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 dont think that would be the right thing. Invading them would bring more turmoil to a country already on its knees. I think it needs political liasing to come to some sort of agreement.
A group was trying to organise a strike in zimbabwe for today. bit odd in my opinion as 80% of the population is unemployed. And no one has any money to spend in the shops (if they have any food in them) so that doesnt make much difference to a strike either.
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.
I think it needs political liasing to come to some sort of agreement.
Like Mugabe will listen or agree to anything proposed...
Quote:
Originally Posted by ceapach
No other country has the right to impose their political beliefs on another.
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.
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by r.e.cl.o.o.s.e.r
And how do you suggest we support the people? invading would do no good just create yet another war.
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.
"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.
"Watch with glittering eyes the whole world around you because the greatest secrets are always hidden in the most unlikely places. Those who don't believe in magic will never find it."
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.
Emily
(\__/)
(O.o )
(> < ) This Is Bunny. Copy Bunny into your signature to help him on his way to world domination.
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!
no natural resources to suck out of the ground (like in Cuba)
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.
Emily
(\__/)
(O.o )
(> < ) This Is Bunny. Copy Bunny into your signature to help him on his way to world domination.
ok - I think that's fixed up the flaming replies and insults, and the people responsible for the insults posted on this thread have now been appropriately penalysed, as flaming other members on RYL is definitely a breach of the rules of this website, not to mention a very unproductive way of handling a problem you have with another member.
I realise that this thread discusses a very volatile issue for alot of people, but please take extra care to avoid personal attacks on other members, or being confrontational in your replies on this thread.
Previously at RYL, we had banned the discussion of political (and religious) issues, due to the arguments and personal attacks that often resulted when these issues were raised .....
But Harley and the mods believed that the RYL community had matured with time, and that it may now be possible for members to have a healthy discussion on the more delicate issues that people tended to have strong and opposing opinions about, but we had high hopes that we could now learn to debate these issues without making it too personal and arguing with each other.
So we've loosened up on this restriction coz we think that members are better able debate serious and sensitive issues, but still keep it all polite and respectful of each other at the same time ....
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.
