How can this be? There's no OIL in Zimbabwe!?!

[aerocontrols]

US plots to oust Mugabe with African nations' help (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/africa/story.jsp?story=402349)

I believe removing Mugabe and restoring democracy to Zimbabwe would be a wonderful step for Africa's future. Maybe even something France would support, despite Chirac's recent cuddling with Mubabe.

MattJ

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by aerocontrols
US plots to oust Mugabe with African nations' help (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/africa/story.jsp?story=402349)

I believe removing Mugabe and restoring democracy to Zimbabwe would be a wonderful step for Africa's future. Maybe even something France would support, despite Chirac's recent cuddling with Mubabe.

MattJ

If you read the link you provided, the cuddling was actually forced upon him by the president of South Africa.

As to the intervention from the US, once again, it would be good to get some sort of legal, international framework together.

Also note, Tony Blair has this attached this as another provision to his support for Iraq, as well as his requirement for action on Palestine. He seems to be pulling a few strings here. So, in a way it is to do with oil, when Bush and Blair are doing the deal on Iraq, Blair says that Zimbabwe has to be a part of the equation. I wonder if Angola is also on the list.

Also, what is the actual pressure. It is not spelt out here. Only inferences that something is happening.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
If you read the link you provided, the cuddling was actually forced upon him by the president of South Africa.

This may surprise you, but I did read the article I provided. I also have read many other stories about Chirac's cuddling with Mugabe, and I believe the Independent's position to be somewhat charitable to Chirac, and your further interpretation of the Independent's article to be moreso.

Originally posted by a_unique_person
As to the intervention from the US, once again, it would be good to get some sort of legal, international framework together.

If the international community wants to get behind regime change, great. If they don't, we should do it anyway. Senior (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=348966&highlight=zimbabwe#post348966) officials in the the Zimbabwe government have announced that they have no problem with half of the population of Zimbabwe starving to death, as long as the starving belong to the wrong political party.

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Also note, Tony Blair has this attached this as another provision to his support for Iraq, as well as his requirement for action on Palestine. He seems to be pulling a few strings here. So, in a way it is to do with oil, when Bush and Blair are doing the deal on Iraq, Blair says that Zimbabwe has to be a part of the equation. I wonder if Angola is also on the list.

Actually, I note that this contention of yours has been denied, but that's quite alright, as I'm perfectly happy if this is a Blair initiative.

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Also, what is the actual pressure. It is not spelt out here. Only inferences that something is happening.

I'm sorry, I don't know what your pointis here. Are you complaining about behind-the-scenes diplomacy? Or perhaps doubting that anything is going on at all?

MattJ

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


If the international community wants to get behind regime change, great. If they don't, we should do it anyway. Senior (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=348966&highlight=zimbabwe#post348966) officials in the the Zimbabwe government have announced that they have no problem with half of the population of Zimbabwe starving to death, as long as the starving belong to the wrong political party.



I have no more sympathy for Mugabe than I had for Saddam, but I just worry about a world in which it is OK for one country to treat the rest of the world like it owns the place.



Actually, I note that this contention of yours has been denied, but that's quite alright, as I'm perfectly happy if this is a Blair initiative.


I'm sorry, I don't know what your pointis here. Are you complaining about behind-the-scenes diplomacy? Or perhaps doubting that anything is going on at all?

MattJ

I just wonder what the action on this issue is to be. At present, it is only a notion. Is it limited to diplomatic pressure, a press release, military invasion, or what?

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I just wonder what the action on this issue is to be. At present, it is only a notion. Is it limited to diplomatic pressure, a press release, military invasion, or what?

Did you read the article?

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


I have no more sympathy for Mugabe than I had for Saddam, but I just worry about a world in which it is OK for one country to treat the rest of the world like it owns the place.


Whereas I worry about a world in which it is OK for a dictator to kill 6 million people, on account of China's veto.

Different strokes, I guess.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


Whereas I worry about a world in which it is OK for a dictator to kill 6 million people, on account of China's veto.

Different strokes, I guess.

There are millions of people dying for many different reasons. To concentrate on this one and ignore all others is not logical.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


Did you read the article?

Pushin for regional change? At a minimum, that could mean he flies in, says please change, and flies out again, never to be heard of again.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


There are millions of people dying for many different reasons. To concentrate on this one and ignore all others is not logical.

False dilemma

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


False dilemma

Not at all. I am just curious at the criteria used to choose what is an important issue in the world and what is not. One that comes to mind is Angola. Not in the news as much as Zimbabwe, but every bit as deadly to it's inhabitants. And a country that the US was involved in.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Pushin for regional change? At a minimum, that could mean he flies in, says please change, and flies out again, never to be heard of again.

Is that the minimum?

[aerocontrols]

To concentrate on this one and ignore all others

is a false dilemma, and a false accusation. This is not a debatable point, it would seem to me.

I can see by your multiple postings on this board that you are aware that the US has multiple foreign policy goals. Some of which cause you no small amount of irritation.

MattJ

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by aerocontrols
To concentrate on this one and ignore all others

is a false dilemma, and a false accusation. This is not a debatable point, it would seem to me.

I can see by your multiple postings on this board that you are aware that the US has multiple foreign policy goals. Some of which cause you no small amount of irritation.

MattJ

What is the US's foreign policy goal regarding the war in the Congo?

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


There are millions of people dying for many different reasons. To concentrate on this one and ignore all others is not logical.

This was what was being said about Iraq- prewar. ie: why Iraq? yes Saddam is a nasty chap but what about others like Mugabe?

Now that it seems something may be happeing about Mugabe, we go back to the beginning again! I suppose all the worlds problems should be solved at once or not at all??!?

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Not at all. I am just curious at the criteria used to choose what is an important issue in the world and what is not.

Lets see in Zimbabwe: Destruction of whatever smal amount of democracy was there, ruination of one the most powerfull economies on the sub-contintent, arrest without charge, loss of independent judicairy, torture, polictical brutality, state-sponsered murder, loss of freedom of speach, victimisation of racial minorities and homosexuals.

Or isnt that good enough for you?

[Jon_in_london]

Doubtless, if anyone in the west tried to intevene in Angola or Congo then its "all about the diamonds" isnt it? Nevermind the fact that the race-card will be played so hard and fast, itll just fall to pieces altogether.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


Lets see in Zimbabwe: Destruction of whatever smal amount of democracy was there, ruination of one the most powerfull economies on the sub-contintent, arrest without charge, loss of independent judicairy, torture, polictical brutality, state-sponsered murder, loss of freedom of speach, victimisation of racial minorities and homosexuals.

Or isnt that good enough for you?

I didn't say there was nothing wrong with Zimbabwe. There is plenty wrong.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by aerocontrols
To concentrate on this one and ignore all others

is a false dilemma, and a false accusation. This is not a debatable point, it would seem to me.

I can see by your multiple postings on this board that you are aware that the US has multiple foreign policy goals. Some of which cause you no small amount of irritation.

MattJ

It appears that Tony Blair is responsible for the action being taken on Zimbabwe, without the war in Iraq, then no action would have been taken by the US. That is why it is now an issue. Zimbabwe, as an ex-British colony, is an area that interests them. Angola, which is still subject to a civil war from an army that was once funded by the US, is, apparently, of no concern, however.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


It appears that Tony Blair is responsible for the action being taken on Zimbabwe, without the war in Iraq, then no action would have been taken by the US. That is why it is now an issue. Zimbabwe, as an ex-British colony, is an area that interests them. Angola, which is still subject to a civil war from an army that was once funded by the US, is, apparently, of no concern, however.

You offered up a false dilemma. You don't want to admit it, fine.

Your first sentence has zero meaning (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=438481#post438481) for me, I'm afraid.

What is apparent to you is not so apparent to me. Your claim seems to be that the US is '[not] concern[ed]' with Angola, which I take to mean that we are not involved in a manner with which you approve.

This is not quite a reason to be unhappy with US moves to remove Robert Mugabe, or an argument against doing so, but I'm sure it's very fun to distract.

MattJ

[Skeptic]

Well, it's the usual anti-American reaction:

If the US does not interfere with a dictator's massacre of his people... AUP and his cronies wag their fingers and say, "The US, that claims to represent democracy and freedom, should do something about this!

If the US DOES interfere with ONE dictator's massacre (i.e., Saddam)... AUP and his cronies pretend to know all the US's policy secrets, and say, "Sure, the US SAYS it is there for freedom, but it's really about (oil/military bases/wheat/land/gold/whatever that country has), which the US just wants to steal." They've got proof: there are so many dictators in this world, so why did the US choose to attack the one with (oil/military bases/wheat/land/gold/whatever)?

If the US interferes with MORE than one dictator, and furthermore the various dictators don't seem to have oil, AUP and his cronies shout, "US IMPERIALISM!!!!!".

So no matter how much the US interferes with dictators--from not doing anything to deposing all of them--AUP&co. will always figure out the "real reason" for the US interferences is some nefarious motive, and has nothing to do with freedom, and criticize the US for it. After all, they reason, it should be clear to all right-thinking, ethical people, that Saddam and Mugabe should be supported against the nefarious US of A. Who could think otherwise?

But please, AUP, tell that to the Iraqis release from Saddam's jail. Or, perhaps, you would like to go over to Zimbabwe, and explain to the starving, terrorized masses why they should endure Mugabe's hell instead of supporting "American Imperialism".

(Incindentally, it's interesting that you never gave a damn about the Iraqis or the Zimbabewans for one second before you heard that the US might interfere...)

[Jon_in_london]

Skeptic- this is rather more than the damned if America does, damed if it doesnt scenario you paint.

One of the biggest anti-war arguments in the UK was that ' why is nothing being done about other dictators like Mugabe? maybe its because he has no OIL!!!'

So now when something comes up about dealing with Mugabe, those hand-wringing, bleedy-heart types have no other recourse than to point out that there are other nasty people as well as Mugabe (no sh*t!).

This is akin to protesting a policemans actions when he arrests a murderer because there are lots of other murderes out there!!
:rolleyes:

AUP: Id like to see a rational explanaition for your opposition to doing away with Mugabe.

[Advocate]

I think the US, the UK, and whatever allies we have may well be interfering with dictators more often in the future. I also think this could be a good thing. Many of these dictators were propped up by the US at one time or another in order to oppose the USSR. With that threat no longer present, they are not the "lesser of two evils" anymore and we should start cleaning up the mess we helped make. I hope this puts these "friendly dictators" on notice that the party is over and they need to shape up or we will remove them, starting with the most tyrannical. Mugabe is a good choice for the next one. I hope most of them will reform at least to some extent on their own once a few examples have been made, because the US and its allies can't afford to fight all of them any time soon. I don't like the idea of acting "unilaterally" (even though it is more than just one country) but if the international community can't come to the conclusion that something needs to be done about tyrants like Hussein and Mugabe, then something is wrong with the international community. I would certainly be happier with it if at least Europe, and preferably Russia and China also, were on board, but really these dictators are mostly our problem. With a couple exceptions (particularly Castro), the dictators propped up by Russia in the Cold War have already fallen.

This probably sounds more belligerent than I intended. I do not think we need to invade all countries that are not free by our standards. I do think we need to use pressure on the most egregious cases of oppression and in a few cases where they are a serious danger to their neighbors or are killing large numbers of their own people, then war may be necessary.

As an aside, I think Tony Blair is a wonderful leader. We in the US owe quite a bit to him. If only our own Democrats (as close an equivalent to Labour as we have here) had a leader like him, I might consider voting for one.

[Mike B.]

According to some polls I have heard Tony Blair is the most popular person in the US.

Someone joked on the radio that the only way the Democrats will beat Bush in 2004 is if Blair declares himself a US citizen and runs against Bush....:D

(Yes I know he can't be President since he was not born here...it is a joke...)

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Mike B.
Someone joked on the radio that the only way the Democrats will beat Bush in 2004 is if Blair declares himself a US citizen and runs against Bush....:D

(Yes I know he can't be President since he was not born here...it is a joke...)

Damn. Guess we are stuck with him then. Could I interest you in a very rich German family instead?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


Damn. Guess we are stuck with him then. Could I interest you in a very rich German family instead?


Only if we get the Tower and all the cool sh*t that comes with them :D