Zimbabwe yet again.

mike65

Jasus it just keeps getting worse. Now its water shortages and threat of cholera on top of food rationing and a worthless currency.

I'm not normaly a total cynic but would'nt it be great if oil was discovered in large quantity under Mugabes house?

Are you watching Thabo Mbeki?

Mike.

Mick86

mike65 wrote:

Jasus it just keeps getting worse. Now its water shortages and threat of cholera on top of food rationing and a worthless currency.

I'm not normaly a total cynic but would'nt it be great if oil was discovered in large quantity under Mugabes house?

Are you watching Thabo Mbeki?

Mike.

On the plus side the Zimbabweans are free of white domination.

On the even more plus side the food rationing, water shortages, worthless currency and cholera do not affect Waterford or Tipperary.

El Stuntman

Mick86 wrote:

On the plus side the Zimbabweans are free of white domination.

controversial statement - they were far, far better off under white rule

Fratton Fred

El Stuntman wrote:

controversial statement - they were far, far better off under white rule

am I alone in thinking that the west are enjoying sitting back and watching them realise that by themselves?

El Stuntman

Fratton Fred wrote:

am I alone in thinking that the west are enjoying sitting back and watching them realise that by themselves?

I am sure there are one or two warped individuals who are but I would assume the vast majority of us take no pleasure in this situation

mike65

I think I'd wait for Mick86 to reply.

Mike.

Zambia

El Stuntman wrote:

I am sure there are one or two warped individuals who are but I would assume the vast majority of us take no pleasure in this situation

Zimbabwe should be ruled by people who can govern it however every day that passes the country destroys itself.

• Game meat is poached destroying future tourism.
• Tourist areas are left fall into dis-repair.
• Fields go un tilled and decimated by peace meal slash and burn methods. Industry collapses as workers flee to South africa and bring their skills. Farmers set up in neighbouring Zambia and Mozambique leaving zimbabwe to rot.
• Corruption sets in like a cancer through every vein of public life.
• Kwashikor (Child under Nourishment )has been re-introduced to Zimbabwe

I could go on

Time has come for every African leader to grow a pair and State the Facts.

"Mugabe is a bigotted fool of a ruler that no longer has the capacity to rule anything, he should step down and let his people vote in a new leader."

If he refuses they should remove him by force.

El Stuntman

Zambia232 wrote:

Zimbabwe should be ruled by people who can govern it however every day that passes the country destroys itself.

• Game meat is poached destroying future tourism.
• Tourist areas are left fall into dis-repair.
• Fields go un tilled and decimated by peace meal slash and burn methods. Industry collapses as workers flee to South africa and bring their skills. Farmers set up in neighbouring Zambia and Mozambique leaving zimbabwe to rot.
• Corruption sets in like a cancer through every vein of public life.
• Kwashikor (Child under Nourishment )has been re-introduced to Zimbabwe

I could go on

Time has come for every African leader to grow a pair and State the Facts.

"Mugabe is a bigotted fool of a ruler that no longer has the capacity to rule anything, he should step down and let his people vote in a new leader."

If he refuses they should remove him by force.

as a frequent traveller to sub-Saharan Africa, I agree entirely with this

the problem is the last sentence - it will never happen, what we in the West continually fail to realise is that Mugabe is feted as a anti-colonial hero in the region. No government or collection of governments will take action against him.

Fratton Fred

El Stuntman wrote:

Mugabe is feted as a anti-colonial hero in the region. No government or collection of governments will take action against him.

that was kind of my point.

seamus

Fratton Fred wrote:

am I alone in thinking that the west are enjoying sitting back and watching them realise that by themselves?

As said, there are probably one or two individuals, but I don't think this is a, "Well, if you can't look after yourselves, screw you." attitude. Mugabe is the problem. He's scum, pure and simple. He's been allowed to seize control of a country and through the inaction of his neighbours and others who allowed him to take control (i.e. the US & EU), he has formed himself a nice little "democratic" dictatorship. If Zimbabwe had a sane leader and a proper democratic process, they probably would have done quite nicely without white rule.

There is a bit of an issue with just marching in and taking control. For a start, there's no money in it. So no U.S. support on that front. Also as has been said, Mugabe still maintains the support of some of his neighbouring countries - equally despotic and evil people like him who keep their populations poor and servile through intimidation and lack of education.

I don't think there'd be much of a military resistance in Zimbabwe itself. The military isn't all that well trained or armed (relative to the US or EU), with much of the internal security being maintained by nothing more than gangs of young armed thugs.

El Stuntman

seamus wrote:

Also as has been said, Mugabe still maintains the support of some of his neighbouring countries - equally despotic and evil people like him who keep their populations poor and servile through intimidation and lack of education.

most of your post is spot on but I can't agree with this bit

South Africa is the main external prop for the Mugabe regime - thye could literally bring Mugabe down in the morning - and the government there cannot be described in these terms (although by no means perfect)

Mick86

El Stuntman wrote:

controversial statement - they were far, far better off under white rule

Now that's a controversial statement.:D

mike65 wrote:

I think I'd wait for Mick86 to reply.

Mike.

Why? I don't take pleasure in anyone's misfortune, I just don't sympathise with anyone who gets himself in the sh!t and then waits for someone else to bail him out. I apply the same principle to countries.

El Stuntman

Mick86 wrote:

Why? I don't take pleasure in anyone's misfortune, I just don't sympathise with anyone who gets himself in the sh!t and then waits for someone else to bail him out. I apply the same principle to countries.

surely you can sympathise with the innocent populace while being angry with the government?

Mick86

seamus wrote:

As said, there are probably one or two individuals, but I don't think this is a, "Well, if you can't look after yourselves, screw you." attitude.

Why?

seamus wrote:

Mugabe is the problem. He's scum, pure and simple. He's been allowed to seize control of a country and through the inaction of his neighbours and others who allowed him to take control (i.e. the US & EU), he has formed himself a nice little "democratic" dictatorship.

It isn't the function of the US or the EU to right the ills of the world. In fact the majority of people start foaming at the mouth when the US does anything of the sort. But everybody has their favourite dictator that they want removed by the US and/or EU.

seamus wrote:

If Zimbabwe had a sane leader and a proper democratic process, they probably would have done quite nicely without white rule.

Quite possibly.

seamus wrote:

There is a bit of an issue with just marching in and taking control. For a start, there's no money in it.

True. Have you asked yourself how many Irish soldiers (as part of an EU force) you would be willing to sacrifice to replace Mugabe with some other despot.

seamus wrote:

I don't think there'd be much of a military resistance in Zimbabwe itself. The military isn't all that well trained or armed (relative to the US or EU), with much of the internal security being maintained by nothing more than gangs of young armed thugs.

The Americans said something similar about Iraq a few years back.

Mick86

El Stuntman wrote:

surely you can sympathise with the innocent populace while being angry with the government?

No. Why should I?

El Stuntman

Mick86 wrote:

No. Why should I?

AIDs, hunger, hyperinflation, corruption, thugs stealing anything that can't be nailed down, crop failure...there's a few reasons to feel sorry for Zimbabweans

you must have a very black-and-white view of the world to consider the average Joe directly responsible for these ills

Zambia

Mick86 wrote:

Why?
True. Have you asked yourself how many Irish soldiers (as part of an EU force) you would be willing to sacrifice to replace Mugabe with some other despot.

I would be prepared to sacrifice myself as part of that EU force.

It would be part of a Multi national effort (Including African States), insert remove goverment , distribute aid, hold UN supervised elections then move out. Within months. No mass bombing , limit civilian infrastucture damage.

I would put a lot of money on the army simply surrendering and Mugabe retreating to a neighbouring country within one day.

As long as no-one remains to long it wont be an occupying force. Zimbabwes citizens are quite smart they would know it was not a re-occupation as long as an effort was made to state that.

As drastic as this seems its better than letting this country fall so far into dis-repair it takes 2 generations to re-cover.

El Stuntman

Zambia232 wrote:

As drastic as this seems its better than letting this country fall so far into dis-repair it takes 2 generations to re-cover.

too late I'm afraid, the country has disintegrated totally and anyone who can walk has left

Mick86

El Stuntman wrote:

AIDs, hunger, hyperinflation, corruption, thugs stealing anything that can't be nailed down, crop failure...there's a few reasons to feel sorry for Zimbabweans

It could be worse, it could be me. But it isn't.

El Stuntman wrote:

you must have a very black-and-white view of the world to consider the average Joe directly responsible for these ills

I don't care who is responsible. They are not my problem.

Mick86

Zambia232 wrote:

I would be prepared to sacrifice myself as part of that EU force.

Balls.

Zambia232 wrote:

It would be part of a Multi national effort (Including African States), insert remove goverment , distribute aid, hold UN supervised elections then move out. Within months. No mass bombing , limit civilian infrastucture damage.

I seem to recall that is the way Mugabe got into power to begin with, more or less.

El Stuntman

Mick86 wrote:

I seem to recall that is the way Mugabe got into power to begin with, more or less.

er, no. please get your facts right

banaman

Mick86 wrote:

Why? I don't take pleasure in anyone's misfortune, I just don't sympathise with anyone who gets himself in the sh!t and then waits for someone else to bail him out. I apply the same principle to countries.

So you'd hand back the Euro billions this country has received since the 70's then?

Or are we a special case?

Fratton Fred

Mick86 wrote:

True. Have you asked yourself how many Irish soldiers (as part of an EU force) you would be willing to sacrifice to replace Mugabe with some other despot.

Actually, Politically speaking Ireland would probably be the perfect country to do something about it. Not that it will ever happen, even if there was the "will", I doubt that there is the "Way".

Zambia

Mick86 wrote:

Balls.

I seem to recall that is the way Mugabe got into power to begin with, more or less.

Believe me mate if I believe in something I will follow it up. I would never entertain any idea unless I'm prepared to do it myself.

He got elected but I think that was a long time ago.

Tell you what though you stick with doing nothing if it works for you.

I have an idea you don't agree with, come up with a counter idea and we will see if anything workable comes up in between.

seamus

Mick86 wrote:

Why?

Because Mugabe got in initially in very suspect circumstances and has spent the past twenty years systematically eroding what was a very shaky democracy to begin with.

You can say, "Jaysus guys you ****ed up there", but when the guy in power then basically locks himself into position and devastates his country and his people with zero regard for any of them, then you can't continue to sit around and say, "Tough ****". Even if Mugabe's initial election was actually fair and reasonable, electorates make mistakes. Sometimes the wrong people get into power. Democratic fundamentals require that the people get the chance to remove any people they've already elected. Mugabe has effectively removed that ability from the people.

It isn't the function of the US or the EU to right the ills of the world. In fact the majority of people start foaming at the mouth when the US does anything of the sort. But everybody has their favourite dictator that they want removed by the US and/or EU.

I don't think it works quite like that. When GB senior went to war with Iraq the first time, he had the support of most of the world. Few people disagreed with the need to go to war. It's only when the U.S. starts making vague excuses to stick their nose in, that we have problems.
The US (at least) has been attempting to solve the ills of the Middle East for the last 60 years. So there's a track record there. The only reason everyone avoids the african continent is because politically there's little motivation. Populaces have been conditioned to have little sentiment for black people and there's no money to made in helping them out.

True. Have you asked yourself how many Irish soldiers (as part of an EU force) you would be willing to sacrifice to replace Mugabe with some other despot.

Ireland is neutral.
That's a bit of a pointless question anyway. If I say "none", then I'm trolling. If I give any figure, however small, then I'm a heartless bastard. I would allow EU troops to be used for this purpose. That's my answer to the question.

The Americans said something similar about Iraq a few years back.

They weren't entirely wrong. Unfortunately there were other considerations which created an influx of well armed religious fundamentalists to fight the war. The Iraqi government and army collapsed extremely quickly.
I don't have some special military intelligence. I'm not saying, "Go in tomorrow sure, ye'll be grand."
Clearly the situation would need to be heavily appraised, but at an initial glance, the security of the nation seems fragile at best.

mike65

Zimbabwe could be rolled over by the SA army in a morning, Mugabe has little serious (and reliable) hardware or well trained personel at his disposal if faced by serious opposition. Beating down tired and hungry civilian resistance is easy. Also I would'nt fancy relying on the rank and file to be loyal if push came to shove if I were Mugabe.

Mike.

Mick86

El Stuntman wrote:

er, no. please get your facts right

Working from memory, British troops were sent to Rhodesia in the run up to elections in 1980 to oversee those elections. Mugabe came to power in that election. I'm not sure how much input the UN had though. All in all that seems to be more or less what Zambia wants.

Mick86

Zambia232 wrote:

Believe me mate if I believe in something I will follow it up.

I don't believe you

Zambia232 wrote:

He got elected but I think that was a long time ago.

April 1980.

Zambia232 wrote:

Tell you what though you stick with doing nothing if it works for you.

Thanks, I will.

Zambia232 wrote:

I have an idea you don't agree with, come up with a counter idea and we will see if anything workable comes up in between.

OK. Why don't we leave the free, sovereign and independent state of Zimbabwe sort out it's internal problems with out any interference from outside.

Mick86

seamus wrote:

Because Mugabe got in initially in very suspect circumstances and has spent the past twenty years systematically eroding what was a very shaky democracy to begin with..

The same is true of George W Bush in America more or less. Let's invade there instead.

seamus wrote:

then you can't continue to sit around and say, "Tough ****". ..

Yes, actually, you can.

seamus wrote:

Even if Mugabe's initial election was actually fair and reasonable, electorates make mistakes. Sometimes the wrong people get into power. Democratic fundamentals require that the people get the chance to remove any people they've already elected. Mugabe has effectively removed that ability from the people...

Are you sure you're not George W Bush in disguise?

seamus wrote:

That's a bit of a pointless question anyway. If I say "none", then I'm trolling. If I give any figure, however small, then I'm a heartless bastard. I would allow EU troops to be used for this purpose. That's my answer to the question...

You chickened out of the question. I suspect like many people you want teh job done but want Irish hands kept spotlessly free of blood. Myself I wouldn't consider Zimbabwe worth a drop of Irish blood.

seamus wrote:

The Iraqi government and army collapsed extremely quickly....

You missed the 14 falls of Basra in a week plus the 25 consecutive days on which the US troops entered Baghdad then.:rolleyes:

Mick86

mike65 wrote:

Zimbabwe could be rolled over by the SA army in a morning, Mugabe has little serious (and reliable) hardware or well trained personel at his disposal if faced by serious opposition. Beating down tired and hungry civilian resistance is easy. Also I would'nt fancy relying on the rank and file to be loyal if push came to shove if I were Mugabe.

Mike.

The minute you hear someone say "This is going to be a walkover" you just know the battle is going to turn out like the Somme.

mike65

Mick if we all took your line Hitler would be in power or his grandchild of satan would.

Mike.