of course. the UN is corrupt. coffee anhole is the worst of them all.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
I'm trying to figure out how sanctions will hurt the Mugabe dictatorship and help the average Zimbabwean...I mean, the same actions were taken against the Saddam Hussein government and they (sanctions) were responsible for hundreds of thousands of Iraqi deaths while Saddam built palaces.
thats always the catch with sanctions....who do they hurt most?KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
I'm trying to figure out how sanctions will hurt the Mugabe dictatorship and help the average Zimbabwean...I mean, the same actions were taken against the Saddam Hussein government and they (sanctions) were responsible for hundreds of thousands of Iraqi deaths while Saddam built palaces.
Last edited by BN (2008-07-11 18:00:02)
And once again...BN wrote:
thats always the catch with sanctions....who do they hurt most?KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
I'm trying to figure out how sanctions will hurt the Mugabe dictatorship and help the average Zimbabwean...I mean, the same actions were taken against the Saddam Hussein government and they (sanctions) were responsible for hundreds of thousands of Iraqi deaths while Saddam built palaces.
Sanctions on Iraq didnt hurt Saddam, they hurt Iraqi's.
edit: they didnt stop Saddam's WMD program either.......................................................................................
google.comMek-Stizzle wrote:
Someone post some info on what these proposed sanctions actually were.
I would like to hear it also.Mek-Stizzle wrote:
I'd also like to hear the Chinese/Russian explanations for their veto's, cos this ain't no Israel/Palestine bullshit
Aren't they making lots of money selling Mugabe weapons to oppress the people there?Mek-Stizzle wrote:
I'd also like to hear the Chinese/Russian explanations for their veto's, cos this ain't no Israel/Palestine bullshit
I was thinking that.Bertster7 wrote:
Aren't they making lots of money selling Mugabe weapons to oppress the people there?Mek-Stizzle wrote:
I'd also like to hear the Chinese/Russian explanations for their veto's, cos this ain't no Israel/Palestine bullshit
I seem to remember the big arms shipment around the time of the first round of elections was from China.
regional instability threatens the entire continent.ZombieVampire! wrote:
Everything threatens international stability. The issue is whether it's serious enough outside Zimbabwe to be considered a serious issue, which it isn't.
Immigrants sneaking into South African is one and that's already causing friction.ZombieVampire! wrote:
But you have to demonstrate regional instability to take that stand: and at present, the issue isn't spilling much over Zimbabwe's borders
you should ask the South African government that.ZombieVampire! wrote:
But you have to demonstrate regional instability to take that stand: and at present, the issue isn't spilling much over Zimbabwe's borders
this isnt a serious response is it? Look at this a little more critically bubbs.ZombieVampire! wrote:
Which can be easily solved with border patrols. Even if it's an ongoing problem, you have to demonstrate that it can cause instability.
At this point, we shouldn't even hold the Olympics. It was bad enough that the world still held them during Hitler's rise.Mason4Assassin444 wrote:
It is incomprehensible. A disgrace even. Beijing 08 baby!
They felt strongly about vetoing it because they have to worry about looking like hypocrites when it comes to human rights abuses and corruption.ZombieVampire! wrote:
Why?
The job of the security council is to judge whether something presents a threat to gobal stability. There's good reason to say no, and Russia and China both feel strongly enough to vetoe it.
lol. Just ignore one of the world's biggest energy and mineral resource sources and the most populous country on earth..... pretty damn arrogant. I agree with Russia and China on this one: this is not a matter impinging on international security - it is a domestic matter for Zimbabwe and possibly South Africa as they seem to be directly affected by the deluge of refugees. Your UN idea is ludicrous - it is thought through purely on the basis that you are an American. Why should America be on the council if Russia and China aren't? Has not the US vetoed about a gazillion Israeli resolutions? Hypocritical to the max.Turquoise wrote:
They felt strongly about vetoing it because they have to worry about looking like hypocrites when it comes to human rights abuses and corruption.
In short, China and Russia should not be part of anything remotely like a Security Council. A more valid council would have America, the U.K., France, Germany, and Japan as its members. Maybe we could add India and Brazil as well.