I know Geoff has closed the politics forum but seeing as this is on the TV and in the news then its current affairs and as such is allowed I think?
Anyway looks like his zanu pf party are going to win the election despite the fact it has been condemed by human rights groups.
Mugabe is using race to win the election and citing Tony Blair as the real enemy ,makes you think dont it?

Are Zimbabwean elections rigged?

Does a bear pray?

Does the pope poo in the pine trees?

Depends, are we talking International or American standards here?

Another april's fools joke perhaps!

Of course its rigged..and voters are 'influenced' by fear and intimindation.

Definately rigged Roy. Didnt the Mugabe controlled state court rule that thousands of people were ineligible to vote. Mugabes policy of intimidation has secured his election victory

Originally posted by steev
Are Zimbabwean elections rigged?

Does a bear pray?

Does the pope poo in the pine trees?

Depends, are we talking International or American standards here?
It looks like the pope will soon be wearing a pine overcoat

Yes but are we or anyone sure he would not win anyway??
He does seem to have many followers.

Originally posted by royjames
Yes but are we or anyone sure he would not win anyway??
He does seem to have many followers.

We'll never know - as the polls are clearly rigged. The BBC is banned, and the media is state controlled.

Mugabe's castigation of Tony Blair is but a distraction from the real problems facing Zimbabwe. I deplore any kind of election which uses race as an issue. Wouldn't you agree with that sentiment royjames?

[MOD NOTE] This is about the elections in Zimbabwe not about the politics of individual users - please try to keep on topic and not digress into a general political debate. Thankyou

From the little I have read about Mugabe and his little regime I would think that if they aren't rigged, people are probably too scared to vote for anybody else anyway.

Funny how Bush doesn't seem to care about this dictator though...

Originally posted by evildrneil
[MOD NOTE] This is about the elections in Zimbabwe not about the politics of individual users - please try to keep on topic and not digress into a general political debate. Thankyou

Sorry Mod - didn't mean to stray off topic.

Isn't his policy to only allow food to be given out to his own party voters.

That fact alone must make it rigged. He will certainly get rid of any opposition.

hazel

Yes I find the policy of giving food to his supporters in preference over the rest to be awful,the man clearly has no morals and as for Bush I agree with you he dont seem too botherd does he?
Does the UN not have any resolutions against the Mugabe goverment? I f it does it dont seem to bother him much.

Millions of dead people on electoral role. Very few young (and more likely to be anti-Mugabe on register.

Mugabe gets 40 (not sure about the figure) votes himself seat wise out of 120 before we start.

The opposition has only been able to campaign the last few weeks.

If the opposition were winning they wouldn't win.

How can anyone say that the election was rigged in Zimbabwe!
Mugabe is a good man, After all, he was put into power by the UK and we would never have done that if he was so dishonest!

Next you will all be saying that Labour is rigging the polls here or filling in postal ballot papers themselves !

Yes but didn't the USA and UK support Saddam Hussein AND the Taliban originally??

Let God decide who is 'good' and who is 'bad', and who is in-between. British foreign policy should be calculated in terms of British interests. If it made sense to support Saddam, Pinochet or whoever, then so be it. In my view, we should have supported Ian Smith, and told Mugabe to 'go hang', but that is another story.

Of course the elections are rigged. Everything about the Golgotha that is Zimbabwe is fixed, rigged, corrupt and riddled through with decay. Now the white farmers are gone, Mugabe and his followers can hold whatever elections they like. Like some Lord of the Flies-style schoolboys, they strut around in false bravado, secretly worried that nobody will come to rescue them. Before long, somebody [read the West] will have to. One cannot help but think that if we had listened to Smith, none of this would have happened.

What is a Golgotha? Its a great word and I'd like to familiarise myself with it so I can drop it into everyday conversation.

Originally posted by royjames
[B]Mugabe is using race to win the election and citing Tony Blair as the real enemy B]

Roy... surely you are extracting it here?

Originally posted by Lucy_Smith
Funny how Bush doesn't seem to care about this dictator though...

I was wondering how long it would take before someone blamed this entire mess on George Bush.

And timo, excellent observations as usual. Mugabe wouldn't know the truth if it came up and bit him in the a**.

Sierra

Originally posted by timo
Let God decide who is 'good' and who is 'bad', and who is in-between. British foreign policy should be calculated in terms of British interests. If it made sense to support Saddam, Pinochet or whoever, then so be it. In my view, we should have supported Ian Smith, and told Mugabe to 'go hang', but that is another story.

Of course the elections are rigged. Everything about the Golgotha that is Zimbabwe is fixed, rigged, corrupt and riddled through with decay. Now the white farmers are gone, Mugabe and his followers can hold whatever elections they like. Like some Lord of the Flies-style schoolboys, they strut around in false bravado, secretly worried that nobody will come to rescue them. Before long, somebody [read the West] will have to. One cannot help but think that if we had listened to Smith, none of this would have happened.
We had this conversation in another thread a while back.....my observation has been that ALL..African countries that we have interfered with have all gone the same way with dictatorships.

It is now only a matter of time before South Africa follows Zimbabwe as they see Mugabe getting away with it and still getting aid from the UK.

What facinates me is that when Ian Smith claimed UDI...the UK were quick to put sanctions and stop any aid that was required at the time.
Mugabe was in exile in the UK, classed as a terrorist in the then Rhodesia yet England backed him to form a democratic government that never materialised, without as much as 1 sanction being imposed.

Even after pulling out of the commonwealth, Mugabe still recieves cash aid from the UK so it looks as though the UK condones his actions.

Originally posted by Sierra
I was wondering how long it would take before someone blamed this entire mess on George Bush.

Wasn't blaming it on Bush...just merely observing good ol' "let's stop terrorism" hasn't done much about it.

Originally posted by Lucy_Smith
Wasn't blaming it on Bush...just merely observing good ol' "let's stop terrorism" hasn't done much about it.
If Bush were to try and stop terrorism.....he should start with the UK first as we seem to harbour most of them.

Originally posted by Lucy_Smith
Wasn't blaming it on Bush...just merely observing good ol' "let's stop terrorism" hasn't done much about it.

I'm sorry Lucy. I misunderstood you. But how is Bush supposed to remove Mugabe? He's been in power for nearly 25 years? Why hasn't someone done something about him long before this?

The man has a deplorable human rights record, especially where gay people are concerned. He has called them "sexual perverts", and described them as being "lower than pigs and dogs", and has also denied them their basic human and civil rights. Homosexuality is still illegal in Zimbabwe, and he has the gall to blame it all on colonialism.

Like no one in Africa ever had a clue about being gay before white people got there? I'm still not sure whether to believe that he's being serious or joking about this.

I think timo is right. Another crooked African dictator who spends foreign aid money on hookers and limousines while his people starve.

:) Sierra

Originally posted by timo
Let God decide who is 'good' and who is 'bad', and who is in-between. British foreign policy should be calculated in terms of British interests. If it made sense to support Saddam, Pinochet or whoever, then so be it. In my view, we should have supported Ian Smith, and told Mugabe to 'go hang', but that is another story.

Of course the elections are rigged. Everything about the Golgotha that is Zimbabwe is fixed, rigged, corrupt and riddled through with decay. Now the white farmers are gone, Mugabe and his followers can hold whatever elections they like. Like some Lord of the Flies-style schoolboys, they strut around in false bravado, secretly worried that nobody will come to rescue them. Before long, somebody [read the West] will have to. One cannot help but think that if we had listened to Smith, none of this would have happened.

Come on timo, your memory is beginning to fade. It was the former Conservative Prime Minister MacMillan who talked about the "winds of change" blowing over Africa, and set the ball rolling for independence. Nyasaland became Malawi, Bechuanaland became Botswana, Northern Rhodesia became Zambia, etc.

When Iain Smith declared UDI, what was the UK supposed to do - accept apartheid by a rebellious colony (yes, it was still a colony)? The problem over Southern Rhodesia was finally resolved by Lord Carrington - a Tory minister. Mugabe won the first (and arguably the only free) elections held in Zimbabwe - conducted under the auspices of the British government. Mugabe, who appeared to be the salvation of this new nation has, sadly, turned into yet another African despot.

Let us not forget the late Kenneth Kuanda of Zambia. When his party lost a general election, he gracefully accepted the result, and subsequently retired from active politics. And let us not forget the most inspirational politican of the century is also an African - Nelson Mandela. There is hope yet for Africa, and Zimbabwe.

Robbo,
Have no fear, dear heart, Timo has not lost his memory. I am aware that Smith put Wilson's government in an impossible position with the UDI stance. My point is, the government should have given more support to Smith before he made the declaration, borne out of the belief amonst whites that Britain had deserted them. Wilson, rather wisely [for him], realised that force would not bring Rhodesia back to its obediance. British public opinion was firmly against war, and the extended lines of communication involved would be an immense problem for any intervening British troops. Wilson imposed economic sanctions instead. The point is, it need not have come to this. What sort of British government ignores the plight of its kith and kin faced with the Soviet-supplied ZIPRA and ZANU terrorists?

I am perfectly aware that Lord Carrington lanced the boil at the Lancaster Gate conference of the summer of 79. I also acknowledge that it was a, Tory government -supervised, 'free' election. What are the prospects of a free election now? They are as likely as Ian Paisley converting to Catholicism.

Re the paternalistic MacMillan's 'Winds of Change' speech. Yes, I am aware of this historic moment too. I am also aware that it gave birth to the Conservative Monday Club, a voice for those who believed then, and still believe now, that Britain should have not given up her empire so easily. Not all Tories agreed with MacMillan.

I am not so sure about Mandela being 'the most inspirational politician of the twentieth century'. I would say that Churchill, Thatcher and Reagan have the edge. At least they did not plot to plant incendiary devices in public places.

Nelson Mandela was a terrorist and a marxist and to compare him with the greats of 20century history is propsterous.
The ANC are still a marxist organisation who will in good time do to South Africa what Mugabe has done to zimbabwe ie Rhodesia.
And as for Britain coming to the aid of the whites living over there not a hope in hell they have ignored their concerns and they ought to be ashamed on themselves.
If we had been in power it would not have even come to this.

When I think about the brave Bishop N'Cube, who has called for a peaceful revolution in Zimbabwe, I am reminded of the fate of another 'turbulent priest' in history.

How long before Mugabe turns on him? Yesterday's press photos of the dictator showed him dancing in jubilation. With his absurd little moustache, and his ludicrous, multi-coloured clothes, Mugabe looked like a Hitlerian version of Timmy Mallett [childrens' entertainer]. It would be hilarious were it not so tragic.

It reminds me of Saddam Hussain getting 99.9% of the vote in his last election. I don't know what happened to the other 0.1% but I suspect they aren't still around to find out.

They're not the only ones at it now. Are they? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/4406575.stm)

Saddam would have the intelligence not to target the farms/properties of hardworking whites, realising how vital their contribution to the economy was.

As Enoch Powell said, Saddam may behave atrociously towards his own people, that is none of our business. We should have kept him in power, plied him with Quality Street chocolates, flattered him and rewarded him for being the Policeman of the Gulf. We would have had nothing to fear re oil either nor his linking up with fundamentalists, had we treated him with diplomatic respect. He was once a useful bulwark against the medieval imams of Iran.

Mugabe possesses none of the intelligence and guile of Saddam. He can never be an ally, as he loathes, abhors and despises everything 'Breeteesh'. F*** him with a ragman's trumpet, I am tempted to say. However, a more considered approach is called for. Send in the UN. Why not? If the situation in Bosnia demanded it, so does Zimbabwe. Here we have an ongoing situation of 'ethnic cleansing', with the grotesque rewarding of judges and politicians with the most fertile of white farmlands.

I remember refusing to donate to some charity for Zimbabwean projects around 1980. When asked why, I replied that in the next thirty years the 'native' population will turn on the whites. 'You are stuck in the past', came the impertinent reply from a female colleague.Was I?