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.
Options
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Given how much North Korea is getting for just demolishing a cooling tower and handing over some documents its a good strategy.
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.
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.
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.
The one thing Zimbabwe doesnt need is more guns.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Yet when there is genocide in Sudan we do next to nothing.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.