Pissed off with Zimbabwe / Mugabe situation

Former Member

So basically, Zimbabwe's one of the world's most fucked up countries right now. An incompetent dictator has led to the largest poverty rate in the world, hyperinflation, a country in turmoil where everyone who can has emigrated, the rest are left to starve to death, basically a complete mess. When there was the potential for a competent leader to step in, violence with killing of his supporters and a dodgy election meant he didn't get through and Mugabe's sworn in yet again.

I really don't understand, why the fuck are UK (and South Africa) doing nothing whatsoever about this? We're seeing a few official statements of condemnation, whoopy fucking do. Given the huge work the British Empire had in establishing Rhodesia, and given its utterly inhumane to see the Zimbabwean citizens starving to death, why the hell don't we (with South Africa, with United Nations, maybe with USA) go in and intervene? Will be a piece of piss to overthrow Mugabe without the hundreds of thousands of innocent lives that were taken in Iraq and Afghanistan. Why has nobody suggested this, instead the only action is useless words of disappointment / condemnation?

Former Member

South Africa could take down Mugabe without firing a shot. It's them your anger should be directed towards.

Former Member

I'm With Stupid wrote: »

South Africa could take down Mugabe without firing a shot. It's them your anger should be directed towards.

Fair enough. But (a) SA has enough problems to deal with, worst crime/rape rates in the world, (b) UK has strong historic ties with Zimbabwe.. hence I said UK with SA, we should together be resolving this. I just don't get how the international attitude is "This is disappointing" rather than "Enough of this BS, let's overthrow this twat".

Former Member

from the way i see it south africa and other countries can do more to stop this rain of terror they wer quick to overthrow saddam n dat when he was an toher visiocus dictator who apparently had weapons of mass destruction never found by the way when a real country is need all they do is sit back and give dat man what he wants its appesment all over again

Former Member

South Africa has no excuses. They may have domestic problems, but they're long term issues. This could be over overnight. Just flick the switch that shuts off Zimbabwe's power.

As for an invasion, by who? The UK? The old colonial masters that they only got rid of in 1980? By America who are almost universally hated for invading parts of the middle east recently? We might get rid of Mugabe, but we'd turn the country into a warzone.

Former Member

I'm With Stupid wrote: »

South Africa has no excuses. They may have domestic problems, but they're long term issues. This could be over overnight. Just flick the switch that shuts off Zimbabwe's power.

Fair enough. Now back with my original question, why does nobody give a fuck? Why's nobody demanding South Africa do anything? Just frivolous political statements instead.

I'm With Stupid wrote: »

As for an invasion, by who? The UK? The old colonial masters that they only got rid of in 1980? By America who are almost universally hated for invading parts of the middle east recently? We might get rid of Mugabe, but we'd turn the country into a warzone.

Don't think many Zimbabwean citizens would have a problem with us "old colonial masters" coming in and restoring things back to the good old days, when they were able to, y'know, have food on their table. And if the States got involved (which they won't, they don't care), it may mute conspiracy theories on oil regarding middle east, this would be more for humanitarian reasons without an agenda perhaps.

Former Member

tinkler wrote: »

Fair enough. Now back with my original question, why does nobody give a fuck? Why's nobody demanding South Africa do anything? Just frivolous political statements instead.

Everyone's demanding that South Africa do something. What else do you want them to do? It's in South Africa's hand now. We couldn't do anything else that wouldn't result in far more people suffering and probably dying. This is Africa's problem. They fought for the right to make their own decisions, so it's up to them to step up to the plate and deal with a real crisis. We can offer support, but we can't dictate anything. The Zimbabwean people have clearly spoken. It's now up to the neighbouring countries (i.e. the ones with the influence) to make sure their will is recognised.

tinkler wrote: »

Don't think many Zimbabwean citizens would have a problem with us "old colonial masters" coming in and restoring things back to the good old days, when they were able to, y'know, have food on their table. And if the States got involved (which they won't, they don't care), it may mute conspiracy theories on oil regarding middle east, this would be more for humanitarian reasons without an agenda perhaps.

You're underestimating the number of supporters Mugabe has. He's not just on his own with a group of loyal followers in an ivory tower y'know?

Former Member

The consequences of intervention are pretty unpredictable... but civil war, or even just a bloody guerilla war against whoever intervenes, is a distinct possibility...

Still, no matter how bad it gets in Zimbabwe, it's nice to see the new Shadow Tory Home Secretary making money out of Zimbabwe...

Former Member

I'm With Stupid wrote: »

Everyone's demanding that South Africa do something. What else do you want them to do? It's in South Africa's hand now.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7293810.stm - where do I see anywhere the UK/anyone demanding South Africa do something? We've just splashed out on Mandela's birthday party, yet don't have the relationship to demand that it seems.

I'm With Stupid wrote: »

You're underestimating the number of supporters Mugabe has. He's not just on his own with a group of loyal followers in an ivory tower y'know?

And what are they going to do, with their comparatively fuck-all military equipment? He has a lot more haters in his country than supporters.

Former Member

Disillusioned wrote: »

Still, no matter how bad it gets in Zimbabwe, it's nice to see the new Shadow Tory Home Secretary making money out of Zimbabwe...

Ridiculous story... BP, Barclays and Tesco are global, international firms, thus inevitably have some Zimbabwe presence. Ridiculous to scapegoat global firms like that. And he's hardly "making money out of Zimbabwe" when those stocks are probably overall down this year (FTSE100 down 14% year to date?!)

Former Member

tinkler wrote: »

And what are they going to do, with their comparatively fuck-all military equipment? He has a lot more haters in his country than supporters.

Do the Taliban ring any bells? With their fuck-all military equipment? And yet people are still being killed every day in that country.

Former Member

I'm With Stupid wrote: »

Do the Taliban ring any bells? With their fuck-all military equipment? And yet people are still being killed every day in that country.

What? Afghanistan have a huge military/defense emphasis - they were trained up for 3 decades by the Soviet Union, under Taliban rule still maintained a huge network of local warlords, so plenty of artilery under their belts. UK/US completely underestimated their ability to defend/attack/retaliate. The Zimbabwe National Army otoh is a joke with about 30 barracks.

Former Member

tinkler wrote: »

Ridiculous story... BP, Barclays and Tesco are global, international firms, thus inevitably have some Zimbabwe presence. Ridiculous to scapegoat global firms like that. And he's hardly "making money out of Zimbabwe" when those stocks are probably overall down this year (FTSE100 down 14% year to date?!)

Mr Grieve owns at least £240,000 worth of shares in companies operating in the southern African country such as Shell, mining firms Rio Tinto and Anglo American and the Standard Chartered bank.

£240k of shares will pay some pretty big dividends...

Former Member

tinkler wrote: »

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7293810.stm - where do I see anywhere the UK/anyone demanding South Africa do something? We've just splashed out on Mandela's birthday party, yet don't have the relationship to demand that it seems.

From the last link in this post:

In recent days, Mbeki found himself isolated — and attacked, directly or indirectly, by everyone from Barack Obama to a growing chorus of African allies — as he pressed ahead with his quiet diplomacy, even as Mugabe's henchmen thrashed opposition voters with iron clubs in news photos.

From Britain/America:

But South Africa blocked a British bid to get the 15-nation council to recognise the Zimbabwe opposition’s claim to power, based on the results of the March 29 first round. Instead, the watered-down Security Council text said merely that “the results of the 29 March 2008 elections must be respected”.

Britain pressed for fresh sanctions against Zimbabwe yesterday and asked the United Nations to recognise the opposition’s claim to power, after Condoleezza Rice, the Secretary of State, said that Mr Mugabe’s Government could not be considered legitimate without a fair run-off.

Britain would work for a “deepening” of existing EU sanctions against 130 leading figures in the Zanu (PF) regime including possibly banning their children from studying abroad. The EU could also look at tightening the restrictions on international firms doing business with Zimbabwe.

The Government would also review British companies doing business in Zimbabwe. The four remaining major UK companies in the country are British American Tobacco (BAT), Barclays Bank and the miners Rio Tinto and Anglo American.

From The Times.

From Zimbabwe:

Zimbabwe's MDC leader Morgan Tsvangirai will urge Africa this week to pile pressure on President Robert Mugabe to solve the country's political crisis after the opposition pulled out of a presidential run-off vote.

From everyone in Africa except South Africa:

An emergency meeting of southern African leaders is seeking to address the Zimbabwe crisis, ahead of Friday's presidential election run-off.

The summit involves leaders from Swaziland, Tanzania and Angola - but does not include the region's chief mediator, South Africa's Thabo Mbeki.

Prime Minister Gordon Brown said the financial and travel restrictions would target specific individuals in Mr Mugabe's government.

From South Africa:

The relationship between these two men, stretching back almost 30 years, is crucial to fathoming why Mbeki, picked last year by regional leaders to officially mediate Zimbabwe's conflict, does not publicly criticize Mugabe, 84, nor use South Africa's unique economic and political leverage as the dominant nation in the region to curb his ruthless methods.

Former Member

tinkler wrote: »

What? Afghanistan have a huge military/defense emphasis - they were trained up for 3 decades by the Soviet Union, under Taliban rule still maintained a huge network of local warlords, so plenty of artilery under their belts. UK/US completely underestimated their ability to defend/attack/retaliate. The Zimbabwe National Army otoh is a joke with about 30 barracks.

And a tonne of brand new Chinese equipment.

Former Member

I'm With Stupid wrote: »

From the last link in this post:

From Britain/America:

From The Times.

From Zimbabwe:

From everyone in Africa except South Africa:

From South Africa:

Excellent. Thanks for that. So a lot more progress is trying to be made than I had imagined - just generally hadn't seen a huge outcry in the media that this must be stopped now, just general rhetoric that its a shame. Hopefully a ramp-up in this pressure will cause something to actually happen in the next week or three. Rgds

Former Member

ladytempa wrote: »

from the way i see it south africa and other countries can do more to stop this rain of terror they wer quick to overthrow saddam n dat when he was an toher visiocus dictator who apparently had weapons of mass destruction never found by the way when a real country is need all they do is sit back and give dat man what he wants its appesment all over again

Damn, girl! Give us a chance to breathe ... more punctuation please! :rolleyes:

Former Member

tinkler wrote: »

I really don't understand, why the fuck are UK (and South Africa) doing nothing whatsoever about this

Britain has to be careful. Any military action could be made out to be some form of 're-colonisation of Africa'.

South Africa? Well, they make a lot of money out of Zimbabwe. All the refugees in SA make money and send it back to Zimbabwe. What do the Zimbabweans in the country spend their money on? South African goods! Good for the South African economy.

Also, the ANC are cautious about turning on a 'friend' from the days when Zimbabwe was a 'safe' country for the banned ANC leadership from South Africa.

Former Member

Do the good old fashioned train some troops up, get them to assasinate mugabe. Then go after the generals!

Former Member

I don't see why we don't just send some troops in. We'd wipe the floor with them, and unlike Iraq we're actually needed there to do some good.

Their best armoured fighting vehicle is a T-69 from China, which they have 10 of ffs.

Former Member

There's no geopolitical advantage in invading Zimbabwe.

Former Member

I think if military action was to take place it should be by african nations, if an outside country like ourselves was ever to go in we would have to have full permission from south africa etc. The thing is though, if troops do go in, will a free election take place then they just leave and everything be fine? Or will many bloody revenge attacks take place which would develope in a full scale civil war?

Former Member

Jonny8888 wrote: »

I think if military action was to take place it should be by african nations, if an outside country like ourselves was ever to go in we would have to have full permission from south africa etc. The thing is though, if troops do go in, will a free election take place then they just leave and everything be fine? Or will many bloody revenge attacks take place which would develope in a full scale civil war?

Despite the at times ridiculous and needless killings of innocent civilians on the way, US/UK have done a great job in Afghanistan and Iraq of developing a democracy with pretty free and fair elections. I think it'll be a piece of piss to do this in Zimbabwe, without so many innocent killings on the way.

Can't believe Mugabe's not been shot, especially when parading around outside Zimbabwe. Such a twat.

Why is it that pretty much every African country has completely fucked everything up after British colonial rule exited, yet elsewhere like India they've done a pretty good job? Why are African governments so utterly incompetent and corrupt?

Former Member

tinkler wrote: »

Despite the at times ridiculous and needless killings of innocent civilians on the way, US/UK have done a great job in Afghanistan and Iraq of developing a democracy with pretty free and fair elections. I think it'll be a piece of piss to do this in Zimbabwe, without so many innocent killings on the way.

hope thats a joke

Former Member

Yerascrote wrote: »

There's no geopolitical advantage in invading Zimbabwe.

Which means we could invade without being portrayed as the old colonial masters coming back to grab back the land.

The only advantage is that for once we could do something for the good of the people rather than the good of those in power.

Former Member

The Moral Maze on Radio 4 had a interesting show entitled "Zimbabwe is a moral disaster, but who's to blame?"

It's less about solutions and more about establishing blame, but it's still pretty interesting.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/religion/moralmaze.shtml

Former Member

We cant put boots on the ground, not only do we not have any spare but also it will look exactly like Mugabes predictions, that we are just itching to get the country back under our control.

South Africa should say more, but they are in a very difficult situation, they already have more than a million Zimbabwians in their country. So if they push too hard all that will happen is more immigrants which SA cant afford to feed or house.

Former Member

Also bear in mind that Mugabe was a strong supporter of the ANC during Apartheid. There are many in the South African Government, who whilst not supporting Mugabe, do feel some sympathy and gratitude towards a former close ally and don't feel willing to criticise someone who gave them sanctuary from South African intelligence and special forces.

Former Member

Flashman's Ghost wrote: »

Also bear in mind that Mugabe was a strong supporter of the ANC during Apartheid. There are many in the South African Government, who whilst not supporting Mugabe, do feel some sympathy and gratitude towards a former close ally and don't feel willing to criticise someone who gave them sanctuary from South African intelligence and special forces.

Definitely, and Mbeki is almost the total opposite to Mugabe, while the latter was in jail Mbeki was going to university in the UK among other unflattering comparisons.

Former Member

Whowhere wrote: »

Which means we could invade without being portrayed as the old colonial masters coming back to grab back the land.

The only advantage is that for once we could do something for the good of the people rather than the good of those in power.

Lol you don't really understand how foreign policy works do you?

Former Member

tinkler wrote: »

I really don't understand, why the fuck are UK (and South Africa) doing nothing whatsoever about this? We're seeing a few official statements of condemnation, whoopy fucking do.

If you don't have oil or Nuclear Weapons then the rest of the world ignores you .. I suspect the reason a lot of nations without oil want to develop nuclear weapons isn't to ever use them but to be taken more seriously on a world stage.