Zimbabwe yet again.

Mick86

mike65 wrote:

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

Mike.

If we all took the line that you lads are proposing the world would be in constant anarchy, toppling regimes wholesale. In effect what you are all saying is that Africans aren't capable of ruling themselves and the White Man must send troops to keep the natives in line.

seamus

Mick86 wrote:

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

"More or less"? Despite his actions, you can hardly claim that he has eroded democracy to point where he can't be removed?

Yes, actually, you can.

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.

So you would rather sit back and let an entire country go to crap because, "It's not our problem"? Would you say the same if GWB abolished the US constitution and decided to establish himself as lord and master of an empire?
I said "EU" purely because our constitution doesn't allow our troops to go to war. That isn't really a technicality. I would be willing to spill Irish blood on this one, except that none of our troops signed up for invasion campaigns.

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

That was media false starting and propaganda more than anything. The main campaign was over just a couple of months after it started. The difficulty since then has been fighting violent religious sectarianism.

If we all took the line that you lads are proposing the world would be in constant anarchy, toppling regimes wholesale. In effect what you are all saying is that Africans aren't capable of ruling themselves and the White Man must send troops to keep the natives in line.

I agree - if everyone tried to "fix" every other country, we'd be in a state of perpetual war. But how far does this kind of stuff have to go on (in any country) before the rest of the world tries to do something about it? Maybe when half of the population is dead? Or when the bordering countries fall into civil war because they can't handle the volume of refugees? Or perhaps we should just ignore it until it has some direct effect on us?
Why are you even attempting to make this a racism issue? This could be any other country in the world and I'd advocate the same stance. Zimbabwe is being singled out because it's literally on the verge of implosion. Inflation rates are at nearly 8,000% and as you point out, those who are unable to leave are starving to death because the money they earn is worth less by the day.

Mick86

seamus wrote:

"More or less"? Despite his actions, you can hardly claim that he has eroded democracy to point where he can't be removed?

He was first elected under dubious circumstances and many people claim he acts undemocratically. Given that why should the cliams of such people be less valid than yours.

seamus wrote:

"So you would rather sit back and let an entire country go to crap because, "It's not our problem"?

Yes

seamus wrote:

"Would you say the same if GWB abolished the US constitution and decided to establish himself as lord and master of an empire?

Depends on how it impacted on Ireland. If we were to form part of the empire for instance, then I'd reach for my gun. If not, then why should it bother me.

seamus wrote:

I said "EU" purely because our constitution doesn't allow our troops to go to war.

Of course it does.

Article 28

3. 1° War shall not be declared and the State shall not participate in any war save with the assent of Dáil Éireann.

seamus wrote:

I would be willing to spill Irish blood on this one,

That's nice of you.

seamus wrote:

Iexcept that none of our troops signed up for invasion campaigns..

The Oath of Loyalty requires obedience to all lawful orders. So if Dáil Éireann orders the invasion of Outer Mongolia then off they go.

seamus wrote:

I agree - if everyone tried to "fix" every other country, we'd be in a state of perpetual war. But how far does this kind of stuff have to go on (in any country) before the rest of the world tries to do something about it? ...

What's the definition of a regime that needs toppling. The Iranians would say that the US is the worst, North Korea would say South Korea and vice versa. China would be on Taiwan like a shot. And every country in Africa would be at it's neighbours throat.

seamus wrote:

Or perhaps we should just ignore it until it has some direct effect on us?...

I think so.

seamus wrote:

Why are you even attempting to make this a racism issue?...

I don't often hold the moral high ground. Feels great.:D

seamus wrote:

Zimbabwe is being singled out because it's literally on the verge of implosion. Inflation rates are at nearly 8,000% ?...

Substitute the name of any country in Africa with a variation on the rate of inflation.

seamus wrote:

and as you point out, those who are unable to leave are starving to death because the money they earn is worth less by the day.

I didn't point that out.

Zambia

Mick86 wrote:

I don't believe you

Well its the interweb all you have is my say so on it. You dont have to believe me and i dont have to care.

Mick86 wrote:

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.

For evil to triumph all it takes is for good men to do nothing.

You have nothing more to offer on this

seamus

Mick86 wrote:

He was first elected under dubious circumstances and many people claim he acts undemocratically. Given that why should the cliams of such people be less valid than yours.

He was elected fair and square the second time. Most of the rest of his country has accepted that he in fact didn't win the first election, but it was conceded to him, so he was inaugurated. Most people accept that Mugabe's initial rise to power could have been valid, but since then has consistently served to make sure that any election was completely tipped in his favour. You're comparing apples and oranges here.

Depends on how it impacted on Ireland. If we were to form part of the empire for instance, then I'd reach for my gun. If not, then why should it bother me.

Then this is why I'm not going to bother disputing much of your posts. We clearly sit at completely opposite positions on this one.

The Oath of Loyalty requires obedience to all lawful orders. So if Dáil Éireann orders the invasion of Outer Mongolia then off they go.

You conveniently omitted Article 29

Article 29
1. Ireland affirms its devotion to the ideal of peace and friendly co-operation amongst nations founded on international justice and morality.
2. Ireland affirms its adherence to the principle of the pacific settlement of international disputes by international arbitration or judicial determination.

I don't often hold the moral high ground. Feels great.:D

Moral high ground? Kidding yourself. The person who wrongly plays the racism card occupies the lowest moral level.

I didn't point that out.

You're right. Twas someone else. Apologies.

Mick86

Zambia232 wrote:

Well its the interweb all you have is my say so on it. You dont have to believe me and i dont have to care.

Correct

Zambia232 wrote:

For evil to triumph all it takes is for good men to do nothing.

Again, who decides when the threshold of evil is so great that the good must act? You want to invade Zimbabwe, John O'Shea wants to do Sudan.

George Bush invaded Iraq, a country ruled by a monster. Now people are positively pining for the return of Saddam and Bush is the most evil man in the universe according to some. The minute white troops move into Zimbabwe, Mugabe gets to be a hero again.

Mick86

seamus wrote:

You're comparing apples and oranges here.

Nevertheless, you would have no difficulty in finding some country which regards Bush just as you regard Mugabe.

seamus wrote:

You conveniently omitted Article 29 .

Care to quote the bit that says we may not go to war?

seamus wrote:

Moral high ground? Kidding yourself. The person who wrongly plays the racism card occupies the lowest moral level.

I didn't call anyone a racist.

Zambia

Mick86 wrote:

George Bush invaded Iraq, a country ruled by a monster. Now people are positively pining for the return of Saddam and Bush is the most evil man in the universe according to some. The minute white troops move into Zimbabwe, Mugabe gets to be a hero again.

If handled badly this would be the case. I did mention there would have to be some african troops in there.

In the face of condemnation from several african leaders he would not be the hero again.

seamus

Mick86 wrote:

Nevertheless, you would have no difficulty in finding some country which regards Bush just as you regard Mugabe.

Of course not. And we'd have no trouble finding a country which regards Ireland as a cesspit of sin, worthy of cleansing. I'm guessing you're trying to point out that what I see as a despot may be someone else's ideal of a great leader, but it's the suffering of the people that speaks for itself. In the US you don't have government-trained gangs kidnapping and murdering large groups of people with dissenting views and one third of the country hasn't fled to Mexico to find work.

Care to quote the bit that says we may not go to war?

"adherence to the principle". The wording of Article 29 is pretty clear. If this country provides any support (political or real) to armed struggles between nations in any region, then it's in breach of the constitution.
I am curious though, given the existence of Article 29, to know what the intention of Article 28 was. Or even the reverse. We're not constitutional lawyers though, so that'll probably have to go unanswered.
Perhaps it allows us to go to "war", where that war isn't an international dispute (e.g. to provide help to the US in Iraq - they're fighting resistance, not another country).

I didn't call anyone a racist.

No, but you implied that it was a motivating factor.

oscarBravo

Article 28 just says that the Army can't go to war unless the Dáil says so. My interpretation of Article 29 would be that we don't participate in other people's wars, but that doesn't prevent us going to war ourselves - if, for example, someone declared war on us.

seamus

I agree that article 29 probably didn't intend that we just stand idly by saying, "Can't we just get along?" while a foreign country invades ours, but I do think that it requires that in the event that we have a dispute with another country, then we are required to pursue a diplomatic/judicial course of action, rather than a military one.
Again,
<---- Not a consitutional lawyer

Mick86

Zambia232 wrote:

If handled badly this would be the case.

Military operations rarely go according to plan.

Zambia232 wrote:

I did mention there would have to be some african troops in there.

They might serve to take the neo-colonialism out of the equation but I doubt it. People tend to just look at the Brits and the US when they invade places. For instance Iraq was invaded by a coalition of several countries including Poland and Denmark but everybody concentrates on US input.

Zambia232 wrote:

In the face of condemnation from several african leaders he would not be the hero again.

I wouldn't bet on it. For one thing if European/US troops were involved African leaders would close ranks around Mugabe. Even if they didn't Mugabe could still drum up plenty of support from his own people. He's been around a long time now so he'll probably die in office. At age 83 how long more can he last? The UN should be looking at ways to ensure that true democracy succeeds him on his death.

By the way does he still hold his KCB or did they strip him of that?:D

Mick86

seamus wrote:

"adherence to the principle". The wording of Article 29 is pretty clear. If this country provides any support (political or real) to armed struggles between nations in any region, then it's in breach of the constitution.

It doesn't say "This country may not go to war" so it means that negotiation is better than warfare but warfare is not off the agenda.

seamus wrote:

I am curious though, given the existence of Article 29, to know what the intention of Article 28 was.

It means that the Dáil, and only the Dáil, has the power to declare war. The Taoiseach can't do it on his own, for instance.

Of course it also means that the Dáil actually has the power to do so.

Zambia

Mick86 wrote:

Military operations rarely go according to plan.

The lack of military operations always goes to plan. See Rwanda

Mick86 wrote:

They might serve to take the neo-colonialism out of the equation but I doubt it. People tend to just look at the Brits and the US when they invade places. For instance Iraq was invaded by a coalition of several countries including Poland and Denmark but everybody concentrates on US input.

Well lets us and the US stay out of this one and let someone else go. Along with a few african nations.

Mick86 wrote:

I wouldn't bet on it. For one thing if European/US troops were involved African leaders would close ranks around Mugabe. Even if they didn't Mugabe could still drum up plenty of support from his own people. He's been around a long time now so he'll probably die in office. At age 83 how long more can he last? The UN should be looking at ways to ensure that true democracy succeeds him on his death.

No they wouldnt, everyone has this fable of african solidarity. As long as 2/3 Africans nations agreed to the plan. No other nation would lift a finger on the continent. Most african leaders need there troops to safe guard their own rule.

True enough though waiting for him to die is a plan. Right up there with wait till there sick of killing each other.

Mick86

Zambia232 wrote:

The lack of military operations always goes to plan. See Rwanda

Granted.

I don't think you have really considered the possible consequences of military intervention though. It's a certainty that innocent people will die. The Zimbabwean Army might not roll over and surrender and the invaders will face a protracted war against insurgents with all it's associated problems.

Zambia232 wrote:

Well lets us and the US stay out of this one and let someone else go. Along with a few african nations.

Virtually all European countries were colonial powers in Africa.

Zambia232 wrote:

No they wouldnt, everyone has this fable of african solidarity. As long as 2/3 Africans nations agreed to the plan. No other nation would lift a finger on the continent. Most african leaders need there troops to safe guard their own rule.

POLITICAL SITUATION IN ZIMBABWE

The Extra-Ordinary Summit noted and appreciated the briefing by His Excellency President Robert G Mugabe on the current political developments in Zimbabwe.

The Extra-Ordinary Summit recalled that free, fair and democratic presidential election were held in 2002 in Zimbabwe.

The Extra Ordinary Summit reaffirmed its solidarity with the government and people of Zimbabwe.

The Extra-Ordinary Summit mandated His Excellency President Thabo Mbeki to continue to facilitate dialogue between the opposition and the government and report back to the troika on progress.

The Extra ordinary summit also encouraged enhanced diplomatic contacts which will assist with the resolution of the situation in Zimbabwe.

The Extra Ordinary Summit mandated the SADC Executive Secretary to undertake a study on the economic situation in Zimbabwe and propose measures on how SADC can assist Zimbabwe recover economically.

The Extra-Ordinary summit reiterated the appeal to Britain to honour its compensation obligations with regards to land reform made at the Lancaster House.

The Extra Ordinary Summit appealed for the lifting of all forms of sanctions against Zimbabwe.

http://www.dfa.gov.za/docs/2007/sadc0330.htm

Zambia232 wrote:

True enough though waiting for him to die is a plan. Right up there with wait till there sick of killing each other.

It's not much of a plan but it's better than 50,000 Danny Dogoods kicking the door in and making a bad situation very much worse.

mike65

I was thinking about this, maybe some psychology would be in order, with a big EU/US meeting (or more likely a side-bar at a conference) at which everyone furrows brows and says somthing must be done.

However in the agreed statement the 'west' says its not our problem to solve and any action should be taken by the AU/UN under the leadership of the continents only heavyweight - South Africa.

Mike.

Mick86

mike65 wrote:

I was thinking about this, maybe some psychology would be in order, with a big EU/US meeting (or more likely a side-bar at a conference) at which everyone furrows brows and says somthing must be done.

That would be a conference of all the ex-colonial powers of the EU and the country which was the second last to abolish slavery.:D

mike65 wrote:

However in the agreed statement the 'west' says its not our problem to solve and any action should be taken by the AU/UN under the leadership of the continents only heavyweight - South Africa.

Mbeki is a supporter of Mugabe. He is also hostile to anyone form outside Africa interfering in African affairs. A bunch of white men dictating to Africa would just get his back up.

purple'n'gold

Mbeki is a supporter of Mugabe. He is also hostile to anyone form outside Africa interfering in African affairs. A bunch of white men dictating to Africa would just get his back up.
__________________
Just goes to show what a clown Mbeki is. This of course is the guy who is in denial about the extent of the AIDs crisis in his own country.

Mick86

I can see where Mbeki is coming from. Sort of how we would feel if England was telling us how to run the show.

That said, I think South Africa might be where Zimbabwe is now in 20 or 30 years time.

purple'n'gold

Mick86 wrote:

I can see where Mbeki is coming from. Sort of how we would feel if England was telling us how to run the show.

That said, I think South Africa might be where Zimbabwe is now in 20 or 30 years time.

The first part of your statement I completely disagree with, the comparison just dos’nt add up. But I know (sort of) what you mean.
The second part of your statement I completely agree with, south Africa will go down the tubes, and sooner than 20 or 30 years.

mike65

Maybe, at least SA has a decent economic base to build upon if they have any wit (open to question I guess). That said AIDS alone could be its ruination.

Mike.

purple'n'gold

mike65 wrote:

Maybe, at least SA has a decent economic base to build upon if they have any wit (open to question I guess). That said AIDS alone could be its ruination.

Mike.

They will go a long way to destroying their economy if they persist in this land distribution nonsense. Just look at the devastation it caused in Zimbabwe.
And of course if they don't get to grips with their herrendous Aids problem, they have no future.

moe_sizlak

some in here have suggested that the south african army could roll over mugabe in the morning
it would not even be nesscerry to do anything like that , all south africa needs to do is hit the switch , zimbabwe rely completely on south africa for electricity , the south african president is a corrupt man , he may not be in mugabes league but he doesnt want to do anything about zimbabwe
umbeki was recently asked by a foreign journalist about the 18000 murders a yr currently in south africa , umbeki just flat out denied there was such a problem