Holden_Caulfield said:
If Bush really cared about Africa, he would do something about this.
You know who did care about Africa? Jimmy Carter. He cared so much he supported Mugabe's rise to power and insisted the rebel leader have a say in the post-revolutionary government of Rhodesia. Look how it turned out.
motorfirebox said:
there actually is something we could do. we could drop a division in, take out Mugabe's military forces, arrest and try Mugabe himself, and stay there for the next decade+ working to turn Zimbabwe into a profitable democracy.
i'm not saying we should do that. but we could. the only reason we don't is that there's nothing in it for Bush.
Holden_Caulfield said:
If Bush really cared about Africa, he would do something about this.
You know who did care about Africa? Jimmy Carter. He cared so much he supported Mugabe's rise to power and insisted the rebel leader have a say in the post-revolutionary government of Rhodesia. Look how it turned out.
You people never learn.
So . . . exactly the same thing Reagan did in Afganistan?
i'm sorry, what was that? the Taliban couldn't have seized power without the aid and support of the Reagan administration? i'm deaf in my right ear, you'll have to speak up.
motorfirebox said:
there actually is something we could do. we could drop a division in, take out Mugabe's military forces, arrest and try Mugabe himself, and stay there for the next decade+ working to turn Zimbabwe into a profitable democracy.
i'm not saying we should do that. but we could. the only reason we don't is that there's nothing in it for Bush.
Perhaps I should have said, "there are not a whole lot of reasonable, legal things he can do about this beyond what his administration is already doing."
motorfirebox said:
there actually is something we could do. we could drop a division in, take out Mugabe's military forces, arrest and try Mugabe himself, and stay there for the next decade+ working to turn Zimbabwe into a profitable democracy.
i'm not saying we should do that. but we could. the only reason we don't is that there's nothing in it for Bush.
Perhaps I should have said, "there are not a whole lot of reasonable, legal things he can do about this beyond what his administration is already doing."
When has that been any sort of issue for this administration?
motorfirebox said:
there actually is something we could do. we could drop a division in, take out Mugabe's military forces, arrest and try Mugabe himself, and stay there for the next decade+ working to turn Zimbabwe into a profitable democracy.
i'm not saying we should do that. but we could. the only reason we don't is that there's nothing in it for Bush.
Realistically, the US would need permission from the SADC, first. That might be awkward; too closely allied to the former colonial power.
motorfirebox said:
there actually is something we could do. we could drop a division in, take out Mugabe's military forces, arrest and try Mugabe himself, and stay there for the next decade+ working to turn Zimbabwe into a profitable democracy.
i'm not saying we should do that. but we could. the only reason we don't is that there's nothing in it for Bush.
Cus it totally worked in Somalia.........
No no, that was the UN. Where's your faith in the American military?
i'm not saying deploying to Zimbabwe is a good idea. i'm simply pointing out that if spreading democracy and stability were the real reason we're still in Iraq, we'd also be gearing up to hit Zimbabwe--and we wouldn't let anyone's objections deter us.
motorfirebox said:
there actually is something we could do. we could drop a division in, take out Mugabe's military forces, arrest and try Mugabe himself, and stay there for the next decade+ working to turn Zimbabwe into a profitable democracy.
i'm not saying we should do that. but we could. the only reason we don't is that there's nothing in it for Bush.
Perhaps I should have said, "there are not a whole lot of reasonable, legal things he can do about this beyond what his administration is already doing."
When has that been any sort of issue for this administration?
Did I say it had been? Am I being unclear? Holden_Caufield chided Bush for doing nothing about ZImbabwe. I corrected him. My point was that Bush's Administration, for once, appears to be taking the correct path (though I will obviously grant that they are horrifically late to the game). He could do all sorts of things to stop Mugabe, but we're talking about what he should do, and I, for one, am not willing to argue that he should take off on a unilateral, illegal military campaign outside the auspices of the UN.
motorfirebox said:
there actually is something we could do. we could drop a division in, take out Mugabe's military forces, arrest and try Mugabe himself, and stay there for the next decade+ working to turn Zimbabwe into a profitable democracy.
i'm not saying we should do that. but we could. the only reason we don't is that there's nothing in it for Bush.
Cus it totally worked in Somalia.........
No no, that was the UN. Where's your faith in the American military?
The American military is designed to destroy, not police things. I have no doubt we could seize power but then what?
Holden_Caulfield said:
If Bush really cared about Africa, he would do something about this.
You know who did care about Africa? Jimmy Carter. He cared so much he supported Mugabe's rise to power and insisted the rebel leader have a say in the post-revolutionary government of Rhodesia. Look how it turned out.
You people never learn.
As has been mentioned, Reagan did the same thing in Afghanistan, and was trying to do it all over Latin America. Furthermore, your understanding of Carter's role in Mugabe's rise to power is flawed. You should really start actually researching the history of the bullshit you're regurgitating from LGF. Carter supported a multilateral government that would end the war and bring an end to Rhodesia as a UK colony. He was never in a position to keep Mugabe out of power, and the alternative proposal (championed by Bob Dole and Orrin Hatch) was roundly decried as illegal by all parties involved except the white former leaders. The only person who was in any position to stop Mugabe was Margaret Thatcher, who refused to annul the elections in the face of claims of massive intimidation by Mugabe's forces.
I know you're a troll, but you make it too easy for me, when you don't even have basic facts straight.
motorfirebox said:
there actually is something we could do. we could drop a division in, take out Mugabe's military forces, arrest and try Mugabe himself, and stay there for the next decade+ working to turn Zimbabwe into a profitable democracy.
i'm not saying we should do that. but we could. the only reason we don't is that there's nothing in it for Bush.
Cus it totally worked in Somalia.........
No no, that was the UN. Where's your faith in the American military?
The American military is designed to destroy, not police things. I have no doubt we could seize power but then what?
It'd need an awful lot of work, for sure.
And I'm not really sure the seizing of power would be easy; Zimbabwe's a mess, with little remaining infrastructure, and that doesn't play well to the US military style - too much air power, and not enough boots.
Plus the diplomacy would need time, which would give the Zimbabwean military time to disperse, and stockpile, and arm the war veterans. That's Vietnam, right there.
Holden_Caulfield said:
If Bush really cared about Africa, he would do something about this.
You know, I dislike Bush every bit as much as you do, but there's not a whole lot he can do about this beyond what his administration is already doing.
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said condemned "the government of Zimbabwe's continued campaign of violence again its own people." Rice said that it is clear Mr. Mugabe "is determined to thwart the will of the people" as expressed in national elections March 29.
"In forsaking the most basic tenant of government, the protection of its own people, the government of Zimbabwe must be held accountable by the international community," Rice said, urging the Southern African Development Community, the African Union Peace and Security Council, and the United Nations Security Council to take up the issue.
U.S. State Department Deputy Spokesman Tom Casey read Rice's statement to reporters in Washington, saying the Mugabe government "can not be considered legitimate in the absence of a run-off.
It's an issue that the UN is taking up, at the insistence of the US. If we're going to attack conservatives for being uninformed and not basing their attacks on reason and fact, we should hold ourselves to the same standard. Do your homework.
I am already aware of what the Bush Administration is doing. I still think that Shrub could do more. Exactly what, mind you, I'm not certain, but simply complaining to the UN doesn't really cut it. I mean, look what is still happening in Rwanda. Complaining to the UN really helped with that, now didn't it?
Mugabe's thugs cut off the hands and feet off the opposition opponent's wife, threw her in a hut and burned her to death. If that isn't cause for alarm, I don't know what is.
Yeah, we attacked Iraq to instill Democracy. . .er. . .um. . .extract oil from the country. Bush's duplicity is ridiculous.
Holden_Caulfield said:
If Bush really cared about Africa, he would do something about this.
You know who did care about Africa? Jimmy Carter. He cared so much he supported Mugabe's rise to power and insisted the rebel leader have a say in the post-revolutionary government of Rhodesia. Look how it turned out.
You people never learn.
Did Zimbabwe attack the United States and somehow lead to a war with Iraq that has left thousands of Americans dead? No.
Did the Taliban inside Afghanistan attack the United States and shomehow lead to a war with Iraq that has left thousands of Americans dead? Yes.
It seems that you are comparing apples and oranges again, Stockula.
Why would anyone think that the world is going to do jack-shit for these people. Just the bare minimum has been done in Darfur. The Rwandan situation was a disaster as well. And lets not get into Somalia. There is a reason this is not being dealt with. The powers that be don't think that when all is said and done, that they can make a buck. And that is just sad.
No we can't afford to occupy an other country. And the UN can't do anything or worse yet, won't.
A major problem with Africa is that the colonial white powers decided to draw these little thin lines on maps not taking into account all the different tribes that lived in those borders that just don't get along. Now this isn't the only problem but it is a main factor.
Mugabe is a thug and frankly he should be deposed or just plain and simply eliminated. And at the end of the day nothing will happen. Except some motard will turn this into a thread about birth certificates.
Holden_Caulfield said:
If Bush really cared about Africa, he would do something about this.
You know who did care about Africa? Jimmy Carter. He cared so much he supported Mugabe's rise to power and insisted the rebel leader have a say in the post-revolutionary government of Rhodesia. Look how it turned out.
You people never learn.
Much like raygun and bush uno supported the rise to power of noriega in Panama, knowing then that he was involved with trafficking drugs. Or ignoring the fact that sadaam was killing Kurds and Iranians with poison gas. And still passing on satellite info of irainian troop positions.
Carter didn't know that mugabe would be the nut-job he became. Whilst raygun and bush knew exactly who they were dealing with and what they were capable of doing.
and you people will never know!
Holden_Caulfield said:
If Bush really cared about Africa, he would do something about this.
You know who did care about Africa? Jimmy Carter. He cared so much he supported Mugabe's rise to power and insisted the rebel leader have a say in the post-revolutionary government of Rhodesia. Look how it turned out.
You people never learn.
Ok. What's the solution to the current situation in Zimbabwe? Do you think that there is a solution? Do you think that everyone needs to just back off and mind their own business? What would you do if you were the US president or the president of South Africa?
stockula
Anchorage, AK
May 2003
JUN 23, 2008 04:09 PM