Zimbabwe and USA

Hello people

I don't know what the American public knows about the Zim crisis. I can only say that it's one hell of a sad story. I have been there about 10 years ago, such a lovely and peaceful country Zim was. Nature and people at it's best.

Then Mugabe (president of Zim) lost his mind. Started to kill and chase away all the whites, and with it Zim's bread basket. From then on things only got worse and worse. One maniac caused a great country to pummel into destruction. Literally all the wild life is dead. People ate the entire animal population. Mugabe's police kills and intimidates everyone he gets his devilish paws on. He even killed his opposition's wife, by cutting off her hands and burning her alive!

The entire population is starving to death. Cholera broke out, 570 already died of the cholera epidemic.

South Africa's goverment (who can barely feed their own people) is trying their best to help, but Mugabe doesn't want our money! (because we give it to them under certain terms like only food etc) He rather let his people starve! And the stupid western companies that gives their pocket change to Zim without seeing that it gets to the people... The government buys weapons with that money!

Zim pleads for help

NOW MY QUESTION TO THE AMERICAN GOVERMENT

You sacrificed thousands and thousands of soldiers in the Vietnam war, to "free" the people.
You invade countries with freakn armies to "free " the people.

But you can't spare one of your secret super ninja soldier thingies to kill a maniac? How lame do you get?

To the American government:

Don't ever tell the world you are a peace loving country who stands for world peace and freedom because that's the biggest load of #*$ I've ever heard. If you did you would have helped a beautiful country dying

How about Sudan and Darfur?

For Sudan China has close ties, is one of the five in the UN with veto power over UN intervention.

Millions of people suffering around the world, but the US should not be the world police. We do not have jurisdiction outside our borders.

Why not another nation send someone? You've been there, why don't you take a Blackwater course and go? Step up, but be aware you'll be a martyr for your cause.

[edit on 5-12-2008 by Dbriefed]

Originally posted by Dbriefed
How about Sudan and Darfur?

For Sudan China has close ties, is one of the five in the UN with veto power over UN intervention.

Millions of people suffering around the world, but the US should not be the world police. We do not have jurisdiction outside our borders.

Why not another nation send someone? You've been there, why don't you take a Blackwater course and go? Step up, but be aware you'll be a martyr for your cause.

[edit on 5-12-2008 by Dbriefed]

I know about that, all I'm saying is that the US usually uses "freedom" and "suffering" as an excuse to invade countries, while a blind eye is turned to the real troubled countries

You know what man, I was going to go on a tirade about the u.S. governement doing this and that and yadda yadda yadda...but screw it. You're right. Why is it we can go in to Iraq and "free" them, but we can't spare one unit to take out a nutjob? It's a sad double standard that only goes to show...the u.S., in it's current form, will only help you if you have something we want. I'm saddened by this revelation.

As far as Im aware ther are no untapped oil reserves in either Zimbabwe or Darfur.

If theres no money in it for them, why invade.

Its much easier to create a false flag operation, go to war with a country you claim to be responsible and make the leader of your country and his Daddy a few hundred more billion dollars for their retirement funds, not to mention, all the leaders chums and cronies who happen to have close ties with the arms firms that are being used to supply the war effort, also making them hundreds of billions of dollars in generated wealth.

You realize that if we take out one nutjob, we have to take out the rest of the trash as well. Knocking these buzzards off of their roost won't stop the problem. What about the other nutjobs waiting in line to take over from the previous nutjob? It is a very slippery slope in an area that seems to be self destructing. Its kind of frightening. I wish I had a solution.

How funny, if Americans or Europeans (i.e. evil whites) were over there meddling with the leadership then it is "our fault" when things go wrong. If we are NOT over there meddling, it is STILL our fault! Ha!

They wanted Mugabe. If they are not happy then hows about THEY GET OFF THEIR BUTTS and fix the problem themselves! Chances are it could lead to civil war and I do not see why we should be involved, or stuck babysitting that hellhole of a country when they turn into warring factions.

[edit on 5-12-2008 by Sonya610]

I know man look I don't really have an answer on this to be honest.
I don't think anyone does.
It is very sad because this is/was a beautiful country.
Once Europeans oppressed natives in that country.
And it seems the native people have some bitterness they cant get over.
I don't know how to ever say sorry for my ancestors participating in any of this.
It wasn't me that did it.I wouldn't have done it.
I would have rather died.
To be a better man is to swallow the pride and let things go, and move on.
Its very hard to do.
But it is the better way.
I don't think this is just Mugabe, because there is many people who support him.
Without support in his own country he would be nothing.

I've campaigned for years, countless letters and petitions, to the British government demanding action against Mugabe. Heck, ATS has a backlog documenting my views on Zimbabwe.

If South Africa had the desire, two brigades could cross the border and round up Mugabe and his henchmen within 24 hours. Zimbabwean soldiers and police officers would possibly join an invasion force - 95% are unpaid and starving (the 5% are the generals.) There would be no resistance.

As for the callous man Robert Mugabe - The Hague is waiting for him.

The melancholy state of Zimbabwe is the greatest tragedy of this world. If the people are repressed and restrained - unable to protest - then we who believe in democracy and liberty should liberate them.

"The only verdict is vengeance; a vendetta, held as a votive, not in vain, for the value and veracity of such shall one day vindicate the vigilant and the virtuous." - V for Vendetta.

Hm, you see this is the problem with interfering in the internal politics of foreign countries, you set a dangerous precedent.

I think it is very silly to use the argument that if the US can invade the middle east then why not just invade everyone else? Western powers have learned a very hard lesson in both Africa an South America that most of the time interference in third world politics only causes greater problems.

The West has been lambasted countless times, regardless of whether their intentions were benign or not, for disrupting the natural healing and developmental processes of the third world, which are needless to say fairly complicated.

So the US and Europe has now made a firm decision not to meddle in the internal affairs of developing nations, especially one as unique as Zimbabwe which is being ruled by the political organisation that liberated its' people from a colonial power. ZANU PF and Mugabe are historically liberators from oppression and injustice by British colonial empire.

But what the west has relied on in their unwillingness to interfere, is the ability of developing African nations to solve these problems themselves, which they should at this stage be more than capable of doing. And in my opinion they have taken the correct stance by this policy.

So what happened with Zimbabwe is that after the fraudulent elections which the opposition MDC clearly won, a resolution was required by either Zimbabweans themselves, but also the rest of the neighborhood, in particular South Africa.

Our ex-president Thabo Mbeki was charged with the role of mediatorship and completely incorrectly assumed that things would just somehow sort themselves out, when obviously, they wouldn't. The second agent in charge of assuring a solution to this problem is/was SADC, who actually, were the ones charged with, or burdened with, the largest responsibility.

Yet was has transpired is a complete and utter failure of this 'African solution'. SADC and Mbeki have been pathetic mediators and have refused to put any significant pressure on Mugabe to do what the rest of the world knows must be done; a signed letter of resignation.

It is interesting to note than many people immediately assume that the only solution the problem is a military intervention!? Why? Even in this thread the only assumption as to a deposition of Mr/ Mugabe is by force. I guarantee you that no such intervention was necessary, if both SADC and the South African government cried foul and demanded Mugabe to step down, he would have been forced to do so.

Yet what has happened is a classic symptom of Southern African politics; a cronyism and allegiance to 'comrades' of struggle regardless of the consequences of this allegiance. We have seen this within the ANC itself, members convicted of corruption charges sent to prison, convicted criminals!, being marched to prison in solidarity by the ruling party. When the leaders of southern Africa should in fact be pledging their allegiance to justice and righteousness, rather than merely 'comrades'.

So now the West is in a precarious position. They have a responsibility to avert and respond to gross human rights violations. But they had hedged their bets on the assumption that Southern Africa could, and would be able to solve this problem on their own.

But they have failed, and what now? Condo Rice is starting to say that enough is enough, and something must be done! Archbishop Desmond Tutu has called for an aggressive deposition of Mugabe. The president of Nigeria has made these same calls... yet the South African government and SADC stand around like idiots.

What is the west to do?

The major problem for Africa is this: There are a variety of other undemocratic regimes in Africa - some far worse than Zimbabwe.

Playing the devil's advocate, a Pandora's box scenario could unfold across the continent of Africa if Mugabe is forcefully removed. The unwillingness or lack of action by the African Union is highlighted by their significant Archille's heel - lack of democracy. Other African nations, especially the Congo and Sudan, fear Western intervention if Zimbabwe is liberated.

Even the Democracy Index rates South Africa as, and I quote, a "flawed democracy." And, as another member pointed out, Mugabe is a comrade from the liberation movement and the guilt of condemning a "hero" is difficult. As the pensive Macbeth said;

"Is this a dagger which I see before me..."




[edit on 7-12-2008 by infinite]

reply to post by infinite


Yes... but do you not see that 'forceful intervention' does not necessarily mean a military junta, or an assassination, or a special forces operation?

Forceful intervention, as per Desmond Tutu's suggestion, means an aggressive negotiation policy. SADC and the South African government could easily have put enough pressure, through economic incentive or whatever, to forge Mugabe to step down.

And what of this domino effect? I fail to see how that could possibly follow from the Zim crisis. Please explain.

Because if we do you'll come on here 3 weeks later saying we need to mind our business.


America can never do anything right, haven't you learned that yet