Vote Mugabe or die

Jimbo07 said:
Oliver may be a little extreme, but...

the rhetoric going into Iraq did revolve around freedom and democracy, and human rights. However, the world has seen precious little from GWB in wanting to genuinely defend human rights (and, allegedly, has grievously violated them!). In short the Iraq war was a horrible sham. Now, that leaves everyone else looking conflicted. One invasion is called bad, but others are called good.
Click to expand...

I'm not happy with the administrations human rights record either, but that mostly boils down to water boarding and suspension of habeas corpus (two matters I don't treat lightly) which is a far cry from the types of human rights violations we're discussing here with Zimbabwe.

As for Canada having a military capable of doing anything, we've been tied up in Afghanistan, because of Georgie's Big Irag Adventure (as opposed to, say, focusing on Afghanistan).
Click to expand...

We appreciate your support in Afghanistan and respect the service of your soldiers. You currently have 2,500 soldiers committed in Afghanistan. You have a total regular military force of 62,000 and a primary reserve of 25,000 (according to Wikipedia's 2005 stats). If you wanted to, you could easily intervene in Zimbabwe.

Not to mention that your military has outperformed our military a few times in the past. I would say that puts us on equal footing as far as skill and ability go (I believe one of your snipers just broke our record for longest sniper shot set in Vietnam).
 
* sigh *

The real question is why isn't the South African government doing anything. Say for example: denouncing the election as a sham and not free and fair?:mad:

There is actually, come to think of it, within all the horror and sadness, an opportunity here. The Southern African Development Community (SADC) can get their act in gear and prove to the rest of the continent and the world that they have the balls to do what is necessary and denounce one of their own.

Just doing that, just having every neighbor of Zimbabwe going, unequivocally: "Bad Mugabe!" would be a major swing in the right direction.

ETA:

Gurdur said:
Here is an interesting newspaper op-ed piece giving a different possible answer.
Click to expand...

I have seen that kind of thinking in other places as well and I must say it appears to be one of the better options at the moment.
 
Last edited:
Sefarst said:
You have a total regular military force of 62,000 and a primary reserve of 25,000 (according to Wikipedia's 2005 stats). If you wanted to, you could easily intervene in Zimbabwe.
Click to expand...
I expect the primary limitation is logistical, instead of manpower related.
 
gtc said:
Now I am confused, Iran (the most wise, peaceful and democratic nation that has ever existed or shall ever exist)

"We respect the will of the Zimbabwean people expressed in the second round of the presidential elections"

So Zimbabwe has to be one of the good guys, right?
Click to expand...
Spare the straw, but Iran's statement makes perfect sense from a geopolitical perspective. Iran has hostile relations with the US and the rest of the western world, while Russia and China are more or less neutral. Iran is naturally looking for allies, and the only ones available are from the less savoury parts of the world.

Of course Iran prioritizes its own political survival over human rights in other nations, they would be stupid not to.
 
egslim said:
Spare the straw, but Iran's statement makes perfect sense from a geopolitical perspective. Iran has hostile relations with the US and the rest of the western world, while Russia and China are more or less neutral. Iran is naturally looking for allies, and the only ones available are from the less savoury parts of the world.

Of course Iran prioritizes its own political survival over human rights in other nations, they would be stupid not to.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, I thought my joke was obvious. I do recognise the 'real politics' (if that is the term) behind Iran's actions as much as I despise them for putting themselves in the situation where they have to suck up to a regime like Zimbabwe's.
 
gtc said:
I'm sorry, I thought my joke was obvious.
Click to expand...
My mistake, I find sarcasm en strawmen sometimes hard to distinguish.

I do recognise the 'real politics' (if that is the term) behind Iran's actions as much as I despise them for putting themselves in the situation where they have to suck up to a regime like Zimbabwe's.
Click to expand...
Not sure how much to blame Iran for that. They've had mutually hostile relations with the US since the Islamic revolution - the US is as much to blame for that as Iran. And the US has a proven trackrecord of invading countries whose regime it doesn't like. Iran can not hope to match the US with a conventional military, so they need a nuclear capability as a deterrent. I don't blame them for reaching that conclusion, it's perfectly rational from their perspective. Hence their pariah status, hence their recognising Mugabe.

The real problem is people who base foreign policy on their gut reaction to an issue, instead of thinking two or three steps ahead.
 
Getting away from annoying Oliver, and disregarding his reasoning, I tend to agree with his conclusions. I used to have family in Rhodesia, and some employees from Zimbabwe, so take it a bit personally, but what has happened is nothing short of tragic.
In this case I would support invading Zim, as imho, Mugabe is insane, really certifiable.
But Zim is also a landlocked country, so without support from a neighbouring country, invasion would be logistically impossible, really.
 
fagin said:
Getting away from annoying Oliver, and disregarding his reasoning, I tend to agree with his conclusions. I used to have family in Rhodesia, and some employees from Zimbabwe, so take it a bit personally, but what has happened is nothing short of tragic.
In this case I would support invading Zim, as imho, Mugabe is insane, really certifiable.
But Zim is also a landlocked country, so without support from a neighbouring country, invasion would be logistically impossible, really.
Click to expand...
Suppose you invade succesfully and overthrow Mugabe, then what? If the overwhelming majority of Zimbabweans support your invasion and rebuild their democracy, fine. Then the only problem is that you've just alienated all less-than-democratic regimes in the world, especially those in Africa, and that means they'll do things we don't like. Like trying to obtain nukes, support terrorists to keep us busy so we don't have our hands free to invade them too, etc. All kinds of nastyness against our interests.

But what if many Zimbabweans don't support the invasion? Even those who oppose him may like foreigners even less. Mugabe may even go into hiding, and meanwhile you're stuck with insurgents. Like in Iraq, but with more trees for insurgents to play hide and seek.

Invading Zimbabwe would at best be costly and have many unintended negative effects, at worst it would do same plus lead to civil war.
 
egslim said:
Suppose you invade succesfully and overthrow Mugabe, then what? If the overwhelming majority of Zimbabweans support your invasion and rebuild their democracy, fine. Then the only problem is that you've just alienated all less-than-democratic regimes in the world, especially those in Africa, and that means they'll do things we don't like. Like trying to obtain nukes, support terrorists to keep us busy so we don't have our hands free to invade them too, etc. All kinds of nastyness against our interests.

But what if many Zimbabweans don't support the invasion? Even those who oppose him may like foreigners even less. Mugabe may even go into hiding, and meanwhile you're stuck with insurgents. Like in Iraq, but with more trees for insurgents to play hide and seek.

Invading Zimbabwe would at best be costly and have many unintended negative effects, at worst it would do same plus lead to civil war.
Click to expand...

They're already in a civil war. It can't really get much worse from where they are.
 
Damien Evans said:
They're already in a civil war.
Click to expand...


No. Merely nasty repression with not so many casualties (i.e. murders by govt forces, official or unofficial) as yet.

It can't really get much worse from where they are.
Click to expand...


Oh, it can, it most definitely can. Check out Uganda, Burindi, Rwanda and Somalia for historical examples.
 
Damien Evans said:
They're already in a civil war. It can't really get much worse from where they are.
Click to expand...
Basically what Gurdur said, but supported by figures: six people per day were being killed in a campaign that they believe has already claimed 500 lives.
A real civil war could easily boost that number by at least two orders of magnitude. In a prolonged conflict three orders is more likely.

edited to add:
I think Tsvangirai made a tactical mistake by withdrawing his candidacy. If Mugabe decides to cling to power I doubt any foreign intervention (apart from an actual invasion, which carries the risks mentioned above) can dislodge him. Unless a large number of Zimbabweans is willing to risk their lives to get rid of Mugabe, he'll simply stay in power until his death.
 
Last edited:
Oliver said:
He just didn't want to be one of those...
Click to expand...
Actually he himself was pretty safe in the Dutch embassy.

The only way Zimbabwe can get rid of Mugabe is if the population rises against him. That would certainly get people killed, but otherwise the country will just remain stuck with its current leadership. I don't like it, but I see no realistic alternative either.
 
What we need to understand that there are other African countries that need help.

"Côte d’Ivoire: Abuses Threaten Run-Up to Elections
Impunity Fuels Serious Violations by Government, Rebel Forces"

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/05/24/cotedi13443.htm

"DR Congo: End the Horrific Suffering in Eastern Congo"

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2008/04/22/congo18616.htm

"Human Rights in Sierra Leone
Human Rights Concerns"

http://www.amnestyusa.org/all-countries/sierra-leone/page.do?id=1011232&n1=3&n2=30&n3=982

"Human Rights in Liberia
Human Rights Concerns"

http://www.amnestyusa.org/all-countries/liberia/page.do?id=1011188&n1=3&n2=30&n3=938

"Human Rights in Somalia
Human Rights Concerns"

http://www.amnestyusa.org/all-countries/somalia/page.do?id=1011237&n1=3&n2=30&n3=987

And then there is Darfur in Sudan. Africa needs help!!!
 
moon1969 said:
What we need to understand that there are other African countries that need help.
Click to expand...
No, they need to take care of themselves. There really is very little the western world can do in practical terms. Financial or political pressure makes little difference, and military intervention is likely to cause even more problems.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom