Im referring to your robotic like influence to always shoot straight to WW2 and the "evil nazis" as an argument.sergeriver wrote:
I see, well you must be ok with the Genocide in Rwanda since you didn't refer to it.killcommies wrote:
The second you referred to the holocaust instead of stalins massacre's as the first argument.sergeriver wrote:
Where did I say that what Stalin did wasn't bad?
also, who the hell is jord?
Zimbabwe will not be invaded since they do not have anything the west wants
Robotic? Lol. What's the deal with you and the evil nazis anyway? Did I touch a sensitive issue here? I used the Holocaust as an example of when it is appropriate to intervene. Maybe it wasn't for you.killcommies wrote:
Im referring to your robotic like influence to always shoot straight to WW2 and the "evil nazis" as an argument.sergeriver wrote:
I see, well you must be ok with the Genocide in Rwanda since you didn't refer to it.killcommies wrote:
The second you referred to the holocaust instead of stalins massacre's as the first argument.
also, who the hell is jord?
Last edited by sergeriver (2008-06-07 07:10:14)
Good point. Stalin wasn't a big fan of Jews either.killcommies wrote:
Assume the soviet union committed a holocaust against christians, should the world have let the soviets get away with it? ... oh wait...sergeriver wrote:
Assume that Hitler didn't invade Poland, but he committed the Holocaust, in your opinion the world should have let Germans solve their problems?ZombieVampire! wrote:
Such as?Kmarion wrote:
You have a limited memory of history.
Was an international incident which garnered an international response.
Good point... We let Mao kill more of his own people than Hitler or Stalin.killcommies wrote:
Stalin killed far more than the holocaust did, far, far more - and apparently the holocaust was enough? were the lives of those killed by the soviets worthless? Apparently so, since people can flaunt their hammers and sickles on this forum but I cannot have a signature that says "fascism above all".sergeriver wrote:
IMO the Holocaust was bad enough. And so is Zimbabwe.ZombieVampire! wrote:
No, but sovereignty is vital to world stability.
Besides which, where do you draw the line? How bad does it have to be before you step in?
Personally, I think you should be allowed to show your fascism thing, but be prepared for a lot of abuse hurled at you. Freedom of speech is a double-edged sword -- you have the freedom to say what you want to, but others have the freedom to insult you.
Anyway back to the OP. Its very possible that Mugabe didnt want to continue on after the last election loss. He was possibly even ready to stand down, but the military wouldnt allow him to as they have too much to lose from prosecution. Mugabe ( although he is an evil man) may not actually have much of a hand in the current campaign of terror. It is possible that it is mostly the military that are directly ( ie making all the decisions) causing the problems in Zimbabwe.
I dont want to seem like I am defending the guy. Just thought it was worth a mention.
andThe Australian wrote:
A senior Western diplomat traced the military takeover to the days after the March 29 election, when a stunned Mr Mugabe was preparing to stand down before the generals moved in. "The generals didn't let him go," said the diplomat. "Afraid that Mr Mugabe's departure would expose them to prosecution, they struck a deal guaranteeing his re-election.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/st … 01,00.htmlThe Australian wrote:
The extent of Mr Mugabe's acquiescence to, or even knowledge of, the extent of the military's terror tactics, remains unclear, but the moment he agreed to stay on, the diplomat notes: "Mr Mugabe became beholden to the generals to stay in power."
I dont want to seem like I am defending the guy. Just thought it was worth a mention.