The Problems In Zimbabwe

Why hasn't the UN done anything about Robert Mugabe? Just seen the news headline on ITV for it and it's really sad. Imagine living in a country where 80% we starving and life expectancy was 37. Gordon Brown says food is going to be sent in, but that's not going to be enough. The only way the country can move forward is by getting rid of the president in anyway possible.

 

They need to find some oil

The Yanks will be there in a shot to sort him out then.

 

What's the point in sending food in?!

It'll get taken or destroyed won't get to the people it needs to get to.

 

Better of living under the racist Ian Smith - fact.

 

Perhaps (against all precedents) a lesson has been learned from the Iraq debacle, to quote Billy Bragg &quot;You can fight for democracy at home but not in some foreign land&quot;.</p>

</p>

 

Do you know......

....as i logged on I was thinking of raising a poll on that. A UN, unilateral or multilateral force to depose Mugabe and sort Zimbabwe out. Even the threat of it would help.

 

The UN don't get involved in instigating regime change though do they?
And I can't see the US wanting to get embroiled elsewhere at the moment, what with already threatening Iran if they try to become a Nuclear power, the increasing split over Iraq, and with a Presidential election on the horizon.
And let's face it - any multilateral force would probably need the US to be involved.

 

RE: They need to find some oil

Lots of oil in Serbia then?

 

RE: They need to find some oil

Caspian Sea.</p>

</p>

 

We could say to the US......

......&quot;Right, you sort these w4nkers out, we're off to get Mugabe.&quot;

 

Eh? nt

 

RE: Eh? nt

Damned if they do and damned if they don't!

 

RE: We could say to the US......

I thought Prescott had stepped down!

 

RE: Eh? nt

put it this way, the war there and bombing was far more complicated than the reasons given in the press and by politicians. Not saying it was wrong as I don't know all the in's and out's, but reading headlines and reasons that were given at the time is not a reliable way to understand what was truly going on there.</p>

</p>

 

RE: Eh? nt

All bases non-commitedly covered.

 

Google google google google. nt

 

RE: Eh? nt

i don't know enough to comment, but dont let it stop you. Act in haste, repent at leisure. </p>

</p>

 

You don't know enough to comment?

</p>

But you're just surethe Britishcouldn't possibly have been therefor humanitarian reasons. We must have been acting out of greed or something. </p>

 

It's certainly a terrible situation, not sure what the solution is - it would help from what i've read if the South African government would get involved more and stop siding so much with Mugabe. Other than that im not sure what the effects would be of invading the country to oust Mugabe and indeed how successful it would be. He's rumoured to have lots of young children trained as soldiers, don't think it would look good if UK troops were gunning down 14 year old kids in oversized uniforms. </p>

If anything has been learned form Iraq it's surely that people shouldn't be talking flippantly about invading a country without understanding the short and long term effects.</p>

 

What do you see as the short and long term effects of not tackling Mugabe? nt