The Problems In Zimbabwe

RE: You don't know enough to comment?

I didn't say they were not there for humanitarian reasons, I suggested that from what little i've read there werelots ofother factors at stake. </p>

 

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

People will continue to die.</p>

</p>

 

Aye alright Acky.

You suggested we couldn't be there solely for humanitarian reasons. This despite the fact that you don't know enough to comment.</p>

You can't help yourself can you?</p>

 

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

</p>

Hallelujah!
</p>

 

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

LOL you still don't get it do you? After everything that's happened in a country far, far away you still don't understand that a situation can be made WORSE, not BETTER, unless you understand what you are getting involved in and all the cultural and poliitcal factors. </p>

You seem to have no understanding that our own actions, no matter how well intentioned can cause as much suffering, pain and damage as those of others - seemingly because you believe, sincerely, thatkilling under the guise of virtue andwell meaning is no crime at all.</p>

But before you go off on one, let's make it clear - im not against some sort of military intervention in Zimbabwe, I am against a rush to war with little comprehension about the effects for the people, because if this is truly about the people there then they have to be at the forefront of any possible consequences, good or bad.</p>

</p>

</p>

</p>

</p>

</p>

 

South Africa could have this sorted inside a week,

they provide Zimbabwe with almost everything. All they have to do is threaten to cut off electricity, gas etc and that would be that.</p>

However it appeats that Thabo Mbeki is afraid that by ousting Mugabe he could be considered a puppet of the &quot;Colonial powers&quot;.</p>

Its a sad situation.</p>

 

RE: Aye alright Acky.

Hereendeth any discussion and her starteth Windy's boring game of semantics to win a cheap point.</p>

 

We can end the discussion if that's what you want.

</p>

Iwouldn't want to continueit if I was you.</p>

 

RE: We can end the discussion if that's what you want.

(zzz) </p>

</p>

 

What was that about semantics?t

You display a staggering inability to understand anything I've ever said on this subject. Calm down and don't try to take the intellectual high ground with me Acky, despite your opinion of yourself you're under-eqipped to do so. I fully understand a situation can be made worse by military intervention, I'm also capable of looking at possible outcomes (in the real world) and judging when I believe it to be the least damaging option. Not as trendy as your tediously predictable stance I'll concede but I don't live in the comfort zone ofa blinkered anti-west fashion show.</p>

Now, let's try not to get into you gibbering on about Iraq as usual, try to stick to the point and tell me - you're looking at death on a biblical scale in Zimbabwe, give me an example of how you think the situation can be made worse by intervention.</p>

 

RE: What was that about semantics?t

Semantics? WTF? Still, you're right, best to avoid Ir@q as clearly it has no bearing on your capability,

Aye, no damage done there......

Sorry you're quite right. I'm clearly anti-western, because that can be the only possible reason for not wanting other human beings to die! What a blinkered fool I am.

How about UN troops occupying a country and fighting a guerilla war against armed factions of Mugabe's military and other African nationalists who come from across Zimbabwe's borders to fight what they see as a 'colonnial army'?

 

Did I say "no damage"?

I'm pretty sure I said, &quot;Less damage.&quot; A very important difference there, it's about comparing possible outcomes. Try to read what you're replying to.</p>

Well done foranswering the questionthough, I know it'sa big temptation to start dodging all over and claiming I'm not &quot;a decent human being&quot;when you're struggling.</p>

So, you see an ongoing conflictbetween UN troops andMugabe's troops (+ others)as a bigger loss to human life than the one Zimbabwe would face if Mugabe remains in power? That's what you're saying is it? </p>

PS Might I suggest you read and try to digest this post before replying? I've toldbefore, your habit of using the quote facility and replying to each stanza in turn isn't working and it makes you look a bit daft<strike>er than usual.</strike></p>

 

RE: Did I say "no damage"?

Despite temptation i'llstick to the point and ignore the rest.......</p>

</p>

Not definately no, but in looking atthe consequences it's a consideration you'd have to make before acting. Just like you'd have to query what steps China may take asthey have interests in Zimbabwe (and Africa as a while) and might be unwilling to do anything to upset the status quo. </p>

</p>

 

Sorted. nt

 

RE: South Africa could have this sorted inside a week,

South Africa doing nothing is probably part of the reason why guys like Gordon Brown feel the need to step in.

 

RE: South Africa could have this sorted inside a week,

However it appeats that Thabo Mbeki is afraid that by ousting Mugabe he could be considered a puppet of the "Colonial powers" .

If that is true then that is the saddest thing of all. Mbeki thinks his image/ profile is more important than all those Zimbabwean lives.

 

There is no other reason,

Mbeki wants SA to be seen as a modern forward looking country but he is shackled by the past.</p>

He hasnt done half of what he promised when he won the Presidency. The ANC supporters are gettting restless , crime is on the rise and he doesnt know what to do.</p>

</p>