Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

Pissed off with Zimbabwe / Mugabe situation

2»

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    DG wrote: »
    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.

    Given how much North Korea is getting for just demolishing a cooling tower and handing over some documents its a good strategy.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yerascrote wrote: »
    Lol you don't really understand how foreign policy works do you?

    When you've got an overwhelming advantage, do you really need to know? ;)


    Seriously speaking, the Mugabe regime is a fucked up one, and we need to be doing something a bit more forceful than saying "Robert, you've been a very naughty boy" e.t.c.

    As for what, invasion is one end of the spectrum, our current stance is the other end.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Whowhere wrote: »
    Seriously speaking, the Mugabe regime is a fucked up one, and we need to be doing something a bit more forceful than saying "Robert, you've been a very naughty boy" e.t.c.

    As for what, invasion is one end of the spectrum, our current stance is the other end.

    Of course its fucked up, but what exactly can we do?

    At least with other countries the solution is relatively easy and we still dont help. The WFP has been asking for help for months to feed the millions in Somalia and getting bugger all in return.

    Lets face it, the West doesnt care.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    budda wrote: »
    Of course its fucked up, but what exactly can we do?

    At least with other countries the solution is relatively easy and we still dont help. The WFP has been asking for help for months to feed the millions in Somalia and getting bugger all in return.

    Lets face it, the West doesnt care.


    Mugabe isn't concerned with sanctions, he isn't bothered about world condemnation, he isn't bothered that his actions are leading to the further suffering of his people.

    So what is left? We either ignore it, or we remove him from power, by whatever necessary, either by direct action or by assisting the locals in uprising. The latter would be the far messier approach and isn't guaranteed to work.

    When all else fails, and let's face it, it has. You're not left with many options, however ugly they might be.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Whowhere wrote: »
    Mugabe isn't concerned with sanctions, he isn't bothered about world condemnation, he isn't bothered that his actions are leading to the further suffering of his people.

    So what is left? We either ignore it, or we remove him from power, by whatever necessary, either by direct action or by assisting the locals in uprising. The latter would be the far messier approach and isn't guaranteed to work.

    When all else fails, and let's face it, it has. You're not left with many options, however ugly they might be.

    Exactly, sanctions are unlikely to work.

    Military action is (for us at least) completely impossible.

    Pushing for an uprising is likely to lead to more being killed by the 'veterans'.

    Just because you feel we must do something doesnt mean we can.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    it's time's like this when the 2nd amendment in US of A comes in handy
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    it's time's like this when the 2nd amendment in US of A comes in handy

    The one thing Zimbabwe doesnt need is more guns.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    When Adolf Hitler came to power in 1933, he started his plans for world domination in very subtle ways that no one would notice. As his confidence grew, he became more and more open about his intentions, knowing that those who had originally supported him would not have the courage to admit they were wrong. Similar things are happening with Robert Mugabe now. His plans may well be different, but the way he has been doing things is essentially similar. His aim is total control over what he views as his country. Over the years, he has become more and more brazen in his attitudes, hence why today, he feels he can get away with injuring and murdering his political opponents. In short, I consider Robert Mugabe to be the brand new Adolf Hitler, and I also consider that he should be dealt with in a similar way. For several years now, I've believed that the only way to get rid of him was to invade Harare and depose of him. But for years, we have listened to Mugabe's apologists on the political Left, who endlessly claimed that diplomatic pressure on Mugabe was bound to work. It was also claimed the concept of sending the Parachute Regiment in to sort this brute out was colonialist. Yeah - and your point is what exactly?

    These same people are now to blame for much of what is going on in Zimbabwe today. The Left were so desperate to get rid of Ian Smith and his utterly hideous white minority rule government (white supremacy would be a more accurate phrase) that they didn't especially care what the next person would be like. They were originally very keen on Mugabe, because he wanted to set up a one-party Marxist regime, something the Left sympathises with to this day. Indeed, the Left is always keen to protect their own people - hence why Hitler is rightly condemned for the evil that went on in Nazi Germany, but Stalin is given a far easier ride, despite his regime having murdered millions. Isn't it strange that these same people are now saying that perhaps an armed intervention is the only way to rid of him?

    As for the hugely over-rated Nelson Mandela's words about this issue, they were beyond useless. For weeks, there was a great clamour for him to condemn the regime, to condemn the pathetic refusal of South Africa to do anything about the brutal goings-on in Zimbabwe, to condemn the death squads and the torture going on in this failed country. So, what words did he choose to utter in the end? He said there had been a "tragic failure of leadership" in Zimbabwe. How incredibly pathetic.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    He's not a new Hitler and I assume you're not volunteering to jump in with the Paras...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    He's not a new Hitler and I assume you're not volunteering to jump in with the Paras...


    Why isn't he? He might not be a threat to world security but he is acting in exactly the same way. He needs removing, and we could do it if we wanted to. It wouldn't take much to assasinate him, it wouldn't take much to destroy his military infrastructure and leave him powerless.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Whowhere wrote: »
    Why isn't he? He might not be a threat to world security but he is acting in exactly the same way. He needs removing, and we could do it if we wanted to. It wouldn't take much to assasinate him, it wouldn't take much to destroy his military infrastructure and leave him powerless.

    HOW? You keep saying that we must do something, but you dont actually say what or how.

    Where exactly did you want to get these troops for this invasion? The army doesnt seem to have a few thousand lying around it could use as spare.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Whowhere wrote: »
    Why isn't he? He might not be a threat to world security but he is acting in exactly the same way. He needs removing, and we could do it if we wanted to. It wouldn't take much to assasinate him, it wouldn't take much to destroy his military infrastructure and leave him powerless.

    History shows most assisnations are a one way trip for the assassin, so I don't think they'll be people lining up to volunteer. And even if we did he'd be replaced - it's not just him as dictator, it's him and a political/military elite. it's like a hydra where you cut off one head and another will replace it.

    His military infrastructure isn't much, but we don't have the spare capacity ourselves, And even if we did the chances are British soldiers would still end up dead.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    And even if we did he'd be replaced - it's not just him as dictator, it's him and a political/military elite. it's like a hydra where you cut off one head and another will replace it.

    I've heard analysts suggest that it is actually the generals not Mugabe that have the power, they know that if he leaves they could well be tried for crimes against humanity.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    budda wrote: »
    HOW? You keep saying that we must do something, but you dont actually say what or how.

    Where exactly did you want to get these troops for this invasion? The army doesnt seem to have a few thousand lying around it could use as spare.


    How? We invade. Despite reports to the contrary we do have sufficient man power to spare.

    Our army comprises of approximately 150,000 troops. Current major deployments are:
    Afghanistan-Just under 8000
    Iraq-4000
    Sierra Leone-1000
    Rest of the Middle East-3700
    British forces Germany-undisclosed for security reasons although unlikely to be more than a couple of thousand.

    That accounts for 18,000 troops.
    That leaves us with 132,000 troops (approx, not including small troop deployments on training exercises) with which to invade.
    They could be supported by upto 200 (the other 200 are deployed, and this is being over generous.) Challenger 2 main battle tanks, 670 light battle tanks, approx 3000 artillery pieces, 4000 infantry fighting vehicles and 300 apache/lynx gunships.

    Standing in our way would be 29,000 regular and 21,000 para military troops armed with approx 100 cold war tanks, the bulk of which are T-54's which were out of date in the 70's and 100 artillery pieces and assorted toyota pickup trucks and armoured cars.

    Zimbabwe has an airforce.....it consists of approx 20 fighters and a few helicopters.


    You asked ;)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The guidelines for infantry regiments is two years between tours, to allow rest and recuperation. Currently this is down to about a year. This isn't sustainable at current tempo and certainly not if we add extra. And it's infantry we're short of (about 10% at any one time is undeployable due to injuries), plus training course, plus people holding these training, compassionate leave. We also need to hold a reserve for emergencies here - it's fuck all use having everyone in Zimbabwe if the Real IRA decides to launch a new campaign or there's a major flooding incident

    Plus, once we got our troops to Zimbabwe (not as easy as just driving over there, we'd need a friendly country to invade from). We'd then beat them in conventional war, but there would still be dead British soldiers.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    And even if we did the chances are British soldiers would still end up dead.
    Currently, our military are engaged in wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Nobody even seems to know why we're in Afghanistan now, and politicians can't even be bothered to try and explain it. As for Iraq, they were sent there on the basis of lies, deliberately told by our former Prime Minister. Hardly anybody supported the Iraq war in the first place, and nobody supports it now.

    Were we to go into Zimbabwe, at least they would be fighting for a clear and noble cause. For the first time in several years, the public would be completely in favour of an invasion by our military. How can we stand aside like this whilst Mugabe continues to commit murder, some would even say genocide, against his own citizens? He must be stopped. Do not listen to the usual Left-wing rabble saying it would be "colonialist" - they are the same bastards who gave us Robert Mugabe in the first place. They were wrong then, and they are wrong now.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The guidelines for infantry regiments is two years between tours, to allow rest and recuperation. Currently this is down to about a year. This isn't sustainable at current tempo and certainly not if we add extra. And it's infantry we're short of (about 10% at any one time is undeployable due to injuries), plus training course, plus people holding these training, compassionate leave. We also need to hold a reserve for emergencies here - it's fuck all use having everyone in Zimbabwe if the Real IRA decides to launch a new campaign or there's a major flooding incident

    Plus, once we got our troops to Zimbabwe (not as easy as just driving over there, we'd need a friendly country to invade from). We'd then beat them in conventional war, but there would still be dead British soldiers.



    The answer is glaring. Brin our troops back from Afghanistan and Iraq. Noone wants them there, there is no point them being there.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Whowhere wrote: »
    The answer is glaring. Brin our troops back from Afghanistan and Iraq. Noone wants them there, there is no point them being there.

    Iraq maybe, but there are very good reasons why we dont want Afghanistan to fall apart even more than it is at the moment. The taliban are making a come back, and with them a dark and nasty collection of islamist fighters from across the trouble spots of the world.

    If we left the opium crop would fund weapons, training and terrorism.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote: »
    Were we to go into Zimbabwe, at least they would be fighting for a clear and noble cause. For the first time in several years, the public would be completely in favour of an invasion by our military. How can we stand aside like this whilst Mugabe continues to commit murder, some would even say genocide, against his own citizens? He must be stopped. Do not listen to the usual Left-wing rabble saying it would be "colonialist" - they are the same bastards who gave us Robert Mugabe in the first place. They were wrong then, and they are wrong now.

    Yet when there is genocide in Sudan we do next to nothing.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote: »
    Were we to go into Zimbabwe, at least they would be fighting for a clear and noble cause. For the first time in several years, the public would be completely in favour of an invasion by our military. How can we stand aside like this whilst Mugabe continues to commit murder, some would even say genocide, against his own citizens? He must be stopped. Do not listen to the usual Left-wing rabble saying it would be "colonialist" - they are the same bastards who gave us Robert Mugabe in the first place. They were wrong then, and they are wrong now.

    you don't get it do you - there are no clear and noble causes. There are only scared and tired young men killing and being killed by other scared and tired young men.

    And I don't know why tou are whinging about left wingers, when you are displaying an extreme left wing mentality ,ie others can die to salve your conscience
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Whowhere wrote: »
    The answer is glaring. Brin our troops back from Afghanistan and Iraq. Noone wants them there, there is no point them being there.

    The point in them being there is the long-term security of the UK and ensuring both those states can have stable pro-Western Governments and don't fall into becoming training grounds for Islamic terrorists
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The point in them being there is the long-term security of the UK and ensuring both those states can have stable pro-Western Governments and don't fall into becoming training grounds for Islamic terrorists



    Which is something that *could* happen. At the same time we can't ignore a real problem which is ocurring right now, and it is something we have the troop numbers to deal with.
    We wouldn't even need to match troop numbers. A few thousand troops supported by the RAF and Royal armoured corps would be able to march straight into the capital. They wouldn't be up against the finest the world would have to offer, they'd be up against conscripts inferior in numbers, training and equipment.
    And it wouldn't be an unpopular war, it's not as if we'd have an entire population of guerillas to fight against, as we do in other countries.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Whowhere wrote: »
    And it wouldn't be an unpopular war, it's not as if we'd have an entire population of guerillas to fight against, as we do in other countries.

    Wasnt this what was said before Iraq?

    The 'veterans' wouldn't fight against us in a hands on war, but most certainly would take pot shots at us if we stayed in the country.

    You cant take over a country with a few thousand men.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    budda wrote: »
    Yet when there is genocide in Sudan we do next to nothing.
    As I've said previously, the reaction of the international community to this was absolutely pathetic. Exactly the same with the events last year in Burma as well.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Whowhere wrote: »
    Which is something that *could* happen. At the same time we can't ignore a real problem which is ocurring right now, and it is something we have the troop numbers to deal with.
    We wouldn't even need to match troop numbers. A few thousand troops supported by the RAF and Royal armoured corps would be able to march straight into the capital. They wouldn't be up against the finest the world would have to offer, they'd be up against conscripts inferior in numbers, training and equipment.
    And it wouldn't be an unpopular war, it's not as if we'd have an entire population of guerillas to fight against, as we do in other countries.

    A few thousand troops to march there, doesn't equal a few thousand troops. How many RAF transport command to support them? Royal Navy Auxillary? How do we continue to supply the troops in Iraq?

    Plus we don't have a few thousand troops (or not infantry) sitting around doing nothing. They're recovering from Ops, preparing for Ops or doing other training (massively important for morale and retention).

    It still also doesn't deal with my main objection - British soldiers will still die for other people's consciences
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru

    It still also doesn't deal with my main objection - British soldiers will still die for other people's consciences

    Let's just leave them to it then. Allow another country to bite the dust and descend into chaos. I mean it's not as if there are enough of them about.

    I'm not even talking about occupying the country, we wouldn't need to. There are enough people there who want Mugabe out, all we'd be doing is helping them.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Whowhere wrote: »
    Let's just leave them to it then. Allow another country to bite the dust and descend into chaos. I mean it's not as if there are enough of them about.

    I'm not even talking about occupying the country, we wouldn't need to. There are enough people there who want Mugabe out, all we'd be doing is helping them.

    And there's also a fuck of a lot who would support Mugabe. Nor may many of his neighbours be too keen.

    You seem to think the British just turn up and everything will be hunky dory. I think they'll turn up and at the best be there for twenty years and burying a lot of young soldiers in that time.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Whowhere wrote: »
    I'm not even talking about occupying the country, we wouldn't need to. There are enough people there who want Mugabe out, all we'd be doing is helping them.

    Its alarming how similar this sounds to the run up to the iraq war. White soliders with guns turning up in Zimbabwe would help galvanise Mugabes power base.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote: »
    As I've said previously, the reaction of the international community to this was absolutely pathetic. Exactly the same with the events last year in Burma as well.

    Of course, its tragic, but sadly we neither want to be or can be the worlds policeman and protector. We could probably stop selling nasty people loads of weapons though, that might help. Plus there are all those massively trade distorting barriers and subsidies which cause untold suffering.
Sign In or Register to comment.