Kill Robert Mugabe

[Hababi]

Think it'd be a good move? I'm talking about a multinational effort (preferably led by African nations) that would march in, shoot Mugabe, and set up a stable government.

It's hard to imagine just how complete Mugabe's destruction of a once stable and prosperous nation has been. Inflation is at 25000% (try to comprehend that), and will reach 100,000 by year's end. Mugabe has bullied and butchered those who oppose him. Very few rulers in history have done so much harm to their nation.

So, kill Mugabe? Also, when is intervention acceptable?

[Iskandar]

Depose him at least.

[Independent_CA]

I'm all for it as long as it's not the US doing it.

[Dave de Sylvia]

I'm all for it as long as it's not the US doing it.
I think he was asking us personally.

[RIP Ian Curtis]

Foriegn intervention in cases like these has only ever worked once, with that Hitler fellow, and even then, the entire country had to be destroyed to cement it. Regieme change seems like a big ol myth to me.

[WhoDidTheElf]

you could just nuke it. The regieme would change, doubt anything else would.

[VomitStainedCretin]

Depose him at least.Agreed. An invasion would be unneccesary and smack too muh of neo-colonialism unless the US and Europe had absolutely no involvement. Unfortunately, I don't think any African leaders who would want rid of him have the strength and those who have the strength, namely South Africa, are led by people like Thabo Mbeki who still think AIDS can be cured with garlic and beetroot and wouldn't dare attack one of his fellow African nations if it meant fulfilling the white man's desires.

[RIP Ian Curtis]

Besides, what could you replace him with? The only hope for that basket-case of a country is another despot, how you gonna make sure he's a benevolent one?

[Iskandar]

His opposition seems fine to me.

[Hababi]

Besides, what could you replace him with? The only hope for that basket-case of a country is another despot, how you gonna make sure he's a benevolent one?

While the Zimbabwe economy is in shambles, there is a lot of potential there. We're not talking about Niger; a sensible leader, along with ample international aid, could get Zimbabwe back on track. Governing it would be easier than governing the Congo is, though it'd be wise for the international community to strengthen Joseph Kabila's government and develope the infrastructure there. And there are sensible voices there who could be good leaders.

[Iskandar]

I would support backing of Mugabe's opposition (whom Mugabe arrested recently, I believe) and a coup.

[RIP Ian Curtis]

Remember who got Mugabe into power? A bunch of white dudes with the best of intentions. Africa is and always will be hell, leave it alone.

[Hababi]

Africa is and always will be hell, leave it alone.

That's a rather grand sweeping and ignorant statement.

[Dave de Sylvia]

That's a rather grand sweeping and ignorant statement.
Aren't you the one who wants white people to re-colonise it? :amaze:

[Hababi]

Aren't you the one who wants white people to re-colonise it? :amaze:

:lol: No. Colonialism is inherently racist and wrong. Imperialism is different and in some cases could (and has) been used for good.

[Iskandar]

:lol: No. Colonialism is inherently racist and wrong. Imperialism is different and in some cases could (and has) been used for good.Uh, okay.

[Hababi]

Uh, okay.

The US (along with its allies) was an imperial presence in Japan and West Germany after WW2. Think that was a bad thing?

[Reaganista]

no they werent
:lol: No. Colonialism is inherently racist and wrong. Imperialism is different and in some cases could (and has) been used for good.

wat

[Hababi]

no they werent


Imperalism=rule over a people by an outside presence. Precisely what post-war occupation was.

[Reaganista]

Imperalism=rule over a people by an outside presence
not really

[Iskandar]

Imperalism=rule over a people by an outside presence. Precisely what post-war occupation was.Yeah, that was a war.

[Hababi]

Yeah, that was a war.

No that was post-war.

EDIT: Tway you're really desperate for me to neg you, aren't you? :p

[Dave de Sylvia]

Imperalism=rule over a people by an outside presence. Precisely what post-war occupation was.
No, imperialism implies an empire.

[Hababi]

No, imperialism implies an empire.

Hardly. It's just been the tool of those desiring empires.

It would be an imperial action for several nations of Africa to depose Mugabe, or Obiang Ngueme. And it'd be great. Imperialism in the sense that Europeans practiced it in Africa was obviously wrong.

[Reaganista]

No that was post-war.

imperialism is the extension of monopoly capitalism
post-war reconstruction is just reconstruction

EDIT: Tway you're really desperate for me to neg you, aren't you? :p
put it in me baby
wait wat

[Dave de Sylvia]

What? Imperialism means the pursuit of empire, it's in the root of the word. You can't be imperialist unless you plan to build a permanent or semi-permanent empire, it doesn't make any sense.

[Hababi]

imperialism is the extension of monopoly capitalism

Imperialism: The practice of one country extending its control over the territory, political system, or economic life of another country.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=mozilla&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:unofficial&defl=en&q=define:Imperialism&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title



post-war reconstruction is just reconstruction


Do you realize how profitable post-war reconstruction was for the allies?


What? Imperialism means the pursuit of empire, it's in the root of the word. You can't be imperialist unless you plan to build a permanent or semi-permanent empire, it doesn't make any sense.


Of course you can. To exert temporary political and/or economic influence on a country in chaos, to move it toward stability, is completely free of empire-building, but would still fit the definition of imperialism.

[Dave de Sylvia]

Yeah, the definition you made up.

[Iskandar]

Of course you can. To exert temporary political and/or economic influence on a country in chaos, to move it toward stabilityThat's never done out of altruism.

Zero, when you say imperialism I think you mean something more like hegemony.

[Hababi]

Yeah, the definition you made up.

Erm the definition I linked to.
That's never done out of altruism.


Usually, when it is done, there is a mix of moral and strategic motivations.

Zero, when you say imperialism I think you mean something more like hegemony.

Hegemony is an illegitimate term.

[Dave de Sylvia]

Erm the definition I linked to.
OK, but that definition is imprecise at best.

[Iskandar]

Usually, when it is done, there is a mix of moral and strategic motivations.Yeah, just pointing out that's it rarely if ever done out of sheer conviction.
Hegemony is an illegitimate term.No, it's just better at describing what you mean than imperialism is.

Hegemony is influence over other nations. That's not an illegitimate notion, it happens all the time.

[lunchforthesky]

Depose would preferable but yeah I'm fully supportive. This is totally different to Iraq/Afghanistan as the people want this and there are no extremists or religious types involved. Plus it's humanitarian not oil driven.

So yeah he needs removing.

[Bron-Yr-Aur]

Plus it's humanitarian not oil driven.
lol

[Iskandar]

We could just wait until he dies, and the attendant power vacuum.

[lunchforthesky]

We could just wait until he dies, and the attendant power vacuum.

That's not much help to the people he is torturing is it?

[Hababi]

No, it's just better at describing what you mean than imperialism is.

The whole thing is a matter of semantics. The important thing is the concept.

[Iskandar]

The whole thing is a matter of semantics. The important thing is the concept.Yeah, and hegemony is really what the concept is. Foreign domination is the definition of hegemony. Imperialism is a related but distinct concept.

[Hababi]

Yeah, and hegemony is really what the concept is. Foreign domination is the definition of hegemony. Imperialism is a related but distinct concept.

No what I mean is that the important thing is what I'm actually talking about.

[Reaganista]

Imperialism: The practice of one country extending its control over the territory, political system, or economic life of another country.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=mozilla&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:unofficial&defl=en&q=define:Imperialism&sa=X&oi =glossary_definition&ct=title
my definition is better but it's a little longer
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/

[Hababi]

marxists.org :\

[Reaganista]

and

[Hababi]

marxists.org

[Reaganista]

ok weve established that

[Hababi]

Apparently not well enough.

[-1up!-]

Apparently not well enough.

So you deny any validity to the source because it has marxist influence? Is that your idea of intelligent discussion?

[Hababi]

So you deny any validity to the source because it has marxist influence? Is that your idea of intelligent discussion?

Marxist definitions are stupid.

[-1up!-]

Marxist definitions are stupid.

And what background do you have on political theory and ideas to make that claim

[Hababi]

And what background do you have on political theory and ideas to make that claim

A knowledge of the history of Marxism. Marxists tend to be liars and apologists for dictators.

[-1up!-]

A knowledge of the history of Marxism. Marxists tend to be liars and apologists for dictators.

You must have a horribly limited knowledge of Marxism then

And judging a trend of theories by their past history is quite stupid, just like you'd say I would be stupid to say Americans are racist because they accepted slavery.

Edit: on a side note, I stumbled upon an ad at the top of the PNWI page which went like this: "faith matters. catholicmatch.com" :p

[lunchforthesky]

A knowledge of the history of Marxism. Marxists tend to be liars and apologists for dictators.

Dropper is neither.

[Hababi]

Dropper is neither.

I'm not saying that he is.

[Dave de Sylvia]

A knowledge of the history of Marxism. Marxists tend to be liars and apologists for dictators.
I prefer "marxists are wrong about everything."

[Independent_CA]

Hahahaha ^


Seriously though, does anyone see a problem with the CIA backing his opposition in a coup attempt? This might be one time where the situation calls for it.

[-1up!-]

I have a problem with such cases of interventionism only if the oppressed population has not expressed a desire for an external force to help their cause

[Independent_CA]

I have a problem with such cases of interventionism only if the oppressed population has not expressed a desire for an external force to help their cause

Same here. If they ask for help, it should be done...covertly.

[VomitStainedCretin]

Quite a lot of Zimbabweans would probably be more vocal about their opposition to Mugabe if it weren't for foreign journalists being expelled, police brutality towards any form of resistance and rigged elections.The US (along with its allies) was an imperial presence in Japan and West Germany after WW2. Think that was a bad thing?I smell a straw man lurking behind a veil of anachronism.

[Independent_CA]

Quite a lot of Zimbabweans would probably be more vocal about their opposition to Mugabe if it weren't for foreign journalists being expelled, police brutality towards any form of resistance and rigged elections.I smell a straw man lurking behind a veil of anachronism.

*Offers spray bottle of Febreeze.

[VomitStainedCretin]

*Offers spray bottle of Febreeze.And that's relevant how?

[Dave de Sylvia]

Because you smell a straw man!

[Unreal]

will killing him really help the country though? Its not the solution to the country's problems, I mean if he got rid of all opposition then who is there fit to gouvern apart from one of his own comrades

[Dave de Sylvia]

Well his entire power structure would need to be dismantled.

[Unreal]

which wouldn't help the situation

[Dave de Sylvia]

what

[Independent_CA]

And that's relevant how?

It's quite effective at getting rid of unwanted odors.

[VomitStainedCretin]

It's quite effective at getting rid of unwanted odors.Ah, indeed, though straw itself does not have a particularly unpleasent aroma for those who do not suffer from hay fever.

[Iskandar]

will killing him really help the country though? Its not the solution to the country's problems, I mean if he got rid of all opposition then who is there fit to gouvern apart from one of his own comradesHe has an opposition.

[RIP Ian Curtis]

You'll have the same problem as "de-nazification" ran into in post-war Germany. The only people with ability to govern were in the unsatisfactory government.

[Dave de Sylvia]

No there's lots of people who are fit to govern. They're the "opposition" we've been talking about.

[RIP Ian Curtis]

I'm not talking about the boss-man. You've gotta keep the vast majority of "the power structure" because no-one else can do it. And I don't have much hope that the opposition will be any better than Mugabe.

[Dave de Sylvia]

Why not?

[RIP Ian Curtis]

Because I don't have much hope in anything to start with. Especially not politicians or Africa. And especially African politicians.

[Dave de Sylvia]

That's not really an argument. It's just a guess based on nothing.

[RIP Ian Curtis]

That's true. It's a hunch, based on my own invalid personal experience. But at the end of the day, lets see what happens. Never forget that white socialists/marxists assisted Mugabe's rise to power, meddling in Africa has resulted in absolutly no good whatsoever. Why will this time be different?

[Dave de Sylvia]

Because there's actually a democratic movement in Zimbabwe. Plus Marxism sucks.

[RIP Ian Curtis]

I know all that. But everyone seems reasonable until they get in power. Or if the new leadership is too democratic/liberal, they'll just get butt-raped by a junta.

[VomitStainedCretin]

That's true. It's a hunch, based on my own invalid personal experience. But at the end of the day, lets see what happens. Never forget that white socialists/marxists assisted Mugabe's rise to power, meddling in Africa has resulted in absolutly no good whatsoever. Why will this time be different?Mugabe was allowed to rise to power because no one was willing to force the apartheid Rhodesian government under Ian Smith to accept democracy. As a result, the oppressed black majority radicalised and were willing to support a leader like Mugabe.

[Smokey D]

I have a problem with such cases of interventionism only if the oppressed population has not expressed a desire for an external force to help their cause

There's a huge opposition movement in Zimbabwe, but it's driven under ground.

Also, the imperialism is the highest form of capitalism thing is a gross simplification because it implies that all imperialisms are capitalist. But it's still more accurate than Steve's.

[RIP Ian Curtis]

Mugabe was allowed to rise to power because no one was willing to force the apartheid Rhodesian government under Ian Smith to accept democracy. As a result, the oppressed black majority radicalised and were willing to support a leader like Mugabe.

Not sure how things went where you come from, but back in the Ian Smith days ever left-wing group in Australia was collecting funds and showing support for Mugabe.

Maybe you're all right and Zimbabwe will turn into some kind of democratic light to the nations, and everyone will be happy. I'm a little cynical about it all myself. All of Africa's problems started because of intervention, it's problems are continued because of intervention, maybe we should stop intervening?

[Hababi]

All of Africa's problems started because of intervention, it's problems are continued because of intervention, maybe we should stop intervening?

What would "all" of those problems be? With the exception of a few diseases, the Europeans introduced nothing new into Africa, besides weapons upgrades. Arab slave traders had weapons to begin with, and had been conducting the slave trade for centuries, with or without European customers. War, famine, land grabs, enslavement? None of that was new to Africa. As a matter of fact, European intervention led to the diminishing presence of cannibalism amongst certain tribes.

That doesn't condone what the Europeans did, which was awful and indefensible, but don't act like the problems of Africa are due only to European intervention.

If there had been more intervention, driven by the noble causes and convictions that people like Leopold claimed, then Africa would be much better off today.

[lunchforthesky]

If there had been more intervention, driven by the noble causes and convictions that people like Leopold claimed, then Africa would be much better off today.

This. Although the causes are rarely noble unfortunately.

[VomitStainedCretin]

Zero, did you just say that King Leopold had noble causes behind his Congo Free State?

[RIP Ian Curtis]

I understand your idea of noble causes mate, it's a nice idea, just one I can't subscribe to. I'm too cynical to see nobility anywhere, I'm in favour of bringing back isolationism, at least if you don't touch it, you can't break it.

[Hababi]

Zero, did you just say that King Leopold had noble causes behind his Congo Free State?

No, read carefully. King Leopold claimed to have moral causes. Obviously morals weren't his consideration, in basically any respect of his life.

I'm in favour of bringing back isolationism, at least if you don't touch it, you can't break it.

Freedom consists in the ability to prevent evil from entering the world. If you have it within your means to stop evil, and choose not to do so, how is this good?

[Jude]

:lol: at the irony of this thread being created by an alleged Christian

[lunchforthesky]

I'm fully behind Zero on this one.

We should not be standing by while these tin pot dictatorships continue to exist, we should be doing something about it.

[RNR]

B-b-b-b-b-but that would be unwanted foreign intervention and liberals would wag their fingers at us :eek:

[Jude]

So every single country in the world that has a leader we don't like, we should assassinate him and set up puppet governments?

Great idea! And it worked so well for the soviets, too!

[WhoDidTheElf]

Who said we have to set up a government? And if it's a republic, it can't really be much of a puppet.

[lunchforthesky]

So every single country in the world that has a leader we don't like, we should assassinate him and set up puppet governments?

Great idea! And it worked so well for the soviets, too!

No they can choose there own leaders obviously. Actually choose too, not like the Iraq elections

[Jude]

Who said we have to set up a government?

If we don't the resulting chaos would be worse than any dictator

And if it's a republic, it can't really be much of a puppet.

Like what, Iraq? Afghanistan? If not a puppet, then a complete disaster.

[WhoDidTheElf]

If we don't the resulting chaos would be worse than any dictator.

And if we do set something it becomes "American Imperialism!!11!!one!!1omfgwtflawlz!1!1!"

Like what, Iraq? Afghanistan? If not a puppet, then a complete disaster.

Then if we can't set one up, then what do we do, because obviously not doing any thing would be "worse than any dictator". Should we just let them sit there and take it in the *** more?

[Iskandar]

And if we do set something it becomes "American Imperialism!!11!!one!!1omfgwtflawlz!1!1!"If you act unilaterally and utilize a lot of military force, yeah.

[Jude]

And if we do set something it becomes "American Imperialism!!11!!one!!1omfgwtflawlz!1!1!"

Well yeah. And if your choice is between leaving things alone, imperialism, and absolute chaos, why is option 1 so hard?


Then if we can't set one up, then what do we do, because obviously not doing any thing would be "worse than any dictator". Should we just let them sit there and take it in the *** more?
It's not like we're not content to leave 95% of the world's dictators alone. Why is this one any different?

[Iskandar]

It's not like we're not content to leave 95% of the world's dictators alone. Why is this one any different?Including North Korea, which is worse than Saddam was.

[WhoDidTheElf]

Well yeah. And if your choice is between leaving things alone, imperialism, and absolute chaos, why is option 1 so hard?

Because we have bleeding heart liberals in America? Personally I could give a flying **** about some African country.


It's not like we're not content to leave 95% of the world's dictators alone. Why is this one any different?

idk, he's black?

[Iskandar]

Because we have bleeding heart liberals in America? Personally I could give a flying **** about some African country.You should.
idk, he's black?He's a pretty bad dictator. He's racist, brutal to any opposition, etc.

[WhoDidTheElf]

You should.
He's a pretty bad dictator. He's racist, brutal to any opposition, etc.

Meh, not like we can do anything to change it. If we act with other countries it will just be "western imperialism taking the black mans power away."

Yeah but so is most every other dictator, so...

[Iskandar]

Meh, not like we can do anything to change it. If we act with other countries it will just be "western imperialism taking the black mans power away."

Yeah but so is most every other dictator, so...I would say you could support the resistance against him, but the US is historically really bad at supporting the wrong people, so I say no.

Hard to say what to do. I would really want to help the people who live under dictators, but what if a coup or whatever backfires and you're stuck with an even worse leader in his place?

[Dave de Sylvia]

Meh, not like we can do anything to change it. If we act with other countries it will just be "western imperialism taking the black mans power away."

Yeah but so is most every other dictator, so...
Yes, and the Second World War was stupid westerners meddling in harmless Nazi genocides. I don't know why you're so worried about what dictators think of us.

[WhoDidTheElf]

I would say you could support the resistance against him, but the US is historically really bad at supporting the wrong people, so I say no.

Hard to say what to do. I would really want to help the people who live under dictators, but what if a coup or whatever backfires and you're stuck with an even worse leader in his place?

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Yes, and the Second World War was stupid westerners meddling in harmless Nazi genocides. I don't know why you're so worried about what dictators think of us.

Idc what some dictator thinks, it's just going to be the rest of the international community. If the US does it, it's American imperialism. If the west does it, it's just the west taking away the black mans power. If nothing happens then people bitch and moan.

Tbh I could care less what happens there or if the rest of the world thinks were Imperialistic.

[Dave de Sylvia]

Nobody thinks America is imperialist except American college students and Europeans who protest outside embassies on their lunchbreak from teaching algebra to 12 year olds.

[Iskandar]

Nobody thinks America is imperialist except American college students and Europeans who protest outside embassies on their lunchbreak from teaching algebra to 12 year olds.You forgot the people of the countries they invade.

[Dave de Sylvia]

And Canadian college students.

[Iskandar]

And Canadian college students.Frankly I am insulted. I am not a college student. In Canada, college is for people who are "practical," i.e. too dumb for university.

[Reaganista]

in america there's no difference so you need to accept that there's really no difference anywhere

[BridgeToSolace]

I would say you could support the resistance against him, but the US is historically really bad at supporting the wrong people, so I say no.

Hard to say what to do. I would really want to help the people who live under dictators, but what if a coup or whatever backfires and you're stuck with an even worse leader in his place?

I think the problem with helping people like America does is that, at least as it's posed here, we're disposing the dictator ourselves.

This is not how you enact a lasting change. This is how you create confusion and chaos. The people of that country have to be more willing to fight them than we are.

I'm 100% for aiding an already existing revolution (not just sending guns to an opposition), but don't start one yourself. I think it's been shown that it doesn't really help the overall situation.

The people need to change before you can change the government.

But maybe not. wtf do I know.

[griftadan]

who cares about zimbabwe?

[lunchforthesky]

Me.

[griftadan]

lol why?

[Reaganista]

lol nobody cares about zimbabwe

[Hababi]

Hard to say what to do. I would really want to help the people who live under dictators, but what if a coup or whatever backfires and you're stuck with an even worse leader in his place?

That's hard to imagine.

[lfantwister]

You must have a bad imagination

[Iskandar]

in america there's no difference so you need to accept that there's really no difference anywhereGo away.

[big80smullet]

That's hard to imagine.

Maybe you should PRAY for mugabe to see the error of his was.


TBH i think that meddling in Southern Africa is a bad idea. Let the other african countries sort it out. Lets be realistic. How many countries has america meddled in and how many has it ****ed up. Lots and most is the answer.

[VomitStainedCretin]

The good thing about Zimbabwe is, if it was invaded, there isn't an existing infrastructure to screw up that hasn't already gone to the dogs.

[lunchforthesky]

lol why?

Because I care about people.

[WhoDidTheElf]

Too idealistic.

[lunchforthesky]

Too idealistic.

Erm no, not really.

[WhoDidTheElf]

Erm yeah. You can't save the whole world.

[lunchforthesky]

Erm yeah. You can't save the whole world.

The whole world doesn't need saving and even if it did your statement is still stupid and cliched.

I've no idea why because something may be a challenge we should just give up and act all self serving and heartless.

Slavery was once pretty much universal but we got rid of it for the most part, the same attitude should be taken to poverty and tyranny. People have a basic right to run their own lifes and the elect their leaders and it is distigusting that we should not be attempting to spread these rights.

[VomitStainedCretin]

Slavery was once pretty much universal but we got rid of it for the most part, the same attitude should be taken to poverty and tyranny. That's a bit like saying "We've eliminated smallpox, next we can eliminate death". The analogy therefore FAILS.

Plus there are still over 26 million people enslaved worldwide.

[lunchforthesky]

That's a bit like saying "We've eliminated smallpox, next we can eliminate death". The analogy therefore FAILS.

Not really. It's vastly different.


Plus there are still over 26 million people enslaved worldwide.

Hence why i said pretty much.

[VomitStainedCretin]

Poverty will never be eliminated.

[WhoDidTheElf]

The whole world doesn't need saving and even if it did your statement is still stupid and cliched.

I've no idea why because something may be a challenge we should just give up and act all self serving and heartless.

People are only here to serve their own ends. And anything we do will be bad.

And we tried to spread these rights to Iraq and they **** all over them.

[lunchforthesky]

People are only here to serve their own ends. And anything we do will be bad.

And we tried to spread these rights to Iraq and they **** all over them.

Zimbabwie wont though. They are actively trying to get these rights all that stands in the way is Mugabe.

[WhoDidTheElf]

Zimbabwie wont though. They are actively trying to get these rights all that stands in the way is Mugabe.

You know as well as any one that the backlash for this would be stupidly harsh.

[lunchforthesky]

You know as well as any one that the backlash for this would be stupidly harsh.

I disagree. We don't need to send troops in but we could give the opposition some money or weapons.

Or just threaten Mugabe to leave or face our wrath.

[WhoDidTheElf]

I still see blacklash coming, especially from the black community. Hell I maybe wrong, but idk.

[lunchforthesky]

I still see blacklash coming, especially from the black community. Hell I maybe wrong, but idk.

As in the black community in the US or the Africans?

[Chrizzle fo' Shizzle]

Zimbabwe was perfectly fine back when it was Rhodesia

[WhoDidTheElf]

As in the black community in the US or the Africans?

Any were but Africa.

[lunchforthesky]

Any were but Africa.

I don't think blacks outside of Africa identify themselves with Africans in the same way the Muslims worldwide do. Race is not the unifying force religion is by any means.

[WhoDidTheElf]

Idk, it was a guess, it may or may not be right. I know for sure there would be ones in America that would lash out really quick.

[VomitStainedCretin]

Zimbabwe was perfectly fine back when it was RhodesiaAside from 99% of the population not enfranchised and downtrodden.

[Ad Absurdum]

I think the problem with helping people like America does is that, at least as it's posed here, we're disposing the dictator ourselves.

This is not how you enact a lasting change. This is how you create confusion and chaos. The people of that country have to be more willing to fight them than we are.

I'm 100% for aiding an already existing revolution (not just sending guns to an opposition), but don't start one yourself. I think it's been shown that it doesn't really help the overall situation.

The people need to change before you can change the government.

But maybe not. wtf do I know.Yeah, I agree. Not so much about the revolution part, but certainly that the change has to come in the people of Zimbabwe, rather than giving them a new leader, who they may or may not trust.

It seems to me that corruption is rife in Africa because we've made gaining power too easy with our intervention. We've not been succesful in directing African politics in the past and I think it's high time that we allowed them to develop their methods. This will take a long time, it would be several generations before politicians gained power through ability, but I can't see any plausible short-term solutions.

Also worth considering is that the opposition party in Zimbabwe is divided. If, somehow, Mugabe were deposed and Zanu-PF obliterated, it wouldn't be a simple case of "Okay, he's gone, so let the opposition take over". I wouldn't rule out the possibility of a (voilent? Unlikely but not impossible) power struggle; which isn't going to help a fragile country/economy.

Incidentally, this may be of interest: http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2172001,00.html

[lunchforthesky]

Yeah, I agree. Not so much about the revolution part, but certainly that the change has to come in the people of Zimbabwe, rather than giving them a new leader, who they may or may not trust.

It seems to me that corruption is rife in Africa because we've made gaining power too easy with our intervention. We've not been succesful in directing African politics in the past and I think it's high time that we allowed them to develop their methods. This will take a long time, it would be several generations before politicians gained power through ability, but I can't see any plausible short-term solutions.

Also worth considering is that the opposition party in Zimbabwe is divided. If, somehow, Mugabe were deposed and Zanu-PF obliterated, it wouldn't be a simple case of "Okay, he's gone, so let the opposition take over". I wouldn't rule out the possibility of a (voilent? Unlikely but not impossible) power struggle; which isn't going to help a fragile country/economy.

Incidentally, this may be of interest: http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2172001,00.html

Good it actually get anyworse in Zimbabwie?

[Reaganista]

Poverty will never be eliminated.
except it will be

[RIP Ian Curtis]

Zimbabwe isn't as bad as the Congo, because there isn't a power vaccum yet.

Ever think that maybe some societies can't handle anything but despotism?

[Smokey D]

No. That's retarded.

[RIP Ian Curtis]

Take Russia for example, permanent autocracy, with occasional breaks of false hope.

[Smokey D]

That doesn't mean it couldn't work as a democracy. That just means democracy has never happened.

[RIP Ian Curtis]

I see people trying it all over the place, and then it failing hard. I don't think you can impose high-fallutin' Western ideals on places. I think history will judge this interventionist phase in American history very harshly.

[Smokey D]

That doesn't mean it was bound to fail.

And America has intervened very rarely compared to the proliferation of new democracies in the past 20 years (many o fwhich have worked perfectly.)

[RIP Ian Curtis]

What it all comes down to is really

1. What does it matter?
and
2. Why should we care?

Is the pipe-dream in Iraq worth 1 million dollars of taxpayers money? Yes? Okay, then is it worth however many billion it has cost so far? Is it worth 5 marines dying? Is it worth 500?

I don't think so myself.

[griftadan]

Because I care about people.

enough to lead a coup?

maybe i should have qualified my statement

who cares about zimbabwe (enough to lead a coup)?

[Smokey D]

Ooo! Margaret Thatcher's son!

Though you're posing a ridiculously high test for concern.

[FisMits]

Robert Mugabe is an evil man, although an exceptionally skilled politician who's running rings around any sort of opposition. He's wrecked his country a la Mobutu.

[wartree]

I will have a cahnce when he comes to portgual, lol

[VomitStainedCretin]

I will have a cahnce when he comes to portgual, lolMadeleine McCann's bloodcrazed parents wwill beat you to it.