Madness - time to sort him out

[Thedelldays]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7780728.stm

 

 

for too long we have stood by and let events take care of themselves...Time to act now about this cretin I reckon..

[Saint_clark]

Don't you know that we are to blame for all of Zimbabwes problems?

If they really believe we caused the cholera outbreak then I assume they will be declaring war within the next week, meaning Mugabe will soon be gone anyway.

I do agree with you though Delldays - if, as is often stated, we did not go into Iraq for personal gain and invaded purely to oust Hussain, then surely we should be sending troops out to Zimbabwe pretty soon.

[swannymere]

OMG! I agree with The Delldays (I'm just off to slap myself silly and have a stiff drink!)

[Robsk II]

I'm never entirely comfortable with policing the world, and these things too often have an agenda separate from the welfare of the people involved. Nevertheless - Mugabe is a fool, despite any other historical issues there. He is one of a good number of leaders who have a really poor effect on the populace. I don't mean as some woud argue against Blair, or even Thatcher. Something altogether more profound. Within that, he is on the list of people 'worth' ousting. Not sure at what price, mind, as there are clearly enough idiots supporting him because they do well out of it. As such, it woudn't be as satraightforward as all that, as usual.

[Wiltshire Saint]

I haven't read the link but presume Suggs has been up to no good again? B*stard.

[Al de Man]

then surely we should be sending troops out to Zimbabwe pretty soon.

 

Why do I get the feeling that TDD won't be taking a major role in any potential conflict.

[St Landrew]

I don't like the idea of policing the world either. But there are evil people who hide behind the idea of non-intervention. Saddam Hussein cruelly treated and often killed his people, and those that turned against him because they finally saw his evil deeds. It doesn't excuse whether the West backed Saddam in past years - it was necessary for him to go. Whether or not the reason for intervention in Iraq was flawed, it can only be political point scoring that suggests we should rewind history and have him [that really would be rewinding time] back in power.

 

In a sense, the same is true for Mugabe. He may have been the darling many, many years ago, but power went to his head because he knew he could hide behind an excuse, and the necessary constitutional checks were overcome. When good people knowingly stand aside, evil people succeed. And if the only good that comes from these sorry episodes, that innocent people eventually stop dying, then surely that is enough.

Edited 13 December, 2008 by St Landrew

[saint_stevo]

Mugabe= present day Hitler

[Robsk II]

I'm not defending Mugabe, but I think comparisons by you, or that bishop who said the same thing, are somewhat misplaced. Despot, sure,but one intent on carrying out empire building and genocide on a grand scale? It's not the same, and it's a disservice to history to equate the two. Mugabe has blood no his hands, no mistake about it - but WW2 led to over 70 million deaths, 6 million Jews alone died with the fingerprints of Hitler's cronies on their corpses. Even his most brutal critic could not say Mugabe was responsible for more than several thousand deaths, certainly not as a matter of policy. His inaction may have led to more, but it's nothing like the magnitude of humanity-crime as Hitler.

[St Landrew]

Robsk. I know you're not defending Mugabe. But when innocent people die, either due to evil or stupidity, are you going to stand by, knowing you could improve that situation..? There's a time when you stop turning away.

[Robsk II]

I'm not for apathy at all. I've not said that anywhere. his actions are indefensible, regardless of other factors, others to blame historically, 'blind-eyeing' etc. I just feel that some of this is due to media coverage. There is **** going on the world over, and it is only when the media grabs something, or the political / economic machines smell something appealing (oil, national assets being privatised for foreign investment etc) that anyone seems to give a ****. If the world does have a unified (sort of) conscience, and an agreement that a union of nations may act as a moral police, etc, then there should be interventions across the world, from Zimbabwe, to North Korea. If these peoples lives are worth anything to our leaders, we would be willing to risk something to save them. Yet they weigh action on benefits. It's a shame that the rest of the African continent is so divided, or perhaps this would have been a chance for them to act in a united way to show the rest of the world it has arrived on the global stage and is ready to perform a role - a united African force sorting this out would've been cool. Also, historically, if we are about morals - the suffering of people, the state of living, rather than just deciding to get all moral when people actually die - intervention would - should - have been made against Pol Pot, in Rwanda, against Pinochet, Suharto, Idi Amin, in the former Yugoslavia, in the Sudan...If we get involved, let it be consistent, and let it be for the good of people, not any other reason.

[St Landrew]

I agree with a lot of what you've said above, Robsk. There's not many times I disagree with what you say, and I often look for your opinion on subjects, knowing that it will be well considered. You have put several justifications for those, in power, that are able to do something, about leaders like Mugabe, to look at themselves and suggest that they are not without error themselves. But then what are we to do..? Nobody is perfect, but we can stop suffering. And indeed, there are several countries around the world that need some sort of adjustment. Name me a country that couldn't do with improving in some sense. Perhaps we'll even get around to our own major errors one day.

 

I'm a UK citizen. I consider myself a European, and a citizen of the World. Hopefully, one day, there will be people who can say they are the same as me, or my heirs. Have the same rights and responsibilities, similar opportunities, and similar life chances. The diversity will be in their culture and life experience, because they choose differently, and not because it is imposed on them.

[Robsk II]

I don't think we're in disagreement here either St L, and to carry on this love-in, I always find your opinions well considered and informed also. I was just explaining my reticence about the issue as a whole, but it in no way means I think we should do nothing. If intentions are good, then action must always be considered better than inaction, even in the event of failure. I also consider myself a citizen of the world, first and foremost, in fact. So I do think the world has a responsibility, and, given a consensus, a right to protect the safety and rights of its people. I'm not arguing that we shouldn't oust Mugabe - just that the issues are always very complex, and we should also have done the same across the board - if we are to do it at all.

[Mole]

I agree action needs to be taken, but it´s my view that the expense of millitary conflict means it should only be taken in Britains strategic interest.

 

If a proviso for force was the re-installment of evicted farmers (many of whom are British citizens or have british ancestry) i would be in favour as we should look after our own first and foremost.

 

Wars such as Afghanistan and to a certain extent Iraq (yeah there´s the oil) don´t bring more money into the coffers than the outlay of the war so i fail to see the point.

[EastleighSoulBoy]

The removal of Mugabe is definitely needed. However the 'human infrastructure' that he leaves will need to be neutralised i.e. removed from all access to further power. Also, from experience, they may well need to be protected from reprisals after the fact. Some may say what goes around comes around but the country needs to build afresh and really cannot spend a considerable time 'in-fighting' when there are innocents dying. They will all need to work together to eradicate the epidemics and get the country operating again. It has so much potential, not least as an agricultural force in the region.

[Mole]

Removing Mugabe won´t solve anything. You´ll still have the matebele split (a bit like the tootsies and hootoos). As much as i´ll be slated for saying this the best chance for Rhodesia would be a return to colonial rule. It won´t happen i know, but i see no solution without it. Like the rest of africa tribalism means the continent is never going to change.

[Thorpe-le-Saint]

OMG! I agree with The Delldays (I'm just off to slap myself silly and have a stiff drink!)

 

+1.

[Thedelldays]

Why do I get the feeling that TDD won't be taking a major role in any potential conflict.

 

 

nope...not unless (in this case) the UK wanted to destroy the country with cruise missle strikes....which, I dont think is needed..

[OldNick]

I tell you why he has not been ousted by us.If Mugabe was ever assinated by someone of whatever creed or colour the finger would be pointed at the whites/British. He is still a revolutionay hero to many of his countrymen after his exploits before Smith gave up power.

That would mean a backlash against the white population and a bloodshed that would never be forgiven and so strife will be there forever.He will be allowed to live to a peaceful death.It is sick but politics, I have been told our government has stopped a couple of attempts on his life for this very reason.