If the west is intent of ridding the world of dictators and tyrants how come Robert Mugarbe is still in power.He's done untold damage to his own people murdering millions and plundering all the money for his own use,but the west seems to turn a blind eye to it all.

Been wondering that for years, especially when he is responsible for the demise of so many ex-pats.

No oil interest. Xx

Because his country does not have huge oil reserves.

Not worth it. The country is a disaster and an economic basket case. Any country that gets involved will never get out of the place
It was far better off under Ian Smith

Because his country does not have huge oil reserves.

So why don't we depose Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo instead?

It is nothing to do with oil!
It is because the surroundng states who are members of the ANC or whatever won't sanction it.

Not worth it. The country is a disaster and an economic basket case. Any country that gets involved will never get out of the place
It was far better off under Ian Smith
wasnt he an ex uk conservative leader??

A lot of Africa is also under heavy Chinese influence. Mugabe is nicely bankrolled by the chinese, which means big diplomatic fallout with China if the west went to war with Mugabe. Most of the old mines etc once owned by Britian in the old colonies are now owned by state backed Chinese companies.

A lot of Africa is also under heavy Chinese influence. Mugabe is nicely bankrolled by the chinese, which means big diplomatic fallout with China if the west went to war with Mugabe. Most of the old mines etc once owned by Britian in the old colonies are now owned by state backed Chinese companies.

And where did the money from the sales go?

And where did the money from the sales go?

They where never sold, most where closed down or left to the respective countries.

If the west is intent of ridding the world of dictators and tyrants how come Robert Mugarbe is still in power.He's done untold damage to his own people murdering millions and plundering all the money for his own use,but the west seems to turn a blind eye to it all.

But if you think about it, Zimbabwean inflation, is lower than inflation in the UK.

Perhaps we should learn from Mugabe :hihi:

wasnt he an ex uk conservative leader??

As prime minister of Rhodesia he declared independence from Britain when the British government ordered his government to turn over control of Rhodesia (Now Zimbabwe) to the African natiionalists.
When the nationalists took over they started to confiscate all white owned farms and in five years managed to bollix up the agricultural industry as well as the rest of the country.

The Chinese probably have some interest in the country as well as others in Africa these days but the Chinese dont concern themselves with such notions as regime change or bringing "enlightened democracy" to those countries. They buy what they want and leave the social issues well alone
Probably the smartest thing to do in the long run

Because it doesnt have any of that black stuff .;)

If the west is intent of ridding the world of dictators and tyrants how come Robert Mugarbe is still in power.He's done untold damage to his own people murdering millions and plundering all the money for his own use,but the west seems to turn a blind eye to it all.Because barrels of dry dirt aren't worth the trouble.

It is nothing to do with oil!
It is because the surroundng states who are members of the ANC or whatever won't sanction it.What's that mean to Britain and America? Even the UN couldn't stop them removing saddam.

If the west is intent of ridding the world of dictators and tyrants how come Robert Mugarbe is still in power.

Or Kim Jong II, Than Shwe, Islam Karimov, Hu Jintao, King Abdullah (Saudi Arabia) etc. etc.

I think you know the answer. The 18th century was the Age of Reason, the modern era is the age of the ostensible reason.

Oil Found in Zimbabwe - UK and US to Invade Next Week (http://www.dailysquib.co.uk/world/1407-oil-found-in-zimbabwe-uk-and-us-to-invade-next-week.html) (satire)

inclined to agree with the oil assessment. if we did have oil there'd be someone else in power a long time ago. but we don't so no one bothers.

on the other hand it's down to his own mastery in the old divide and rule. he's done that beautifully. every 'opposition' party that tries to take form implodes before they go very far because of residual tribal mistrusts and infiltration. truth is he never even really needed to rig elections till, maybe now, coz he'd have won them hands down anyway. not because he's popular, but because though the majority are against him they'd rather him than any other untested potential 'puppet' or dictator in the state house.
he's also managed to form a sizable 'power class' with so much to loose that they would, and do, fight harder than he would to keep the power.

our history doesn't help.

outsider can, and should, help.

but, mostly, it's our fault-the Zimbabweans- both home, and us across seas. it's really only us who can and should do the most.

Not worth it. The country is a disaster and an economic basket case. Any country that gets involved will never get out of the place
It was far better off under Ian Smith

really? for whom?

As prime minister of Rhodesia he declared independence from Britain when the British government ordered his government to turn over control of Rhodesia (Now Zimbabwe) to the African natiionalists.
When the nationalists took over they started to confiscate all white owned farms and in five years managed to bollix up the agricultural industry as well as the rest of the country.

The Chinese probably have some interest in the country as well as others in Africa these days but the Chinese dont concern themselves with such notions as regime change or bringing "enlightened democracy" to those countries. They buy what they want and leave the social issues well alone
Probably the smartest thing to do in the long run

redistribution was always part of the deal at independence. the agreement (Lancaster house agreement) was that nothing would change-with the land- for ten years. and nothing did.
the way he did it was wrong, and the reasons he did it, in the end, where the wrong ones which is why things got so messed up.

but the land had to be redistributed. and, regardless of the messy way it was done, it's better that it was done than left as it was.

as for the Chinese, they're a worse threat than the British centuries back.

but the land had to be redistributed. and, regardless of the messy way it was done, it's better that it was done than left as it was.

Realy? from 'Breadbasket of Africa' to 'Basket case of Africa' in one easy step.

Realy? from 'Breadbasket of Africa' to 'Basket case of Africa' in one easy step.

like i said, it was done wrong but it needed to be done. i was 'lucky' enough to not want for anything when i was coming up, but even when we where the 'bread basket' of Africa things weren't much better for most. we exported food etc but all the money went to people with the farms. most people where subsistence farmers and still are.

the main effect has been a drop in exports and the upheaval that came with the mess that was the redistribution, but the amount of food on the 'masses' plates hasn't changed much. just that paper money don't get you much. but most people never had that anyway.

AIDS is more to blame for much of the suffering, including child hunger and poverty than the redistribution. please note that i'm not saying the redistribution plays no part.

the main effect has been a drop in exports and the upheaval that came with the mess that was the redistribution, but the amount of food on the 'masses' plates hasn't changed much. just that paper money don't get you much. but most people never had that anyway.

And the drop in exports means no money for sick and suffering, the hopspitals dispensarys are virtualy empty of drugs, medication and medicines you can only blame one man for that.
I send via 'Teeny' (a forum member) surpluss medication to Zimbabwe.

i don't know very much about robert mugabe but he doesn't sound like the nasty man that he is sometimes described as. he has tried to help his people especially the black farmers who he has helped to sustain their businesses.if robert was so bad how come the people still want him in power?.

And the drop in exports means no money for sick and suffering, the hopspitals dispensarys are virtualy empty of drugs, medication and medicines you can only blame one man for that.
I send via 'Teeny' (a forum member) surpluss medication to Zimbabwe.

I send via 'Teeny' (a forum member) surpluss medication to Zimbabwe.
me and mine thank you for that.

And the drop in exports means no money for sick and suffering, the hopspitals dispensarys are virtualy empty of drugs, medication and medicines you can only blame one man for that.

yes, the drop in exports hurt us as it would any country. i'm not saying that the regime did things right. god knows they messed up. they had some money, from the Lancaster agreement, to sort out the redistribution. the piggy was empty so when 1990, when it was supposed to be done, came nothing happened. it was only when other things started going wrong for them that they rushed and messed everything up.
yes, it was done wrong. but no amount of exports and medication could disguise the fact that the majority was hungry when most of the farmland was used on coffee, tobacco, timber, flowers etc and even then by no more than 4000 or so really big, almost exclusively, white farmers.

as for blaming one man. sorry, you're wrong there- the old colonial powers, the other dictators in the countries around him, the other governments that turned a blind eye to his murderous rampages back in the 80s coz 'all was well' and even made him a lord i think it is are to blame too. but, like i said, us, the people of Zimbabwe have to take most of the blame.

i don't know very much about robert mugabe but he doesn't sound like the nasty man that he is sometimes described as. he has tried to help his people especially the black farmers who he has helped to sustain their businesses.if robert was so bad how come the people still want him in power?.

he's bad, i'd say. it goes back to the war. he he hadn't assassinated the guy that was suppose to have taken power he'd have become a junior minister at best. but he's ambitious, you got to give him that.

he has done far more harm, far more, than good. there's no doubt about that.

the majority of people don't want him in power. but that majority can't agree who should take over. and the ones that rise up to the challenge die mysteriously or are discredited by the CIO... the list is endless, but his main strength comes from the fact there are still so many alive that went through the horror of colonization and anyone who seems too pally with outsiders doesn't stand a chance. those are the ones still ready to kill, harass etc for him. those are the ones who have kept him in for so long.

but, to be honest, the worst thing that can happen right now is for him to die or stand down. we need him for another few years i think, till someone rises among the players with enough support to avoid all out infighting and ultimately civil war or military rule-which is where we're likely headed.

as for blaming one man. sorry, you're wrong there- the old colonial powers, the other dictators in the countries around him, the other governments that turned a blind eye to his murderous rampages back in the 80s coz 'all was well' and even made him a lord i think it is are to blame too. but, like i said, us, the people of Zimbabwe have to take most of the blame.
As I said earlier it was the surrounding countrys who vetoed any action agagisnt him.
Wonder why:suspect:

To return to the original question, why should the west get rid of Robert Mugabe? I can't think of any good reason.

It's not our job to sort out every screwed up country in the world.

To return to the original question, why should the west get rid of Robert Mugabe? I can't think of any good reason.

It's not our job to sort out every screwed up country in the world.

yes it is true that we can't sort everyones problems out. we have enough on dealing with libya at the moment. i haven't heard much about mugabe and zimbabwe recently so i guess everyone is happy over there.

....i haven't heard much about mugabe and zimbabwe recently so i guess everyone is happy over there.

Why yes. Of course they are. The grinding poverty, oppression, insane economic crisis and lack of clean water are no longer a newsworthy issue. They be just a bunch of happy smiling negroes in a sunny country.

Damn you and your ignorance.

As I said earlier it was the surrounding countrys who vetoed any action agagisnt him.
Wonder why:suspect:

it's bigger than just the countries around him. he was made a lord by the queen and still is as far as i know. and was feted as the good guy by everyone even as late as 95. the countries around him don't have any real power to veto anything if the UN really mean business. they didn't and they still don't.

but i get what you mean about the countries around him after that.

even the UN etc were then threatening sanctions that would hurt the very people they were saying they wanted to help. in the end they put up travel restrictions etc but he still owns mansions and castles here, the same in the states and France. he still more or less goes wherever he wants. he still has access to his billions worldwide.
the whole world is a mess, i think, when it comes to dealing with dictators and mass murderers.

To return to the original question, why should the west get rid of Robert Mugabe? I can't think of any good reason.

It's not our job to sort out every screwed up country in the world.

very good answer. but you do have the duty to help (don't ask me how, i don't know. and am not sure that with the way things are going here you can) those in the countries you had a hand in messing up in the first place.

yes it is true that we can't sort everyones problems out. we have enough on dealing with libya at the moment. i haven't heard much about mugabe and zimbabwe recently so i guess everyone is happy over there.

they're not happy...just got replaced in the news by other more fashionable things that came along...like Libya will be soon enough.

Why yes. Of course they are. The grinding poverty, oppression, insane economic crisis and lack of clean water are no longer a newsworthy issue. They be just a bunch of happy smiling negroes in a sunny country.

Damn you and your ignorance.

you killed me. beats the pint or twenty i would have had by now.

You can drink twenty pints? We should go to the the pub for a few my brother.

If the west is intent of ridding the world of dictators and tyrants how come Robert Mugarbe is still in power.He's done untold damage to his own people murdering millions and plundering all the money for his own use,but the west seems to turn a blind eye to it all.

No oil to use an an excuse to protect the people of his country. That was easy; next question.

You can drink twenty pints? We should go to the the pub for a few my brother.

yes, i can:hihi: it's my party trick. but I'd need a good few hours...then pay for it for week after!
come to think of it, with the prices going up again soon i think i'm just going to stick to house parties and the odd pub crawl here and there.

Why yes. Of course they are. The grinding poverty, oppression, insane economic crisis and lack of clean water are no longer a newsworthy issue. They be just a bunch of happy smiling negroes in a sunny country.

Damn you and your ignorance.

i understand your frustration and i admit to a little ignorance on the subject of mugabe. my views have nothing to do with the fact that the people of zimbabwe are black. the plight of those over in zimbabwe was a regular feature on the news a couple of years ago but recently i haven't heard anything about the place. hence i assumed that they had sorted out their problems and were working with mr mugabe to build a better country. the answer as to why nobody wants to help the people from zimbabwe is simple. as was said at the start of the topic...OIL! or in zimbabwe's case the lack of it. i imagine if zimbabwe discovered it had hidden oil supplies they would find some allies.

No oil to use an an excuse to protect the people of his country. That was easy; next question.

we have oil actually. well, almost.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Zimbabwe-finds-no-fuel-oozing-from-rock/2007/07/23/1185042995766.html

i understand your frustration and i admit to a little ignorance on the subject of mugabe. my views have nothing to do with the fact that the people of zimbabwe are black. the plight of those over in zimbabwe was a regular feature on the news a couple of years ago but recently i haven't heard anything about the place. hence i assumed that they had sorted out their problems and were working with mr mugabe to build a better country. the answer as to why nobody wants to help the people from zimbabwe is simple. as was said at the start of the topic...OIL! or in zimbabwe's case the lack of it. i imagine if zimbabwe discovered it had hidden oil supplies they would find some allies.

we almost did.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Zimbabwe-finds-no-fuel-oozing-from-rock/2007/07/23/1185042995766.html

very good answer. but you do have the duty to help (don't ask me how, i don't know. and am not sure that with the way things are going here you can) those in the countries you had a hand in messing up in the first place.

It depends how far back you want to go. It's so long since Britain ruled Rhodesia that I would say it's not our problem any more. The Rhodesians have done a very good job of screwing up a country that was once considered prosperous.

The last time we were the colonial power there was in 1965, which is 45 years ago. That's the same length of time from the end of the First World War till Beatlemania, or the end of the Second World War till the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.

if things are so bad in zimbabwe are we ever likely to see the people rally together and topple mr mugabe and his government?. the troubles in egypt paid dividends eventually and people power was victorious. surely zimbabwe will go the same way?. or if not can anyone explain why?.

It depends how far back you want to go. It's so long since Britain ruled Rhodesia that I would say it's not our problem any more. The Rhodesians have done a very good job of screwing up a country that was once considered prosperous.

The last time we were the colonial power there was in 1965, which is 45 years ago. That's the same length of time from the end of the First World War till Beatlemania, or the end of the Second World War till the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.

we became independent in 1980. interestingly, from Britain, coz you got the country back form Smith in 1979. if you want to we could say 1965 after UDI. still, there a millions still alive that live through the curfews, the arrests, the war etc. many with the missing limbs etc to show for it.
i'm not saying you're responsible for us and our affairs, just saying it's a little too early in some cases to start saying 'ah come on, we did all that to you but it was so so so long ago...'

if things are so bad in zimbabwe are we ever likely to see the people rally together and topple mr mugabe and his government?. the troubles in egypt paid dividends eventually and people power was victorious. surely zimbabwe will go the same way?. or if not can anyone explain why?.

it will come. but they've already locked up at least 100 people since the Egypt revolution, and 'no less than ten' already 'disappeared'.
the problem is that, taking Mugabe out of the equation besides the tribal friction there are clear, and opposing allegiances to the army, the air force and the police. all of which want power. people on the ground would rather have him stay than civil war or worse. that's one. the other is the problem of half the population being the 'freedom fighters' and the other half 'the born frees'. we might as well be Chinese and Navajo.
the sad thing is that a significant proportion of the country simply have too much to loose-materially- to back any 'popular uprising'.
we will miss this wave of revolutions i think. and if the recovery carries on at the rate it's going he'll be there till he's 100, like banda in Malawi.

mr mugabe must have a decent side to him because it is the people of zimbabwe who have elected him in the past. he can't be all bad if they keep re-electing him into power.

mr mugabe must have a decent side to him because it is the people of zimbabwe who have elected him in the past. he can't be all bad if they keep re-electing him into power.

you have a point. the thing is, though, that the majority of voting age people at the first to, maybe, third, elections were people who'd gone through the war of independence and so had loyalty to him because 'of the blood we shed'. that's why when the younger people came up things started to go wrong for him and also it's now hard to keep saying 'we fought together' thirty years later.

we'll see how the next elections play out. but the sad thing is there's no real opposition to stand against him. never has been really. so he stays.
less a matter of the lesser of two evils, more 'the only devil we know'.
but, yeah, it's naive and wrong to think he's universally hated by his own people, and abroad. he's a hero to a lot of people.

i don't know very much about robert mugabe but he doesn't sound like the nasty man that he is sometimes described as. he has tried to help his people especially the black farmers who he has helped to sustain their businesses.if robert was so bad how come the people still want him in power?.

Have you never heard of intimidation and brutality?

Mad Mugabe needs Paul the 'psychic' octopus.
Pity he's cannelloni now.

If the west is intent of ridding the world of dictators and tyrants how come Robert Mugarbe is still in power.He's done untold damage to his own people murdering millions and plundering all the money for his own use,but the west seems to turn a blind eye to it all.

Bit of a strange question, mot get rid of Omar al-Bashir, Than Shwe, Teodoro Obiang Nguema, Seyed Ali Khamane'i, Saparmurat Niyazov and the rest?