NationStates Jolt Archive

If you were to ever believe Mugabe:



His ministers said the disease had been introduced to the country by the UK as part of a campaign of 'genocidal onslaught'.

Mr Mugabe has long sought to portray the suffering of his country's people as the result of a dispute between London and his own government, blaming the former colonial power for a range of ills. But the cholera claim is further and more bizarre than his Zanu-PF party has ever gone before.

Information minister Sikhanyiso Ndlovu said: "The cholera epidemic in Zimbabwe is a serious biological, chemical war force, a genocidal onslaught, on the people of Zimbabwe by the British," said the. "It's a genocide of our people.

"This was a calculated warfare. There are forces who are continuing to plant anthrax and cholera disease.

“Cholera is a calculated, racist attack on Zimbabwe by the unrepentant former colonial power, which has enlisted support from its American and Western allies so that they can invade the country.”

With demands rising for Mr Mugabe to face prosecution in The Hague for human rights abuses, Mr Ndlovu instead called for the British prime minister to be brought to justice.

"Gordon Brown must be taken to the United Nations Security Council for being a threat to world peace and planting cholera and anthrax to invade Zimbabwe – our peaceful Zimbabwe," he said.

His comments came after Harare tried to claim that Mr Mugabe had been joking when he said there was 'no cholera' in Zimbabwe, despite the continuing epidemic.

The 84-year-old leader had told mourners at the funeral of his close ally Elliot Manyika that the disease had been "arrested". Amid growing calls for his departure, some saying the use of force would be legitimate, he said: "Now that there is no cholera, there is no need for war." The comments triggered widespread condemnation, with the US ambassador in Harare saying they showed "how out of touch he is with the reality" in Zimbabwe.

But soon after, Mr Mugabe's spokesman George Charamba tried to backtrack, saying that he had been making "his argument through sarcasm, noting that now that efforts deployed so far towards containing the outbreak were beginning to yield positive results".

He denounced the Western media, saying they "have chosen a path of wilful distortion of a clear statement and argument by the Zimbabwean president, in order to advance the war and regime change agenda of their expansionist governments".

The double-pronged attempt by Harare to try to divert attention from its own failings is an indication that the authorities are increasingly worried about the repercussions of the cholera epidemic.

According to the World Health Organisation it 792 people have died, and it has also coincided with soldiers rioting over their financial problems.

But Mr Mugabe's propagandists are adept at their work, and to those in Africa who want to believe them their pronouncements, however lurid, will seem plausible.

Despite the calls for action, there is little in practice that neighbouring countries can do about his misrule, even though the disease is beginning to affect them too.

Jacqui Smith, the home secretary, gave warning that Britain it could also have implications for Britain, with an influx of Zimbabwean immigrants could trying flee the epidemic, although Foreign Office sources played down the idea.

South Africa is still pressing the importance of a unity government being formed with the opposition Movement for Democratic Change, even though critics say that it is a route for Zanu-PF to retain power.

Nonetheless the Anglican bishop of Pretoria today added his voice to the demands for Mr Mugabe to go, comparing him to Adolf Hitler.

"He must be removed by all means necessary, to stop the further suffering of God's children and save lives in that country," Joe Seoka told South Africa's Times newspaper.

"Mugabe must be viewed as the 21st century Hitler because of the deaths and suffering of Zimbabweans under his rule."

Article (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/zimbabwe/3725130/Mugabe-claims-cholera-was-released-by-the-British.html)

So the main question I have is would you support military action in Zimbabwe? I'm not one to advocate war but this is an extreme case and if a coalition of forces can get in there and rebuild a semi working country again I'm all for it. Anything is better than leaving Mugabe in charge.

Surely invading would make things worse?

I suggest that the Africans invade.

Surely invading would make things worse?

How much worse could things get. The health infrastructure has completely collapsed, the education infrastructure has completely collapsed, inflation is at 231,000,000% (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/oct/09/zimbabwe), Zimbabweans are crossing the border into South Africa to get treatment for cholera. What can Mugabe use in his defence? Getting rid of him and allowing aid agencies complete freedom to help the Zimbabwean people build a nation that actually works would be a good thing here.

Why bother to police the world? You trying to be america;)?

We should go the subterfuge route and stage a coup.

I suggest that the Africans invade.

Yes, let their morally upstanding and democratic governments send in the soldiers with the lowest human rights abuse record.

youd have to have a damned good plan to get in and get out with good results.

can that be done?

An invasion would be a silly idea. We'd need the support of surrounding countries to be able to attack Zimbabwe, and I doubt we'd get any support. It'd look too much like the old colonial power coming back in, and would play staight in to Mugabe's hands.

1 Airstrike to remove Mugabe.

I mean Mugabe's Zimbabwe is closest you can get to an actual NS category of "Psychotic Dictatorship"

Zimbabwe would be better off in a civil war than with that nutcase in power.

Mugabe... why isn't HE getting cholera? Or anthrax? Or syphillis?

I just keep wondering if removing Mugabe would actually help with Zimbabwe's situation or make it worse. Of course, cholera and economical crisis resulting in the closure of medical facilities is bad enough.

For the love of god no we should not take him out. Then we just get some other ZANU-PF nutjob at the top. Let him die of old age in a couple of years, and watch as the country starts to sort itself out.

If Europe wans him out, Europe can remove him. I hope the US doesnt get too involved. We have enough problems in our country.

For the love of god no we should not take him out. Then we just get some other ZANU-PF nutjob at the top. Let him die of old age in a couple of years, and watch as the country starts to sort itself out.

This

that will learn those Zimbabweans to resist our imperial desires!!!1

erm...I mean *clears throat * as long as the problem is staying in Zimbabwe we shouldn't go about performing unnecessary surgery <.< >.>

No reason for us to get involved. Mugabe is a monster, but there's no way to end him without causing more harm.

For the love of god no we should not take him out. Then we just get some other ZANU-PF nutjob at the top. Let him die of old age in a couple of years, and watch as the country starts to sort itself out.

did I mention that Mugabe is directly responsible to the collapse of Northern Rock and Woolies

you' know that spot you get sometimes that doesn't seem so bad till you realize the next day after popping it that it had leaked what can only be described as acid on your face? Mugabe.

If you were to ever believe Mugabe...

I believe Mugabe! I know the Brits are trying to poison the world with steak-and-kidney pudding and haggis, yeuch! Damn Brits!

Lol, somewhat.:rolleyes:

Btw, I could support a very, very limited military action to remove that jerk as an extrema ratio, but ONLY if it is:
a) requested by the African Union
b) ok'ed by the UN
c) made by african troops only; just to make it clear that it's an african business, and that it's not the beginning of a (re-)colonisation.

Anyway, I think that there are better chances to oust Mugabe via diplomacy (like promising not to prosecute him if he goes to exile in another continent).

Put it this way, I think a military invasion is completely unjustified and counter-productive, however, if Mugabe fell victim to a targeted assassination by some local militias, I probably wouldn't make much of a fuss.

Put it this way, I think a military invasion is completely unjustified and counter-productive, however, if Mugabe fell victim to a targeted assassination by some local militias, I probably wouldn't make much of a fuss.

are you suggesting we have a battle royal with all the shitty countries in the world like Sudan and Somalia?

Seeing as South Africa are doing naf all, and people are living and dying in hell on earth in Zim. I for once, take the extreme view of a British, French, EU, other nation with strong African influence, troop presence in this circumstance, at least to make sure aid gets through if nothing else.

(I bet they want our white farmers back now)

If you were to ever believe Mugabe:



Article (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/zimbabwe/3725130/Mugabe-claims-cholera-was-released-by-the-British.html)

So the main question I have is would you support military action in Zimbabwe? I'm not one to advocate war but this is an extreme case and if a coalition of forces can get in there and rebuild a semi working country again I'm all for it. Anything is better than leaving Mugabe in charge.Och, Murdergabe, what lows do you still have left to stoop to? Really, it's time the AU and regional blocs start realizing that being black doesn't prevent Mugabe from being evil.

(I bet they want our white farmers back now)"Our"?

We shouldn't get involved, it's not our problem any more. Zimbabwe wanted independence. Independence doesn't just mean freedom, it means you succeed or fail off your own bat. It doesn't mean you get your old colonial masters to bail you out every time you screw up. Enough of this white man's burden crap.

We shouldn't get involved, it's not our problem any more. Zimbabwe wanted independence. Independence doesn't just mean freedom, it means you succeed or fail off your own bat. It doesn't mean you get your old colonial masters to bail you out every time you screw up. Enough of this white man's burden crap.This is false. Rhodesia wanted independence.

Mugabe... why isn't HE getting cholera? Or anthrax? Or syphillis?

Because Bob is playing Prince Prospero of course.

Anyway, I think that there are better chances to oust Mugabe via diplomacy (like promising not to prosecute him if he goes to exile in another continent).

Can I specify the continent?

Good. He is exiled to Antarctica.

He is exiled to Antarctica.

they would never let him in :(

I think we should respond. "Get real you button head" (remember no swearwords kids)
that would confuse him for a few moments which would buy enough time for the ninja monkeys to sneak in take out the Zanu PF... then we sell on a cure for Cholera to Mugabe (placebos) they'l be begging for mercy soon enough and then, we can restart the colonisation of Africa, because the last time went really well guys didn't it?
...guys?.....guys?......awww not again.
*a cookie for the person who gets the reference to selling a cure, i'll give a clue:
Ambrosia vaccine.

This is false. Rhodesia wanted independence.
No, it wasn't false. Yes, Rhodesia declared independence but this wasn't recognised internationally. When Ian Smith stepped down, Zimbabwe declared its own independence which was recognised internationally. So the country's not our responsibility any more.

Nice to see one of the wealthiest, most developed nations in Africa continues to be driven further and further in to the ground. I think Mugabe has to get some kind of dubious honor for being the leader that manages to do the most damage to his own country during his time in office.

He probably has the honour but i think he killed it for being incompetant and looking green.

If the west does decide to do another regime change, maybe we could actually, y'know work out how to do it first? But government is far from a science, even at home, so that won't happen any time soon.

they would never let him in :(

I would - I just wouldn't let him inside.

Or I would have him take a shower - then burst into the shower and throw the naked and wet Mugabe out into a blizzard.

Priceless. As if Flash Gordon has enough free time when not saving the world to infect Zimbabwe with Cholera.

In any case, the only contingency upon which I would consent to lifting a finger for Zimbabwe is following a pledge to restore white farmers to their lands.

Any devloped country's interference in Zimbabwe legitamises Mugabe's claims that the West wants to recolonise the country. The only people who can reasonably intervene are his neighbours and they won't.

Mugabe's delusional if he thinks Zimbabwe is worth enough for a country to go through all the trouble of using a Biological Weapon on it...

Honestly...

If those damn brits would jsut stop trying to kill Africans there could be peace in the world

Mugabe's delusional if he thinks Zimbabwe is worth enough for a country to go through all the trouble of using a Biological Weapon on it...

Honestly...

^ This.

Any devloped country's interference in Zimbabwe legitamises Mugabe's claims that the West wants to recolonise the country. The only people who can reasonably intervene are his neighbours and they won't.

Won't? Most of them can't...

Won't? Most of them can't...

And I read they were CALLING for Western Intervention, lol...

Mugabe is the problem, not the government in general. Just arrange an "accident" for him so Tsvangirai can fix things.

I would have to agree that this would require a coalition of African countries, with support from the UN, to resolve this situation.

I just don't believe in the sovereignty of state that is doing nothing whatsoever for its people, we've come to a point in this world where no state is an island, and we cannot, in good conscience watch people suffering on such a scale.

In contrast, I found the hanging of Saddamn Hussein to be despicable and likewise I would not want Robert Mugabe to receive the same, no matter what one thinks of him.

Alas, I don't see China supporting such action, or it would take a lot of negotiation to bring them around, not only do they have sizable investment there, they're also very touchy about internal affairs of a country.

So I guess it's all just going to drag on and when Robert Mugabe dies, someone else in Zanu-PF will take over.

Africa is being raped for resources across the board and the West is just as complicit in propping up insanity to gain raw minerals and resources.

We're all to blame in some way, I read the other day that $450B is spent on Christmas presents each year, a good % of which are either unwanted, unused and unnecessary. Those presents are made from and with resources taken from Africa in a vaguely connected way, whether metals to build machinery or etc.,

Another crime is the theft of intellectual capacity, well-trained nurses lured away from the countries that need them most is the best example.

We're all still savages really.

Mugabe is the problem, not the government in general. Just arrange an "accident" for him so Tsvangirai can fix things.

And what makes you think someone else from the army won't just step up to fill the void?

And what makes you think someone else from the army won't just step up to fill the void?
Off him when he's meeting the high ranking military leaders?

(We're sick people.)

Arm the people so they have the option of removing Mugabe themselves.

Arm the people so they have the option of removing Mugabe themselves.

Right. If there is one thing Africa needs more of, its civil wars and armed resistance groups.

Right. If there is one thing Africa needs more of, its civil wars and armed resistance groups.

Civil war is preferable to a mad dog tyrant.

Civil war is preferable to a mad dog tyrant.

In this case, I will actually agree with that statement. A civil war would be bloody, but not much worse than what is now, and would also be short-term.

Zimbabweans will overthrow him..... as it should be.

Civil war is preferable to a mad dog tyrant.

How? It just expands the killing fields and wont fix the country. At all.

Zimbabwe is going bankrupt and when the soldiers are no longer being paid, they will revolt.
Think Macbeth ("My thains fly from me!"

Like I said earlier on, Zimbabwe has become The Masque of the Red Death. It's hard to have a civil war to overthrow a dictatorship when the only people who aren't puking and shitting themselves to death are likely to be part of Bob Mugabe's regime.

Off him when he's meeting the high ranking military leaders?

(We're sick people.)

And that would accomplish what exactly?

Civil war is preferable to a mad dog tyrant.

Africa has any number of quietish civil wars running. They're called warlords. You see, arming the people, especially if they don't have a unifying cause and leader, tends to breed warlords with different ideas how things should be run and the idea that killing those with different ideas are perfectly fine. You'll just replace one tyrant with a bunch of smaller ones.

If you want to make some serious changes, there's no help for it, forcible removal really is the only way, that and serious amounts of aid convoys with strong escorts and distribution centers to make sure would be bandits and gangs get high velocity particulate pollution for their troubles.

Rebuild it from ground up.

South Africa Really needs to do or toughen it stance towards Mugabe then maybe we will see something happen

South Africa Really needs to do or toughen it stance towards Mugabe then maybe we will see something happen

Hopefully soon now that Friend of Bob Thabo Mbeki is no longer in charge.

We shouldn't get involved, it's not our problem any more. Zimbabwe wanted independence. Independence doesn't just mean freedom, it means you succeed or fail off your own bat. It doesn't mean you get your old colonial masters to bail you out every time you screw up. Enough of this white man's burden crap.

Just because a country isn't your colony anymore. Doesn't mean you can be indifferent.

Civil war is preferable to a mad dog tyrant.I bet the Congolese innocent bystanders disagree. But they're biased, as they're standing in the crossfire.

I would suggest, an African Union Mission to Zimbabwe (Military) headed by South Africa, Nigeria -and the surrounding countries of Mozambique, Angola, Botswana etc., but with Financial and Technological support, possibly even a military contribution, from a Western Power too, most likely the United Kingdom, It would also be a blow to China, because China gives Mugabes governm,ent arms in return fro letting the Chinese rape the Zimbabwean Ecosytem

I think the UN should take the firmest action they can against Mugabe...a joint memorandum suggesting mild disapproval of his policies. And sanctions preventing Zimbabwean imports of tacos. That'll show them that the UN is to be taken seriously!

If Britain wants to treat Mugabe like Saddam Hussein, she can come and try it but no African country would stand by and allow Zimbabwe to be militarily attacked by former colonial powers.

Gordon Brown doesn't care about Zimbabwean people because it was the likes of him and other Western countries that have placed sanctions against that country. Who are they trying to fool?

I think that a targeted assassination of Mugabe would be the way to go. The wait and see approach is just irresponsible - we don't know how bad things can get! And I think even with the same party in power I think things will sort themselves out much faster with Mugabe out of the way.

A full scale war isn't worth the trouble, a lot of people would get killed and Africans don't remember colonial times very fondly. Mugabe's entire appeal is his being anti-western. A war might just solidify support behind him and make Africans despise the west even more. His assassination might do the same - but I think to a much lesser extent. And a lot of people hate Mugabe, if it were just Mugabe who was killed then the ones who did it might make a few friends. (Even if that someone were Britain.)

Can I specify the continent? Good. He is exiled to Antarctica.

No way, he would pollute it. Nice try, though. What about Iceland (it's a continent of its own, more or less).

And I read they were CALLING for Western Intervention, lol...

Yeah, like we don't have already our problems with military actions, like, dunno, Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and pirates off Somalia.

If Britain wants to treat Mugabe like Saddam Hussein, she can come and try it but no African country would stand by and allow Zimbabwe to be militarily attacked by former colonial powers.


This is a fairly optimistic opinion about the unity of african countries. Even excessively optimistic.

In the highly unlikely case some western country would invade Zimbabwe to remove Mugabe, most of Zimbabwe's neighbours would begin fighting each other to expand their borders at the expense of Zimbabwe itself, and the non-neighbouring countries would shout a lot to get a share of the pie, in form of more subsidies to spend in weapons and luxuries for their supporting clans.

And, of course, no african country would ever DREAM to attack a western army. Not because their fear a military retaliation: because they fear the economical retaliation.

Yes. Most african governments really suck.

If Britain wants to treat Mugabe like Saddam Hussein, she can come and try it but no African country would stand by and allow Zimbabwe to be militarily attacked by former colonial powers.

Gordon Brown doesn't care about Zimbabwean people because it was the likes of him and other Western countries that have placed sanctions against that country. Who are they trying to fool?

Perhaps you aren't familiar with the types of sanctions employed, here's a clarifying statement from the EU delegation to Zimbabwe:

http://www.delzwe.ec.europa.eu/en/eu_and_country/EU%20SANCTION%20POSITION.pdf

A more detailed list for your perusal:
http://www.thezimbabwetimes.com/?p=1282

Yeah, like we don't have already our problems with military actions, like, dunno, Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and pirates off Somalia.

In all fairness, US and NATO action against pirates off the Horn of Africa is more like 'target practice for the five inch gun crews' with the added bonus that one has to actually find the blighters.

Regardless.

Just because a country isn't your colony anymore. Doesn't mean you can be indifferent.

Actually, yes you can. It's called 'national sovereignty', and it's quite a splendid invention. Works both ways too. Africans want to be independent and force away Western attempts to modernize their continent economically and politically, that's fine.It's their homeland and we've done enough there to make such attempts subjectively unattractive.

On the same token, Britain or the rest of the West doesn't have to lift a damn finger if they don't want to.

If Britain wants to treat Mugabe like Saddam Hussein, she can come and try it but no African country would stand by and allow Zimbabwe to be militarily attacked by former colonial powers.

Gordon Brown doesn't care about Zimbabwean people because it was the likes of him and other Western countries that have placed sanctions against that country. Who are they trying to fool?

That'd be entertaining, if somewhat impossible; firstly, Africa is simply to diverse, diffuse and fractious to unify over anything. Secondly, the UK would comfortably beat such forces as Africa could muster. Thirdly, no African state would directly oppose an occidental nation if it had any economic relationship with it, which rather rules out the majority of the continent.

Why bother to police the world? You trying to be america;)?

We should go the subterfuge route and stage a coup.

Didn't work out so great for Thatcher when he tried it (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4169557.stm).

Actually, yes you can. It's called 'national sovereignty', and it's quite a splendid invention. Works both ways too. Africans want to be independent and force away Western attempts to modernize their continent economically and politically, that's fine.It's their homeland and we've done enough there to make such attempts subjectively unattractive.

Well, they give up the claim to settle their own problems once they start giving other countries their plagues. Of course, that's only happening in South Africa, and they don't seem to care.

Perhaps you aren't familiar with the types of sanctions employed, here's a clarifying statement from the EU delegation to Zimbabwe:

http://www.delzwe.ec.europa.eu/en/eu_and_country/EU%20SANCTION%20POSITION.pdf

A more detailed list for your perusal:
http://www.thezimbabwetimes.com/?p=1282

how do you think they got cholera?- "humanitarian aid" my ass! In case u can't tell I'm joking :P

Yeah, like we don't have already our problems with military actions, like, dunno, Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and pirates off Somalia.

Oh come on; if only the occidocentric world hadn't misplaced its resolve and balls, and hadn't become enthralled by "soft power", the Somalian pirates would no longer be a problem. Carpet bomb whichever city they primarily operate from, shoot on sight, execute summarily, and wait a few months for the problem to disappear.

An amazing thing
you got 2 american fleets not that far away (Iran)
and scores of pirates off of somalia
and no one seems able to do anything about it

((anyone recall how the old time tripoli pirates were used by the english to control trade))

Oh come on; if only the occidocentric world hadn't misplaced its resolve and balls, and hadn't become enthralled by "soft power", the Somalian pirates would no longer be a problem. Carpet bomb whichever city they primarily operate from, shoot on sight, execute summarily, and wait a few months for the problem to disappear.Excessive force: Solve one problem, get three free!

Der Laerod speaketh der truth on this.
Africa needs to start taking responsibility for its own messes and the West (and The East) has to stop interfering (which is also easier said than done). That doesn't mean that we shouldn't help we should!) But we shouldn't INTERFERE. Western countries supported the nasty white supremacist regimes in Southern Africa right through until the 70's. Their excuse that they were bulwarks against Communism meant that they would sow the seeds of hate that would last for decades.
On the other hand, many idealist Westerners went over to help the new Zimbabwe when it won independence from Ian Smith. For a few years, friends of mine who had qualified as doctors and teachers went over.
The problem was that Mugabe was a rotten scheming Marxist Nationalist and his bad politics were not sufficiently challenged by Zimbabweans or other Africans until it was too late.
Sometimes a lot of shit has to happen before the people realise that they have been had - as the Americans did with George Bush. Once people have tasted bad politics maybe they will embrace good politics. But it is up to the people to free themselves. The west mustn't do it for them. We have simply interfered enough.
Gauthier, hunger and illness is the reason why Mugabe will be overthrown. I bet that elements of his own Praetorian Guard will be the ones to do it.

I would have to agree that this would require a coalition of African countries, with support from the UN, to resolve this situation.

I just don't believe in the sovereignty of state that is doing nothing whatsoever for its people, we've come to a point in this world where no state is an island, and we cannot, in good conscience watch people suffering on such a scale.

In contrast, I found the hanging of Saddamn Hussein to be despicable and likewise I would not want Robert Mugabe to receive the same, no matter what one thinks of him.

Alas, I don't see China supporting such action, or it would take a lot of negotiation to bring them around, not only do they have sizable investment there, they're also very touchy about internal affairs of a country.

So I guess it's all just going to drag on and when Robert Mugabe dies, someone else in Zanu-PF will take over.

Africa is being raped for resources across the board and the West is just as complicit in propping up insanity to gain raw minerals and resources.

We're all to blame in some way, I read the other day that $450B is spent on Christmas presents each year, a good % of which are either unwanted, unused and unnecessary. Those presents are made from and with resources taken from Africa in a vaguely connected way, whether metals to build machinery or etc.,

Another crime is the theft of intellectual capacity, well-trained nurses lured away from the countries that need them most is the best example.

We're all still savages really.
Hang on a minute
Yes a coalition is a good idea and support from the UN agreed.
Africa was ruined by the colonial powers, who promptly left them, agreed they did mess them up.

However I don’t see how I am to blame for something my ancestors did, it’s like blaming the current German Prime Minister for letting the Holocaust happen all those years ago.

No Christmas presents are a necessary part of a Western ritual, from the very few rituals the West have why attack this one?
The resources taken to make those presents create trade, which bring in income for African countries (admittedly not enough, partly due to a lack of market savvy with African countries and their limited power on the world stage) and at least gives their peoples a chance for employment.

See well-trained nurses may not want to travel thousands of miles because they have their own families they might like to see sooner rather than later, not all nurses are heroes by the way, they are ordinary people with their own needs it’s none of their concern what happens in some dictatorship on the other side of the planet.

So what I’m saying is Africa needs to sort out it’s differences in some way. But as soon as the West might intervene this undermines the African people’s ability to cope with trouble, it undermines their authority and it in some cases creates countries far too reliant on foreign aid, or the aid reaches the wrong hands.

I understand your reasoning, but it’s flawed in a number of places. Africa needs assistance but it has to find a way on it’s own.

Excessive force: Solve one problem, get three free!

Requiring that all merchant ships be armed with mounted heavy machineguns and carry a vetted security force would solve the Somali pirate problem quite handily, despite the increase in paperwork.

A policy of non negotiation, vastly increased aerial/satellite surveillance and authorization for immediate deployment of airborne marines to recapture any vessel would also work quite nicely.

In fact, with decent satellite surveillance of the area, identifying pirate motherships should be quite simple by the act of backtracking footage of raider boats back to their motherships. Gunships can do the rest.

Mugabe's regime is quite possibly the most incompetent regime in centuries and I'm talking worldwide. His regime has had a more devestating influence on Zimbabwe than Hitler's influence on Germany and Stalin's influence on Russia combined. Magube's only rival is North Korea's little dictator and at least Kim is good at something. Under just one idiot, Africa's most prosperous nation grew into the world's least prosperous.

And here he is blaming another country for a problem caused by his regime's incompetence. Why is there so much Cholera there? Simple. Crappy infrastructure and virtually nonexistant medical care. It's no exageration when I say making Bush and Cheney Zimbabwe's dictators-for-life would be a vast improvement.

It doesn't matter anyway. Soon, there will be a world war of epic proportions. On one side, Zeppelin, Anpu, Santa, Abraham Lincoln (he's taking names once and kicking ass twice), and possibly zombie Jesus (if he isn't too busy planning the apocalypse...I mean his second coming. Not that there's a difference). Their weapon of of choice is Zeppelin. Lots and lots of Zeppelin.

On the other side, Mugabe and his army of Scientologists. Armed with enough Tom Cruise missiles to turn Jupiter into a supernova, their incompatence in Zimbabwe is just training exercises for their upcoming global conquest. It all makes sense now...I mean squee...er...SILENCE!!!

Hang on a minute
Yes a coalition is a good idea and support from the UN agreed.
Africa was ruined by the colonial powers, who promptly left them, agreed they did mess them up.

However I don’t see how I am to blame for something my ancestors did, it’s like blaming the current German Prime Minister for letting the Holocaust happen all those years ago.

No Christmas presents are a necessary part of a Western ritual, from the very few rituals the West have why attack this one?
The resources taken to make those presents create trade, which bring in income for African countries (admittedly not enough, partly due to a lack of market savvy with African countries and their limited power on the world stage) and at least gives their peoples a chance for employment.

See well-trained nurses may not want to travel thousands of miles because they have their own families they might like to see sooner rather than later, not all nurses are heroes by the way, they are ordinary people with their own needs it’s none of their concern what happens in some dictatorship on the other side of the planet.

So what I’m saying is Africa needs to sort out it’s differences in some way. But as soon as the West might intervene this undermines the African people’s ability to cope with trouble, it undermines their authority and it in some cases creates countries far too reliant on foreign aid, or the aid reaches the wrong hands.

I understand your reasoning, but it’s flawed in a number of places. Africa needs assistance but it has to find a way on it’s own.

I could write many of my answers as a complete essay, if I were so inclined and if I didn't think they'd be a little tl;dr, and part of the problem is I try to squeeze a lot of separate strands of thought into short paragraphs, which means the context and connections are often lost.

Also, the $450B figure is wildly wrong, it's $45B

My points were:

1. The elite of Africa are kept in place by selling off resources to developed countries, making huge money while keeping the citizens poor. Western consumerism fuels this.

I've not alluded to colonialism at all, I'm talking about the current state of affairs, though I certainly wasn't clear.

2. We could be spending $45B far better, it's estimated that to provide clean water to everyone in Africa would cost not even 10% of that.

As consumers, as individuals, we can all make small changes to help the world, it's not enough to just point and blame. I also don't think the money made from trade trickles down to the average African.

This video is quite thought-provoking, despite its source - http://hk.youtube.com/watch?v=eVqqj1v-ZBU

3. There are agencies in places such as Africa that deliberately lure nurses out of Africa to work for cheap in the NHS as an example, though I think your point that these nurses are individuals who can choose is very valid and I can't really disagree, I'm just not overly happy with the situation, that doesn't include the best from universities, scientists and technicians etc.,

We should be concerned over what happens elsewhere, especially when we can influence through better choices.

EDIT: Re-reading this, it might appear as counter to your points, it's meant as complementary and explaining my own shortcomings per previous post,

1. The elite of Africa are kept in place by selling off resources to developed countries, making huge money while keeping the citizens poor. Western consumerism fuels this.

I've not alluded to colonialism at all, I'm talking about the current state of affairs, though I certainly wasn't clear.

2. We could be spending $45B far better, it's estimated that to provide clean water to everyone in Africa would cost not even 10% of that.

As consumers, as individuals, we can all make small changes to help the world, it's not enough to just point and blame. I also don't think the money made from trade trickles down to the average African.

This video is quite thought-provoking, despite its source - http://hk.youtube.com/watch?v=eVqqj1v-ZBU

I think Robert Mugabe has adequately demonstrated that not trading with African countries you don't like doesn't hasten the departure of bad leaders or improve life for the average African. A lot of aid money ends up going to support dictators - should we stop giving to charities that operate in Africa as well?

There are agencies in places such as Africa that deliberately lure nurses out of Africa to work for cheap in the NHS as an example

This is badly worded. I'm pretty sure that foreign born NHS staff don't 'work for cheap', they get the same as British born nurses.

I think Robert Mugabe has adequately demonstrated that not trading with African countries you don't like doesn't hasten the departure of bad leaders or improve life for the average African. A lot of aid money ends up going to support dictators - should we stop giving to charities that operate in Africa as well?

We buy goods in China made from materials sourced from Zimbabwe, the world is more connected than simple country to country trade.

Again, I'm not talking about governments, I'm talking about us as individuals making informed decisions where possible. I certainly understand that not everyone has the luxury or time to check things but every little action helps.

It's similar to the environment, we can't expect governments to change things when the will of the people is not there, change is enacted by each of us.

This is badly worded. I'm pretty sure that foreign born NHS staff don't 'work for cheap', they get the same as British born nurses.

Possibly, I'm not sure they move much off the bottom rung of the ladder though.

I can't believe I'm going to say this, and I feel so dirty saying it, but it's true.

Kim Jong-Il is a better leader then Mugabe.

I can't believe I'm going to say this, and I feel so dirty saying it, but it's true.

Kim Jong-Il is a better leader then Mugabe.

I'm not even sure one can apply the term 'leader' to either, they're so isolated from reality, much like the Burmese junta who built a new capital city so they could get away from the people.

They're simply rich, protected people who consider the country's resources as their own.

There's worse countries than Zimbabwe,

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/a-murderous-dictator-his-rapper-son-and-a-700mayear-oil-boom-566494.html

Robert Mugabe gets attention because of his treatment of white people in Zimbabwe, and they keep him in the news having emigrated back to the UK, he's just one among many.

I'm not even sure one can apply the term 'leader' to either, they're so isolated from reality, much like the Burmese junta who built a new capital city so they could get away from the people.

They're simply rich, protected people who consider the country's resources as their own.

There's worse countries than Zimbabwe,

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/a-murderous-dictator-his-rapper-son-and-a-700mayear-oil-boom-566494.html

Robert Mugabe gets attention because of his treatment of white people in Zimbabwe, and they keep him in the news having emigrated back to the UK, he's just one among many.

They're leaders because they're the ones making the big decisions.
I doubt there are very many places worse than Zimbabwe. And there are only a handful in world history that fell as far as Zimbabwe. We're talking a country that in just a matter of years, went from one of the most prosperous nations on an entire continent to quite possibly THE least prosperous in the entire WORLD with inflation in the hundreds of millions percentile.

And it's not just whites he's mistreating. It's everyone that isn't in his inner circle. He rewards cronyism as his country struggles with famine, virtually-nonexistant infrastructure, and epidemics resulting from said famine and nonexistant infrastructure. It's amazing how sick a populous can get if food is scarce and expensive, clean water is even more scarce, and medical care is about as far-fetched a dream as ruling the entire world from a space ship made of pure gold with an army of jackal-anubis-things at your disposal....why can't I be a jackal-person-anubis thing? the human body is ugly. Just look at it.

We buy goods in China made from materials sourced from Zimbabwe, the world is more connected than simple country to country trade.

Quite. But Zimbabwe engages in far less trade as a proportion of its economy than any other country in the region other than DR Congo.

Again, I'm not talking about governments, I'm talking about us as individuals making informed decisions where possible. I certainly understand that not everyone has the luxury or time to check things but every little action helps.

It's similar to the environment, we can't expect governments to change things when the will of the people is not there, change is enacted by each of us.

It doesn't matter whether its governments, businesses or individuals who refuse to trade with a country, the end result is the same - less exports get bought. That doesn't change the fact that despite a massive decline in exports from Zimbabwe over the years due to Western queasiness about dealing with the country and the collapse of most organised business, Robert Mugabe is still in power. You are suggesting that if we, as individuals, stop buying stuff from African dictators that will somehow improve things. We've more or less stopped buying stuff from Zimbabwe - how has it helped there?

And it's not just whites he's mistreating. It's everyone that isn't in his inner circle. He rewards cronyism as his country struggles with famine, virtually-nonexistant infrastructure, and epidemics resulting from said famine and nonexistant infrastructure.

I know it's not just whites he's mistreating, but that's the reason there's disproportionate focus on Zimbabwe, leading to sanctions that increase the economic problem.

I'm certainly placing most of the blame on Robert Mugabe but it's takes more than one to tango and there are many factors that go towards creating this situation. Absolutely if Robert Mugabe had any concern for his people whatsoever, there might be better solutions.

It doesn't matter whether its governments, businesses or individuals who refuse to trade with a country, the end result is the same - less exports get bought. That doesn't change the fact that despite a massive decline in exports from Zimbabwe over the years due to Western queasiness about dealing with the country and the collapse of most organised business, Robert Mugabe is still in power. You are suggesting that if we, as individuals, stop buying stuff from African dictators that will somehow improve things. We've more or less stopped buying stuff from Zimbabwe - how has it helped there?

This misses the point, where is Robert Mugabe getting money from?

This misses the point, where is Robert Mugabe getting money from?

He's printing it. That's why they have 23 million percent inflation.

Requiring that all merchant ships be armed with mounted heavy machineguns and carry a vetted security force would solve the Somali pirate problem quite handily, despite the increase in paperwork.

A policy of non negotiation, vastly increased aerial/satellite surveillance and authorization for immediate deployment of airborne marines to recapture any vessel would also work quite nicely.

In fact, with decent satellite surveillance of the area, identifying pirate motherships should be quite simple by the act of backtracking footage of raider boats back to their motherships. Gunships can do the rest.Carpet bombing, on the other hand, would likely open up cans of worms that'll eat their ways into apples for generations.

He's printing it. That's why they have 23 million percent inflation.

Sure, Mugabe's money is in Zimbabwe currency.

Anglo-American, Barclay's, BAT all have investments in Zimbabwe, Anglo-America pumped another GBP200M in this year and that's not counting other companies from other countries.

Sure, Mugabe's money is in Zimbabwe currency.

Anglo-American, Barclay's, BAT all have investments in Zimbabwe, Anglo-America pumped another GBP200M in this year and that's not counting other companies from other countries.

No, his own personal money will be what he has amassed over almost thirty years of rule. A boycott of Zimbabwe won't erase the money he has already got. Foreign investments remain small scale and even ending that won't magically remove Mugabe. There will just be less Zimbabweans getting cash in a usable currency and more people to add to the 85% employment rate.

He's printing it. That's why they have 23 million percent inflation.

your being way to optimistic try 516 quintillion per cent inflation. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/zimbabwe/3453540/Zimbabwe-hyperinflation-will-set-world-record-within-six-weeks.html