Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yeah they don't exactly have a second amendment over there to make it possible to overthrow their government...but sooner or later the military will have to be affected as things crumble more, etc., and turn on mugabe. Just takes one person turning on him to do him in. Or maybe mugabe will do them a favor and die of a heart attack or something (he's in his 80's I think...).
Yeah because another dictator who is potentially worse won't rise up in his place. The entire country is pretty screwed and there is no simple solution, thus foreign intervention is probably a bad idea unless there is an effort from the international community.
HMMMMM At the risk of being a racist They had a democracy at on time. Not the greatest one to be sure but they were working on it......Go ahead and start calling me names again instead of haveing a rational discussion
HMMMMM At the risk of being a racist They had a democracy at on time. Not the greatest one to be sure but they were working on it......Go ahead and start calling me names again instead of haveing a rational discussion
Well since you posted word vomit you're not leaving a lot up for discussion.
The problem isn't simply Mugabe who reportedly was verging on stepping down after coming in second in the general election. The problem is the power structure held by ZANU officials who stand to lose power, and wealth. Removing Mugabe doesn't resolve the underlying problem. So, the question becomes, after some foreign force removes Mugabe, will there be similar de-ZANUfication in Zimbabwe and who will pick up the reigns keeping the country from falling into further chaos? If you don't have answers for that, then foreign intervention solves nothing.
The road to democracy is rarely bloodless, or absent of great social suffering.
Yeah because another dictator who is potentially worse won't rise up in his place. The entire country is pretty screwed and there is no simple solution, thus foreign intervention is probably a bad idea unless there is an effort from the international community.
Democracy comes from the bottom up not the top down. But the people of Zimbabwe are powerless to do much of anything (unarmed starving people versus heavily armed soldiers).
Since it looks like other African nations aren't going to do anything to help the people of Zimbabwe, isn't it up to the super powers to intervene? I can't see taking this evil sub human out of this world that difficult. It won't be nowhere as complicated as Iraq and whoever goes in will have the full support of the Zimbabwians. Surely they could complete their mision in 24hrs.
-------------
"Surely they could complete their mision in 24hrs."
NOTHING is that easy. We go in we kill him now what 50 corrupt evil generals step up for the job.
We now stay there years we now inherit the mess and the bill of taking care of mass poverty.
Can we afford it do we have the troops ? Why wont UN do it?
Neocons support invading countries but they dont go themselves .
Libs support invading countries for other reasons but they wont go either.
Saddams people were suffering under Saddam but libs were against Iraq but the people are suffering in Zimbabwe but conservatives are against going in. BOTH hypocrites both have agendas where they want to send others to fight their fight.
I am against both . By the way you have good intentions and I agree with you but just not using troops on the ground that is when the mess begins.
Yeah because another dictator who is potentially worse won't rise up in his place. The entire country is pretty screwed and there is no simple solution, thus foreign intervention is probably a bad idea unless there is an effort from the international community.
I agree no simple solution unless someone is ready right away to step up to power who is honest and cares about the people in that political bunch and sadly not going to happen.
We will inherit huge camps that we guard of masses while the UN as USUAL leaves it up to us.
I dont subscribe to letting them die but would not send troops.
Since the people are dieing and a strike wont make matters worse for them as far as now having no president .
I would put a smart missle om Mugabes house and few others in charge.
If I miss him than I continue to try night after night . He will step down if not killed.
I would destroy send to hell him and his military but not a single soldier would I use on the ground.
See what happens again things cant get worse for the people so worth taking out a few without placing a single troop on the ground.
Oh dear. I expect flaming. I hope this post will not be deleted.
European-Owned farm Seizure
-----------------------------
Decided to take back the very rich farmland from the European "owners" and give it to native Zimbabweans. In other words, he took the farmland that was originally "won" by white farmers, and gave it to the black natives in an unprecedented move. Even more daring, since the "owners" of the land were rich and well-connected. This happened in about 2002.
The International Response
--------------------------
First the EU and then the USA (during the entire Iraq hullabaloo) SEIZED all of Mugabe's funds, that he foolishly stored in Swiss banks and the like. They pretty much stole his money because they did not like his policies.
This happened in about 2003.
Then they sanctioned Zimbabwe. That means that the black farmers who now had their ancestors land again, could not import the items they needed to run the farms. In this global economy, the largest international markets were now CLOSED to all of the students, businessmen/women and traders in the country as the international punishment for Mugabe's Crimes.
This reminds me of the biblical story of Moses. When Moses says to the pharaoh "Let my people go. . . or else" and the punishments get worse. First, "We'll take your money!" Then Mugabe stands firm. Next, "The EU will sanction you." Mugabe still stands firm. Well, how much longer can he stand firm when his people are suffering? Not judging, just asking.
Sanctions for What?
------------------
Sanctions are made to punish, so ask yourself what the EU and US are punishing Zimbabwe for.
White friends who visited Zimbabwe before Mugabe's era said that in the restaurants where they ate, the blacks were treated as unwanted people. That made me ashamed, but I'm sure it's the same in many other countries. I also met a white Zimbabwean who told me about the problems she had doing her job at home. For instance, getting government funds for her research was impossible during the Mugabe reign.
I see a lot of judgment against Mugabe, so I wanted to present a different point of view. I think that many in Zimbabwe, Africa and the Diaspora in fact support the re-patriation of the farmland (The richest on the Continent to some accounts). I also think that living with no bread, but pride and dignity may be preferable at times to living as a despised servant draped in fine jewels and suffering from humiliation.
Should Mugabe go?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
