View Full Version : Blind Eye, or Time To Act?
Kaishowing
29-Mar-07, 18:14
It seems that many of the 14 African countries represented at the current SADC summit will be trying to convince Robert Mugabe not to stand for office again next year after the further deterioration of civil liberties in Zimbabwe.
The world has watched as more and more alarming policies have been implemented under the Mugabe regime, and the latest outrages have been caught by the world's media.
International opinion is heavily against Mugabe and his behaviour, but alarmingly he seems not to care about that in the slightest.
Too many times in the past The West has stood by and watched in silence when atrocities have unfolded before us.
Mugabe strikes me as being perfectly capable of engineering another atrocity in a reagion that has seen it's share of horrors
When should the UK under the UN umbrella (as there's no chance of us having the resources ourselves at this time) stop being spectators and start to act against this regime?
Are you suggesting we should take military action against Mugabe's regime?:confused
It seems that many of the 14 African countries represented at the current SADC summit will be trying to convince Robert Mugabe not to stand for office again next year after the further deterioration of civil liberties in Zimbabwe.
The world has watched as more and more alarming policies have been implemented under the Mugabe regime, and the latest outrages have been caught by the world's media.
International opinion is heavily against Mugabe and his behaviour, but alarmingly he seems not to care about that in the slightest.
Too many times in the past The West has stood by and watched in silence when atrocities have unfolded before us.
Mugabe strikes me as being perfectly capable of engineering another atrocity in a reagion that has seen it's share of horrors
When should the UK under the UN umbrella (as there's no chance of us having the resources ourselves at this time) stop being spectators and start to act against this regime?
No oil therefore no war!
or is that too cynical?
Kaishowing
29-Mar-07, 18:42
Are you suggesting we should take military action against Mugabe's regime?:confused
I'm suggesting that there should at least be UN 'observers' based there.
Are you suggesting that what he's doing is lawful even for a head of state??
We saw last December that that wasn't a defence for dictatorship when Saddam took the long drop.
Mugabe's regime isn't a stranger to torture as we saw recently, so do we just stand by as yet another megalomaniac keeps power at the expense of human rights?
Things haven't got as bad as they could, but do we sit by until there's a massacre that could cost hundreds of lives?
sorghaghtanibeki
29-Mar-07, 18:45
Hello
I look back to the 60' and 70's and remember seeing newsreel film of the demonstrations over in London against the white rule in Rhodesia. I look for Peter Hain MP on search engine google I find comment by him in year 2000(7 years ago) "I have no quarrel with President Mugabe personally. Throughout the 1960s and 1970s I demonstrated for an end to the Ian Smith white regime. I was delighted when President Mugabe won the elections in 1980"
- I question if MP Hain is still "delighted" with this result? he seems content to stand while Rhodesia burns. Other countries in Africa do nothing. No Oil, are countries invaded for oil? proof please
Kaishowing
29-Mar-07, 18:48
No Oil, are countries invaded for oil? proof please
LOL How about the invasion of Kuwait and the following Gulf War??? That was for oil disguised as principle.
sorghaghtanibeki
29-Mar-07, 18:56
Hello
But I ask for proof "That was for oil disguised as principle" what do you mean? oil was taken? Kuwait was that not to remove Saddam? the war was same - where does this oil go? please give proof not private thoughts. and what is lol?
I'm suggesting that there should at least be UN 'observers' based there.
Are you suggesting that what he's doing is lawful even for a head of state??
We saw last December that that wasn't a defence for dictatorship when Saddam took the long drop.
I'm not suggesting anything, I was just asking a question. As it happens, I don't see much law being abided in Zimbabwe.
By the way, what is the point of UN observers? And what is the point of diplomacy without the threat of military action?:confused
I think we have touched upon the whole weakness of the UN, it was set up to protect the small nations from the large. So far it has failed to prevent any aggression from any of the superpowers. I think the last time they were successful was preventing UK from invading Egypt and that was 1956 and that seemed to be because the US put pressure on us, not the UN!! The UN seems to be incapable defending small countries, so what is the chances of them defending large ones?
I was rather flippently asking you why you seem to want action against Mugabe but when it came to Saddam then you seem to say keep out of Iraq. Bit of a double standard when military action to enable regime change is a liberalist 'No No'.
Kaishowing
29-Mar-07, 19:14
oil was taken?
Do you honestly believe that following the return of Kuwait to the existing regime there, that no 'deals' were made that favoured the allies?
Also do you beleive that in Iraq that the pipelines and refineries that were located in allied held territory weren't subject to creative accounting?
Kuwait was that not to remove Saddam?
You can be sure that if the goal had been to remove Saddam, it would have been done 1st time. If that had been the objective the allies would not have halted so close to Bagdad. The reaction by the CIC GeneralSchwarzkopf is well documented.
You ask for proof, well I ask for proof that what I say isn't fact.
Of course these are my private thoughts also, as I'm not in a position to have access to sensetive documentation that could corroborate what I think, but I know that I'm not alone in this belief.
(By the way LOL stands for Laugh Out Loud. Generaly an indication that someting is said in a light-hearted manner.)
Kaishowing
29-Mar-07, 19:17
I was rather flippently asking you why you seem to want action against Mugabe but when it came to Saddam then you seem to say keep out of Iraq. Bit of a double standard when military action to enable regime change is a liberalist 'No No'.
What gave you the idea that I wasn't in favour of the removal of Saddam?? I just think it should have been completed 10 years sooner when the allied troops could see Bagdad with the naked eye.
The latest war was pure sophistry. It was an answer and Bush and his cronies constructed the question to fit.
sorghaghtanibeki
29-Mar-07, 19:22
Hello
Kaishowing you mock me with lol. I note you have 'Amnesty' symbol please see this link and it will tell why amnesty international is corrupt
http://atangledweb.typepad.com/weblog/2006/03/why_amnesty_int.html (http://atangledweb.typepad.com/weblog/2006/03/why_amnesty_int.html) see, it is so easy to find alternative position I find it difficult to see why you use this symbol of peace but want action in Zimbabwe.
oil deals? No doubt that because of the immense toil and cost involved to the allies that it would be duty to offer 'deals' that favoured the allies. You seem to agree in other forum that it'is ok for saddam to murder, gaz, his population but not for mugabe. you want same as Dutch UN observers in Srebrenica?
Kaishowing
29-Mar-07, 19:52
Hello
Kaishowing you mock me with lol. I note you have 'Amnesty' symbol please see this link and it will tell why amnesty international is corrupt
http://atangledweb.typepad.com/weblog/2006/03/why_amnesty_int.html (http://atangledweb.typepad.com/weblog/2006/03/why_amnesty_int.html) see, it is so easy to find alternative position I find it difficult to see why you use this symbol of peace but want action in Zimbabwe.
oil deals? No doubt that because of the immense toil and cost involved to the allies that it would be duty to offer 'deals' that favoured the allies. You seem to agree in other forum that it'is ok for saddam to murder, gaz, his population but not for mugabe. you want same as Dutch UN observers in Srebrenica?
Hardly a balanced view displayed on that website, and the links that are there are worse!
You're right, it's easy to find alternative positions especially if you're not too fussy about the validity of those sources.
As for my 'peace symbol' I don't feel the need to justify that and how it tally's with my opinion that what's going on in Zimbabwe is wrong.
I've never claimed that I thought that Saddam was justified in acting as he did, however I'm glad that you agree that Mugabe's potentially as bad as Saddam.
Given the history of European countries in Africa, I think it would be much 'safer' to have a UN force there to stop things escalating into a full civil war....But this time with a real mandate with teeth unlike they've had before in more recent history.
sorghaghtanibeki
29-Mar-07, 20:09
Hello
UN with teeth, surely that is an oxymoron?
If the US were truly concerned with human rights they would do more to look in their own backyard not to mention MANY other dictators and corrupt regimes in the world.
Perhaps you have another explanation as to why their focus is on the middle east? I doubt saddam was any better than north Korea, China or some counties in Africa and elsewhere.
If not for oil why else are they in the middle east?
Mugabe's regime isn't a stranger to torture as we saw recently, so do we just stand by as yet another megalomaniac keeps power at the expense of human rights?
I think the days when we could take the moral high ground on such matters are over.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6501499.stm
Things haven't got as bad as they could, but do we sit by until there's a massacre that could cost hundreds of lives?
I think in these matters we should do everything we can do but take advice from the doctors and "first do no harm". We shouldn't penalise the already suffering people of Zimbabwe with sanctions as we did to the people of Iraq, military intervention or clandestine support for opposition groups could end up costing a lot more than a hundred lives. Mugabe is not a young man, perhaps there may be a more opportune time in the not too distant future for changes to be made.
God grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change;
courage to change the things I can;
and wisdom to know the difference.
Reinhold Niebuhr
If the US were truly concerned with human rights they would do more to look in their own backyard not to mention MANY other dictators and corrupt regimes in the world.
Perhaps you have another explanation as to why their focus is on the middle east? I doubt saddam was any better than north Korea, China or some counties in Africa and elsewhere.
If not for oil why else are they in the middle east?
Take another look at US intervention over the last 60 years in other countries.
Korea
Vietnam
Libya
Iran
Panama
Somalia
Grenada
Iraq
Cuba
Japan
Afghanistan
Columbia
Chile
Israel
They are the ones that I can think of from the top of my head, but it is obvious that the presence of oil is not a prerequisite for war with the US. So the notion that the US only goes to war with oil rich countries is a lie.
It just so happens that Iraq is oil rich, by the law of averages it was bound to happen.
Take another look at US intervention over the last 60 years in other countries.
Korea
Vietnam
Libya
Iran
Panama
Somalia
Grenada
Iraq
Cuba
Japan
Afghanistan
Columbia
Chile
Israel
They are the ones that I can think of from the top of my head, but it is obvious that the presence of oil is not a prerequisite for war with the US. So the notion that the US only goes to war with oil rich countries is a lie.
It just so happens that Iraq is oil rich, by the law of averages it was bound to happen.
Guess I am thinking more of the the current US/UK party and you are correct the US has had other vested interests in the past
Communism, keeping a major waterway they needed open, I may be wrong but does one major oil pipeline not go through Afghanistan?
Every country has a vested interest, nothing wrong with that, I just think the US tends to think more about itself than other countries do.
BTW when did the US invade Israel? or are you referring to the US support of Israel, a county that was more sympathetic to the US than other countries in the area.
As I said, all countries have a vested interest, I believe the US thinks more of itself than others.
I believe the US thinks more of itself than others.
:lol: Can you think of any country that doesn't?:lol:
Kaishowing
29-Mar-07, 23:22
True....but I can't think of another country that holds itself up as the global moral compass like the US does.
Take another look at US intervention over the last 60 years in other countries.
Korea
Vietnam
Libya
Iran
Panama
Somalia
Grenada
Iraq
Cuba
Japan
Afghanistan
Columbia
Chile
Israel
China
Belgian Congo
Laos
Kuwait
Sudan
Yugoslavia
Guatemala
Indonesia
Dominican Republic
Peru
Cambodia
Lebanon
El Salvador
Nicaragua
Croatia
Bosnia
Oh my, how confused things are in the world. The West, by which people really mean Britain and/or the US, should be doing something about Mugabe.
Well, for the last six years, The West, by which people mean Britain and/or the US, have been being told they should not be interfering in other Countries affairs.
I suggest we do exactly that, sit back and let the finger waggers and nit-pickers get off their self-satisfied back-sides and do something instead of just sitting in the sidelines pontificating and Tut-tutting.
Of course, they must wait whilst the UN debates the issue, passes Resolutions to make diplomatic attempts the negotiate a settlement prior to debating if they should pass a Resolution to threaten Sanctions prior to debating if they should pass a Resolution to put Sanctions in place prior the debating if they should debate ……
This time we should do what people have been insisting is the right thing to do, We should just sit back and let the UN and the rest of the world deal with the situation.
After all, I would hate people to think The West, by which they mean Britain and/or the US, were engaged in "Empire Building". There is no need for us to do anything, we should wait until Diplomatic Negotiations have had a chance to solve everything.
That way we will not need to do anything because there will be nothing left to do anything about, but we will have done the "right thing".
Kaishowing
30-Mar-07, 01:50
Long gone are the days when we can just sit by and watch the events in Africa as uninterested spectators.
The US, UK and France have been getting more and more involved at a higher political level mainly because of the guilt at standing by doing nothing before and during the Rwanda masacre, and another more recently in the Congo that cost another 1000 lives.
The West, (and I use that term to mainly refer to the US and the UK, but also other European states and some more far flung countries that were members in the latest Gulf coalition) need to take interest in Africa when terrorism is such a global threat. This is a continent that prodominantly follows Islam so extermists may easily gain a foothold among the disillusioned making it strategically vital for 'The West' to have allies in.
Of course the oil there is a consideration too, it would be naive not to factor that into the willingness to have a friendly presence in as many countries as possible.
That is why Mugabe's destabalizing actions can't go unchecked too long. Aside from the fact that he's flexing dictatorship muscles, that region is so unstable anyway that if he fails to see the roots of civil war growing in his actions conflict could spread quickly beyond the Zimbabwean borders and could cost hundreds of thousands of lives.
So many countries in Africa are in such a mess that there's obviously nothing The West can do of any real impact for decades, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't start or even try.
Sitting back and watching Mugabe stamp all over the democratic process is a near-sighted option, as one day our inaction will have a cost not just in Africa but domestically too.
Bill Fernie
30-Mar-07, 01:54
If you want a rather larger list go to Wiki -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_military_history_events
If you want a rather larger list go to Wiki -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_military_history_events
It's a shame Rhegehead was only going back 60 years or I could have included Switzerland :)
:lol: Can you think of any country that doesn't?:lol:
Which is/was my point from the start. There is nothing in it for countries like the US, no oil, so they won't step in.
Which is/was my point from the start. There is nothing in it for countries like the US, no oil, so they won't step in.
Well you have completely missed my point then because just check the long list of countries that they have been to war with and how many have oil, not very many you will find. My point being that oil presence is not a prerequisite to war.
So many countries in Africa are in such a mess that there's obviously nothing The West can do of any real impact for decades, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't start or even try.
Sitting back and watching Mugabe stamp all over the democratic process is a near-sighted option, as one day our inaction will have a cost not just in Africa but domestically too.How are the mighty Political Idealists fallen!
In the 1950s and 60s certain Political Idealists were very vocal in insisting that African Nations were ready for Self Determination and that the Western Imperialist should grant them Independence. By the end of the 60s this, in the main, had been done.
During the 70s, 80s and 90s those same Political Idealists insisted that all was well with Africa and the Western Imperialists should keep their noses because they were not wanted there.
Now, in the new Millennium, those same Political Idealists are demanding that we should be interfering in Africa and telling Africans how they should be running their own Countries.
Not that many years ago attempts were made, mainly by Britain at a Commonwealth Conference, to get the Member States to condemn Mugabe’s behaviour and to discuss how to deal with him. This attempt was blocked, mainly by the other African Commonwealth Countries.
If anything, what we should be doing is encouraging other African Countries to take responsibility in sorting out the problems on their own Continent.
Isn’t it strange that those same people make no mention of what has long been, and still is, going on in Sudan. They make no comment about what is happening in Ethiopia and various other African Countries.
If Western Countries, by which the Political Idealists really mean Britain and America, try to do anything about Africa's problems they are accused of "Interfering" yet, if they do nothing, they are accused of being "uncaring"!
From that attitude the only conclusion I can draw is that those same Political Idealists care little about Africa and more about hurling abuse at Britain and America using any complaint they can invent.
Kaishowing
02-Apr-07, 18:26
I leave political idealism for those too ego-bound to admit theory and fact seldom have any similarity, and rather than having a realistic view of things they try to tack their views onto reality ignoring the pieces that don't fit.
The worsening situation in certain regions of Africa will effect the rest of the world. Even if it's the short term effect of pressure put on our politicians to act thanks to the recent coverage in the media.
Of course the preferable solution would be for the African leaders to take responsibility and address the problem themselves, but like you rightly stated there are many other African countries that are in as much, though wildy different, trouble. Because of that I wonder how much attention can be spared for the troubles of other countries...of course add into the mix just how much integrity some of the leaders or their repective governments possess.
As for the catch 22 of damned if you act, and damned if you don't then that's hardly an excuse not to do anything. You may as well be damned for doing what you see as the right thing.
In that respect perhaps that opinion is slightly idealistic. Doesn't make it wrong though.
Well you have completely missed my point then because just check the long list of countries that they have been to war with and how many have oil, not very many you will find. My point being that oil presence is not a prerequisite to war.
My point was that countries go to war to protect their own vested interests. I used oil as an example because of our current involvement in Iraq.
My point is that the US does not go to war for oil, but they go to war for their own interest. They have nothing to gain involving themselves with Mugabe so they wont.
j4bberw0ck
03-Apr-07, 12:46
I no longer believe there is a way to sort Zimbabwe out, let alone Africa.
The only practical solution would seem to be to seal the borders of the entire continent (both in and out), cut off all aid, all trade and wait 50 years. The thousand or so people left would be far more inclined to help solve Africa's problems.
Pouring in aid money has succeeded only in making the politicians hugely richer, and the poor, poorer, while making the recipient country's infrastructure and attitude more and more dependent on the aid money.
"Foreign aid is the process by which money is transferred from the poorest people in the richest countries to the richest people in the poorest".
Can't remember who said it, but it's as true today as it ever was.
j4bberw0ck
03-Apr-07, 12:51
Another interesting effect of the meddling of the well-meaning is the very fashionable "Fair Trade" stuff - coffee mainly and all the other Fair Trade goods the Coop and healthfood places love to sell.
The Fair Trade policies devastate local economies - farmers switch from growing foodstuffs to growing whatever it is the First World's consumers want. Those goods have no monetary value in the country where they're produced, so farming's output is exported.
Meantime, since no one's growing food any more, the price goes up, the poor starve, and the African nation's government (if it cares at all) have to find the cash to buy food at international trade prices to distribute to the starving.
Next time you're opting for Fair Trade coffee or tea or sugar or whatever, thinking you're doing someone a good turn, think on that and buy something else.
George Brims
03-Apr-07, 17:47
I look back to the 60' and 70's and remember seeing newsreel film of the demonstrations over in London against the white rule in Rhodesia. I look for Peter Hain MP on search engine google I find comment by him in year 2000(7 years ago) "I have no quarrel with President Mugabe personally. Throughout the 1960s and 1970s I demonstrated for an end to the Ian Smith white regime. I was delighted when President Mugabe won the elections in 1980"
- I question if MP Hain is still "delighted" with this result? he seems content to stand while Rhodesia burns. Other countries in Africa do nothing. No Oil, are countries invaded for oil? proof please
Here's the thing about the whole Rhodesia business. If any British administration had had the guts to go in and sort out the Smith regime, and set the country on a path to democratic independence, things might not be in such a mess now. Instead nothing was done except to wait until things took their course and a bunch of Soviet-backed independence groups eventually got the upper hand. So once there was a free election, the choice the electorate of Zimbabwe got was between a collection of people who had spent the intervening years reading up on Marxism and owing a debt of gratitude to the Kremlin. The amazing thing to me is that something as bad did not happen in S Africa, where the West's devious apathy practically handed a gold rimmed invitation to the Soviet Union to come in and screw that up too.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.