In the same way, Iraq was invaded and the government overthrown, (which, for the record, I think was right), why not invade Zimbabwe and remove Mugabe - I know some will say its no-one elses business, but that did'nt stop the invasion of Iraq.

1. There's no oil.
2. There's no oil.
3. There's no oil.

and, most importantly,

4. Israel hasn't asked America to.

"Bacause they don't have the oil that Iraq has!"

There......I (nearly) said it before some anti USA numpty had the chance.
No doubt they still will though, over and over and over again :loopy:

Originally posted by vidster
"Bacause they don't have the oil that Iraq has!"

There......I (nearly) said it before some anti USA numpty had the chance.
No doubt they still will though, over and over and over again :loopy:

ok then, pro-US numpty, please explain why you think we won't invade Zimbabwe.

there's no oil.
It would be illegal.
The country is no threat to anyone but itself.

it would be illegal - well that should stop us then!!

Originally posted by vidster
"Bacause they don't have the oil that Iraq has!"

There......I (nearly) said it before some anti USA numpty had the chance.
No doubt they still will though, over and over and over again :loopy:

Oil is paying for the Iraq crusade. You may not like it, but it's a fact.

George Bush is riding high at the moment when his popularity drops watch out Zimbabwe

why invade Zimbabwe?

Originally posted by robbie
why invade Zimbabwe?
Because of Mugabe?

I agree with what's already been said though, there would be no reason to, other than to remove Mugabe, and that just isn't big enough incentive I'm afraid. :(

Originally posted by sham71
ok then, pro-US numpty, please explain why you think we won't invade Zimbabwe.

I never said we wont invade Zimbabwe! I was just pointing out that some of the anti-war/anti-Bush/anti-USA members would feel the need to say something about oil in the first posts.

You proved me right! Thank-you :thumbsup:

Originally posted by vidster
I never said we wont invade Zimbabwe! I was just pointing out that some of the anti-war/anti-Bush/anti-USA members would feel the need to say something about oil in the first posts.

You proved me right! Thank-you :thumbsup:

The points about oil are entirely correct though aren't they? And how does making a point about oil indicate someone is an 'anti USA numpty? Could they not equally likely be realpolitik-aware numpty?

i'd support mugabes assisination sooner than invading the country.

They have a viable opposition, we don't need to impose our style of government on them, nor kill there people who are ordered to defend their sovereign state.
Kill mugabe and the opposition will be in power within 6 months.

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
The points about oil are entirely correct though aren't they? And how does making a point about oil indicate someone is an 'anti USA numpty? Could they not equally likely be realpolitik-aware numpty?

I said it because that's all i seem to hear from the group of people i mentioned. If i knew what a realpolitik-aware numpty was, i might have added that too :?

Why? Was i proved wrong with the first post?

Originally posted by desy
George Bush is riding high at the moment when his popularity drops watch out Zimbabwe

Oh no no no. Watch out Libya. One of the few laudable things the unspeakable Blair has done in recent months is to dissuade little Georgie from turning his guns on Gadaffi when he started the "he's a Hitler, he f***s dogs" routine...

'Illegal'?! Since when has so-called 'International law' got in the way of a country whose interests are threatened? In reality, despite vast mountains of legislation and thousands of functionaries, 'International law' does not exist! I have been advocating the invasion of Zimbabwe ever since the ludicrous Mugabe [with his multi-coloured shirts and Hitler moustache, he resembles a bizarre, African neo-nazi Timmy Mallett] and his moronic followers turned upon the white farmers.

It is in British interests to send in the Parachute Regiment to rescue ethnic, British kith and kin in peril in Zimbabwe. This is clearly a case for intervention. The debacle of Iraq [or, as I prefer to call it, the unpleasantness in Mesopotamia] in sharp contrast, is a perfect example of Britain meddling in the affairs of a foreign country, and engaging in international idealism. The utopian panaceas and crusade to spread the model of neo-liberalism and democracy will never work in Iraq, itself a hastily constructed collectivity of hostile ethnic groups bearing irremediable grudges. There really is no comparison between the two situations.

As I hopefully made clear on the 'Geldof' thread, in my view we have no responsibility to deal with Zimbabwe's problems. Our solemn duty is simply to rescue ethnic Britons. In any case, the problems of Zimbabwe are insoluble. Major variables in any analysis of causality would be the greed and improvidence of the bloated pig, Mugabe, the educational and cultural backwardness of the general population, the shattered infrastructure and the age old African handicap of warring ethnic factions.

Send in the Paras, they are straining at the leash. The poor boys haven't had decent quarry in a long time.

Originally posted by vidster
I said it because that's all i seem to hear from the group of people i mentioned. If i knew what a realpolitik-aware numpty was, i might have added that too :?

Why? Was i proved wrong with the first post?

You didn't make any assertion to be proved wrong or right in your first post.


"Bacause (sic) they don't have the oil that Iraq has!"

There......I (nearly) said it before some anti USA numpty had the chance.
No doubt they still will though, over and over and over again


That sounds more like you wanting to try and pre-empt anyone else making a valid point about oil, by making it yourself, and adding the comparison with Iraq (well known US/UK debacle) yourself (no-one else has mentioned Iraq)

By quoting something that no-one but you has said (in those words) it and holding it up to ridicule

- despite not actually being able to say what is ridiculous about the statement itself...even with your Iraq comparison, it's perfectly true. Zimbabwe's lack of discovered major oil reserves means an invasion and coup d'etat are pretty unlikely.

I notice Tescos are selling Zimbabwean produce on their shelves. I bet the UK gets a good price, what with the cash situation being so bad there....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realpolitik

It's more to do with a grasp of the facts than being 'Anti-USA'.

The paras may be straining at the leash to go and hunt and kill people, that is there job. It isn't a reason to unleash military force.

How many 'ethnic britons' in Zimbabwe want to be resuced (airlifted from their country) as opposed to wanting to see mugabe deposed? It is just a hunch on my part, but the white Zimbabweans I have met love their country and want to see Mugabe gone. I haven't had the opportunity to ask them whether they want the Paratroop Regiment in the country, running amok in pursuit of 'decent quarry', but I suspect the answer would be no.

Politically, Zimbabwe has all the strategic value of an anthill, and the country's natural resources are already being well exploited. Nothing is wrong - why invade and upset the apple cart?

As we have already established, military action is rarely instituted on moral or ethical grounds. I don't expect anyone to make an exception for Zimbabwe.

Originally posted by timo
Timmy Mallett

Send in the Paras, they are straining at the leash. The poor boys haven't had decent quarry in a long time.


Timmy Mallett, President Mugabe and Bob Geldoff.

Three constestants for next year's Love Island, perhaps?

Joking aside, Timo, I doth my cap to thee once more.

Absolutely spot-0n.

Originally posted by timo
Our solemn duty is simply to rescue ethnic Britons.
Interested to find out what an "ethnic Briton" is and whether you have to be a white farmer to qualify.
As Phan said, I believe most of the immigrants to Zimbabwe want to stay there although they may not be happy with Mugabe or with what the opposition parties have to offer.

no, but uve got crappy politicians sitting round doing nothing bout it

We don't need to invade zimbabwe- all we need is 1x sniper with a good shot and it should sort itself out.

Originally posted by scottf
We don't need to invade zimbabwe- all we need is 1x sniper with a good shot and it should sort itself out.

well yeah, this'll sort a lotta problems, and end a lotta heartache

Voise,
You know perfectly well what I mean by 'ethnic Briton'. I suspect you would not query the meaning of 'ethnic Italian' or 'ethnic Chinese'. A whole industry exists to brainwash British people into thinking that they are simply the product of 'diverse' waves of immigration. Roughly 60% of British men can trace their genetic ancestry, through the Haplogroups of their Y chromosomes, as far back as the Paleolithic. This means that they have a 'British' ancestry, or ancestry associated with the island that became known as 'Britain', which rivals that of the Australian Aborigines in terms of ancient pedigree.Certainly, there have been other cotributions to the gene pool [my own Y chromosome Haplogroup is associated with 'invader' groups of Angles, Saxons etc]. However, the bulk of the population, and Britain is roughly 96% 'white', descends from the hunter-gatherers of stone age Britain.

No doubt you will see my argument as 'discredited race science', fatuous rubbish, or even both. Nevertheless, I stand by what I say. There are emotional and political forces in this country which conspire to heap ridicule and contempt upon anyone who dares to suggest that the majority of the population share the same, basic ancestral mix. No doubt someone, if not you, will try to 'educate' me by listing the Romans, Huguenots, Flemish weavers, Jews etc that came to Britain long before the mass immigration of the fifties, sixties and seventies. They have not made significant contributions to the basic 'white' gene pool.

Yes, I can see the headline

"Mark Thatcher implicated in Mugabe assasination, inquiry reveals"

Honestly. Archduke Ferdinand didn't teach you anything did he?

No, but a certain 'mad' Colonel in Aden did.

Timo
You obviously define your 'Britishness' and self with regard to your gene pool whereas I choose to define myself in relation to the community / society where I currently live. Hence our divergent opinions of what constitutes a Briton.

I still think that most of the immigrants in Zimbabwe went there / remain there out of a desire to follow economic and social opportunities and of a love for 'their' country (obviously not their ethnic origin). Even at the height of the 'land redistribution' programme called for by Mugabe they did not want to leave - just to have their farms back. I understand that the Zimbabwean Government is now trying to woo the 'white farmers' back as production has dived so much.

Voise,
Yes, culture [the sum total of values and norms in a society] is an important part of ethnicity, but I believe that genetic inheritance should be included too in the definition. I realise that mainstream social scientists would disagree with me here, as they view ethnicity essentialy the same way that you do. In other words in terms of values and patterns of behaviour.

Sorry if I was rather abrupt with you, Voise. You did not deserve it. Your question was perfectly polite, as is your above reply. I am guilty of a 'knee-jerk' reaction here. We 'right- wingers' are notorious for them!

Originally posted by Cyclone
i'd support mugabes assisination sooner than invading the country.

They have a viable opposition, we don't need to impose our style of government on them, nor kill there people who are ordered to defend their sovereign state.
Kill mugabe and the opposition will be in power within 6 months.

Ive often wondered why we didn't send in the SAS to assasinate Sadam ages ago I know some would say that it would be murder but it would have stopped a lot of needless deaths and again with Mugabe.

It's a tricky one because we would be murdering a countries leader just because we didn't agree with them and that doesn't seem right even though we would be saving a lot of lifes in doing so

I do see your point Cyclone and can't help but agree with the principle.

Originally posted by dawny1
Ive often wondered why we didn't send in the SAS to assasinate Sadam ages ago I know some would say that it would be murder but it would have stopped a lot of needless deaths and again with Mugabe.

It's a tricky one because we would be murdering a countries leader just because we didn't agree with them and that doesn't seem right even though we would be saving a lot of lifes in doing so

I do see your point Cyclone and can't help but agree with the principle.

so instead of murdering one man, we made war and legally (if you believe TB) killed quite a few iraqi's and lost a good many men of our own. I know which i'd rather have on my conscience if I were in government.
However in Iraq killing sadam wouldn't have changed much, as there was no opposition to step in, and plenty of lieutentants to take over and carry on. We'd have had to stage an coup, and sadam was acutally pretty well defended personally.

I agree it would be better to have the death of one cruel and evil man than hundreds of decent human beings. It makes you wonder how different things would have been had Hitler been assassinated.

I too have occasionally wondered why we don't utilise the SAS to assasinate leaders we loathe.

But I suppose there are two problems with that

1. The obvious one - one man's vile despot is another man's beloved leader, who is to say that the western view is the right view?

2. Most vile despots have acres of supporters with the same mindset ready to spring up and take their place.

I dearly wish someone would do something about Mugabe but I cannot think what, and neither really can anyone else, which is probably why they havent tackled him yet.

Originally posted by timo
Sorry if I was rather abrupt with you, Voise.
No need to apologise - must admit that I was being slightly provocative!!

One question I would like to ask people of all persuasions is, would we be concerned about the leadership of Mugabe if this issue hadn't been brought to our attention by the plight of WHITE farmers???

I find it hard to answer the question "why not invade Zimbabwe?" as, on principle, I am opposed to war or even assassination (especially as instigated by nation states). but obvioulsy large swathes of the population are suffering as a result of his leadership.
There being the heart of the liberal's conundrum.

The SOE seriously considered assassinating Hitler for a long time, and in the end decided against it, because Hitler was such a numpty that he was more use to the Allied war effort alive than dead. Had he died, then someone might have stepped in who knew what they were doing.

The same is true of Iraq: the Ba'ath party had no credible opposition immediately before the second Gulf War(although there was an uprising against Saddam shortly after the first Gulf War which America failed to support - result, thousands of deaths and Saddam's continued rule), so Chemical Ali or some other cheerful soul would have stepped into Saddam's smoking shoes had we zapped him.

The only answer to dealing with despots is to nip them in the bud. They don't appear out of nowhere, and more often than not, the rich Western governments have a hand in their rise to power. The CIA described their installation of Saddam in Iraq as their "most perfect coup". Look at the history of Saddam's rule and you'll see the West systematically missing or ignoring every opportunity to oust Saddam, until the only option open to them was war in 2002. Evil or stupid?

Likewise, the world should have done more to prevent the rise of despotic african rulers, instead of supporting them politically and then using their excesses as an excuse not to give Africa a fair deal.

If we want rid of Mugabe (I know I do), then we shouldn't leave it to a couple of Western powers with questionable motives. We're not the most morally pure nations in the world, it shouldn't be up to our leaders to "police" all the world's poor. Mugabe is committing crimes against humanity, not against Britain or America - the decision should be left to the UN General Assembly (but a global people's assembly would be nicer).
Edward

Originally posted by sham71
1. There's no oil.
2. There's no oil.
3. There's no oil.



As far as I know neither America or anyone else has syphoned of Iraq's oil since the end of the war despite many pre-war predictions that they would.

Isn't the oil revenue being used only to rebuild Iraq.

BTW, why do people think Saddam invaded Kuwait which was the origional cause of the war? OIL!!

Edward, you have a touching faith in international law. Even if we did leave the irritating problem of Mugabe and his unutterably brainless followers to the UN, which country's soldiers would end up dealing with the matter? Either British or American troops I would wager.

Perhaps I am being cynical here. Maybe the rough and tough sailors of the dreaded Danish Navy, Vikings to a man, might set sail for Zimbabwe as they set sail for Iraq in the so-called First Gulf War [or, as I prefer to call it, The First Instance of Unpleasantness in Mesopotamia] with orders not to fight. Or, even more ominously, Mugabe's henchmen have to face Italian Paratroopers [the most feared troops in Europe], with their sharp nails, pigskin handbags and cutting remarks.

The current impasse with regard to Mugabe is very largely due to the refusal of other African leaders to countenance military action against him, or even to condemn his actions in anything other than ambivalent and mealy-mouthed terms. In fact, many of them probably secretly admire him for persecuting the remaining whites. And even if they didn't, they would not want to create a dangerous moral intervention precedent which could be used against them one day. And even if enough African leaders were found to support an intervention, they probably wouldn't last long in power because such a move would probably be deeply unpopular among their citizenries. Mugabe knows this perfectly well, which is why he probably sleeps soundly in his bed, knowing that any sounds he hears at night won't be from cruise missiles or Apache helicopters.

Thankyou, Lord C, for that erudite, sinewy and terse summing up of the situation. A very cogent argument indeed. The element of anti-white racism, or at least resentment, is so often overlooked with regard to Africa and particularly Zimbabwe. Mugabe clearly hates the 'Briteesh', just as much as Sinn Fein/IRA's Martin McGuinness hates 'the Bratash'. The cowardly tyrant blames Britain [and the USA] for everything, and is keen to encourage neighbouring leaders to do the same. It is easy for him to wallow in self-pity, thus diverting attention away from the exercise in national self-harm that was the racially-motivated pogrom against the farmers.

The, generally, left-wing types who defend Mugabe in this country ironically help to perpetuate the myth of inherited racial guilt. Being born 'Briteesh' does not mean that we are intrinsically 'guilty' because our ancestors were involved in the so-called 'Scramble for Africa'. This is a weapon often used against the former colonial powers, and we must firmly resist all attempts by demented bloody fools to hit us over the head with it. It does not help matters that we have a grovelling, unctious toad of a Prime Minister, who has in recent times 'apologised' to the 'Irish Nation' for British intransigence at the time of the Potato Famine. I was not aware that Blair was around in 1845.

Slimsid2000,
It wasn't widely reported in the mainstream media (after all, we're all meant to be "moving on") - but international firms have recently started privatising the Iraqi oil industry, from exploration to retail. That was reported a year or so ago in the New Internationalist - if it's still lying around my house somewhere, or if I can find the relevant bit on their website, I'll post you a proper quote, if you like and I can be arsed
Edward

Originally posted by timo
Thankyou, Lord C, for that erudite, sinewy and terse summing up of the situation. A very cogent argument indeed. The element of anti-white racism, or at least resentment, is so often overlooked with regard to Africa and particularly Zimbabwe. Mugabe clearly hates the 'Briteesh', just as much as Sinn Fein/IRA's Martin McGuinness hates 'the Bratash'. The cowardly tyrant blames Britain [and the USA] for everything, and is keen to encourage neighbouring leaders to do the same. It is easy for him to wallow in self-pity, thus diverting attention away from the exercise in national self-harm that was the racially-motivated pogrom against the farmers.

The, generally, left-wing types who defend Mugabe in this country ironically help to perpetuate the myth of inherited racial guilt. Being born 'Briteesh' does not mean that we are intrinsically 'guilty' because our ancestors were involved in the so-called 'Scramble for Africa'. This is a weapon often used against the former colonial powers, and we must firmly resist all attempts by demented bloody fools to hit us over the head with it. It does not help matters that we have a grovelling, unctious toad of a Prime Minister, who has in recent times 'apologised' to the 'Irish Nation' for British intransigence at the time of the Potato Famine. I was not aware that Blair was around in 1845.

Well said Timo, as usual. I believe Blair has also apologised for 'bloody Sunday' and also set up the enquiry into it We are still waiting for Adams' apologies for bloody Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday. Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday (and enquiries into each of these). I fear we will be waiting a long time.

Not sure what Ireland has to do with Zimbabwe, but I must say Lord Chav that I'm a little surprised one as obviously erudite as yourself should represent the Irish problem in such over-simplistic terms. Inequality has festered over there for far too long and the Great British government has most definitely been a big part of the problem.

Originally posted by Ousetunes
Joking aside, Timo, I doth my cap to thee once more.


<PEDANT>

Actually the word you're looking for is "doff" - from 'do off'.

Honestly I think some of you right-wingers lay genetic claim to Britishness because it kind of makes up for your thin understanding of your own language ffs.

(hope there are no spelling or grammatical errors above or I'm for it!)

</PEDANT>

Originally posted by Cyclone
i'd support mugabes assisination sooner than invading the country.

They have a viable opposition, we don't need to impose our style of government on them, nor kill there people who are ordered to defend their sovereign state.
Kill mugabe and the opposition will be in power within 6 months.

And if the opposition turn out to be just as bad what then?Remember,Mugabe came to power with the tacit approvel of the British,who saw him as someone with whom they could deal with.

Originally posted by timo
Mugabe clearly hates the 'Briteesh', just as much as Sinn Fein/IRA's Martin McGuinness hates 'the Bratash'.


Leaving aside the silly 'look how funny foreigners say british' element of youre post,do you genuinly beleive Mugabe hates the British?I sincerely doubt it myself.All Mugabe's doing is trading on the 'Empire' card,just as Nasser and Idi Amin did before him.

I have just watched the news & seen some of the destruction that Mugabe has caused,one guy said his house was destroyed because he voted against him & others destroying there own properties to salvage some materials & others stood & cried with a newborn baby freezing at night,well if all the world leaders do not do something about this dictator they are as bad as him.EVIL

Originally posted by Greenback
Not sure what Ireland has to do with Zimbabwe, but I must say Lord Chav that I'm a little surprised one as obviously erudite as yourself should represent the Irish problem in such over-simplistic terms. Inequality has festered over there for far too long and the Great British government has most definitely been a big part of the problem.

I never said it was not. My point is, that whatever the historical rights and wrongs of the Irish problem, there was no moral justification for the terrorist campaign waged by the IRA from the late 1960s onwards (the aim being to force a united Ireland on a Northern Irish majority strongly opposed to it). Many thousands of people are dead, and many thousands are maimed for life, because of this. Adams and his followers should hang their heads in shame.

Originally posted by E-Man Groovin
<PEDANT>

Actually the word you're looking for is "doff" - from 'do off'.

Honestly I think some of you right-wingers lay genetic claim to Britishness because it kind of makes up for your thin understanding of your own language ffs.

(hope there are no spelling or grammatical errors above or I'm for it!)

</PEDANT>

Careful e-man

- mutual backslapping in progress -

don't put them off their aim or they may end up grabbing each others arses.

More than anything it is the 'mock-letwin' delivery of the popinjay that grates. Some of the points would be answerable were they not smothered in gelatinous suppositions, which makes dealing with them a singularly unpleasant and futile experience.

Originally posted by tosh13
well if all the world leaders do not do something about this dictator they are as bad as him.EVIL

Don't hold your breath.

200,000 have lost their home in the past three weeks in ZWE apparently ?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4101228.stm

:mad: