BF2S Forums Zimbabwe opposition to pull out of the presedential election.

Someone should've just shot the bastard when he went to Rome.

Morgan Tsangarai ( sic) didnt have a chance. He could have won every vote there and it wouldnt have helped. He probably did the right thing pulling out now because(1) theres not even the charade of democracy as if there would be in an election, and (2)Mugabe and the military were going from killing opposition members to killing/attacking their wives. It will be many years before this will be fixed.

there is only 1 way mugabe is leaving power and that is in a pine box

they've pulled out now. we need to invade zimbabwe, we invaded Iraq to get rid of evil dictator, so we need to invade zimbabwe to get rid of mugabe instead of just sitting back and watching the country fall into even more turmoil. all the polictical leaders seem to be doing is condeming his actions.

JahManRed wrote:

KILLSWITCH wrote:

"Only God will remove me from power"

God should be a .308 bullet from a CIA sniper rifle.

Indeed...  Zimbabwe is a rare example of where interventionism would be a good thing.  The same goes for Burma and Sudan.

IMHO, you'd only screw it up more.


Am I the only one who noticed the reports from escaped foreign officials saying that the military was in charge and Mugabe may have stepped down if they didn't force him to remain?

ZombieVampire! wrote:

IMHO, you'd only screw it up more.


Am I the only one who noticed the reports from escaped foreign officials saying that the military was in charge and Mugabe may have stepped down if they didn't force him to remain?

Makes sense, but either way, the regime should be removed.  Not by us though...  We're stuck in Iraq.  How about the EU do something about it? Or hell, get China or Russia in there.

ZombieVampire! wrote:

As I've said, I reckon that'd just make it worse.

Kmarion wrote:

The UN......should take the following actions:

• Charge Mugabe and his military commanders with crimes against humanity   
• Seize all assets held abroad by Mugabe and his advisers   
• List Zimbabwe’s military and militias as terrorist organizations   
• Refuse to offer diplomatic status to Zimbabwean officials traveling abroad   
• Close the borders to all shipments going into Zimbabwe, a complete embargo

Actually, they should go back to their original mandate which forbade them from intervening in internal disputes.

It would have to be remarkably bad to end up worse than the current situation.  Unlike Iraq, we're not talking about removing a stable government.

KILLSWITCH wrote:

Nintendogamer wrote:

they've pulled out now. we need to invade zimbabwe, we invaded Iraq to get rid of evil dictator, so we need to invade zimbabwe to get rid of mugabe instead of just sitting back and watching the country fall into even more turmoil. all the polictical leaders seem to be doing is condeming his actions.

I think Iraq has taught us that we need to keep out of other Countries' business.  Why should we risk more British lives?  Only Zimbabwe can fix Zimbabwe's problems.

TBH zimbabwe needs our help. zimbabwe cannot help themselves because the fear and violance mugabe has caused.

With respect, I suggest you probably aren't very familiar with the Weimar Republic.
I further suggest that if you want a lesson in poor governance Europe has plenty of examples.  If you want them to do alright, leave them to sort themselves out.  It's the only way they'll learn.


Srsly, tho.  It is.

ZombieVampire! wrote:

With respect, I suggest you probably aren't very familiar with the Weimar Republic.
I further suggest that if you want a lesson in poor governance Europe has plenty of examples.  If you want them to do alright, leave them to sort themselves out.  It's the only way they'll learn.


Srsly, tho.  It is.

That doesn't mean you need to be friendly towards the regime in the mean time. It only strengthens them.

My very first sentence:

Eventually the population will catch up to him.

ZombieVampire! wrote:

I never said we should be friendly to them.

Turquoise wrote:

The Nazies were bad, but I don't see how Mugabe is any better than Hitler (at least in terms of domestic governance).  The only reason why we chose to fight Hitler was because of his conquests, but I think that shows how flawed we were in waiting to remove him.  If we had taken out Hitler before he started to invade other countries, WW2 never would have been a world war.

Should he have been attacked as soon as he invaded a foreign nation?  Yes.  But by attacking before you weaken sovereignty.  Further, Nazi Germany was much better than the Weimar Republic (which is why it was so easy for the Nazis to do as they pleased.

Alright, I'll give you the part about the Nazies versus the Weimar Republic.  I'll even give you the part about the Weimar Republic versus current Zimbabwe.

However, sovereignty is less important to me than long term stability.  I know you probably see the two as the same, but I don't.  There are numerous times where sovereignty should take a back seat to long term interests.  For example, we should never have let the Taliban rise to power.  Previous mistakes led to their rise, but as soon as their fascistic practices came to light, we should've taken them out.  The same goes for Burma.

The only times where I see removing a tyrant from power as a problem are in places like Iraq, where the conflicts between ethnic groups are just too tumultuous for anything other than tyranny to handle.

Granted, I can see how you might apply that to Zimbabwe.

ZombieVampire! wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

With Mugabe, I don't think we have to worry about a world war, but the fact remains that his regime is tyrannical and genocidal.

I seem to recall another discussion on the meaning of the word Tyranny, buy I'll avoid that this time...........

Your code of ethics is very unusual.

ZombieVampire! wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

We shouldn't just let him continue onward like this.

Why not?

Intervention for humanitarian purposes is a good thing in most cases.  We could better the lives of these people.

ZombieVampire! wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Europe governed Africa more effectively than most of Africa currently governs itself.

As I said earlier, they have a bit of a head start.


Treating the locals as slaves also helps.

If treating the locals as slaves maintains better order than letting them rule themselves...  Well, it's kind of sad.  I'm not suggesting that Europe reconquer Africa, but I do believe more outside influence could benefit certain African countries.  We also need to police the multinational corporations that are abusing Africa.