Paddy Ashdown: Military intervention in Zimbabwe 'would be justified'

Originally posted by ModernAcademia

Honestly, can you blame them?

who would want to be invaded by imperalistic colonists?

yep, much better under Mugabe.


In any event, that is my point, you didn't want us, well don't blame me if I don't support wasting British lives and money over them now

I'm happy with a clean break


As for "invasion", hah, isn't that the immigration policy of the western nations

[edit on 25-6-2008 by blueorder]

reply to post by Gun Totin Gerbil


In response to Gun Totin Gerbil's comments on the british on the first page of this thread i would refer people to the thread entitled "what has happened to ATS like we used to know it".
In that thread a few things were discussed about ATS changing for the worse etc, and one thing i brought up was that some people cannot reply to posts/threads without resorting to personal attacks.
ATS has changed for the worse since i started comming to this site years ago and that is in the way that people have no respect for others views and cannot seem to put their arguments forward without being for want of a better word nasty.
Posts like the one by Gun Totin Gerbil are characteristic of the level of posts we now face and such posts only serve to raise the ire of others and allow the threads to descend to the level of shear argument.
There is nothing wrong with a little healthy badinage but within context and without resorting to nastyness.

On the actual subject of the thread i think that something needs to be done to stop Mugabe's regime and bring to an end the political violence.
Maybe intervention by the U.N. or a unilateral response may be called for.
The S.A.S. are very busy in Iraq and Afganistan at the moment and pulling them away from those arenas of conflict may be of serious detriment to whatever operations are being undertaken.
An assasination attempt could be on the horizon and if such an attempt is successful then the country could be on a downward spiral towards civil war or even a war of succession within Mugabe's political party.

Whatever the U.N. choose to do we can only hope that things can be resolved with as little bloodshed and resort to violence as possible.


[edit on 25/6/2008 by smokey101]

reply to post by infinite


My point is that the Rhodesians would have been better off standing up to the threats of economic sanctions, from the UK government.
I do not think they lost the war on the ground, but the political war.
I fallowed the war in the media and do not remember the rebels winning a war.
The politicians who forced the hand of the Rhodesians should take responsibility for what they did.
For people who do not remember what happened, imagine what was done to South Africa, which they still have not fully recovered from.
It is economic warfare, and Rhodesia was threatened with something worse than what S.A. got.
It is not just the UK not recognizing them, but having them declared an illegal government and making any ties to them against the law.
They would have crushed Rhodesia economically.
Using 20/20 hindsight, they would have been better off cutting all ties with the UK .
What they ended up with is being murdered and land confiscated by the UK recognized government.

reply to post by yahn goodey


They could have governed them selves if Mugabe would have been imprisoned and executed as a murderer and terrorist, long before there ever was an election.
Not doing this shows the bankruptcy of the UK politicians and government.

Please can people stop taking a pop at the U.K. especially when they come from a country that has done far worse in the past than the U.K. has ever done, and when they come from a country that would be drastically different if it wern't for the U.K.

The U.K. has done some questionable things in the past but so has the U.S. so please can people stop slagging off my country.

Originally posted by blueorder
yep, much better under Mugabe.


In any event, that is my point, you didn't want us, well don't blame me if I don't support wasting British lives and money over them now

I'm happy with a clean break


As for "invasion", hah, isn't that the immigration policy of the western nations

[edit on 25-6-2008 by blueorder]

wasn't it 'bad old whitey' who put this man into power?
they supported mussaraf, and now want to invade
they put the shah of iran, now they want to invade
they supported bin laden, now he is being looked at 'but not found'

come on man, connect the dots, it's not rocket science

im happy with a clean break too, but is the break really clean?

I don't want neither british nor american lives to get lost, but you must clean the milk you spilt in someone else's home, only problem is you will say you will clean it without admiting it's your mess, and then you will only spill more milk and rob the fridge.



[edit on 25-6-2008 by ModernAcademia]

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
1. wasn't it 'bad old whitey' who put this man into power?
2. they supported mussaraf, and now want to invade
3. they put the shah of iran, now they want to invade
4.they supported bin laden, now he is being looked at 'but not found'

1. No the people of Zimbabwe did.
2. No, Barack Obama, hardly a "whitey", said he would do that.
3. Yes we put the Shah on the throne, but I don't get the linkage now.
4. Bin Laden was a pawn to be used against the Soviets in Afghanistan. It wasn't like we thought he was a saint, plus it beat using U.S. covert forces. You know, the enemy of my enemy is my ally.

For a name like ModernAcademia, you could use some more research.

reply to post by smokey101


I am not anti-U.K.
I hate most politicians, especially ones who support terrorists and dictators.
It is just that, in this particular situation, it involves the U.K. politicians as the main culprits.
USA is just as guilty as anyone in creating bad situations and we continue to support evil dictatorships.

I get riled up about Zimbabwe because, to me, it is such a clear example of what happens when you give in to Communist Insurgencies.
People in the media who took part in the downfall of the government of South Africa failed to ever mention that Nelson Mandela was a communist.
So, the current situation is made worse by the fact that their neighbor to the south would like to be doing the same as Mugabe.


[edit on 26-6-2008 by jmdewey60]

Originally posted by blueorder
I just don't see how the overall "capital accumulation process" from intervention is "protected"

Sorry for the late reply, ive been busy with family issues as of late.


First to clarify, the process of capital accumulation isnt created from intervention, intervention protects that system.

Without question, US leaders are the foremost supporter of international terrorists, despots, dictators, oligarchs and mass murderers. While professing a love for democracy and peace, The US navy sails every ocean, outweighs (in raw tonnage) and out guns all other navies, its planes fly over most of the globe, and its troops are stationed in over 300 major and minor military installations throughout the world (much of it in Latin America and the Middle East). US leaders are also the biggest advocates of military intervention into revolutionary countries and nation-states, overthrowing the democratically elected, but politically leftist governments of "Guatemala, Guyana, The Dominican Republic, brazil, Chile, Uruguay, Syria, Indonesia (under Sukarno). Greece, Argentina, Bolivia, and Haiti"[1] (not a complete list)

US leaders and the national security state have also participated in covert actions or proxy mercenary wars against revolutionary governments in Cuba, Angola , Mozambique, Ethiopia, Portugal, Nicaragua, Cambodia, east Timor, and Western Sahara. (not a complete list)"

Reformist governments in Egypt, Lebanon, Peru, Iran, Syria, Zaire, Jamaica, South Yemen, The Fiji Islands and elsewhere have also suffered violent action at the hands of US leaders and interventionist forces.

This is all a matter of public record, and the list is a lot longer. With these examples in mind, we should ask ourselves, why? Why does a supposedly peace loving leadership feel the need to intervene in countries that pose little or no threat to them? Quo bono?: for who's benefit and at who's cost?

"An important goal of US foreign policy is to make the world safe for the Fortune 500 and its global system of capital accumulation. Governments who strive for any kind of economic independence or any sort of populist re-distributive politics, that attempt to take some of their economic surplus and apply it to the not-for-profit services that benefit the people-such governments are the ones most likely to feel the wrath of US intervention or invasion."[2]

In every case, the people to pay the cost of intervention are A) the citizens of the intervening nation (in this instance the US) and B) the people in the country that is being attacked. Those in column A pay for the intervention with their taxes and with their lives. While the people in column B die trying to protect their way of life.

In every case, the Corporate profiteers and banks reap the benefits. They are the ones that get no-bid contracts for billions of dollars. They are the ones that have Zero oversight on how they use tax dollars. They are the ones who get the benefit of the recreated industry.

Woodrow Wilson said it best;

"Since trade ignores national boundaries and the manufacturer insists on having the world as a market, the flag of his nation must follow him, and the doors of the nations which are closed against him must be battered down. Concessions obtained by financiers must be safeguarded by ministers of state, even if the sovereignty of the unwilling nations be outraged in the process. Colonies mus be obtained or planted, in order that no useful corner of the world may be overlooked or left unused."

What is saying in all of that? basically, deals made between "financiers" (read: corporations; banks) must be protected by any means necessary, political or military. This is the case with many of the interventions world wide, in the past and present. US, coalition, or mercenary forces invade, devastate, crush the governmental system, and support whatever dictator comes along that is willing to protect the client-state status; that is, the status of economic slave to multinational investment.

There is another function that intervention serves, which is to create new market\investment opportunities.

"Sometimes the dollar follows the sword, as when the military power creates opportunities for new investments. Thus, in 1915, US leaders, citing "political instability," invaded Haiti and crushed the popular militia. The troops stayed for nineteen years. During that period French, German, and British investors were pushed out and US firms tripled their investments in Haiti.

More recently, Taiwanese companies gave preference to US firms over those from Japan because the US military was protecting Taiwan. In 1993, Saudi Arabia signed a $6 Billion contract for jet airliners exclusively with US companies. Having been frozen out of the deal, a European consortium charged that Washington had pressured the Saudis, who had become reliant on Washington for their military security in the post-Gulf War era."[1]

Now on to the harder part of all of this. Intervention without direct economic benefit (remember, that economic benefit does not go to the invading nation, but rather the companies protected by it.) As it stands there is an upper echelon of people in the world. People that own the lions share of the wealth but comprise considerably less than one percent of the population. Many of these people sit in top policy making seats, and they have a commitment to safeguarding the global class system, and the whole process of investment and profit.

Protect it from what? Leftist Governments have an ideological obligation to the people of the nation. Re-distributive policies, welfare, free health care, social programs, and publicly owned industry (water, energy, transit, etc.) represent "lost market opportunities" for investors. This is in stark contrast to Capitalist needs and represents a direct threat to the overall system. How is it a threat to the overall system? Simple, if one nation is allowed to divvy up the land, labour, and markets for the benefit of the people, whats to stop their neighbors from doing the same, and then that countries neighbors, and so on.

"Capitalism wouldnt collapse if Grenada remained revolutionary. And it wasnt a question of direct resources, as Regean said "nutmeg is not the question." We could get perfectly good nutmeg from Africa (we dont need Grenada's) So why did they invade Grenada? They invaded Grenada because they were serving notice to the people of the Carribean, to the people of Latin America, and to the people of the World, that you CANNOT drop out of your client-state free-market system. That if you use you land, your labour, your resources, and your markets in a different way, in a collectivist way. If you use those things to benefit the needs of your people rather than be milked like a cow by foreign investors, this is what is going to happen to you."[3]

Protecting existing investments, opening up new markets and investment opportunities, and protecting the global class and capital accumulation system. That is what world wide intervention is about, and that is why intervention rarely falls on a dictator, and almost always on a democratically elected, but politically left government/nation-state.

[1] Parenti, Against Empire
[2] Parenti, The Sword and the Dollar
[3] Parenti, A speech given in 1994

Edit to add: I understand this issue is dealing the UK forces going after Mugabe, but you asked how intervention protects and creates the capital accumulation process. Seeing as the US is the foremost interventionist power, its seemed proper to use the US as an example.

[edit on 26-6-2008 by InSpiteOf]

www.msnbc.msn.com...

Here's how Mugabe and his thugs pulled off this sham of an election. No one internally is going to ever get strong enough to oust the ZANU party.

If things are going to change there, it must be from outside pressure, and sanctions alone will not do it.

Zimbabwe is a puppet for China/Russia troops for WWIII

The absolute reality of this entire situation is that Mugabe is the puppet backed by China and Russia. Just like the Libyan oil buyout by Russia, Zimbabwe gives Russia and China a foothold amongst the oilfields of Africa. Both of these world powers(China and Russia) know oil drives tanks and moves civilizations, and the person whom is in control of oil makes the rules. We can see wold powers rushing to take control of these assets including the US(Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq). Mugabe will be the launching point for the conquering of the African continent's oil resources. Lets be honest here and just admit that European efforts to oust Mugabe are because they know this very fact. The rejection of sanctions in the G8 forum is China and Russia admitting their global aims, and being so painfully open about it that WWIII must be coming soon.

Just a FYI, the Freedom loving and democratic nations of China and Russia have blocked any further UNSC resolutions for further measures on Zimbabwe. Gotta love those two great countries standing up for the democratically elcected government of Mugabe. Now we see their true colors. I'm glad Putin not in charge any more.....ahahhahahhahahhahaaa. Sorry I hurt my side with that one.