Robert Mugabe is another Saddam

I feel this man is another Saddam , he has made the country his ideals , the Country is now starving and desperate because of him, this is a case for intervention of the strong .

Yea..I agree...this guys a real moron as fa as I'm concerned...him and his militia are a bunch of criminals.
The way he gets elected makes me want to puke.

Originally posted by masqua
Yea..I agree...this guys a real moron as fa as I'm concerned...him and his militia are a bunch of criminals.
The way he gets elected makes me want to puke.

Yeah, fa sho.

They need real elections like ours here in the US.

If this guy is another Saddam, don't count on a liberation anytime soon. Makes you wonder why we selectively liberate people...

Amazing how the state-controlled BBC point of view is instantly accepted. Mugabe for all his faults has killed a lot less civilians than Blair. Not a fan of Mugabe but this one quote at the pope's funeral is a classic:

President Mugabe has publicly apologised for shaking hands with a member of our former colonial ruler's royal family (Prince Charles).
"In no way does my gesture endorse the murdurous policies conducted by the United Kingdom's government and armed forces in Iraq, Afghanistan, Sierra Leone or the Balkans. We have major concerns about the human rights record of this regime, but do not have any immediate plans for military intervention in the region."

the BBC is not state controlled media... get your facts right

I suppose because he doesn't have a nuclear weapons program, nobody will bother about this place. If George and Tony want Countries to be Democratic they need to put this one on the list.Not being racist , it was better when the white people were in charge , at least everone got fed.

Originally posted by Bulldog 52
Not being racist , it was better when the white people were in charge , at least everone got fed.

I disagree....A simple google search would reveal the number of people who starved during the "white" empires of the British, French and whoever you care to call white. So, yes I suppose that was racist...

Also, can anyone tell me if there are any sanctions against Zimbabwe now?

Originally posted by Quake

Originally posted by Bulldog 52
Not being racist , it was better when the white people were in charge , at least everone got fed.

I disagree....A simple google search would reveal the number of people who starved during the "white" empires of the British, French and whoever you care to call white. So, yes I suppose that was racist...

Also, can anyone tell me if there are any sanctions against Zimbabwe now?

Don't think sanctions would help, Mugabe is living the Millionaire lifestyle while the rest of the Country is living without food , due to his policies. Next thing will be an appeal on TV saying we ought to help the starving in Africa. How people can defend these tyrants is beyond belief , always blaming the previous White Government of being worse , i don't think so in this case.

Rhodesia was pretty brutal to its population, it seems Mugabe is doing his best to keep up.

He's been slaughtering the local wildlife to make up for his regime's failed "land reform" (violent expropriation) policies that have devastated the country's agricultural self-sufficiency.

[edit on 5/9/05 by xmotex]

Now this guy is destroying vegetable gardens and demolish shcks used by the poor.

iol.co.za
Harare - Zimbabwe police have extended a demolition campaign targeting the homes and livelihoods of the urban poor to the vegetable gardens they rely on for food, saying the crops planted on vacant lots are damaging the environment.

President Robert Mugabe was quoted Tuesday as saying concern about the campaign was misplaced and agreeing to allow in a UN observer.

The crackdown on urban farming - at a time of food shortages in Zimbabwe - is the latest escalation in the government's monthlong Operation Murambatsvina, or Drive Out Trash, which has seen police torch the shacks of poor city dwellers, arrest street vendors and demolish their kiosks.

This guy is 81 years old so maybe dementia has set in.
He really doesn't seem sane.

[edit on 21-6-2005 by AceOfBase]

[This article, from the LA Times, remarks on the many parallels between Arafat and Mugabe. It also admits the Soviet support he received.

www.africancrisis.org...

Pacepa, from Romanian Intelligence, wrote in his book (Red Horizon), many years ago that Arafat was a homosexual, and a paedophile. The Romanian secret Police filmed Arafat having sex with men, and they also supplied him with young boys.

Since Islam completely outlaws homosexuality, this is why Arafat's death is a secret. Apparently the CIA and the Israeli Military were aware that he was HIV+. For this reason, nobody wants to say why he went into a coma.

No doubt... before too long, we will be seeing conspiracy theories of how Israel poisoned him (maybe even with George Bush's connivance, etc). And this should give Michael Moore and other liars a lot of chance to float and spread conspiracy theories based on little evidence.

This article is excellent in that it shows the similarity because this Arab Soviet Terrorist... and the Black Soviet Terrorists which took over Africa... they're all the same... and Arafat... Like Mugabe and the rest... lived better than Kings while claiming to represent the poor... Jan]

Max Boot: How Arafat Got Away With It

The Soviets, U.S., EU and other foreign enablers helped this thug stay in power.

It is considered bad form to speak ill of the dead, but I will make an exception for Yasser Arafat, the pathetic embodiment of all that went wrong in the Third World after the demise of the European empires.

All too many rulers of "liberated" nations in the second half of the 20th century — the likes of Mao Tse-tung (China), Sukarno (Indonesia), Robert Mugabe (Zimbabwe), Moammar Kadafi (Libya) and Gamal Abdel Nasser (Egypt) — proved to be devotees of the Louis XIV school of political philosophy: L'etat, c'est moi. Their rapaciousness knew no bounds. Neither did their cruelty.

Yet even as these rulers were torturing their own people, they were lionized in the salons of the West. European and American intellectuals, motivated by a combination of guilt for their countries' past conduct, vicarious zest for revolutionary adventure and condescension toward Africans and Asians who were thought incapable of conforming to Western standards, were willing to excuse any crime committed in the name of "national liberation."

Arafat benefited from this deference ever since taking over the Palestine Liberation Organization in 1969. He and his cronies pocketed billions of dollars and kept their grip on power through the cruel application of violence against various enemies and "collaborators." In return, Arafat reaped worldwide adulation and a Nobel Peace Prize.

There has been no more successful terrorist in the modern age. Yet his biggest victims were not Israelis. It was his own people who suffered the most. If Arafat had displayed the wisdom of a Gandhi or Mandela, he would long ago have presided over the establishment of a fully independent Palestine comprising all of the Gaza Strip, part of Jerusalem and at least 95% of the West Bank. In fact, he seemed well on his way toward this goal when I met him in 1998 as part of a delegation of American scholars and journalists.

The place was his Ramallah compound, the time after midnight (Arafat was a night owl). He was wearing his trademark fatigues, and his hands and lips were shaking uncontrollably. Much of the session was conducted via translator, but Arafat broke into English when asked a question about Palestinian violations of the Oslo accords. It was the kind of query a democratic statesman would have batted away without a second thought.

Arafat, however, grew visibly agitated and stammered: "Be careful when you are speaking to me! Be careful, you are speaking to Arafat!" The threat of violence hung in the air as we left. Clearly Arafat had not quite mastered the art of being a politician or, rather, he was a politician in the mold of Mugabe or Mao.

His refusal to compromise, his unwillingness to give up the way of the gun consigned his people to economic and moral suicide. The current intifada, launched in September 2000 after Arafat turned down a generous peace offer from the Israelis at Camp David, has claimed three times as many Palestinian as Israeli victims. It has also led to a precipitous plunge in living standards in the West Bank and Gaza Strip — not something Arafat's wife and daughter would notice from their cozy Paris residence.

As the uprising's failure became evident, many of his own people grew increasingly disenchanted with their corrupt and feckless leader, though they could not quite shake off a Stalinist cult of personality nurtured over many decades.

Though Arafat, of course, bore ultimate responsibility for his many sins, he could not have been so destructive without so many outside enablers, ranging from the Soviet Union, which supported him from the 1960s to the 1980s, to the European Union and the United States, which stepped into the sugar daddy role in the 1990s. And let us not forget his fan club among the Western intelligentsia, many of whom even now weep for his passing as if he were a great man instead of a criminal with a cause.

George W. Bush, alone among Western leaders, had the courage to stop dealing with the Palestinian thug-in-chief. On June 24, 2002, the president gave an important speech in which he called on the Palestinian people "to elect new leaders … not compromised by terror" and to "build a practicing democracy, based on tolerance and liberty." Now that Arafat has gone to the great compound in the sky, there will be pressure on Bush to resume the pointless "peace process," but it will be premature to do so as long as the terrorist kleptocracy spawned by Arafat continues to exist.

Only if his successors show a genuine commitment to peace and pluralism should they be rewarded by the West. In the meantime, the U.S. and its allies need to work behind the scenes to identify and support genuine Palestinian democrats — not a new generation of gunmen in the Arafat mold.

Date: November 11, 2004
Source: LA Times