Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 37
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    London, Britannia.
    Posts
    3,077

    Angry News/Opinion : 2 children die as Mugabe continues destruction of homes. We do NOTHING

    Article extract >>

    Two children die in Zimbabwe bulldozing
    11.18AM, Thu Jun 23 2005


    Two Zimbabwean children have been crushed to death by rubble during the Mugabe ordered demolition of houses that has made tens of thousands homeless.

    The deaths are the first reported in Zimbabwe's "Operation Restore Order".

    And as President Mugabe continues his policy of bulldozing the homes of his opponents, 150 civil and human rights groups will make an unprecedented call on the UN and African Union to help the people of Zimbabwe.

    It has emerged that the country's poorest and hungriest have now been banned from growing their own food on public land.

    In the last three weeks, hundreds of thousands of people have been left homeless in the wasteland around Harare as a result of the Mugabe government's operation to crack down on illegal traders and the affected areas are visible on satellite pictures.

    The bulldozing of houses has left behind a dire wasteland that looks like a disaster zone, leaving behind chaos and trauma.

    People are forced to sleep in ruins or to migrate to rural areas where starvation is already rife. To make matters worse, President Mugabe has just announced that he plans to ban the urban population from growing their own food.

    Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said: "Anybody who saw the reports of the brutal use of conflict by Robert Mugabe to make 500,000 of his own people homeless will understand just what conflict in Africa means... So far, efforts by the British Government, European Governments and world Governments have failed stop Mugabe's brutality.

    End extract <<

    Source :: http://www.itv.com/news/index_81904.html

    Related story:: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/...in703620.shtml


    Jack Straw may claim that Britain uner the Labour government have done much but i haven't seen it. They madea right hash of every Cricket tour involving Zimbabwe in the last 3 or 4 years.

    In terms of action in real in your face terms, we've done nothing, we're doing nothing and i can't see that chaning in the future.

    We've more or less left these people to ROT! before and whilst the world has concentrated its focus on the Middle East.

    Oh there have been words from the UN, New Zealand and Australia have spoken out and so has Britain, although in proportion our stance and actions are a joke, a disgrace.

    If we have to pull out forces from other areas around the world, so be it. It's time that Britain at least [hopefully with the assistance of others], started doing what was right and not what is politically convenient regarding Africal. We don't have to use the potential for them being put into action will help our position. The least we could do is shout a lot in doplomatic terms, all we do is whisper in shadows, it achieves nout!

    If any of you saw the ITV News undercover exclusive report last night and last week, it only backs up the fears you already had. Zimbabwe was once the bread basket of Africa, now people are being prevented from growing crops at a time of food shortages and rapid inflation. Hundreds of thousands of homes destroyed, whole villages and towns now only rubble on the African landscape. Cn last night's report, one Father said his children were asking him where they would now do their homework. Allowing mroe children in Africa to go to school and reep the benefits of it is one of the main goals.

    One of the two big subjects tht will be discussed ant next month's G8 meeting will be "poverty", words like debt cancellation and trade justice cop up often and voluntarily, why must this ussue and others like it be forced.

    Iraq, Afghanistan or not, the capacity remains to do....something. If inroads are not made and soon, an inteventionist force composed of i would hope at least, 2-3,000 British personnel and AU troops making up the buik could have plans drwn up for its deployment. It would be nice if cooperation from many African Commonwealth members could e counted upon and nost just that of Australia, New Zealand and Canada.


    Would America be part of it, i dont know, hopefully in some form or another.

    But these are all just a suggestions on my part, you can make some of your own??

    Opinions?? Comments, generally??


    Critic,
    Last edited by Critic; 06-23-2005 at 09:58 AM.
    The 9 words of life quote -
    "Act with honour, seek justice, die true, remembered well."
    GO LDN 2012 ~ AIM = Critic News Info

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    London, Britannia.
    Posts
    3,077
    Update -

    Article extract >>

    24.06.05


    By Helen Tunnah


    The Government has indicated Zimbabwe's cricket team will be banned from touring here in December in protest against human rights abuses by Robert Mugabe's rogue regime.

    End extract <<

    For full article :: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/index.cfm?...ectID=10332439

    New development and only in the last few horus fromw hat i gather. If only we'd had similar clarity to our message when their team came to tour Britain or visa versa.

    Critic,
    The 9 words of life quote -
    "Act with honour, seek justice, die true, remembered well."
    GO LDN 2012 ~ AIM = Critic News Info

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Fairfax, Virginia
    Posts
    6,834
    Meanwhile, I drink a frosted glass of Virgil's root beer and enjoy Bob Marley.

    Ahhhh... the world we live in.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Houston Texas
    Posts
    4,420
    rmember that the rest of the world does not want us to interfere with other countries. we are trying to wind down iraq and afghanistan - so that we can be in compliance with popular world opinion. why should we go there and do something? to take another global lashing for interfering? I dont think so.
    Dedicated Servers
    WWW.NETDEPOT.COM
    Since 2000

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    9,851
    Nice one Sailor.
    Blame everyone else.

    Of course you are right. The US is going broke spending billions and billions of dollars on a fool's war that they let their own "intelligence" suck them into, so they don't really have any money left to help in other countries.

    Oh, and perhaps it should be mentioned that Zimbabwe has nothing to offer. No oil equals no US intervention.

    Or perhaps you have forgotten Rwanda already?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    London, Britannia.
    Posts
    3,077
    I can understand why some Americans would be wary of entering into another slightly controversial interventionist policy. Despite that, it would not be beyond the American's military to provide ligisitiacl support for any force that goes in. Thqat is somewhere where the British military could do with a hand.

    However, Britain does ahve a differnt and totally unique relationship with the situation. And people can criticise us all they want if we do act.

    Out of all the palces in the world that Britain has sent its miitary or stood up and on the diplomatic stage in recent years, i don't think any deserved our invovlement more tjhan Zimbabwe. With the exception of any forces deployed to help in the aid effort after the Tsunami.

    As i said in my opening post, the boots don't need to be on the ground yet, we've barely applied any political/diplomatic pressure on Mugabe. We do nothing, utter a few polite words maybe but that prevents none of this nor does it create a better future for these people. The MDC in Zimbabwe need our assistance.

    Look at it like this, more people ahve probably been made hoeless or affected by the bulldozing of their homes in the last week in SZimbabwe, than in the last year in Gaza and the West Bank. Yet which receives mroe attention both by both politicians and the media.

    Critic,
    Last edited by Critic; 06-23-2005 at 04:58 PM.
    The 9 words of life quote -
    "Act with honour, seek justice, die true, remembered well."
    GO LDN 2012 ~ AIM = Critic News Info

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Fairfax, Virginia
    Posts
    6,834
    Originally posted by sailor
    rmember that the rest of the world does not want us to interfere with other countries. we are trying to wind down iraq and afghanistan - so that we can be in compliance with popular world opinion. why should we go there and do something? to take another global lashing for interfering? I dont think so.
    When did the international community say that -- ever, ever, EVER? Just because it is upset with the U.S.-led invasion and occupation of Iraq doesn't mean it doesn't encourage us to solve humanitarian issues -- but, somehow, I don't see Bush invading Zimbabwe to actually help anyone, nor would I support it.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    London, Britannia.
    Posts
    3,077
    WHTers, please , let's not bicker about the perception some people have of American foreign policy in the past.

    What do you think should be done about the situation in Zimbabwe? Realistically and in what time period, what stages?

    And who who hasn't done enough in the wider world to tackle the problem? Who and what is at fault?

    SniperDevil, could you answer those questions with your opposition to any intervention [i'm assuming that from your "invasion" statement of course, correct me if that is false] in mind?

    thansk a lot

    Critic,
    Last edited by Critic; 06-23-2005 at 05:10 PM.
    The 9 words of life quote -
    "Act with honour, seek justice, die true, remembered well."
    GO LDN 2012 ~ AIM = Critic News Info

  9. #9
    Well i say we should help .. it's about time we did something 'good' for people. We are always being told to help others but the leaders of our country refuse to take action. Im not sure if this is true .. but it;s about time we started helping.
    http://www.viperhosting.net
    ViperHosting 2005. The new generation "Excellence doesn't have to be expensive"

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Fairfax, Virginia
    Posts
    6,834
    Originally posted by Critic
    What do you think should be done about the situation in Zimbabwe? Realistically and in what time period, what stages?
    I have no idea, but I don't think it's appropriate right now, considering what we're dealing with over in Iraq.

    Originally posted by Critic
    And who who hasn't done enough in the wider world to tackle the problem? Who and what is at fault?
    There are always going to be intertribal clashes and tensions, as well as the more unfortunate atrocities that tend to accompany the former. As I understand it, there has been a lot of opposition to Mugabe's government for many years; many people see him as a racially motivated dictator, not a democratic(ally-elected) leader.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    London, Britannia.
    Posts
    3,077
    I have no idea, but I don't think it's appropriate right now, considering what we're dealing with over in Iraq
    Do yous ay that because of the mood in America itself or abroad towaard US foreign policy?

    Should that one, "mistake" if that is how you see it, influence future missions even if they are justified themselves?

    Would the Zimbabwe issue and others like it have to wait until Bush is out of office before the US could become invovled in your view?

    Would you even rule out logistical support for a stabilisation/peacekeeping force if it were sent in?

    There are always going to be intertribal clashes and tensions, as well as the more unfortunate atrocities that tend to accompany the former. As I understand it, there has been a lot of opposition to Mugabe's government for many years; many people see him as a racially motivated dictator, not a democratic(ally-elected) leader.
    Granted for forced seizure of farms and property by Mugabe was racially motivated and we should ahve acted mroe strongly then. However, zimbabweans of all colours suffer under the Mugabe government. Tribe is not at the heart of the issue, well not in the way that you would think when using that term, it's a clash of vision and ideas between the ruling Zanu PF and the Movement for Demcoratic Change and others who oppsoe the Mugabe and the government.

    I found this article on allafrica.com


    >>>>>>>

    Felix Njini
    Harare

    FORMER information minister Jonathan Moyo this week played up the confusion within ZANU PF, saying President Robert Mugabe's close lieutenants were busy setting booby traps for each other as the succession battle hots up.

    Moyo, a strident defender of President Mugabe and the ruling ZANU PF in the past five years until his sacking from government earlier this year, said the ruling party's old guard lacked the capacity to deal with the succession issue, which has become a hot potato.

    President Mugabe has hinted at retirement in 2008, but has refused to anoint his successor.

    "ZANU PF's old guard are unable to deal with this issue openly. As a result, a lot of games are being played by the old guard, setting booby traps for one another," Moyo said. "ZANU PF is a sunset party not only because of the hot succession issue but also because it has been in power for much too long and desperately needs to re-invent itself in order to catch up with the rest of society and the world," he added.

    Moyo said despite ZANU PF's much celebrated increased majority in parliament, an economy which is on its knees remains the party's biggest challenge.

    ZANU PF, which has ruled Zimbabwe for the past 25 years, won 78 seats out of the contested 120 seats in the widely disputed March parliamentary poll. Moyo stood as an independent in that election and won the Tsholotsho seat.

    "But ZANU PF does not know what to do with its huge majority because it does not know how or why it got it," he said. "What was it for? For what policy programme after the elections."

    ZANU PF spokesperson Nathan Shamuyarira refused to comment.

    President Mugabe sacked the former government spin-doctor last year after he chose to stand as an independent candidate in his home constituency, Tsholotsho in the March elections.

    Moyo had also been linked to a faction within the ruling party which suffered a body blow in the run-up to the ZANU PF congress held in December last year.

    The succession issue in ZANU PF, which threatened to split the party ahead of its December 2004 congress, is expected to reach boiling point as 2008 approaches.

    The former government spin-doctor - who became a hate figure for opposition groups for his abrasive style of politics - has previously clashed with ZANU PF gurus, John Nkomo, Dumiso Dabengwa and Nathan Shamuyarira among others and has instituted defamation proceedings against Nkomo and Dabengwa.

    Moyo has hinted he would side with the opposition MDC in parliament.

    <<<<<<<

    Zimbawe cannot be left to continue on as it is now until Mugabe's reitrement in 2008. His succession could create its own problems, civil conflict and even greater disorder in the country with what remaining infrastructure there is unable to cope. Then we would avhe not chocie but to move in and in far greater numbers, with an even bigger problem to deal with.


    This broke only in the alst few hours....

    "US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has urged African leaders to speak out against forced evictions in Zimbabwe and other alleged human rights abuses."

    For article :: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4123286.stm

    Jack Straw has done the same but sruely the time for mere words and asking people to speak out has long since apst. We need to be decisive and stay true to our convictions. Talk would leave Mugabe in power, talk woould leave the Zanu PF to govern, talk will not get the country abck on its feet once again, TALK, is just not good enough anymore.

    Zimbabwe and Darfur and other such probelms continue, despite out current committments we can and shoud be doing more. Do we want to look acbk in a decade or so's time and be confonted with a legion of "shouldv'e done's" and "if only's" in the most horrific fashion??

    I say that we bloody don't.

    If we do indeed act, let people oppose us for they are hiding away and ignoring what they all know is right, and just. And for what? Political expediecncy and an easy life? HA

    Neither come before what is right and just.

    We don't even know who stands against us at the UN because we've never forced the issue.

    I know in my heart that Britain shoudl be doing more [particularly with the Commonwealth connections], whether the US join us and you share that, it is up to you.

    Critic,
    The 9 words of life quote -
    "Act with honour, seek justice, die true, remembered well."
    GO LDN 2012 ~ AIM = Critic News Info

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Houston Texas
    Posts
    4,420
    Originally posted by blue27
    Nice one Sailor.
    Blame everyone else.

    Of course you are right. The US is going broke spending billions and billions of dollars on a fool's war that they let their own "intelligence" suck them into, so they don't really have any money left to help in other countries.

    Oh, and perhaps it should be mentioned that Zimbabwe has nothing to offer. No oil equals no US intervention.

    Or perhaps you have forgotten Rwanda already?
    yes I remember ruwanda - in fact saw the movie about a month ago - nice documentary on how the rest of the world turned their backs - including those countries bashing the us.

    blame? not really - just truth. lets see the rest of the world step up to the plate and lead for once.

    come on -we are waiting......
    Dedicated Servers
    WWW.NETDEPOT.COM
    Since 2000

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Fairfax, Virginia
    Posts
    6,834
    Originally posted by Critic
    Do yous ay that because of the mood in America itself or abroad towaard US foreign policy?
    For almost every reason I can think of, I don't think we ought to get ourselves mixed up in this right now. To kill two birds with one stone ("Would the Zimbabwe issue and others like it have to wait until Bush is out of office before the US could become involved in your view?"), I especially don't support such a mission when Bush is in office. If we somehow screw up, our reputation is going to be screwed even further. With Bush in office, people are always going to find something that was done incorrectly or could have been done better, and I don't think he's the best candidate for this job.

    Besides, I think the issue in Sudan deserves far more attention than the Zimbabwe one, if we were to choose either one to support.

    Originally posted by Critic
    Should that one, "mistake" if that is how you see it, influence future missions even if they are justified themselves?
    If Bush is in office, unfortunately, my answer must be "definitely". To use the same metaphor as I have used before, Bush is "Peter" in Peter and the Wolf, and I think he's cried "wolf" a few too many times now, albeit sometimes more vehemently than others.

    Originally posted by Critic
    Would you even rule out logistical support for a stabilisation/peacekeeping force if it were sent in?
    I have absolutely no authority on the issue, practically or morally speaking. Before I were to make a decision, I would have to understand just what we were logistically supporting. Besides, I don't think it would ever come to purely logistical support; who would ask this support of us?

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    9,851
    Originally posted by sailor
    yes I remember ruwanda - in fact saw the movie about a month ago - nice documentary on how the rest of the world turned their backs - including those countries bashing the us.

    blame? not really - just truth. lets see the rest of the world step up to the plate and lead for once.

    come on -we are waiting......

    The rest of the world doesn't go around saying that they are spreading freedom and democracy. The rest of the world doesn't go around making claims of being the greatest country in the world when it comes to human rights and supporting human rights in other countries.

    If you are going to talk the talk, walk the walk.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,569
    its funny how on this board the same people that criticise america, say its not the worlds police etc etc are the same ones that criticise the country for not getting involved elsewhere..

    i personally think we should be making more efforts to help both humanitarian crisises that are occuring in sudan and zimbabwe - 2 bad governments that only have themselves at heart

    i dont think we should be relying on the African Union either, as they seem to turn a blind eye every time someone asks them to intervene. they quite rightly said a while back that africas problems should be dealt with by africans, but then they say things like 'we shouldnt interfere with zimbabwes internal actions'. south africa, which seems to have quite a good reputation on the world stage due to Nelson Mandela, supports and backs up zimbabwe every step of the way

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4618341.stm

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    London, Britannia.
    Posts
    3,077
    Originally posted by SniperDevil
    Besides, I think the issue in Sudan deserves far more attention than the Zimbabwe one, if we were to choose either one to support.

    I have absolutely no authority on the issue, practically or morally speaking. Before I were to make a decision, I would have to understand just what we were logistically supporting. Besides, I don't think it would ever come to purely logistical support; who would ask this support of us?
    Hey i'm not gonna disagree with you on Sudan, i've said on here before that we should be doing more there also., I suppose my answe to that would be, don' choose between then, act on both.

    Military intervention might not take place on both or at the same time and to the same degree. If other nations are to join such a force they would need countries like America or Britain to take a leading role, whether it merely a mianly diplomatic one. There is no point in me telling you that the US Armed Forces have the capacity to pull it off, since for you the problem stanidn in America's way is a political one. You also wouldnt' want to oput your reputation at further risk. A shame really, i disagree with it but can understand it.

    Who wouls ask the support of you? Britain, other member nations of an intervention force, NATO, the UN if it can be arsed.

    You dont' want to get into deep whilst committed in other areas around the world, you don't want to worsen the perception that some have of America overseas?

    But surely though, the same things which made America intervene in places like Somalia, Kosovo, Haiti and Iraq in recent years, are still true to you today?

    Originally posted by Slidey
    its funny how on this board the same people that criticise america, say its not the worlds police etc etc are the same ones that criticise the country for not getting involved elsewhere..

    i personally think we should be making more efforts to help both humanitarian crisises that are occuring in sudan and zimbabwe - 2 bad governments that only have themselves at heart

    i dont think we should be relying on the African Union either, as they seem to turn a blind eye every time someone asks them to intervene. they quite rightly said a while back that africas problems should be dealt with by africans, but then they say things like 'we shouldnt interfere with zimbabwes internal actions'. south africa, which seems to have quite a good reputation on the world stage due to Nelson Mandela, supports and backs up zimbabwe every step of the way

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4618341.stm
    That resonse form the AU and the South African government is a complete joke, it shoudl bring shame down upon them both.


    This is a section from tha article you posted...


    >>>>>>>

    'Irritated'

    "If the government that they elected say they are restoring order by their actions, I don't think it would be proper for us to go interfering in their internal legislation," AU spokesman Desmond Orjiako told the BBC's Network Africa programme.

    His comments were backed up by South Africa, Zimbabwe's giant neighbour, which some see as the key to solving Zimbabwe's problems.

    Presidential spokesman Bheki Khumalo said he was "irritated" by calls from UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw to do more to end the "horrors" in Zimbabwe.

    "South Africa refuses to accept the notion that because suddenly we're going to a G8 summit, we must be reminded that we must look good and appease the G8 leaders," he said.

    "We will do things because we believe they are correct and right."

    <<<<<<<

    The AU either agree with what Mugabe is doing or jsut turn a blind eye to it which is just as bad right now. Oh and the South African's are "irritated".

    They refuse to help themselves, so we'll just have to pick our fights carefully and introduce stability, hopefully by rasie the quality of lfie in those areas, it will be seen by the "sitting on their hands" brigade or their people and become a force for change and good.

    There are some exception to the rule in Africa but disappointingly few.

    So many people in Darfur have just been sacrificed by the outside world sice 2003. We've been doing the smae in Zimbabwe for longer still and quite a bit actually.

    Any plan for intervention would be greatly affected by the AU's and South Africa's current stance. We'd need for support of surrounding countries to deploy the equipment and personnel for any stabilisation force. If not, we'd have to fly it all in, either from African allies further afield or aircraft carriers and other ships from a Naval Force we wouls send to the region.

    Any operation in Darfur and Sudan wouldn't suffer to as great an extent. Surrounidng countries would be mroe receptive to a decisive and welcom soultion to the problem there.

    The least we can expect is a UN Resolution paving the way for intervention, time to turn the screw on these people.

    The Conservatives call for UN action on Zimbabwe over crimes against humanity :: http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=4736379

    sailor, and how long shouldl America wiat?

    Critic,
    Last edited by Critic; 06-24-2005 at 11:08 AM.
    The 9 words of life quote -
    "Act with honour, seek justice, die true, remembered well."
    GO LDN 2012 ~ AIM = Critic News Info

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    2,360
    Originally posted by Slidey
    its funny how on this board the same people that criticise america, say its not the worlds police etc etc are the same ones that criticise the country for not getting involved elsewhere..

    i personally think we should be making more efforts to help both humanitarian crisises that are occuring in sudan and zimbabwe - 2 bad governments that only have themselves at heart

    i dont think we should be relying on the African Union either, as they seem to turn a blind eye every time someone asks them to intervene. they quite rightly said a while back that africas problems should be dealt with by africans, but then they say things like 'we shouldnt interfere with zimbabwes internal actions'. south africa, which seems to have quite a good reputation on the world stage due to Nelson Mandela, supports and backs up zimbabwe every step of the way

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4618341.stm
    If US and UK do intervene in Zimbabwe, the world will cry foul, saying white supporting whites, messing in internal affairs of sovereign nations.

    If they dont' intervene, they are even criticised. It is a tough world.

    I think it is best left to the UN.

    But for one moment, lets clear our heads. Thabo Mbeki is quite right.

    South Africa's President Thabo Mbeki has questioned why the West is so concerned by Zimbabwe but makes relatively little noise about other African emergencies, such as the Democratic Republic of Congo, where some three million people died in a civil war, and where armed bands kill, rape and loot with impunity in some areas.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    London, Britannia.
    Posts
    3,077
    Originally posted by hellind2
    If US and UK do intervene in Zimbabwe, the world will cry foul, saying white supporting whites, messing in internal affairs of sovereign nations.

    If they dont' intervene, they are even criticised. It is a tough world.
    If the "world" were to cry foul on thsoe ground, not only would they be totally incorrect but also ignoring the pleas of Zimbabweans of all colours. The leader of the MDC [leading Opposition gorup], Morgan Tsvangirai is black.

    If we do go in, we will receive some harsh words from some in the global community and a frosty reception by Zanu PF in Zimbabwe. If we don't go in, the injustice continues, people will continue to be persecuted, maded homeless, assaulted, starve and die.

    Originally posted by hellind2
    I think it is best left to the UN.
    Things can only be left to the UN for so long, if action is not forthcoming then you have to look to your own solutions. We might not even need to send the forces in on such a large scale, the every threat and highly public deployment, the turning of the screw, could however unlikley, be enough to force a change at the highest level fo the Zimbabwean government. Then we take it from there, we might well have to send in some personnel regardless but it would be a start.

    Originally posted by hellind2
    But for one moment, lets clear our heads. Thabo Mbeki is quite right.

    quote:
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    South Africa's President Thabo Mbeki has questioned why the West is so concerned by Zimbabwe but makes relatively little noise about other African emergencies, such as the Democratic Republic of Congo, where some three million people died in a civil war, and where armed bands kill, rape and loot with impunity in some areas.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Thabo Mbeki is right in what sense?

    What took place in the DRC was and remains an unacceptable situation. However does President Mbeki miss the very important fact that there is a UN peacekeeping force on the ground as w speak. Now it's embarrassingly small when compared to other deployments and the size of the country but it is there. We've got nowhere enar that stage with Zimbabwe and to a lesser extent Darfur.

    If he needs to question why people are concerned about the problems in Zimbabwe, then that reflects mroe poorly on him that it does anyone else.

    I'd like to know why he as the President of one of Africa's leading nation's has done so little with regard to Zimbabwe, Darfur, Liberia and the DRC.

    He along with many of his peers are becoming worryingly out of touch with the very people who put them into power IMO. This article was published on Reuters only today....


    Article extract >>

    Africans stunned by leaders' silence on Zimbabwe
    24 Jun 2005 16:54:02 GMT

    Source: Reuters

    By Tume Ahemba and Tsegaye Tadesse

    LAGOS/ADDIS ABABA, June 24 (Reuters) - The silence of African leaders over Zimbabwe's violent eviction of slum dwellers has stunned many ordinary people across the continent.

    End extract <<

    For full article :: http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L24234144.htm

    thanks

    Critic,
    The 9 words of life quote -
    "Act with honour, seek justice, die true, remembered well."
    GO LDN 2012 ~ AIM = Critic News Info

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Houston Texas
    Posts
    4,420
    Originally posted by blue27
    The rest of the world doesn't go around saying that they are spreading freedom and democracy. The rest of the world doesn't go around making claims of being the greatest country in the world when it comes to human rights and supporting human rights in other countries.

    If you are going to talk the talk, walk the walk.
    yes we agree on that. the rest of the world does not go around saying...or doing.....that they are spreading freedom and democracy or even taking up the human rights flag.

    I am glad we see eye to eye. in fact if we were the rest of the world - just think - many more people could be gassed in places like iraq. wow - what a thought - the world would definately be a better place.
    Dedicated Servers
    WWW.NETDEPOT.COM
    Since 2000

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    9,851
    Originally posted by sailor
    yes we agree on that. the rest of the world does not go around saying...or doing.....that they are spreading freedom and democracy or even taking up the human rights flag.

    I am glad we see eye to eye. in fact if we were the rest of the world - just think - many more people could be gassed in places like iraq. wow - what a thought - the world would definately be a better place.

    As usual you fail to understand.

    The rest of the world helps these countries with feeling the need to broadcast it.

    The US broadcasts that they help these countries without feeling the need to actually do it.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    347
    Originally posted by sailor
    rmember that the rest of the world does not want us to interfere with other countries. we are trying to wind down iraq and afghanistan - so that we can be in compliance with popular world opinion. why should we go there and do something? to take another global lashing for interfering? I dont think so.
    The invasion of Iraq was based upon weapons of mass destruction, when it became clear that there weren't any regime change became the issue. Changing the reason for the war doesn't help, it makes it look like you're just making up excuses, and the treatment of prisoners and the detention without lawyers or trial makes the US look like oppressors more than liberators. Can you blame people for being critical about Iraq when the reason for the war keeps on changing? Zimbabwe could be an opportunity for the US to improve its world image.
    A clear plan of action based upon the humanitarian crisis in Zimbabwe is what is needed. Use the humanitarian crisis as the reason and stick to it. Remember Kosovo? It's a similar situation which could be solved with similar action. Ultimately air strikes and peace keeping troops led Milosevic to be toppled by his own people, proof that it doesn't take a full scale war and occupation to remove the leader of a country.

    hellind2 - its not just whites being killed, its the minority ethnic groups like in the Serbia.

    Mugabe still has the support of the majority ethnic group as they remember how he fought off colonialism. Since then he's let the power go to his head and turned into a madman. It really is a tricky situation as he still has majority support, possibly if this situation was dealt with like Serbia (although I believe we acted too slowly there) then the people of Zimbabwe will want to get rid of him.
    Best hope is really for a coup and the installation of real democracy, it has happened in other african nations and hopefully will happen in Zimbabwe. Here's hoping Mugabe will die of a sudden "heart attack" like Sani Abacha.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Houston Texas
    Posts
    4,420
    Originally posted by blue27
    As usual you fail to understand.

    The rest of the world helps these countries with feeling the need to broadcast it.

    The US broadcasts that they help these countries without feeling the need to actually do it.
    I understand completely - you and i just see things from completely different viewpoints on most issues. I am not going to tell you that you dont understand or are dumb or anything - I will just view it as your viewpoint and opinion. maybe in the future you can do the same for me.
    btw - the us provides more foreign aid to other countries than any other country and I would bet more than the whole of europe and canada combined.
    Dedicated Servers
    WWW.NETDEPOT.COM
    Since 2000

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    London, Britannia.
    Posts
    3,077
    Originally posted by sandanista
    Zimbabwe could be an opportunity for the US to improve its world image.
    A clear plan of action based upon the humanitarian crisis in Zimbabwe is what is needed. Use the humanitarian crisis as the reason and stick to it. Remember Kosovo? It's a similar situation which could be solved with similar action. Ultimately air strikes and peace keeping troops led Milosevic to be toppled by his own people, proof that it doesn't take a full scale war and occupation to remove the leader of a country.

    hellind2 - its not just whites being killed, its the minority ethnic groups like in the Serbia.

    Mugabe still has the support of the majority ethnic group as they remember how he fought off colonialism. Since then he's let the power go to his head and turned into a madman. It really is a tricky situation as he still has majority support, possibly if this situation was dealt with like Serbia (although I believe we acted too slowly there) then the people of Zimbabwe will want to get rid of him.
    Best hope is really for a coup and the installation of real democracy, it has happened in other african nations and hopefully will happen in Zimbabwe. Here's hoping Mugabe will die of a sudden "heart attack" like Sani Abacha.
    First, i don't tyhink that such a large air assault is really going to be beneficial for anybody if we moved into Zimbabwe. So that side of the Kosovo approach can't be transferred across.

    Second, although US asistacne would be appreciated, i personally believe that any stabilisation force should ahve the British making up the bulk of any "non African" contribution in peronnel.

    Third, so you actually feel that Mugabe still possesses majority support amongst the population? I myself am under the impression that more either stand against him or are indifferent. Of coruse the hardcore in the Zanu PF are with him but politically i wouldnt' say his support is as great as you suggest. However the loyalty of the Army is assured.

    I'm not too sure if his death will bring the immediate brihgt new future that you imply. In fact, disorder and civil conflict coudl well increase dramatically along with all the side effects of such.

    My positon is clear, dramatic change in the governance of Zimbabwe or we apply the pressure both diplomaticaally and militarily, with plans for intervention drawn up, the composition of any force and the search for allies in the venture, all done in a very public way. Have a multinational Task Force engage in war games within flying distacne of the country if needs be. If that all fails or the siatuion escalates, we move in.

    That is the bst we can hope for IMO! ?

    Critic,
    The 9 words of life quote -
    "Act with honour, seek justice, die true, remembered well."
    GO LDN 2012 ~ AIM = Critic News Info

  24. #24
    intresting, suddan never got the same attention from the world as zimbabwi where as in sudan far more people died and they were more linked to the sudanese government. YET not once did i see any government saying we will not trade with sudan, or made any move to publicise the fact!

    YET what is so special about zimbabwi that they want us to acknowledge?

    could it be possibly because the zimbabwi gov. hates westerners? they dont like the white farmers who got their land and wealth on of the black people through apratheid?

    correct me if i am wrong but isn't that the reasone! if not that and its its about human rights, just take a look at the people dies and were displaced and who are STILL dying in sudan!


    just to add, if the government is serious about what it always mubles, it would let alot more zimbabwi refugies in the country, yet this is a fact that they refuse most applications... even though they themselfs say they have very poor human rights and a terrible regime...
    Last edited by Directory; 06-24-2005 at 05:09 PM.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    9,851
    Originally posted by sailor
    I understand completely - you and i just see things from completely different viewpoints on most issues. I am not going to tell you that you dont understand or are dumb or anything - I will just view it as your viewpoint and opinion. maybe in the future you can do the same for me.
    btw - the us provides more foreign aid to other countries than any other country and I would bet more than the whole of europe and canada combined.

    I suppose it really depends on what you consider to be foreign aid.

    You may be right about the amount the US gives but they are not giving any more when you talk about aid per capita. In fact they are giving somewhat less.

    Let's say for instance that some might not consider 3 billion a year to Israel for them to buy weapons as foreign aid. That would drop the US very low on a per capita basis. Very low indeed.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •