Aung San Suu Kyi

[dune]

Is it really justifiable to go into Zimbabwe not once, but twice, to forcibly take land off the native population for the benefit of white people? Do you think that would help build relationships across the globe? Do you think that those who oppose the west, because of the perception that all those in Europe and America are only interested in themselves (whether it be the way the West monopolises and influences global institutions like the IMF, the World Bank, the UN, the WTO) would be happy with the invasion of a former colony so that land can be given to the "non-natives" (a term that has been used on here in the last couple of days). OR do you think it would stir up even more hatred and resentment, feed the organisations who rely on the growing number of people who see no alternative but to try and seek change through bizarre methods like suicide bombings and lead to a more polarised world?

 

Anyway, Zimbabwe is actually on the road to recovery, not through force or sanctions, but because of investment and assistance from China.

 

http://allafrica.com/stories/201010260023.html

 

http://www.thezimbabwean.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=34826:china-to-invest-usi-billion-in-zimbabwe&catid=28:business-news&Itemid=38

 

That is why UN peace keepers would be the best option. As for the Marxist investment - all it is doing is propping up the Mugabe dictatorship and benefiting ZANU PF "war veterens" and those henchmen that supress the masses with torture and intimidation. Morgan Tsangirai is the one ray of hope, but he'll remain a lame duck so long as the Chinese keeping funding Mugabe and in the end the MDC will be crushed. None of this benefits the people of Zimbabwe (and the middle classes - teachers, doctors, lawyers etc have mostly left anyway) and until there is democracy all you will continue to have is the very rich and the very poor. They need our help.

 

And the only reason china are helping is because of the blood diamonds of the Marange field.

Edited 14 November, 2010 by dune

[Deppo]

Sorry, what would UN peacekeepers do in Zimbabwe?

[dune]

Sorry, what would UN peacekeepers do in Zimbabwe?

 

There is an election in 2012. They could oversee it and make sure it was fair and try to limit intimidation.

[Deppo]

There is an election in 2012. They could oversee it and make sure it was fair and try to limit intimidation.

 

This is why I am going to end this conversation with you and go shopping instead - you have no idea what you are talking about. You tiny mind is clouded by daft, racist thoughts. You started off by saying (about 6 posts ago, go and have a look, you may have forgotten) "There is no stronger case in the world for british armed intervention than here". This has now changed to some kind of intervention by UN peace keepers.

 

Go and find some more youtube clips Dune, you simpleton.

[dune]

This is why I am going to end this conversation with you and go shopping instead - you have no idea what you are talking about. You tiny mind is clouded by daft, racist thoughts. You started off by saying (about 6 posts ago, go and have a look, you may have forgotten) "There is no stronger case in the world for british armed intervention than here". This has now changed to some kind of intervention by UN peace keepers.

 

Go and find some more youtube clips Dune, you simpleton.

 

You're a fool. Britain would be part of a UN team ideally, but failing that i'd be fully behind us going in alone or with America as we did in Iraq.

[badgerx16]

You're a fool. Britain would be part of a UN team ideally, but failing that i'd be fully behind us going in alone or with America as we did in Iraq.

That worked out well !!!

[dune]

That worked out well !!!

 

I think it did. How often do you see acts of terrorism on the news today in Iraq. The country is a far better place now than it was pre war. That is not to say the people didn't suffer greatly during the war.

[Sheaf Saint]

I think it did. How often do you see acts of terrorism on the news today in Iraq. The country is a far better place now than it was pre war. That is not to say the people didn't suffer greatly during the war.

 

The reason you don't see news reports about it any more is because it now happens on such a regular basis that it isn't even newsworthy any more. The country may have a democratically (and i use the word in the loosest possible terms) elected government now, all safe inside their emerald city bubble; but throughout the rest of the country there is a religious war going on that has only surfaced since the 2003 invasion. Getting rid of Saddam may have been a juts and noble cause, but I can't help but think he may have actually been right when he claimed that the only way to rule Iraq is with an iron fist, as most of the secular violence was kept under the surface during his reign.

 

Then there is the ironic fact that Al-Qaeda are now operating in Iraq because of the occupation (there is no piece of credible evidence that they even existed in the country prior to the invasion after all) and the mass unemployment due to the fact that most people were employed by the government before the 'intervention' but now have no jobs because a lot of the government agencies were disbanded by Bremer's interim administration, and most of the government owned factories were looted and had no funds to re-build so were forced to close.

 

So I really am struggling to understand how, unless you are a Haliburton employee, you can possibly arrive at the conclusion that the invasion of Iraq 'worked out well'.

[dune]

throughout the rest of the country there is a religious war going on

 

Recovering Iraq to emerge as 'exciting' new tourist destination

 

'The present situation in Mesopotamia has improved vastly this year and we have successfully operated several tours. We have added some previously off limit sites to our itinerary, notably Nimrud, and explored Tikrit more thoroughly. The palaces of Saddam Hussein are included and many other sites.’

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/article-1328088/Iraq-set-tourism-hotspot.html

 

So despite your wishful thinking the country is improving and the war therefore was a great sucess.

[Sheaf Saint]

Recovering Iraq to emerge as 'exciting' new tourist destination

 

'The present situation in Mesopotamia has improved vastly this year and we have successfully operated several tours. We have added some previously off limit sites to our itinerary, notably Nimrud, and explored Tikrit more thoroughly. The palaces of Saddam Hussein are included and many other sites.’

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/article-1328088/Iraq-set-tourism-hotspot.html

 

So despite your wishful thinking the country is improving and the war therefore was a great sucess.

 

Wishful thinking? Why would you say that?

 

You never cease to amaze me dune, really. You think that just because there is a report in the Mail that Iraq, and I quote: 'is poised to become a tourism hotspot' that life is now better for the everyday people living there? Just because a few small areas have been made safe enough for some middle-class foreign sightseers, ordinary life is now better for everyone?

 

The estimated figure for Iraqis killed as a direct result of the invasion is around 600,000. Saddam may have been a despot, but I would wager my house that the large majority of those people would still be alive today had the invasion not taken place. But hey, that doesn't matter, because privileged westerners can now go on a Daily Mail tour of some ancient monuments which would never have been allowed under the Ba'athist regime.

 

I think you need to re-examine your priorities dune.

[dune]

The estimated figure for Iraqis killed as a direct result of the invasion is around 600,000. Saddam may have been a despot, but I would wager my house that the large majority of those people would still be alive today had the invasion not taken place. But hey, that doesn't matter, because privileged westerners can now go on a Daily Mail tour of some ancient monuments which would never have been allowed under the Ba'athist regime.

 

It's not just a Daily Mail readers tour. I saw a similar article in the Express the other week.

[Jonnyboy]

Recovering Iraq to emerge as 'exciting' new tourist destination

 

'The present situation in Mesopotamia has improved vastly this year and we have successfully operated several tours. We have added some previously off limit sites to our itinerary, notably Nimrud, and explored Tikrit more thoroughly. The palaces of Saddam Hussein are included and many other sites.’

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/article-1328088/Iraq-set-tourism-hotspot.html

 

So despite your wishful thinking the country is improving and the war therefore was a great sucess.

 

put your money where your mouth is then.

 

the last few days...

 

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/18/20101114/twl-iraq-violence-kills-eight-3cd7efd.html

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/nov/07/alqaida-iraq-christians-disappearing

 

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/LDE6A7256.htm

 

cos im staying here thanks you

[scotty]

You're a fool. Britain would be part of a UN team ideally, but failing that i'd be fully behind us going in alone or with America as we did in Iraq.

 

Neither we nor the americans will do a damn thing about Mugabe and co until there is something tangible in it for the yanks. If you honestly believe that the iraq invasion was in any way an act of self-defence or a gesture of humanity towards a suffering nation you are deluded.

[bridge too far]

Is there any chance a mod could change this thread title? I reckon we owe this brave woman the dignity of a correctly spelt name.

 

It is Aung San Suu Kyi.

 

Thanks.

[dune]

Neither we nor the americans will do a damn thing about Mugabe and co until there is something tangible in it for the yanks. If you honestly believe that the iraq invasion was in any way an act of self-defence or a gesture of humanity towards a suffering nation you are deluded.

 

Rhodesia has diamonds and mineral resources, but I agree it would have better if they'd had some oil.

[badgerx16]

Rhodesia has diamonds and mineral resources, but I agree it would have better if they'd had some oil.

As ever, the politics of greed and self interest. Capitalism shows it's true colours.

[dune]

As ever, the politics of greed and self interest. Capitalism shows it's true colours.

 

I'm being a realist based on the Iraq war. That said I think in this instance it's wrong to just consider the resource issue because there are western christian citizens with british ancestry involved here (who fought for the crown) which makes it an issue of defending British citizens. For that reason alone we should be in there protecting them and their interests.

[badgerx16]

I'm being a realist based on the Iraq war. That said I think in this instance it's wrong to just consider the resource issue because there are western christian citizens with british ancestry involved here (who fought for the crown) which makes it an issue of defending British citizens. For that reason alone we should be in there protecting them and their interests.

As opposed to the indigenous population, whose ancestors lived on the land for hundreds of years before that despot Rhodes started building his own vision of empire. From one perspective, Mugabe is merely doing on behalf of the Kikuyu, what we did on behalf of 'settlers'. Both positions are wrong.

 

And as for defending 'british ancestry', there are plenty of Argentinians who have Welsh blood. Which side were they on in 1982 ?

 

Stop living in the past, it only makes you bitter, as it's something you cannot get back to. The world has moved on, for better or worse, and so should you.

Edited 14 November, 2010 by badgerx16

[dune]

As opposed to the indigenous population, whose ancestors lived on the land for hundreds of years before that despot Rhodes started building his own vision of empire. From one perspective, Mugabe is merely doing on behalf of the Kikuyu, what we did on behalf of 'settlers'. Both positions are wrong.

 

What have the kikuyu got to do with rhodesia? Presumably you're talking about the ZANU PF minority shona that have systematically murdered the majority Matabele.

 

Also Mugabe not only terrorised and seized the assets of farmers from pre 1980, but he did the same to white farmers that bought land post 1980 onwards. So your argument has no grounds in the case of the latter. in the case of the former most of them built their farms out of scrubland and it was because of people like them that the life expectancy for the native people rised so greatly. You have no idea Badger, but it fits in with your left wing agenda to turn a blind eye/support genocide when it suits.

[badgerx16]

but it fits in with your left wing agenda to turn a blind eye/support genocide when it suits.

I repeat, stop living in the past, it only makes you bitter, as it's something you cannot get back to. The world has moved on, for better or worse, and so should you.

 

Alternatively, keep spouting your drivel - maybe I should learn my lesson and just put you on ignore. Rhodes and Smith are dead and gone, let them lie, they are yesterday's men.

Edited 14 November, 2010 by badgerx16

[dune]

I repeat, stop living in the past, it only makes you bitter, as it's something you cannot get back to. The world has moved on, for better or worse, and so should you.

 

Alternatively, keep spouting your drivel - maybe I should learn my lesson and just put you on ignore. Rhodes ans Smith are dead and gone, let them lie, they are yesterday's men.

 

That isn't relevent to the point I was making. If it was white people murdering black people and forcing them off their land in Rhodesia today you would be up in arms, but because it's the other way around you choose to ignore the ethnic cleansing.

[St Chalet]

Fascinating as the debate on Zim is, what was the relevance to the original topic?

[dune]

Fascinating as the debate on Zim is, what was the relevance to the original topic?

 

There are big similarities between Burma and Rhodesia. Even on the politics show today a Tory guest compared Robert Mugabes rule with that of the Generals and both countries have mineral resources and both countries have a colonial past.

[St Chalet]

So which is the bigger pressing issue for the UN?

[dune]

So which is the bigger pressing issue for the UN?

 

Neither, unless you count lip service. With countrys like France unwilling to use their millitary, and with China already doing nicely out of both countries as they are, and with us and the USA tied up, there's very little chance of either situation being tackled with force. That said out of the two countries Burma would be the priority as they have oil.

[JackFrost]

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Burma-Aung-San-Suu-Kyis-Release-Is-About-PR-Not-Democratic-Reform-Analysts-Fear/Article/201011215805465?lpos=

 

good article

[Special K]

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Burma-Aung-San-Suu-Kyis-Release-Is-About-PR-Not-Democratic-Reform-Analysts-Fear/Article/201011215805465?lpos=

 

good article

 

Interesting. But are they suggesting she would have been more effective under arrest? Maybe she lacks the ability to galvanise any anti government feeling into a movement for change, but i would have thought that at the very least, her release would symbolise a victory for her supporters.

[Gingeletiss]

As opposed to the indigenous population, whose ancestors lived on the land for hundreds of years before that despot Rhodes started building his own vision of empire.

 

Um! excuse me! these 'indigenous people' you refer to, were tribes that migrated down the continent of Africa killing all the true indgenous peoples, so my history books taught me. The cape and south of the country were populated by the Hotentots, a brown race, as well as the bushman, who was hunted to extinction.