Lets just do the right thing for once...
 

and Invade Zimbabwe, find Mugabe and let the rightfully elected MDC take over. Better than sitting watching China, Iran & Bin Laden laughing at us. We all know Mugabe will be "elected" back into power and probably issue a "crackdown" on those who voted against him. So we made a right illegal hash of Iraq but at least we can regain some respect by getting Mugabe.

I would oppose any intervention.
No other country has the right to impose their political beliefs on another.

Exceptions: Where genocides are taking place, like Sudan. Or similar situation when we can aid the citizens.

We can offer friendly guidance as a third party to aid the citizens through the tough time, if they want us and if we don't assert ourselves as "peacemaker" and cause more disruption as we often do.

Like Mugabe will listen or agree to anything proposed...


Re-read what I said.


It seems like the world is just going to sit and watch Mugabe rig the election and commit another genocide with the whole "we shouldn't go in" approach. What was so 'right' about Invading Iraq then?

To be fair it's all messed up anyways and the only reason the country is so poor is cause they kicked out all the white farmers.
Just assasinate Mugabe?
Solve most problems.
Also we couldn't aford to go to war with yet another country.
Lack of armed forces cause we followed America :|.
</3 gutted.

You don't feel that a trial would do justice?
Or that a Zimbabwean trial would effectively have the same sentence?

I mean Zimbabwe is different to Iraq - people want our support, a DEMOCRATIC and POPULAR government that has already been ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE is waiting to take over.

How could you put him on trial?
On what grounds and who you give evidence against him?
It would just end up as corupt as the voting.
So no I don't think a trial would do justice at all.

And how do you suggest we support the people? invading would do no good just create yet another war. We're already fighting two.

The same was said against Saddam but when he was captured new evidence by people who lived in fear of him was exposed and used. The same can happen with Mugabe.


We support them by helping the MDC take power. After all they are democratically elected to rule Zimbabwe. The Iraqi's didn't want us there and still don't - the Zimbabwean people however do want help, because they know and we know Mugabe will rig the recount or run off or whatever and get back in and they don't want him running Zimbabwe they want the MDC to run the country. War with who exactly? The people who want change? Bush always wanted Iraq to be an example, but here is Zimbabwe using democratic methods to change but is being denied by a weak dictator - what better example than to help the people of Zimbabwe who want our help?

A fair point I must agree :)
To be honest I still think assasinating him would slove the problem quick and simply.
Although how exactly could we help the MDC take power?
I think capturing Mugabe might be slightly more problematic than Saddam.
Cause like all the politics involved.

Yes. Because War solves everything...

If you had one of you mates in Iraq right now fighting some pointless f*cking war then I think your opinion would be different.

"Invading" somewhere has never actually totally solved something though, has it?

It's easy to sit and go "yeah,we should do that" and think you've got all the answers,but if things were actually that easy,there wouldn't be this problem in the first place.

Not a damn thing. And I don't think anyone here said it was. Our invasion of Iraq never was and never will be morally acceptable or minimally sensible, and it sure as f*** doesn't justify invading more countries.


On to the topic of the thread... I don't know why you're so interested in Zimbabwe in particular, but there are a heck of a lot of countries out there with f***ed up governments and corrupt elections, and we sure as hell can't go around invading all of them. And considering that the US is one of those countries, we really have no right to invade other countries for it. You want to forcibly overturn the results of all rigged elections? Well, I don't think the UK would be too successful invading the US.

As a country, England has nothing to gain by interveening. By that I mean there's no oil to take, no natural resources to suck out of the ground (like in Cuba) and no obligation to protect their people.

I dont understant why england and america cant mind there own bussiness! why do we need to get involved in other peoples problems! leave the country to just deal with itself!

I have mates in the army, the navy nd the RAF.
They all keep coming back.
Think Brian has been to Iraq twice and Afganistan three times now.

At least as far as the US is concerned, the situation with Cuba really has nothing to do with natural resources. The reason we have sanctions against them is really quite simple: there's a fairly large population of extremely wealthy Cuban expatriates in Florida who left Cuba because of the financial harm the wealthy elite would suffer under a communist regime. They want the sanctions, they vote (and as you may remember, Florida has been a key swing-state in recent presidential elections), and no one else has enough interest in ending the sanctions to overpower their vote.

The other issue for the US is geographic proximity. During the Cold War, it was a pretty alarming place to have a hostile regime. We actually still have a military base in Cuba. That wasn't really an issue of resources apart from the actual location itself - it was more of a military strategy issue than an economic one.

It could've gotten that confused with Malaysia. *scratches head* regardless, before you start writing more essays on the history of Cuba, my point stands. We have nothing to gain. Good will's not enough.

Oh yes, because invasion worked so damn well in Iraq! Let's do it again, then!

Woot.