from invading other nations ruled by despotic killers. So it's not my problem.

Well, according to what I've learnt, lack of food is an extremely common cause of revolution.

The American Revolution?

The Chinese Revolution?

The Russian Revolution?

The Cuban Revolution?

The Rhodesia-Zimbabwe revolution?

The French Revolution?

Which of these were caused by lack of food?

What specifically have you learned which makes you think that lack of food is a major cause of political revolution?

Why haven't the starving people in zimbabawe, somalia, north korea, stalinist russia, great famine china and other places with that problem have revolutions to overthrow the people responsible and in power, if that is an "extremely common cause" of revolutions?

Why haven't the starving people in zimbabawe, somalia, north korea, stalinist russia, great famine china and other places with that problem have revolutions to overthrow the people responsible and in power, if that is an "extremely common cause" of revolutions?

Extremely common cause? Not likely. One of many factors? Likely.

Without the most basic needs being met, people can't worry about anything beyond shelter and where their next meal is coming from. As long as you have these two items, you can revolt because you're fed and sheltered. If these two needs aren't met, you can't worry about what is going on beyond this point.

http://www.weaselhut.net/needs.png

Yes, food can be a determining factor if there are price issues, but if people don't have any, they aren't likely going to be concerned with revolting.

I remember Lenin ranting about bread a lot.


The slogan used by the bolsheviks was "bread and peace" iirc.

The American Revolution?

The Chinese Revolution?

The Russian Revolution?

The Cuban Revolution?

The Rhodesia-Zimbabwe revolution?

The French Revolution?

Which of these were caused by lack of food? Russian Revolution. Bread prices going up immensely helped push public disapproval of the Czars to the breaking point.

French Revolution is similar. The alleged Marie Antoinette quote "If they can't eat bread, let them eat cake!" was thought up around that time.

Crying about the situation won't solve anything. And we in the US are officially suspended from invading other nations ruled by despotic killers. So it's not my problem.Pointing and laughing is pretty much guaranteed to make it worse.

Pointing and laughing is pretty much guaranteed to make it worse.

It can't make it worse. They can't hear us laughing from over here.

The American Revolution?

The Chinese Revolution?

The Russian Revolution?

The Cuban Revolution?

The Rhodesia-Zimbabwe revolution?

The French Revolution?

Which of these were caused by lack of food?

What specifically have you learned which makes you think that lack of food is a major cause of political revolution?

Why haven't the starving people in zimbabawe, somalia, north korea, stalinist russia, great famine china and other places with that problem have revolutions to overthrow the people responsible and in power, if that is an "extremely common cause" of revolutions?

Both of the two I highlighted had food problems as a reason for revolution. France had high bread prices, and once the new order was in place, instituted the death penalty for grain hoarders. I can't remember what role food played in Russia exactly, but I remember Lenin ranting about bread a lot.

Food has never been THE factor, but it's often been A factor. It tends to be elitists who have ideologies leading commoners who have hunger.

-snip-

Lack of food was an extremely strong factor in the Russian revolution, along with land for the peasants and disgust at the war. Hence the Bolshevik simple slogans like: "bread, peace, land".

The slogan used by the bolsheviks was "bread and peace" iirc.

I managed to get as far as "something, something and bread".

It can't make it worse. They can't hear us laughing from over here.A little media coverage goes a long way.

Britain should never have let Ian Smith take over Rhodesia. It was treason and he should have been hanged.

However, as it's our Colony gone screwed up, we should invade Zimbabwe, Put Mugabe on Trial (and keep him alive for long enough for him to be trialed for everything he's ever done), Establish a Colonial Government to restore order, get things working then gradually hand over rule to the natives when they are capable, not when it makes parliament look good to the left wing.

Britain should never have let Ian Smith take over Rhodesia. It was treason and he should have been hanged.

However, as it's our Colony gone screwed up, we should invade Zimbabwe, Put Mugabe on Trial (and keep him alive for long enough for him to be trialed for everything he's ever done), Establish a Colonial Government to restore order, get things working then gradually hand over rule to the natives when they are capable, not when it makes parliament look good to the left wing.Funny. I could have sworn fixing things and teaching the savages how to do it right was the same argument used the first time the UK fucked up what is now Zimbabwe...

Funny. I could have sworn fixing things and teaching the savages how to do it right was the same argument used the first time the UK fucked up what is now Zimbabwe...

Well, they at least they would have an economy, and wouldn't be starving now.

But I say, let them make their own way, and if millions starve in the process, don't blame the US. It's not our fault, and it's not our responsibility.

Well, they at least they would have an economy, and wouldn't be starving now.Largely irrelevant, seeing as we have no slide-timer to see if a still colonized Zimbabwe would be better or worse than a never colonized patch of that part of Africa or how it is today. Particularly since the UK is responsible for giving the black Zimbabweans a logical basis for their racism.
But I say, let them make their own way, and if millions starve in the process, don't blame the US. It's not our fault, and it's not our responsibility.I'm not blaming the US, no one has (save Mugabe). Bringing it up again and again only makes you look like an idiot.

I'm not blaming the US, no one has (save Mugabe). Bringing it up again and again only makes you look like an idiot.

Don't worry - give it time. Someone will blame the US for it. We get blamed for everything eventually. If not for causing it, then for not fixing it.

I see a lot of people at work blaming the US for not intervening in Darfur.

Don't worry - give it time. Someone will blame the US for it. We get blamed for everything eventually. If not for causing it, then for not fixing it.It's that time of day again... =/

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a205/ulteriormotives/Drama20Queen.jpg

I see a lot of people at work blaming the US for not intervening in Darfur.
You did say you lived in Georgia... Not sure if that's where you work, but it likely says more about your colleagues than anything else.

It's that time of day again... =/

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a205/ulteriormotives/Drama20Queen.jpg


You did say you lived in Georgia... Not sure if that's where you work, but it likely says more about your colleagues than anything else.

I'm occasionally in Georgia. On March 17, I'll be in Chicago. I was in San Diego last week.

I'm occasionally in Georgia. On March 17, I'll be in Chicago. I was in San Diego last week.Sounds like it's been Americans blaming the US for not intervening then...

Sounds like it's been Americans blaming the US for not intervening then...

That's popular as well. Ah, but I'm against intervening. All of the arguments you can make for not intervening in Iraq apply to Sudan as well as Zimbabwe.

Let them suffer if it's their actions that take them there. Starve. Die. Massacre each other. Kidnap and torture their own. After all, it's not injustice if a Marxist does it...

That's popular as well. Ah, but I'm against intervening. All of the arguments you can make for not intervening in Iraq apply to Sudan as well as Zimbabwe.Yup.

[QUOTE=Laerod;13515368] Particularly since the UK is responsible for giving the black Zimbabweans a logical basis for their racism.
[QUOTE]

Please tell me you did not just say that.

The levels of wrongness astound me. (that's worse than the Jewish Woman who thought it was the Jewish year of the rat!)

OK. Rant over.

1. Rhodesia was independent of Britain for 20 years (roughly), before Mugabe (illegally).

2. In that time a white supremacist Government of Rhodesians sent them backwards.

3. The Black people of Rhodesia were educated under the British (hence a literate Mugabe).

4. There was not segregation on the Scale of South Africa in Rhodesia (as far as I know).

5. White Rhodesians/Zimbabweans are not just British Colonials. The Dutch Boers were rife in that part of Africa (the British kept pushing them North as the Cape Colony Expanded).

Mugabe was "elected" in an election characterized by widespread fraud and voter intimidation. He has never won a free and fair election.

I thought that he won the election just after the British government left, when he was seen as working to liberate the people of Rhodesia...

Was Rhodesia renamed Zimbabwe before or after he became president?

I thought that he won the election just after the British government left, when he was seen as working to liberate the people of Rhodesia...

Was Rhodesia renamed Zimbabwe before or after he became president?

He can't have. The British were forced out in the 60s, Mugabe came in in the 80s

My mistake (I haven't read up too much on the history).

All I remember is that he was supposed to be a 'liberator'. Or was it a reformer?

Liberator. Ha ha.

Meh, easy mistake. It was legally recognised as British until the 1980s, as the Rhodesian (Ian Smith) Declaration of independence was very illegal.

All he has to keep happy are his henchmen. They're the ones with guns. Everyone else is mostly in the "unarmed and disorganized" category, which puts them in the "we're fearful sheep" situation.

If his henchmen are happy looting the country, Mugabe could be their leader until the day he dies of old age.


Which is exactly what is happening. I have friends who left there, and yes they were white farmers, fifth generation colonists. One set of my friends left 25 years ago, they were allowed to leave the country with $25 cash per family member and one suitcase of clothing nothing more. They walked away from everything to get out. Five years ago the rest of his family (sisters and their families) woke up one morning to find strangers sleeping in their living room floor, eating their food and waving guns all around. There was nothing they could do but let these people have everything and anything they wanted. They too got out with the help of a refugee organization. That was the beginning of Mugabe giving all farms back to the indigenous.

Only Mugabe is a moron, he did that right before harvest which left the squatters helping themselves to things like furniture and the sort and no one to harvest the crops because those "indigenous" new owners didn't know shit about farming. So now we have a country of people who are starving.

Mugabe deserves to fall, but he won't, he will give everything away to the mob to keep them happy even though they are too stupid to know what to do with it and he doesn't give a crap about them in the least. But a happy dumb mob will keep him in power.

The problems actually stem from Mugabe's policies with the 2nd congo war

He spent millions upon millions of dollars supporting one side in that in the hope of getting a slice of the mineral mining rights.... but Zimbabwe did'nt.

Hence to cover up for his gross mismanagement of the economy he had to find a scapegoat( now where has that been done before I wonder....;) ) and the scapegoat chosen was the white farmers, never mind some of these folks had bought the land off the Mugabe government in the early 1980's , never mind the fact the Zimbabwe depended on them for its cash crop exports, never mind Mugabe himself could have put education and nationalisation policies in place so that poor blacks would get a chunk of the profits and that black managers could be sent in to run the farms relegating the white farmers to just another minority group status.
Of course food prices skyrocket because the cash crops were sold aboard by the Zimbabwe government and import food was bought with the procedes.

Then , among the mounting poverty of Zimbabwe's cities, we see the final nail in the coffin of Mugabe, Operation 'Drive out trash' where the shanty towns that had grown up were cleared and demolished and the occupants dumped out in the bush in whatever region they happened to come from.
Imagine the uproar if the Israelies went into Gaza city and did that.

But sad to say a revolution to overthrow Mugabe may not be on the cards since an estimated 2.5 MILLON Zimbabweans are now living abroad.

He can't have. The British were forced out in the 60s, Mugabe came in in the 80s

My mistake (I haven't read up too much on the history).

All I remember is that he was supposed to be a 'liberator'. Or was it a reformer?

Cypresaria: Yet the the most corrupt European Zimbabwe(ans?) have all remained to keep a slice of the pie.

I thought that Mugabe was initially popular with the peopl.

Look now.

Does it matter what they thought then?

They've seen what happens now.

Liberator. Ha ha.

I thought that Mugabe was initially popular with the people.

Look now.

Does it matter what they thought then?

They've seen what happens now.

Note: I'm not advocating that the Zimbabwean people deserve this.

It does matter as it shows how far they have fallen due to Mugabe and it's cronies/enforcers (not to mention corrupt business). It is terrible what has happened (and what will happen).

I thought that Mugabe was initially popular with the people.
He was.

They'd had enough of the semi-Apartheid policies of Rhodesia (SA was much worse, but Rhodesia was pretty bad in this respect) and wanted new leadership after an extremely long bush war had made the Rhodesian leadership even more intolerant of blacks.

It's just than in the last 10 years, he's become an Amin-a-like.

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/africa/03/10/zimbabwe/index.html

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't that mean the foreign companies will leave Zimbabwe?

I sure hope so. The country should collapse into chaos, and they deserve it too.
you seem to believe it isn't doing so already.

Hey, I don't run the West, I just live in it.

Link? Do you have proof that you do not run the West? ;)

We all know you are the Puppet Master.

I thought that Mugabe was initially popular with the people.

He was but I believe his approval rating has fallen below Bush and Congress.

He was but I believe his approval rating has fallen below Bush and Congress.

His popularity rating has decreased below the popularity of a wart on a person's finger.

Didn't that drop off occur a couple of years before the 'drive the middle-low income whites from the farmland' policy?

you seem to believe it isn't doing so already.

Oh, it can get MUCH worse. Mugabe could get desperate, try to annex a neighbour, and then get Zimbabwe bombed into oblivion.

Mugabe deserves to fall, but he won't, he will give everything away to the mob to keep them happy even though they are too stupid to know what to do with it and he doesn't give a crap about them in the least. But a happy dumb mob will keep him in power.

Of course he wont fall, that is because everytime an election comes up or there is signs of people taking some sort of threat to them not only does he limit their power with death threats and trumped up charges as well as vote rigging but he also goes to the 'mob' as you put it and tells them how bad it will be if he is gone as he says "white man will take over and kill you and take all your stuff", of course there are now many locals leaving Zimbabwe and going to South Africa to the extent that processing camps are over flowing.l

51% to be owned by the blacks (read: 51% owned by Mugabe and his close freinds) the racist policies of Mugabe continues and still the world does very little.

His popularity rating has decreased below the popularity of a wart on a person's finger.

Didn't that drop off occur a couple of years before the 'drive the middle-low income whites from the farmland' policy?

I believe so. The blame whitey was just an outcropping of his shitty performance. Funny how that is a theme around the world. When one is doing crappy in life it is always someone else's fault. At least that is what many turn to.