Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 26 to 37 of 37
  1. #26
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Houston Texas
    Posts
    4,420
    Originally posted by blue27
    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.
    actually if you pulled all the defense donations out of all the countries to compare them on an equal footing - I think the us still comes out ahead and on an inverse per capita note I think the us still comes with more per capita contribution (as in more money per us citizen contributed to others) than the rest.
    Dedicated Servers
    WWW.NETDEPOT.COM
    Since 2000

  2. #27
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    9,851
    Originally posted by sailor
    actually if you pulled all the defense donations out of all the countries to compare them on an equal footing - I think the us still comes out ahead and on an inverse per capita note I think the us still comes with more per capita contribution (as in more money per us citizen contributed to others) than the rest.

    I believe you are incorrect on the $/person ratio but I won't argue it without stats.

    The numbers certainly show that the US is very very week on $/GNP compared to other "rich" countries.

    http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRel...hartsandGraphs

  3. #28
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    London, Britannia.
    Posts
    3,077
    Originally posted by Directory
    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...
    What are you on mate??

    Darfur has received far more attention that Zimbabwe in real terms, gratned that isn't enough but still.

    Darfur has an AU peacekeeping force on the ground with plans for its expansion. International aid has also been forthcoming, the DEC here in Britain launched a large fundraising campaign last eyar, i know, i donated toward it and monitor the Darfur situation regularly. I've rasied it multiple times here on WHT too.

    You might be interested in this :: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4581463.stm

    Zimbabwe receives mroe lip service right now, sure, but there's no peacekeeping force planned let alone on the ground, and the AU don't give a damn.

    Hey i'm not saying that our response to Darfur has been or is anywhere near good enough, it's still a right mess down there. However your comments about Zimbabwe are out of line.

    What's this separation yous ee between the crimes and unacceptable actions in Zimbabwe and the Mugabe government, this difference to Darfur?

    And playing the race card, that shows how little you understand the situation, people from all ethinic groups suffer under Mugabe. Yes, the seizure of land from White farmers received a fair bit of media coverage and met with to say the least, disapproval here in Britain, and why not? There is a sense of responsibility and duty if you will, for Britian in regard to Zimbabwe; granted the reasons for this also apply to Sudan but for some reason [the amount of time, our history, the Zimbabwean population in Britain e.t.c.] there is an added connection or focus.

    You actually believe that people ract in this way because the Mugabe government doesn't like Britain and other Western nations?

    You're damn right this has a lot to do with human rights and the crimes he's committed. If it wasn't, why would mroe than 200 human rights groups feel the need to respond to recent events in Zimbabwe. See :: http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=4734604

    Did you not see the ITV News undercover report? Hudeds of thousands of people from of all colours and creeds caught up in it and losing property. Not able to grow necessary crops to meet the food shortge?

    Do you not think that Zimbabwe is deserving of the attention?

    Committment to one crisis should not rule out the same to another.

    thanks

    Critic,
    Last edited by Critic; 06-24-2005 at 07:38 PM.
    The 9 words of life quote -
    "Act with honour, seek justice, die true, remembered well."
    GO LDN 2012 ~ AIM = Critic News Info

  4. #29
    i didn't say the zimbabwe regime was any good, i am just saying all this is just mumbo jumbo, no action. BTW, the AU force in sudan that your talking about is SO SMALL, it reminds me of the UN force in in rwanda, where so little were trying to protect so many. at the end of the day , yes its better than nothing but they can do so much more, correct me if i am wrong, uk and usa sanctioned zimbabwi yet they done nothing to sudan right? yet way more people died in sudan (i am not saying what mugabe is doing is right) that zimbabwe.

    Mugabe doesn't like white folks and political oponents. that is true but i think the situation in sudan requires much more than zimbabwi.

    Also can you tell me if uk is SO concerned about zimbabwi why it sent SO MANY asylum seekers back there? they done the same to sudanese too infact.

    if its the beliefe of the british gov rober mugabe is evil, why are they sending the zimbabwi asylum seekers back and why are they not accepted unconditionally?

    there is always 2 sides to the story and we dont really get the see the full picture, i am still to hear the zimbabwi government side of the story!

  5. #30
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    347
    Originally posted by Critic
    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.
    I see the situation as similar to Kosovo, and although I don't think that air strikes are a good thing, it worked in Kosovo. The Serbian people were fed up of being bombed and the poor world image their country had, they ousted Milosevic and now he's standing trial for his crimes, which is what Mugabe should be doing. Mugabe is a facist and I don't think that war games will be enough to stop him. I'm not a military expert so I really don't know what to do, its just an idea.

    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 personnel.
    My point about the US was that just because they were criticised over Iraq doesn't mean they will be criticised if they went into Zimbabwe, the circumstances are different.
    I can see why the UK is reluctant to get involved, given our past, we don't want to look like colonialists again, but I do think we have a great responsibility, greater than any other nation, and therefore we should act - after all, we messed up the country in the first place.

    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.
    From my knowledge of Zimbabwe, and from speaking to people who have left Zimbabwe I do believe that he has the majority support. Ultimately he is a politician and I don't think too many people would be sorry to see him go (as long as the circumstances weren't too suspicious) but he was one of the leader's against colonialism, and helped win Zimbabwe's freedom, people haven't forgoten that and he's using that to get away with what he's doing now.

    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.
    It really depends who takes over. Disorder and civil conflict tends to happen only when there is a major change, for example Pinochet in Chile. Many coups involve no violence. If he died supposedly of natural causes and the next in line took over there would be no great disorder, it would be a natural transition. It would then be up to the next guy to change things and bring in a real democracy. That is the best we can hope for in my opinion and that is what I would like to happen. This may seem unlikely as Mugabe's party seems to be on the same wavelength as him (this loyalty being reinforced by the man he was) so I think military action similar to Kosovo is what is needed. However, there is some hope. This is what happened with Abacha in Nigeria and now at least they have some sort of a real democracy.

  6. #31
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    London, Britannia.
    Posts
    3,077
    Originally posted by Directory
    i didn't say the zimbabwe regime was any good, i am just saying all this is just mumbo jumbo, no action. BTW, the AU force in sudan that your talking about is SO SMALL, it reminds me of the UN force in in rwanda, where so little were trying to protect so many. at the end of the day , yes its better than nothing but they can do so much more, correct me if i am wrong, uk and usa sanctioned zimbabwi yet they done nothing to sudan right? yet way more people died in sudan (i am not saying what mugabe is doing is right) that zimbabwe.
    I won't disagree with you in that the size of the peacekeeping force is too small and illequipped. It should've been at least 4-6 times it's current size when it was fist deplyed.

    I'm not sure about the US sanctions with regard to Zimbabwe but Britain and the EU have recently chsoen to extend their targeted sanctions, yes.

    No i don't believe there are any similar sanctions in place against Sudan on the part of Britain.

    I wouldn't say they've done nothing though, i explained earlier that financially and in terms of logistics, we have done something although not as much as i'd like. If you do a search on WHT under my name and Darfur or Zimbabwe, you will see this.

    Originally posted by Directory
    Mugabe doesn't like white folks and political oponents. that is true but i think the situation in sudan requires much more than zimbabwi.
    More immediate attention, an increasein current efforts and personnel i would agree with you, however Zimbabwe isn't even on thee first run of the ladder and tht must be addressed equally urgently in my view.

    Originally posted by Directory
    Also can you tell me if uk is SO concerned about zimbabwi why it sent SO MANY asylum seekers back there? they done the same to sudanese too infact.

    if its the beliefe of the british gov rober mugabe is evil, why are they sending the zimbabwi asylum seekers back and why are they not accepted unconditionally?
    Noi can't tell you why we're doing that, i'm not in government, if i were, many things would be different beleive me.

    Unconditional acceptance? Hmm, i dont' know about that but not too far from it.

    Originally posted by Directory
    there is always 2 sides to the story and we dont really get the see the full picture, i am still to hear the zimbabwi government side of the story!
    The full picture in what regard? There side on what issue?

    Most of it is pretty clear cut in my opinion.

    Oh and by the way, although it is normally countries like Britain and America [or Australia with East Timor] who choose to act and stikc their head up above the parapit criticises or otherwise, it is not our responsibility alone. The AU has had a terrible record since its creation.

    Finally, do you think you could do me the courtesy of answering the questions i asked you and the points i raised???



    Originally posted by sandanista
    I see the situation as similar to Kosovo, and although I don't think that air strikes are a good thing, it worked in Kosovo. The Serbian people were fed up of being bombed and the poor world image their country had, they ousted Milosevic and now he's standing trial for his crimes, which is what Mugabe should be doing. Mugabe is a facist and I don't think that war games will be enough to stop him. I'm not a military expert so I really don't know what to do, its just an idea.



    My point about the US was that just because they were criticised over Iraq doesn't mean they will be criticised if they went into Zimbabwe, the circumstances are different.
    I can see why the UK is reluctant to get involved, given our past, we don't want to look like colonialists again, but I do think we have a great responsibility, greater than any other nation, and therefore we should act - after all, we messed up the country in the first place.



    From my knowledge of Zimbabwe, and from speaking to people who have left Zimbabwe I do believe that he has the majority support. Ultimately he is a politician and I don't think too many people would be sorry to see him go (as long as the circumstances weren't too suspicious) but he was one of the leader's against colonialism, and helped win Zimbabwe's freedom, people haven't forgoten that and he's using that to get away with what he's doing now.



    It really depends who takes over. Disorder and civil conflict tends to happen only when there is a major change, for example Pinochet in Chile. Many coups involve no violence. If he died supposedly of natural causes and the next in line took over there would be no great disorder, it would be a natural transition. It would then be up to the next guy to change things and bring in a real democracy. That is the best we can hope for in my opinion and that is what I would like to happen. This may seem unlikely as Mugabe's party seems to be on the same wavelength as him (this loyalty being reinforced by the man he was) so I think military action similar to Kosovo is what is needed. However, there is some hope. This is what happened with Abacha in Nigeria and now at least they have some sort of a real democracy.
    Since i either agree with what youv'e siad, can't question it or having nothing further ot add there's not much more to say really.

    However, in regard to your last point and any post Mugabe era, i suppose i ammore than slightly sceptical of Zanu PF's ability to govern and repair the damage caused by Mugabe. In what differnt way will they resolve the land redistribution problem for instance? Can the hold or participate in free and fair elections? Get the economy and tha nation back up on its feet? Many areas need a clean brake with what existed under Mugabe, root and branch reform.

    There is also the issue of Mugabe's succession which could turn into a very volatile situation, with the people and the wider oppsotion left in the corssfire. President Muabe is quite old, he could die before his set retirement date from natural causes. I'm jusdt not sure if that means a peaceful and better future in the short-medium term as a result.

    I'd also possibly take a mroe "pro active" approach compared to yourself, but that is more differences in the detail than long term vision i'd say. We agree that Britain MUST act [more than mere words too], as do most i hope.

    Other than that, some valid points and a welcome insight.

    Critic,
    Last edited by Critic; 06-24-2005 at 10:00 PM.
    The 9 words of life quote -
    "Act with honour, seek justice, die true, remembered well."
    GO LDN 2012 ~ AIM = Critic News Info

  7. #32
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Houston Texas
    Posts
    4,420
    Originally posted by blue27
    I believe you are incorrect on the $/person ratio but I won't argue it without stats.

    The numbers certainly show that the US is very very week on $/GNP compared to other "rich" countries.

    http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRel...hartsandGraphs
    canada - poulation 32mm odp 2537 = 79 per person

    us - population 295 mm odp 18999 = 65 per person

    you guys got us beat.
    Dedicated Servers
    WWW.NETDEPOT.COM
    Since 2000

  8. #33
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    9,851
    Originally posted by sailor
    canada - poulation 32mm odp 2537 = 79 per person

    us - population 295 mm odp 18999 = 65 per person

    you guys got us beat.

    Not just Canada.
    Canada is not even very high on the list.
    Every country on that list except for Italy has you beat.

  9. #34
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,144
    Originally posted by blue27
    Not just Canada.
    Canada is not even very high on the list.
    Every country on that list except for Italy has you beat.
    where are the stats for private charity donations per capita? you aren't being very fair there, blue.

    As an aside, it should be emphasized that the above figures are comparing government spending. Such spending has been agreed at international level and is spread over a number of priorities.

  10. #35
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    9,851
    Originally posted by varg
    where are the stats for private charity donations per capita? you aren't being very fair there, blue.

    How do you measure private donations?

    In many countries it is considered far more benificial to donate your time than just cut a cheque.

    Besides, this is not about the American people as such as I know they are a very generous people, it is about government policy.

  11. #36
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    The Woodlands, Tx
    Posts
    5,974
    I think if I were Bush, I would be on the phone with Mugabe a bit before a couple of our fighter jets fly low over Mugabe's office at super sonic speeds, and let him know that is the only warning he will get to start treating people fairly. I would be sure to tell him to not ever thing that the issues we are dealing with in other countries doesnt mean we cant deal with him too.

    I think that would get the point across.

  12. #37
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    London, Britannia.
    Posts
    3,077
    Update -

    Article extract >>

    UN envoy had "very good" talks with Zimbabwe's Mugabe
    29 Jun 2005 15:23:01 GMT

    Source: Reuters

    (Adds further Mugabe quotes, slums tour)

    By Stella Mapenzauswa

    HARARE, June 29 (Reuters) - A U.N. special envoy said she had "very good" discussions with President Robert Mugabe on Wednesday as she began a probe into Zimbabwe's widely condemned urban crackdown that has left at least 300,000 people homeless.

    Anna Tibaijuka, executive director of housing agency UN-HABITAT, has been in Zimbabwe since Sunday on a mission to assess the crackdown which Mugabe's critics have condemned as a serious human rights violation.

    After the meeting she toured Harare's oldest township of Mbare, where thousands of illegal shops and homes have been flattened in an operation locals have dubbed "the tsunami."

    "We had very good discussions, constructive discussion," she told journalists after one-and-a-half hours of talks with Mugabe. She offered no further details.

    Western countries and organisations including Britain, the United States, the Commonwealth and the European Union have criticised the operation, which has caused the deaths of at least two children crushed in demolished houses.

    Mugabe's government has defended the demolitions, known as "Operation Restore Order", saying they were meant to root out black market trade in scarce foreign currency and basic food commodities which had thrived in shantytowns.

    The veteran leader said he told U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan's envoy his government wanted to implement the clean-up before March 31 parliamentary polls but had feared it would be misconstrued as an attempt to drive out opposition supporters.

    "We had wanted to do this before the elections but then we feared it would be said that we were preparing the way for our own victory and affecting the position of the MDC adversely.

    SWIPE AT BLAIR

    Mugabe, whose government is at odds with former colonial power Britain mainly over its controversial land reforms, took another swipe at British Prime Minister Tony Blair, suggesting he had tried to influence Tibaijuka's mission.

    "She is a United Nations director of Habitat and belongs to the United Nations and not to stupid Blair," the 81-year-old leader said. Tibaijuka said she would report only to Annan.

    The MDC accuses Mugabe's ZANU-PF party of rigging March elections and has taken the ruling party to court challenging some of the results, which came amid the country's worst economic crisis in decades.

    Mugabe told reporters he believed the demolitions would bring long-term benefit.

    "Obviously there is some degree of suffering even when you break down a slum, but as I told (Tibaijuka), yes there is discomfort now, but discomfort in order to get comfort later."

    Tibaijuka later toured Harare's teeming township of Mbare, among areas worst hit by the crackdown, ahead of similar visits in other cities.

    "We are suffering out in the cold during the nights, please help us get places to stay," one man shouted in the local Shona language as the envoy's team walked along rubble-strewn streets.

    This week Mugabe's government vowed to step up a new housing programme to benefit those left homeless, which aid agencies have pegged at over 300,000. Zimbabwe's main opposition says the figure is now more than 1.5 million.

    End extract <<

    Source :: http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L29203526.htm

    Granted their's not much in the way of detail but if you read between the few lines we have, it looks like UN speak for "carry on Mr Mugabe, that's fine".

    Which it obviously isn't, well not to most people. Looks like too many people are too willing to turn a blind eye on this one.

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

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

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