When Will Something Be Done With Mugabe?

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-02-27 06:18pm

Having just seen a report on the 10 o'clock BBC News, I have come to the conclusion that Mugabe's regime is now on the US/UK shit list, or rather it should be given the stuff going on there puts even Iran and NK to shame right now.

I'm just sick of hearing about this royal fucktard staying in power and basically acting as a cancer to the nation he occupies, slowly killing it off and the remaining populace.

Something has to be done, if any moral highground exists after Iraq, Zimbabwe would be the next place to turn to.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-02-27 06:28pm

Isn't he dying anyway?

Not that I'm saying we shouldn't go fix the shithole.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-02-27 06:30pm

Howedar wrote:Isn't he dying anyway?

Not that I'm saying we shouldn't go fix the shithole.

I don't recall anything about his health. All the same, creating "job centres" that recruit youths to go and kill or torture opponents of his regime is sick. There was a 7-year old girl kept in one hut and raped repeatedly every night.

Fuck, but this gets me riled up.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2004-02-27 06:30pm

The time to act on Zimbabwe was a couple years ago, when thousands of British citizens where very publicly at risk and the US and UK had plenty of free military resources. Today it's just not going to happen. The AIDS epidemic makes helping the place almost pointless anyway.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-02-27 06:40pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:The time to act on Zimbabwe was a couple years ago, when thousands of British citizens where very publicly at risk and the US and UK had plenty of free military resources. Today it's just not going to happen. The AIDS epidemic makes helping the place almost pointless anyway.

Sadly, I have to agree. It seems the time to act has long passed since Iraq has tied us up pretty much. It's likely just going to be more Commonwealth and US sanctions and watching the nation rot and refugees flee.

TheDarkling · Post by **TheDarkling** » 2004-02-27 06:47pm

Mugabe would have never gotten away with this sort of thing when we ran the world, the moment he looked at a British citizen in a funny way he would have been hung from a flag pole.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-02-27 07:08pm

TheDarkling wrote:Mugabe would have never gotten away with this sort of thing when we ran the world, the moment he looked at a British citizen in a funny way he would have been hung from a flag pole.

Gunboat Diplomacy is frowned upon now. Had we done that years ago we'd have to explain ourselves. Now it's a case of shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted.

Seggybop · Post by **Seggybop** » 2004-02-27 07:47pm

Would it really be too much to blow him up with a cruise missile one day?

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-02-27 07:47pm

Power vacuums are bad, friend.

Seggybop · Post by **Seggybop** » 2004-02-27 07:51pm

What happened to that African Union organization? Didn't they send Nigerian peacekeepers to Liberia? If Mugabe was taken out, they or an equivalent group should be able to handle it from there..? Right? Or is there something massive I'm missing (probably).

TheDarkling · Post by **TheDarkling** » 2004-02-27 08:09pm

Admiral Valdemar wrote:
Gunboat Diplomacy is frowned upon now. Had we done that years ago we'd have to explain ourselves. Now it's a case of shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted.

Indeed it is however that didn't stop the US and the USSR arming/attacking/installing puppets all over the world in an ideological war, the only real difference is the old European powers had an interest in keeping order around the world (more stable the better to trade with plus prevented ugly head butting over a region, prevented un-civilized people from getting ideas and so on) whilst the US only cares about things directly affecting it. Its a shame really but the world went to hell without a policeman on duty (somebody willing and able to interfere in everybody else’s business just to make the world run on a set of predefined standards).

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-02-27 08:12pm

Well the US still polices in one way, just not the same. There's also the fact that many damn them if they do and if they don't.

Sharp-kun · Post by **Sharp-kun** » 2004-02-27 08:18pm

I'm leaning 2 ways on this. On the one hand, we should go in and sort out the mess. On the other, I think we should just leave all the wars in Africa to sort themselves out. Maybe the survivors will think twice in the future. How many times have some countries there gone to war with their neighbours now? N

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2004-02-28 12:28am

So, if we (the UK and US) take out Muggie, who is there to take his place. Either as a US/UK puppet or (god forbid) a honest to god leader?

If we take him out will the country devolve into chaos and civil war?

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-02-28 12:53am

TheDarkling wrote:Indeed it is however that didn't stop the US and the USSR arming/attacking/installing puppets all over the world in an ideological war, the only real difference is the old European powers had an interest in keeping order around the world (more stable the better to trade with plus prevented ugly head butting over a region, prevented un-civilized people from getting ideas and so on) whilst the US only cares about things directly affecting it. Its a shame really but the world went to hell without a policeman on duty (somebody willing and able to interfere in everybody else?s business just to make the world run on a set of predefined standards).

You'll have to forgive us for not intervening in Africa. You see, last time we went there to keep people from starving they killed some of our men and dragged them through the streets.

Fuck Africa, it's not our problem. We tried that international policeman thing and everyone bitched at us for it, when they weren't shooting at us at least.

Spyder · Post by **Spyder** » 2004-02-28 12:55am

Knife wrote:So, if we (the UK and US) take out Muggie, who is there to take his place. Either as a US/UK puppet or (god forbid) a honest to god leader?

If we take him out will the country devolve into chaos and civil war?

As opposed to chaos and state sponsored murder. It's kind of a tough call.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2004-02-28 01:35am

Spyder wrote:
Knife wrote:So, if we (the UK and US) take out Muggie, who is there to take his place. Either as a US/UK puppet or (god forbid) a honest to god leader?

If we take him out will the country devolve into chaos and civil war?
As opposed to chaos and state sponsored murder. It's kind of a tough call.

Which is pretty much my point. The US doesn't have the resources to 'occupy' the region at the moment. If we did lob a couple missiles over there, are there any 'good guys' to take over?

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2004-02-28 03:22am

Washington and London opt out because they fear that Mugabe's ouster might be seen by other African countries as a Western power-play. This is particularly true as concerns South Africa, which would be up in arms were it ever discovered that the CIA or MI5 were ever involved in efforts to destabilize their neighbor.

Of course, Zimbabwe is probably one of the only countries on earth that might immediately benefit no matter who came to power in Mugabe's stead. The only reason he persists that the Army was away so long, and therefore was exposed very little to the privations at home.

Sarevok · Post by **Sarevok** » 2004-02-28 03:45am

Howedar wrote:Isn't he dying anyway?

Not that I'm saying we shouldn't go fix the shithole.

Mugabe is over 80 years old but he does not appear to be sick enough to die in the forseeable future.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-02-28 03:55am

Admiral Valdemar wrote:Something has to be done, if any moral highground exists after Iraq, Zimbabwe would be the next place to turn to.

Not only is the moral high ground built on a rather shaky foundation, but the ability is not there. What Operation Iraqi Freedom has (inadvertently) shown the world is that America's armed forces, as fearsome and powerful and skillful as they may be in their might and precision, are nevertheless limited in scope.

Thanks to George W. Bush, the whole world has seen a demonstration of American power, but it has also seen the limits of that power. Thanks to the power of television and the Internet, every Tom, Dick, and Harry (sorry, every Abdul, Mohammed, and Rajiv) in the world now knows that the American military is stretched to the breaking point in occupying Iraq.

In short, the Muslim world's fear of the American juggernaut has been lessened, not magnified, by the invasion of Iraq. Now they know that America simply cannot go steamrolling over any country it wishes; it simply lacks the will or manpower to occupy any hostile country for long, even one as small as Iraq.

Maybe George Bush Sr. had the right idea. Demonstrate your power and then walk away while everyone is still awed by the demonstration.

TheDarkling · Post by **TheDarkling** » 2004-02-28 07:49am

Howedar wrote:You'll have to forgive us for not intervening in Africa. You see, last time we went there to keep people from starving they killed some of our men and dragged them through the streets.

That was because you were being half hearted about it and trying to remain on the sidelines instead of doing a full scale invasion.

Fuck Africa, it's not our problem. We tried that international policeman thing and everyone bitched at us for it, when they weren't shooting at us at least.

When exactly did you try the policeman thing? 2 or 3 instances over the last half a century hardly constitutes being a policeman especially when you caused far more chaos in order to combat communism.

Sothis · Post by **Sothis** » 2004-02-28 10:51am

'It is a violent puppet show run by one man.'- Christopher Hope, a Guardian colummist

The above quote is certainly true enough to me. President Robert Mugabe claims to be an elected leader, but in reality he is little more than a racist dictator.

His policies of land reform have seen death, assaults and chaos. He has led his nation into economic crisis, and I doubt he is capable of leading it out again. He oppressed and rigged the 2002 elections by putting forward his racist agenda against white farmers, and by having both black and white members of the opposition party attacked. 31 people were killed during the election campaign, and EU officials sent to monitor the fairness of the election were stonewalled. If you don't believe me, there are several good links in the Guardian that detail the situation:

Republic of Fear

A solution is needed, and needed urgently, before the economic crisis triggers starvation on a huge scale, for whites and blacks alike in Zimbabwe.

The solution I propose is simple. Topple Mugabe. Use military force if needed. There is a large opposition party that can be convinced to rise up against Mugabe, and with aid and support from British troops, could throw him off.

Firstly, deploy MI6 and M15 agents (making sure there are both black and white agents), and have them fan the flames of rebellion, distribute propoganda. Continue to apply diplomatic pressure and encourage the other members of the Commonwealth to do the same (for all the good it will do). If the people do become restless and keen to revolt, assist them by sending in SAS and Royal Marine teams (in small numbers to begin with) to aid members of the Zimbabwe military that might dessert, as well as civilians who take up arms. Add more troops as needed, to ensure Mugabe is driven from power, along with his supporters.

Following this, there will be a need for a continous military peace keeping presence whilst the training of a new police force is carried out (Officers from Britain can be flown to Zimbabwe to assist in this training). There will obviously be the need for the same kind of joint meetings between various political factions like the kind that took place in Afghanistan. A serious look at the problems facing Zimbabwe (as well as the reasons behind those problems) will be needed. Hopefully those problems can then be solved.

It's an ambitous plan with many pitfalls, but I doubt Mugabe will ever allow himself to be voted out of office.

Cornelius · Post by **Cornelius** » 2004-02-28 12:03pm

For those that believe in subjective morality, he isn't doing anything wrong. After all, he is doing what he believes is morally correct.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-02-28 02:13pm

TheDarkling wrote:That was because you were being half hearted about it and trying to remain on the sidelines instead of doing a full scale invasion.

Go ahead Britain, invade Zimbabwe. Be my guest.

When exactly did you try the policeman thing? 2 or 3 instances over the last half a century hardly constitutes being a policeman especially when you caused far more chaos in order to combat communism.

Oh I don't know, MAYBE FIFTY YEARS FOR THE COLD WAR.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-02-28 02:30pm

That was because you were being half hearted about it and trying to remain on the sidelines instead of doing a full scale invasion.

Right, I'm sure they'd have just adored us if we'd have led a full-blown invasion.

When exactly did you try the policeman thing? 2 or 3 instances over the last half a century hardly constitutes being a policeman especially when you caused far more chaos in order to combat communism.

Yes, I suppose in hindsight it would have been better to let the entire third world fall to Soviets rather than supporting governments slightly less enlightened than the Vermont congress.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

When Will Something Be Done With Mugabe?

When Will Something Be Done With Mugabe?

Re: When Will Something Be Done With Mugabe?