Zimbabwe

[Giancarlo]

Zaire was then renamed to the Democratic Republic of Congo after the fall of Mobutu Sese Seko. Does anybody know what "Mobutu Sese Seko" means? I know it is not the former dictator's real name... but I know it has a really odd meaning to it.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Cruddy
I cannot see that helping feed Eastern Africa, bring the rains, restore democracy (Mugabe doesn't do actual torturing) or in any way guarantee that his successor is more successful.

Haha, even the Guardian reports about how Mugabe beats and tortures members of the political opposition. So you don't condiers electrocuting people to the point of convulsions or even death to be torture? What about beating people to death or raping wives/daughters of men who oppose his rule? Or maybe you prefer illegal deportations (even after the supreme court has ruled them to be illegal) or imprisionment without trial and/or execution without trail?

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Cruddy
I cannot see that helping feed Eastern Africa, bring the rains, restore democracy (Mugabe doesn't do actual torturing) or in any way guarantee that his successor is more successful.

You think one bullet would end the problems of Zimbabwe? That's Mugabe's argument. He's just not sure which bullet it is, so he keeps firing them.

Rain has only a very small part to do with the famine since infrequent rains are a common occurance and haven't caused famine in the last 100 years. It has to do with Mugabe illegally (so says the country's supreme court) stealing all the farm land from white and black farmers who oppose his racist agenda and then giving it to his cronies and supporters. He doesn't even provide them with seeds or fertalizer so nearly all of the land lies fallow and in a subsistance agriculture enviroment that means everybody starves.

[GePap]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Fez
Zimbabwe has not once been a democracy has it?
QUOTE]

Actually, Mugabe was a democratically elected leader until the late 90's. So in fact Zimbabwe was a democracy until the late 90's and the Congo war.

As for Congo: named after a river. There is a vast difference between naming a country for a river, and a relatively hideous human being like Rhodes.The black majority will never return to naming their country after a racist git.

[Giancarlo]

But that isn't the point.. has Zimbabwe been a true democracy? Has Mugabe at any time during his dictatorship respect any human rights? Yes there was an election recently.. but it was rigged...

So does anybody know what "Mobutu Sese Seko" means?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Fez
But that isn't the point.. has Zimbabwe been a true democracy? Has Mugabe at any time during his dictatorship respect any human rights? Yes there was an election recently.. but it was rigged...

You misunderstand. Mugabe has been president since independence, and most of the time he won in totally fair elections. In fact, Zimbabwe was always pointed to as an African democratic success story until the late 90's, when Mugabe and his supporters begun to undermine the true democracy the country had for about 15 years.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Oerdin
It's to bad it's illegal to assassinate foreign politicians. It seems like a bullet at midnight could solve the worst of Rhodesia's problems; if it goes through Mugabe's head.

We need to fix the mess of Africa, the first thing we should do is to replace old colonial borders with borders that represent the ethnic groups. I am sick of hearing the crap between muslims and christians in Sudan and Nigeria. I don't give a sh!t if the people think it's "western imperialism", we are fixing the MISTAKES of imperialism!

[Cruddy]

Originally posted by Oerdin


Haha, even the Guardian reports about how Mugabe beats and tortures members of the political opposition. So you don't condiers electrocuting people to the point of convulsions or even death to be torture? What about beating people to death or raping wives/daughters of men who oppose his rule? Or maybe you prefer illegal deportations (even after the supreme court has ruled them to be illegal) or imprisionment without trial and/or execution without trail?

Don't put words in my mouth Oerdin. You may not like what I spit back at you.

And you seem to think that assassinating Mugabe would stop these terrible things happening.

Where's your guarantee it wouldn't make things worse?

I'm not saying do nothing - just assassination is an unsure way to ensue stability and a fairer system.

[Cruddy]

Here's another take on assassination; - if one is legit, all are legit seen from the perspective of the assassin.

So JFK, Martin Luther King, Abe Lincoln, even Jesus Christ were all fair targets.

Can you assume that position? I can't.

[Q Classic]

well, from the perspective of the assassin, not all are legit, i'd wager.

why? because a lot of said assassins kill because of political motivations. abe lincoln was assassinated by a southerner who didn't much like how the war ended up. mlk, by a southerner who didn't much like how the movement was ending up.

jesus wasn't killed by an assassin.

targets are legitimate to a particular assassin if and only if it makes sense within their world view-- which means i'd like to see if you can prove that john wilkes booth would have assassinated jefferson davis, or even considered him a legitimate target.

======

as for mugabe... he's a right nasty cvnt, but i don't think america has the capacity to rebuild such a country. if we did decide to take him out, we could no doubt defeat his military with a small force, but we'd need strong support from both local and world powers to set up a peacekeeping force.
else, it'll end up being like afghanistan, and iraq, if we screw up there too.

[Gangerolf]

Why South Africa hasn't used its position as local superpower to do someting about Mugabe is beyond me.

[Arrian]

The situation in Zimbabwe is sad, to be sure. But the US won't do anything more than yell at him from a few thousand miles away, because 1) we're overstretched elsewhere; 2) Somalia; 3) Not strategically important enough; 4) there are others higher on our list.

Britain can't really afford to step in, since Zim is their former colony. Who does that leave?

-Arrian

[CerberusIV]

Mugabe signed up to the 1980 peace deal that ended white rule which was to last for ten years and stuck to it so Zimbabwe was pretty much a democracy for that time. Once the ten years of the agreement were up he set about changing the country into a one party state and the mess it is today.

As for South Africa, the USA/UK/EU countries are not prepared to upset the South Africans so whilst SA persists with seeking a negotiated solution to the Zimbabwe problem and continues to be the main source of food imports to Zimbabwe the rest of the world isn't going to do anything.

[chequita guevara]

No one has answered my question yet. What is it about Mugabe that so angers people where there are much worse dictators all around the world? Mugabe's a thug, but he's not the worst ruler Rhodesia/Zimbabwe's ever had. In fact, compared to everyone before him, he's pretty good.

Meanwhile, SLORC has disappeared the Nobel Peace Prize winning dissident who won the elections ten years ago, before SLORC canceled them.

[Arrian]

che,

I for one chose not to answer your question because, while I happen to agree that Mugabe probably doesn't crack the top 10 tinpot dictator list, I'm not overly fond of justifying inaction by pointing to other nasty fellows and saying "but what about them?"

Mugabe's actions have harmed non-whites in Zimbabwe worse than the whites. Black farm workers have apparently taken a terrible beating, and so has anyone connected to the MDC. Then add in the overall toll of the economic collapse, and there is quite a bit of non-white suffering going on in Zimbabwe. Many of the articles I've read mention this.

Having said all that, I do agree that the Zimbabwe situation gets more press than it would if there were no whites involved. That's unfortunate. Some of it, I think, stems from the linguistic/cultural connection the white farmers have with the US & UK audiences (they speak English, and in the case of Britain, they are the legacy of British colonialism). Therefore it is easier for us to experience their stories - to imagine what it would be like for us. Like I said, though, that covers "some of it."

I like that Gore Vidal quote, btw.

-Arrian