Can someone please invade Zimbabwe?

[Drake Tungsten]

The condescending part was the implication that Sikander has only read Soldier of Fortune articles on the subject...

Go back to your ivory tower.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

If you steal something, your children have no right to it.

Do the black children in Zimbabwe have the right to eat? Mugabe's idiotic reforms took that away...

I think you should spread your sympathy out- to the black children of Mozambique, Angola and Zaire. The terrorists of Renamo caused a famine resulting in over 100 000 deaths in Mozambique. Child infant mortality in Zaire rocketed under Mobutu. Which superpower propped up Mobutu? Which superpower sold arms to South Africa- which prosecuted war against the front line states? Peasant farmers still lose limbs in Angola and Mozambique when they dare to go into fields. If you think the American money spent on those land mines was money well-spent, so be it.


Zimbabwe: Intersection of Human Rights, Land Reform, and Regional Security
By Carol Thompson
November 2000

"U.S. foreign policy has long been a major source of insecurity in Southern Africa. U.S. support of UNITA (National Union for the Total Independence of Angola) and other right-wing guerrilla forces in Angola, dating from the 1970s, is well-documented. Currently, the U.S. is complicit in the marketing of "blood diamonds"--diamonds being sold by UNITA to finance its war atrocities in Angola. UNITA commander Jonas Savimbi has been declared a war criminal by the UN, yet he is still able to sell his diamonds freely on the international market. "

The struggles for civil liberties, economic redistribution, and regional security are still very much on the agenda of post-apartheid Southern Africa. These goals must be pursued together, for the absence of one will destroy the others. U.S. foreign policy should not sanctimoniously advocate respect for human rights while ignoring pervasive economic inequality and regional security issues.

(Carol Thompson is a specialist on Southern Africa and a professor of political economy at Northern Arizona University. She is on sabbatical, doing research and writing at the University of Zimbabwe.)

[Drake Tungsten]

So you're blaming the current famine in Zimbabwe on the US?

[Ted Striker]

Of course!

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
Oh, and by the way,

The British Government formally granted independence to Zimbabwe on April 18, 1980.

That's like saying that the US formally recognized Red China in the 1970s. It was twenty some years after the fact. Rodesia declared independence in the 1960s.

[Ted Striker]

So what? It's always been a British Protectorate and the British have always reserved the right to directly intervene, and they did exercise that right.

The British also directly ruled Zimbabwe during 1979-1980. That sounds pretty involved to me.

[Drake Tungsten]

Zimbabwe: Intersection of Human Rights, Land Reform, and Regional Security
By Carol Thompson
November 2000

"U.S. foreign policy has long been a major source of insecurity in Southern Africa. U.S. support of UNITA (National Union for the Total Independence of Angola) and other right-wing guerrilla forces in Angola, dating from the 1970s, is well-documented. Currently, the U.S. is complicit in the marketing of "blood diamonds"--diamonds being sold by UNITA to finance its war atrocities in Angola. UNITA commander Jonas Savimbi has been declared a war criminal by the UN, yet he is still able to sell his diamonds freely on the international market. "

The struggles for civil liberties, economic redistribution, and regional security are still very much on the agenda of post-apartheid Southern Africa. These goals must be pursued together, for the absence of one will destroy the others. U.S. foreign policy should not sanctimoniously advocate respect for human rights while ignoring pervasive economic inequality and regional security issues.

(Carol Thompson is a specialist on Southern Africa and a professor of political economy at Northern Arizona University. She is on sabbatical, doing research and writing at the University of Zimbabwe.)

The best part about this molly quote is that, while the title would seem to indicate that the article is about Zimbabwe, Zimbabwe isn't mentioned once in the excerpt molly quoted. Good show!

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

If you steal something, your children have no right to it.

Do the black children in Zimbabwe have the right to eat? Mugabe's idiotic reforms took that away...

No doubt he'd doing it at a very bad time, as almost all of South East Africa is in a famine at the moment. I think it could have been handled in a much better manner, but what Mugabe was trying to do was force Britain and the US to live up to their agreements. By moving unilaterly against the white land-owners, he was trying to force their hand, but the US and GB don't care about a two decades old agreement they had already renegged upon. A leader they don't like discredits himself and they don't spend any money on it.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
So what? It's always been a British Protectorate and the British have always reserved the right to directly intervene, and they did exercise that right.

So what? Britain [i]didn't rule the country between 1965 and 1979. When they "granted" independence to Zimbabwe, they were merely recognizing a fifteen-year old fact.

The British also directly ruled Zimbabwe during 1979-1980. That sounds pretty involved to me.

Irrelevent. Rhodesia was independent from 1965 to 1979. Britain was only handling the transition from white minority rule to Black majority.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
So you're blaming the current famine in Zimbabwe on the US?

Your logic seems to be on a par with ted's arithmetic and history. If I blame someone for something, I don't shy away from saying so. Please point out where in any of the posts I have blamed the famine in Zimbabwe on the U.S. . And I don't mean imply, or draw an inference- point out where I state that. Of course the fact that there has been a several years' long drought in southern Africa seems to have escaped some of our contributors. But don't let that stop you posting.

As for my ivory tower- well, it seems to have given me a slightly better grasp of African history than some people's. As for being condescending to Sikander- he only instanced Soldier of Fortune as a reference, cited no articles, gave no links or any other kind of useful information other than his recollection. He also tried the old smoke and mirros routine, by implying I had referred to who was more responsible for Renamo, or who controlled them. Not part of my post at all.

"The World Bank and IMF have sanctioned Zimbabwe for its war expenditures, although both financial institutions continue to lend to Uganda, whose troops support the rebels in the Congo. Although Zimbabweans believe the U.S. and international agencies are not being evenhanded, they are also overwhelmingly against Zimbabwean troop involvement in the war because it diverts funds from development needs. SADC leaders have consistently been in the forefront of negotiations for peace, beginning one month after the Uganda/Rwanda invasion in 1998. "

Now I'm not a defender of Mugabe, but what the hell is Uganda doing getting involved in a war in Central Africa? Or Rwanda? Oh that's right- the U.S. sells arms to both, and has supported and trained Kagame and Museveni.

[Drake Tungsten]

If I blame someone for something, I don't shy away from saying so. Please point out where in any of the posts I have blamed the famine in Zimbabwe on the U.S. . And I don't mean imply, or draw an inference- point out where I state that.

Oh, I see. Your post about Angola wasn't meant to imply that the US is responsible for the problems in Zimbabwe as well; it was just a completely irrelevant post. That's much better...

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Originally posted by Ted Striker
So what? It's always been a British Protectorate and the British have always reserved the right to directly intervene, and they did exercise that right.

So what? Britain [i]didn't rule the country between 1965 and 1979. When they "granted" independence to Zimbabwe, they were merely recognizing a fifteen-year old fact.

The British also directly ruled Zimbabwe during 1979-1980. That sounds pretty involved to me.

Irrelevent. Rhodesia was independent from 1965 to 1979. Britain was only handling the transition from white minority rule to Black majority.

Following the abrogation of the company's charter in 1923, Southern Rhodesia's white settlements were given the choice of being incorporated into the Union of South Africa or becoming a separate entity within the British Empire. The settlers rejected incorporation, and Southern Rhodesia was formally annexed by the United Kingdom that year. Until 1980, Rhodesia was an internally self-governing colony with its own legislature, civil service, armed forces, and police. Although Rhodesia was never administered directly from London, the United Kingdom always retained the right to intervene in the affairs of the colony, particularly in matters affecting Africans.

http://www.rhodesian-chronicle.co.uk/rhodesias_history.htm

[Ted Striker]

By the way Commie, you and the Wannabe Eurocom are missing the point entirely.

Africa is ****ed up from Eurocom rule. A rule that messed up the natural order of things there that had existed for centuries.

The reason Zimbabwe is ****ed up is because it was setup that way.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten


The best part about this molly quote is that, while the title would seem to indicate that the article is about Zimbabwe, Zimbabwe isn't mentioned once in the excerpt molly quoted. Good show!

Ah yes, the descent into facetiousness. Do you and ted share the same scriptwriter?

The article is a very long and informative one which covers the history of post colonial land reform and issues touching on land reform, such as external threats, the Cold War, and so on. Sorry if that's not absolutely clear, but if you'd pay attention you'd notice I have referenced the article on more than one occasion.

By the way ted, just so you get it through your skull- one year before Rhodesia declared U.D.I. Northern Rhodesia (Zambia) was granted independence. Is it your contention that Great Britain still controlled Zambia? Or Botswana? Or Kenya?

Love the insults ted.

They make feel warm all over.

They're so much easier than learning or research aren't they?

How many hundreds of years ted? (uncle) Ho ho ho

[Drake Tungsten]

The article is a very long and informative one

So why did you post an excerpt that was neither long nor informative?

Sorry if that's not absolutely clear, but if you'd pay attention you'd notice I have referenced the article on more than one occasion.

I haven't really been following this thread too closely. Long on volume, short on substance, thanks in no small part to your efforts...