Rhodesia
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 591
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
myrddin
Of course, the Guardian is not the best selling paper in the country. That distinction goes to the tabloid dross and tabloids in disguise, like The Times and the Telegraph. If you bothered to read the Guardian, you might find it has a better insight into the political thoughts of British people than you imagine.
Tough economic sanctions (eg freezing the corrupt proceeds of Mugabe's presidency) and political pressure from other African leaders are the way ahead on this issue.
Of course, the Guardian is not the best selling paper in the country. That distinction goes to the tabloid dross and tabloids in disguise, like The Times and the Telegraph. If you bothered to read the Guardian, you might find it has a better insight into the political thoughts of British people than you imagine.
Tough economic sanctions (eg freezing the corrupt proceeds of Mugabe's presidency) and political pressure from other African leaders are the way ahead on this issue.
I am a figment of my own imagination
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
Posts: 726
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ahh come on guys give the chap a break. He led his country to freedom from the white opressors. He sorted out the Matabele problem in the South of the country after the war, they were getting far too stroppy and actualy believed that they had a right to have a say in the running of the country, besides let us not forget that they were invaders as well! The Fifth brigade, a fine body of crack troops, superbly trained by his glorious and esteemed North Korean allies, quickly restored order. The population down there remember them all right. They raped and killed and tortured.... but of course that is all fabrication, lies, they did no such thing, they were there just to... restore order.
Miriam Mengistu, an honored house guest (nice chap from Ethiopia, remember the famine over there) has given him the most marvellous scheme for sorting out the general public who recently had the termerity to start grumbling and daring to question his divine policies. They even made him cheat a little at the last election to stay in power. But Bob will remember their ingratitude, they will be punished and the white farmers will be removed, a little hunger will quickly bring the population to heel and remind them whose boss. The incoming aid aid will of course have to be administered by the Government/Bob. This will bring him both revenue and increased power because only those who he likes and acknowledge him as the supreme authority will be fed. He really doesn't give a monkeys left nut who live and who dies, black or white, the fact that the country will depend on aid doesn't bother him in the slightest. The weak will die, just like they have since time immemorial in the familiar scortched earth policy, the strong will survive and Bob is strong and supported by the military. It is a move that will accomplish so much, clear out the hated white farmers on the pretext of land distribution and tighten his grip on a weakened country.
The West, oh depend on it, they will send aid, they will have their band aids, their telethons, their government ministers like Clare Short who think they are 'sweeties' ( her comments on the UN aid efforts in the Congo) and will help regardless of how or why the country is in the state it is. He also has his friends like Col Ghadafi and the N Koreans who send their advisors in to see that he will be well protected. Sound a little cynical or just plain facts; just watch what happens, it's been going that way for quite some time now. But of course it was all just propoganda by white colonialists wasn't it??
Miriam Mengistu, an honored house guest (nice chap from Ethiopia, remember the famine over there) has given him the most marvellous scheme for sorting out the general public who recently had the termerity to start grumbling and daring to question his divine policies. They even made him cheat a little at the last election to stay in power. But Bob will remember their ingratitude, they will be punished and the white farmers will be removed, a little hunger will quickly bring the population to heel and remind them whose boss. The incoming aid aid will of course have to be administered by the Government/Bob. This will bring him both revenue and increased power because only those who he likes and acknowledge him as the supreme authority will be fed. He really doesn't give a monkeys left nut who live and who dies, black or white, the fact that the country will depend on aid doesn't bother him in the slightest. The weak will die, just like they have since time immemorial in the familiar scortched earth policy, the strong will survive and Bob is strong and supported by the military. It is a move that will accomplish so much, clear out the hated white farmers on the pretext of land distribution and tighten his grip on a weakened country.
The West, oh depend on it, they will send aid, they will have their band aids, their telethons, their government ministers like Clare Short who think they are 'sweeties' ( her comments on the UN aid efforts in the Congo) and will help regardless of how or why the country is in the state it is. He also has his friends like Col Ghadafi and the N Koreans who send their advisors in to see that he will be well protected. Sound a little cynical or just plain facts; just watch what happens, it's been going that way for quite some time now. But of course it was all just propoganda by white colonialists wasn't it??
As long as we call them Rhodesians and call it Rhodesia, and as long as we emphasise the plight of the White farmers, the West's concern looks like no more than solidarity with the former oppressor, and can be passed off as being anti-democratic and anti-African, imperialist and colonialist.
The right issue to fight Mugabe on is his suppression of democracy and the MDC (his oppression of fellow blacks) and not the redistribution of land from those widely seen as colonialist thieves and former oppressors.
I don't think of the white farmers that way. White Rhodesians always seemed to me to be more 'decent' and less racist than many White South Africans, with a more enlightened and paternalistic attitude. The performance of those who have remained bears scrutiny - they tend to have done a great deal for Zimbabwe, yet remain obvious scapegoats.
The right issue to fight Mugabe on is his suppression of democracy and the MDC (his oppression of fellow blacks) and not the redistribution of land from those widely seen as colonialist thieves and former oppressors.
I don't think of the white farmers that way. White Rhodesians always seemed to me to be more 'decent' and less racist than many White South Africans, with a more enlightened and paternalistic attitude. The performance of those who have remained bears scrutiny - they tend to have done a great deal for Zimbabwe, yet remain obvious scapegoats.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Africa
Posts: 412
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rhodesians/Zimbabweans and South Africans, both black and white, died for the Commonwealth during both world wars. Unfortunately the new PC viewpoint seems to be it's OK as long as it's not a white doing the damage.
Food aid is only being distributed to those areas Mugabe sees as loyal to the cause and anyone else can just get stuffed. The old tribal thing rears it's ugly head again and the West just wrings it's hands and stands by idly while another Rwanda/Burundi type genocide is being perpetrated. Only difference is that this one is more subtle and drawn out.
Left to those posting on this thread (with an obvious exception) I've no doubt the situation would be cleared up in a few weeks but as some wise old bloke once said "Every country gets the government it deserves.". I guess it applies to us all.
Food aid is only being distributed to those areas Mugabe sees as loyal to the cause and anyone else can just get stuffed. The old tribal thing rears it's ugly head again and the West just wrings it's hands and stands by idly while another Rwanda/Burundi type genocide is being perpetrated. Only difference is that this one is more subtle and drawn out.
Left to those posting on this thread (with an obvious exception) I've no doubt the situation would be cleared up in a few weeks but as some wise old bloke once said "Every country gets the government it deserves.". I guess it applies to us all.
Lupus Domesticus
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NZ
Posts: 520
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Preconceptions are a strange animal, aren't they, Jacko. Of the countless hundreds of white southern African people who are or who have been of my acquaintance I think the most consistent thing I can say is that they continue to surprise me.
I know Boers who number amongst the most enlightened people on the planet, and Rhodies who are as ignorant and biggoted as the worst. There appears to be something of a predeliction amongst white western people to classify persons of a smaller nation as being somehow more civilised than their larger near neighbours - Canadians are obviously better people than Americans, and we New Zealanders are naturally better informed and less rednecked than our Australian cousins. What a wonderful place the world would be if the facts bore out the theory.
It's a great shame that race has entered this issue to cloud its truths, but at the same time, the inevitability of it is not surprising. People will naturally draw unrelated conclusions, and other topics will be sucked into the debate as a matter of course.
Whether Robert Mugabe is black, white, pink, yellow, brown, or green with purple polka dots, is irrelevant. What matters is that he is evil, corrupt, and prepared to use both the worst elements of the human psyche, and military force, to impose his will and to preserve his position.
So, the man lead his people to victory over the colonial oppressors....and then promptly knifed his primary ally and major competitor in the back. So, after twenty years in power, he had still done nothing about repatriating some productive land for his loyal supporters...until his position appeared to be threatened, whereupon he embarked on the current crusade of blaming the very farmers who had fed all his people these past two decades for the injustices his administration had done nothing to address.
Perhaps if Mugabe had, over the last twenty years, devoted some resources to training his nation's young people in the ways of the farmer, and to availing them of some land to be turned to that purpose, the nation of Zimbabwe would not now be in such a tenuous postion as is currently is.
However, by following the path that he has, the man has directed his nation's destiny along other lines. Some of the changes which affect populations, ie philosophical and economic changes, take many years to make themselves known. Others, such as starvation and death, are apparent very quickly.
And there will be starvation and death in Zimbabwe within the year, on a massive scale. Certainly, there will be intervention by Western governments to limit this suffering and to gain popular approval, but I fear that the response from the other, more traditional relief agencies will be somewhat muted. The reason for this is, I am afraid, going to be racially motivated. This time, those in the West who have traditionally supported charity efforts in the hopeless parts of the world, myself included, are not going to come to the party. This time, we are saying enough. This time it is our people who are being dumped on, and this time we are not going to support those who are doing the dumping.
I don't really give a fat rat's what the left wing press thinks; I believe they have held sway in the world's attention for far too long with far too little justification, and I have had a gutsful of the relentless promotion of the idea that it is somehow bad, evil, and wrong, for a person to be white and English speaking. If those who are brown of skin, or red of politics, or lacking in personal morals, educational apptitude, work ethic or common decency towards their fellow man are better able to craft a world wherein everyman may strive for betterment and happiness, I say, let them prove it.
This time I will be telling the relief agencies to go fish. This time my support will be going to the Dunkirk operation which will be run by the Australian government (and it will be) to bring those people who are my people out of Africa to the part of the world where they may be reagarded as being home. A great many black Zimbabweans will be left behind, and will suffer. This is a tragic inevitability.
Solotk, when you run for office, I want to be there in your campaign team. No-one else has been able to describe so astutely just how it is that the six million black Zimbabweans affected by Mugabe's atrocities are as much my people as are the twenty-odd thousand whites who employ them, nor how irrelevant is their colour, nor how it is one system against another and not one race against another.
I know Boers who number amongst the most enlightened people on the planet, and Rhodies who are as ignorant and biggoted as the worst. There appears to be something of a predeliction amongst white western people to classify persons of a smaller nation as being somehow more civilised than their larger near neighbours - Canadians are obviously better people than Americans, and we New Zealanders are naturally better informed and less rednecked than our Australian cousins. What a wonderful place the world would be if the facts bore out the theory.
It's a great shame that race has entered this issue to cloud its truths, but at the same time, the inevitability of it is not surprising. People will naturally draw unrelated conclusions, and other topics will be sucked into the debate as a matter of course.
Whether Robert Mugabe is black, white, pink, yellow, brown, or green with purple polka dots, is irrelevant. What matters is that he is evil, corrupt, and prepared to use both the worst elements of the human psyche, and military force, to impose his will and to preserve his position.
So, the man lead his people to victory over the colonial oppressors....and then promptly knifed his primary ally and major competitor in the back. So, after twenty years in power, he had still done nothing about repatriating some productive land for his loyal supporters...until his position appeared to be threatened, whereupon he embarked on the current crusade of blaming the very farmers who had fed all his people these past two decades for the injustices his administration had done nothing to address.
Perhaps if Mugabe had, over the last twenty years, devoted some resources to training his nation's young people in the ways of the farmer, and to availing them of some land to be turned to that purpose, the nation of Zimbabwe would not now be in such a tenuous postion as is currently is.
However, by following the path that he has, the man has directed his nation's destiny along other lines. Some of the changes which affect populations, ie philosophical and economic changes, take many years to make themselves known. Others, such as starvation and death, are apparent very quickly.
And there will be starvation and death in Zimbabwe within the year, on a massive scale. Certainly, there will be intervention by Western governments to limit this suffering and to gain popular approval, but I fear that the response from the other, more traditional relief agencies will be somewhat muted. The reason for this is, I am afraid, going to be racially motivated. This time, those in the West who have traditionally supported charity efforts in the hopeless parts of the world, myself included, are not going to come to the party. This time, we are saying enough. This time it is our people who are being dumped on, and this time we are not going to support those who are doing the dumping.
I don't really give a fat rat's what the left wing press thinks; I believe they have held sway in the world's attention for far too long with far too little justification, and I have had a gutsful of the relentless promotion of the idea that it is somehow bad, evil, and wrong, for a person to be white and English speaking. If those who are brown of skin, or red of politics, or lacking in personal morals, educational apptitude, work ethic or common decency towards their fellow man are better able to craft a world wherein everyman may strive for betterment and happiness, I say, let them prove it.
This time I will be telling the relief agencies to go fish. This time my support will be going to the Dunkirk operation which will be run by the Australian government (and it will be) to bring those people who are my people out of Africa to the part of the world where they may be reagarded as being home. A great many black Zimbabweans will be left behind, and will suffer. This is a tragic inevitability.
Solotk, when you run for office, I want to be there in your campaign team. No-one else has been able to describe so astutely just how it is that the six million black Zimbabweans affected by Mugabe's atrocities are as much my people as are the twenty-odd thousand whites who employ them, nor how irrelevant is their colour, nor how it is one system against another and not one race against another.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Low, low down
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh how we live in the past! Of course with the benefit of hindsight the old British colonialism was wrong. But at the time it probably didn't so awful. Maybe it was done for motives of greed, to steal the wealth of other countries; maybe it was done for good motives like 'civilizing' them. Probably it was a mixture of the two. It was probably wrong for the forebears of a minority of white settlers to have the seized so much land, but it is also wrong for the children to be blamed for the sins of the fathers. After all, the land of the North and South American Indians and the aboriginal tribes of Australia and New Zealand was taken from them by force of arms also, but nobody seriously wishes to suggest that all the descendants of all the Europeans should have to hand back all the land without compensation and return it to the original people. Mr Mugabe has been shown to be a murdering despot and is typical of so many African dictators in caring firstly for himself and his family, then for his tribe and caring not a jot for his nation. If he did, he would institute a worthwhile scheme for the proper compensation for farmers for the loss of their land (otherwise he is lowering himself to the level of those whom he likes to scorn so much in just taking land by force of arms), he would involve the so-called white farmers in giving agricultural education to those getting the land and its distribution would be done on a fair basis. This of course will never happen because Mugabe has never changed from being a freedom fighter or terrorist (depending on your own definition of him then and now). For my money he may have been a 'freedom fighter' but now he's just a terrorist, ruling by fear administered by a band of thugs from his own tribe. The Commonwealth these days is just a joke and has shown itself unwilling or incapable of any meaningful form of censure of any African leader.
Yes Iraq is undoubtedly being led by a ghastly dictator, but because Dubbya wants to finish what his father wouldn't it doesn't seem to matter that Mugabe is killing off far more of his countrymen than Saddam is. It's typical of the American blinkered viewpoint that says that the Middle East (oil) is important, Africa isn't. I can't understand why the huge number of African Americans don't force Bush to adjust his priorities (except that most of them probably aren't rich supporters of the Republican party). As for Blair, he's just an irrelevant joke these days. He started with such good ideas but is now just a slave to the soundbite and Dubbya, incapable of an independant thought.
Undoubtedly the West should intervene effectively, but also (sadly) undoubtedly it will ignore Africa as it always has and all that we will see happen is a few minutes of television footage of the murder and starvation in Mr Mugabe's country, just after a long piece about Victoria Beckham's new baby or some-such world-shattering piece of globally important news.
Yes Iraq is undoubtedly being led by a ghastly dictator, but because Dubbya wants to finish what his father wouldn't it doesn't seem to matter that Mugabe is killing off far more of his countrymen than Saddam is. It's typical of the American blinkered viewpoint that says that the Middle East (oil) is important, Africa isn't. I can't understand why the huge number of African Americans don't force Bush to adjust his priorities (except that most of them probably aren't rich supporters of the Republican party). As for Blair, he's just an irrelevant joke these days. He started with such good ideas but is now just a slave to the soundbite and Dubbya, incapable of an independant thought.
Undoubtedly the West should intervene effectively, but also (sadly) undoubtedly it will ignore Africa as it always has and all that we will see happen is a few minutes of television footage of the murder and starvation in Mr Mugabe's country, just after a long piece about Victoria Beckham's new baby or some-such world-shattering piece of globally important news.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: City of Culture
Posts: 218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who cares about Zimbabwean. Who cares about the Comanwealth. I think to many of you don't realise how much Britian has moved on. Anyone 30 or under (myself included) has never know Britian rule anythink worthwhile. Has not been taught in school of the rightiousness of the white people over those of other colours. And has not even been taught much in school about "anything" almost to do with the British empire. It is simply not taught anymore. Schools teach children about the Vikings, The Spanish Invasion and maybe the Romans and thats it.
Nobody cares that we once ruled this country. The idea that we would somehow oust a president (even one who is serious distrubed) as Mugabe is hasn't been reading the papers on how difficult the job is for Blair to gain support for the attack on Iraq. That we could suddenly want to go into Africa again is living in cloud coo koo land.
It's over. Were not a great power anymore. Countries can't just attack other countries that they don't like (well at least not without spending billions of US dollars in bribes
). Nor do we have much influence on other's any more.
There is no public will to go round invading people. Were more intrested in house price inflation. Morgatage rates and Footbal scores.
Nobody cares that we once ruled this country. The idea that we would somehow oust a president (even one who is serious distrubed) as Mugabe is hasn't been reading the papers on how difficult the job is for Blair to gain support for the attack on Iraq. That we could suddenly want to go into Africa again is living in cloud coo koo land.
It's over. Were not a great power anymore. Countries can't just attack other countries that they don't like (well at least not without spending billions of US dollars in bribes
). Nor do we have much influence on other's any more.There is no public will to go round invading people. Were more intrested in house price inflation. Morgatage rates and Footbal scores.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Bluppet, very properly, and quite correctly on 9/12 pledged support for the Spams, in the War against terrorism. Maybe he thought Bogside would get an Arclight, or that the US would move decisively against PIRA funders in the US. Well quelle surprise, neither happened. Bluppet got sold the classic dummy, and all of a sudden, BritFor is committed to supporting Bush's adventurism in Iraq. It stinks.
There are some that argue, that the White Farmers, are getting what they deserve in Zimbabwe. Maybe so, maybe not. I've done an awful lot of reading in the last few days, from HMS Tiger to Operation "Quartz", I've read through zim ex-pats forums, and Zanu PF supporters boards, and I can see where Black Bobs driving.
His mission, very simply, is to destroy any group, that might become a focus for resistance. Hence the 5.7 million people faced with starvation, or rather, the Non-Mugabe supporters.
The White Farmers, gave up their right to be British citizens after UDI, maybe not all of them, but a goodly proportion. It can be argued, that they made their beds, now they must lie in it.
Interesting. So why exactly did we go into Sierra Leone, or Bosnia? Or Kosovo? Why should we intervene at all?
Because a catastrophe of enourmous proportions, that will set the entire region on fire was looming.
I made the point yestersday, and I see Jockanicko says the same thing. It is not Rhodesia, it is Zimbabwe, a sovereign nation in it's own right. Insistence on calling it by it's pre-independence monicker, will continually inflame and justify the "Imperialist running dogs" camp. If you must refer to it as Rhodesia, then refer to it, as Beags says, by it's pre-UDI, pre-apartheid name of Southern Rhodesia
However, it is rapidly becoming the Balkans of Africa. A leadership intent on clinging to power, violent discrimination against ethnic minorities, murder of democratically elected opponents, corruption on a grand scale etc.
We can wring our hands and do nothing, or, we can intervene now, and save Lives. Sometimes, you have to intervene in another countries affairs, before they become a very real problem. Can Europe absorb up to a million refugees? Make no mistake, under the UN charter, they WILL be genuine refugees, and they will need housing, clothing and looking after.
It is, our humanitarian duty, and the resultant costs.....
Blue Wolf, makes the point, that there has been enough "Donating". I am absolutely in agreement. Food relief, is best delivered at gunpoint, and with the country under your control.You will never ever get nations to become self reliant, until you stop the "Donor" mentality. "Oh yes, you must donate, because you raped the country as a colony, and this is our compensation" Bollox
After Rwanda, there is no way, that Oxfam especially, will ever see one more red cent of my money. I watched USAF,Canadian, Australian. Belgian and Safair Albert crews and various other private cargo lines, enacting a mini-Berlin airlift into Goma and Kigali, round the clock. The aircrew really believed, they were doing good, and were justifiably proud of what they were achieving.
Good thing they never got into Kigali market, to see where the bulk of their cargo was ending up, being sold by Tutsi gangs,with the "New Governments" connivance and the UN field staff nad their new Government friends, living it up in the Mille Collines Hotel, and the "Kigali Nights" night club. People starving to death 5 miles away, and new Mercedes in the car park.
Sanctions, will only hurt those, we are trying to help. Iraq has proven that. We need,with other Commonwealth nations , to intervene now, to force a regime change in Zimbabwe.
Once that has been achived, we can then, with a level playing field, address the issue of land reform, and there DOES need to be comprehensive land reform, or the resentment , will fester forever.
I am not in favour of committing British Forces to a regime change, so the resident White population can get it all. I am, in favour however, of regime change, fair distribution of land, dictated on Economic and logistical neccessity , and the training of the indigenous population, to become more self-reliant,better farmers and businessmen and major contributors to their nations well-being.In other words, to restore their pride in their nation.
If the "European" population, want that, and believe it is one, not 2 Zimbabwes, then show us that, and stop wringing your fcuking hands, and reaching for the British passport, when it all goes tits.
Do the British care? Well I don't see the Nat.Union of Farmers , marching to London, or the Countryside alliance marching to Downing Street, then again, if Mugabe was to ban fox hunting...
I don't see ex-Zims organising petitions, or trying to bring their plight, forcibly to the medias attention.
So, all you Zim ex-pats, BLACK and WHITE, if there is a problem, really a problem, and you're not just concerned, about your financial well being or property, then start showing the British population, and garnering popular support. We will get involved, if you show us we have to. The Media isn't allowed into Zimbabwe, but photos and media from Zim, sent via Wireless Internet connection, will keep us all informed, as to the true extent, of this impending catastrophe.
Pprune contributors, if you still have close links to Zim, and can get a wireless internet kit out to Zim, or even point them at a website http://www.qsl.net/n9zia/wireless/ ,where they can make this stuff at very little cost, and start getting the NEWS out, then we can force this Governments hand...
Otherwise, I am sorely afraid, that we will be launching Op. Dynamo II
That's it.... Rant Switch to Safe...
P3
There are some that argue, that the White Farmers, are getting what they deserve in Zimbabwe. Maybe so, maybe not. I've done an awful lot of reading in the last few days, from HMS Tiger to Operation "Quartz", I've read through zim ex-pats forums, and Zanu PF supporters boards, and I can see where Black Bobs driving.
His mission, very simply, is to destroy any group, that might become a focus for resistance. Hence the 5.7 million people faced with starvation, or rather, the Non-Mugabe supporters.
The White Farmers, gave up their right to be British citizens after UDI, maybe not all of them, but a goodly proportion. It can be argued, that they made their beds, now they must lie in it.
Interesting. So why exactly did we go into Sierra Leone, or Bosnia? Or Kosovo? Why should we intervene at all?
Because a catastrophe of enourmous proportions, that will set the entire region on fire was looming.
I made the point yestersday, and I see Jockanicko says the same thing. It is not Rhodesia, it is Zimbabwe, a sovereign nation in it's own right. Insistence on calling it by it's pre-independence monicker, will continually inflame and justify the "Imperialist running dogs" camp. If you must refer to it as Rhodesia, then refer to it, as Beags says, by it's pre-UDI, pre-apartheid name of Southern Rhodesia
However, it is rapidly becoming the Balkans of Africa. A leadership intent on clinging to power, violent discrimination against ethnic minorities, murder of democratically elected opponents, corruption on a grand scale etc.
We can wring our hands and do nothing, or, we can intervene now, and save Lives. Sometimes, you have to intervene in another countries affairs, before they become a very real problem. Can Europe absorb up to a million refugees? Make no mistake, under the UN charter, they WILL be genuine refugees, and they will need housing, clothing and looking after.
It is, our humanitarian duty, and the resultant costs.....
Blue Wolf, makes the point, that there has been enough "Donating". I am absolutely in agreement. Food relief, is best delivered at gunpoint, and with the country under your control.You will never ever get nations to become self reliant, until you stop the "Donor" mentality. "Oh yes, you must donate, because you raped the country as a colony, and this is our compensation" Bollox
After Rwanda, there is no way, that Oxfam especially, will ever see one more red cent of my money. I watched USAF,Canadian, Australian. Belgian and Safair Albert crews and various other private cargo lines, enacting a mini-Berlin airlift into Goma and Kigali, round the clock. The aircrew really believed, they were doing good, and were justifiably proud of what they were achieving.
Good thing they never got into Kigali market, to see where the bulk of their cargo was ending up, being sold by Tutsi gangs,with the "New Governments" connivance and the UN field staff nad their new Government friends, living it up in the Mille Collines Hotel, and the "Kigali Nights" night club. People starving to death 5 miles away, and new Mercedes in the car park.
Sanctions, will only hurt those, we are trying to help. Iraq has proven that. We need,with other Commonwealth nations , to intervene now, to force a regime change in Zimbabwe.
Once that has been achived, we can then, with a level playing field, address the issue of land reform, and there DOES need to be comprehensive land reform, or the resentment , will fester forever.
I am not in favour of committing British Forces to a regime change, so the resident White population can get it all. I am, in favour however, of regime change, fair distribution of land, dictated on Economic and logistical neccessity , and the training of the indigenous population, to become more self-reliant,better farmers and businessmen and major contributors to their nations well-being.In other words, to restore their pride in their nation.
If the "European" population, want that, and believe it is one, not 2 Zimbabwes, then show us that, and stop wringing your fcuking hands, and reaching for the British passport, when it all goes tits.
Do the British care? Well I don't see the Nat.Union of Farmers , marching to London, or the Countryside alliance marching to Downing Street, then again, if Mugabe was to ban fox hunting...
I don't see ex-Zims organising petitions, or trying to bring their plight, forcibly to the medias attention.
So, all you Zim ex-pats, BLACK and WHITE, if there is a problem, really a problem, and you're not just concerned, about your financial well being or property, then start showing the British population, and garnering popular support. We will get involved, if you show us we have to. The Media isn't allowed into Zimbabwe, but photos and media from Zim, sent via Wireless Internet connection, will keep us all informed, as to the true extent, of this impending catastrophe.
Pprune contributors, if you still have close links to Zim, and can get a wireless internet kit out to Zim, or even point them at a website http://www.qsl.net/n9zia/wireless/ ,where they can make this stuff at very little cost, and start getting the NEWS out, then we can force this Governments hand...
Otherwise, I am sorely afraid, that we will be launching Op. Dynamo II
That's it.... Rant Switch to Safe...
P3
Last edited by solotk; 20th Aug 2002 at 16:24.
Just a numbered other
solotk and Bluewolf.....Bravo. Excellent and well-reasoned posts.
Civilian, I know you like to leave in your sfelin mistakes and, presumably, your poor grammar, to annoy people. But don't you think your views would carry more force if you didn't?
Civilian, I know you like to leave in your sfelin mistakes and, presumably, your poor grammar, to annoy people. But don't you think your views would carry more force if you didn't?
Bloody amazing to see your lot extol the virtues of a regime change in Zimbabwe, yet harangue the US for wanting to depose Saddam. By any measure, Saddam is a greater threat. I suppose that it involves a former colony full of white folk makes it okay.
Edited to maintain a civil tone..
Edited to maintain a civil tone..
Last edited by West Coast; 21st Aug 2002 at 19:11.
Guest
Posts: n/a
So tell me why is GW Bush Jnr. justified in attacking Iraq, West Coast?
Zimbabwe is not about white farmers, it's about 6,000,000 people about to starve, a little more pressing then Dubya's jobs for the boys...
Oh sorry I forgot, Iraq needs attacking, because Israel wants it so.
Once again, no Iraqis on 9/11 but a lot of Saudis. Tell me, why aren't we attacking them? Which is more dangerous, a nation that knows it will be back in the stone age, if it uses one device contrary to the rules of war, or, a nation that believes all westerners are infidels, and have the money to keep creating innocent orphans and widows, and willingly do so?
http://www.msnbc.com/news/796971.asp?0si=-
Zimbabwe is not about white farmers, it's about 6,000,000 people about to starve, a little more pressing then Dubya's jobs for the boys...
Oh sorry I forgot, Iraq needs attacking, because Israel wants it so.
Once again, no Iraqis on 9/11 but a lot of Saudis. Tell me, why aren't we attacking them? Which is more dangerous, a nation that knows it will be back in the stone age, if it uses one device contrary to the rules of war, or, a nation that believes all westerners are infidels, and have the money to keep creating innocent orphans and widows, and willingly do so?
http://www.msnbc.com/news/796971.asp?0si=-
Last edited by solotk; 21st Aug 2002 at 17:57.
With the greatest respect, West Coast, your opening shot is unworthy and open to many comebacks re: treatment of native Americans and African-Americans...
You might also note that many of the people affected in Zimbabwe are British passport holders. I'm sure that if Uncle Bob was conducting a campaign of similar intensity against US passport holders, President Bush would be talking of regime change too.
Saddam Hussein is not, currently, conducting a brutal campaign against British citizens.
Also, the question is whether or not we should do something about Mugabe, rather than just ignore it - which, at the moment, we (or more accurately President Tony and his cronies) are.
Furthermore, it's not just 'a bunch of white folk' that's the issue (although Uncle Bob would be delighted to hear you say this). Mugabe, aided by North Korea (part of the axis of evil, I seem to think...) conducted massacres against the Matabaele and tortureas and murders the opposition - which is overwhelmingly made up of the black population. Mugabe is now denying food to areas that do not support him - in short, he's possibly on the verge of commiting genocide.
No-one denies that Saddam is a dangerous, murderous dictator; nor that disposing of him would be no more or less than he deserves. The point here is that although we have strong suspisions about the threat, we have no hard evidence: yes, I know about int and protecting sources, but you can't have legitimacy based on the 'we know, but aren't going to tell you what we know' principle.
With Uncle Bob, we have more than enough evidence that something should be done beyond a bunch of FCO officials sitting around looking a bit grim and the State Department uttering the odd word of condemnation here and there. That's the point: if we do something about Saddam, we should do something about Mugabe; arguably, we should do that first (after all, the UK was responsible for him gaining power!)
You might also note that many of the people affected in Zimbabwe are British passport holders. I'm sure that if Uncle Bob was conducting a campaign of similar intensity against US passport holders, President Bush would be talking of regime change too.
Saddam Hussein is not, currently, conducting a brutal campaign against British citizens.
Also, the question is whether or not we should do something about Mugabe, rather than just ignore it - which, at the moment, we (or more accurately President Tony and his cronies) are.
Furthermore, it's not just 'a bunch of white folk' that's the issue (although Uncle Bob would be delighted to hear you say this). Mugabe, aided by North Korea (part of the axis of evil, I seem to think...) conducted massacres against the Matabaele and tortureas and murders the opposition - which is overwhelmingly made up of the black population. Mugabe is now denying food to areas that do not support him - in short, he's possibly on the verge of commiting genocide.
No-one denies that Saddam is a dangerous, murderous dictator; nor that disposing of him would be no more or less than he deserves. The point here is that although we have strong suspisions about the threat, we have no hard evidence: yes, I know about int and protecting sources, but you can't have legitimacy based on the 'we know, but aren't going to tell you what we know' principle.
With Uncle Bob, we have more than enough evidence that something should be done beyond a bunch of FCO officials sitting around looking a bit grim and the State Department uttering the odd word of condemnation here and there. That's the point: if we do something about Saddam, we should do something about Mugabe; arguably, we should do that first (after all, the UK was responsible for him gaining power!)
Wanting to go there for six million starving, my A** There are a dozen nations or more in Africa that are famine stricken. I dont see any tears lost over them. I dont see any threads dedicated to that. The whole flavor of this and the associated thread has been over the plight of the white farmer. If true famine relief is what you seek, it can be done without a regime change at the top. If this had been a former French colony without Brit interests nothing would be made of it.
I respect the rule of law, but that Mugabe essentially nationalizes the farm lands to give to the blacks in some romantic notion hardly can be equally compared to what Saddam has done in the past and is capable of doing in the future.
If Saddam uses WMD on a western power, yup, he will suffer in kind. but what about his own people(already done it) or adjecent countries(once again, already done it) What if he uses his still formidable conventional powers on an Arab or Persian neighbor(seems like he has done that also) What if he refuses to comply with UN weapons mandates(guess what goes in here) I am not complacent enough to sit here and let Saddam make the next move. Recent reports are surfacing that Saddam has let Osoma's boys brew up chemicals in his country. When do you put your foot down? After the gas is released on the London underground? After Harrods lies in rubble?
Archimedes
I will never argue that the US govt. treatment of blacks is anything but wrong. As a first generation American of Irish parents, the recent history of Ireland is of intense interest to me and I cant help but find parallels. If however it is offensive, I will edit and remove.
Your seemingly salient point of threats to UK passport holders as being a trigger for action is taken. The right to defend citizens is not one I discount. Yes the US would also take action. One of the missions trained for by the US Marines is evacution of non combatants from foreign countries. There is a difference between safe guarding and evacuating Brits and overthrowing the government. Its one thing to chopper out your folks, quite another to storm the palace.
I respect the rule of law, but that Mugabe essentially nationalizes the farm lands to give to the blacks in some romantic notion hardly can be equally compared to what Saddam has done in the past and is capable of doing in the future.
If Saddam uses WMD on a western power, yup, he will suffer in kind. but what about his own people(already done it) or adjecent countries(once again, already done it) What if he uses his still formidable conventional powers on an Arab or Persian neighbor(seems like he has done that also) What if he refuses to comply with UN weapons mandates(guess what goes in here) I am not complacent enough to sit here and let Saddam make the next move. Recent reports are surfacing that Saddam has let Osoma's boys brew up chemicals in his country. When do you put your foot down? After the gas is released on the London underground? After Harrods lies in rubble?
Archimedes
I will never argue that the US govt. treatment of blacks is anything but wrong. As a first generation American of Irish parents, the recent history of Ireland is of intense interest to me and I cant help but find parallels. If however it is offensive, I will edit and remove.
Your seemingly salient point of threats to UK passport holders as being a trigger for action is taken. The right to defend citizens is not one I discount. Yes the US would also take action. One of the missions trained for by the US Marines is evacution of non combatants from foreign countries. There is a difference between safe guarding and evacuating Brits and overthrowing the government. Its one thing to chopper out your folks, quite another to storm the palace.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Yes 6,000,00 and yes wanting to go there. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I was in Rwanda in '94, and saw at first hand, what happens when you don't intervene.
If we don't intervene, this will spiral out of control, as the refugees head into South Africa, Malawi, Zambia, Europe, and the Good Old US of A. Then it will truly become everyone's problem, and Mugabe will have won.
It's time this thread moved to JetBlast Mc D.....
If we don't intervene, this will spiral out of control, as the refugees head into South Africa, Malawi, Zambia, Europe, and the Good Old US of A. Then it will truly become everyone's problem, and Mugabe will have won.
It's time this thread moved to JetBlast Mc D.....
I am a figment of my own imagination
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
Posts: 726
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
West Coast at the risk of being unacceptably non PC I would say that mention of the white farmers is being made because for so very long now all we have had is a litany of how the black has been oppressed by the whites. It is simply that we can now see that blacks are just as capable of racism, and that it is not an exclusively white disease!!!
I seldom agree with West Coast, and it is facile and offensive to make any comparison between supposed subjugation or persecution of Irish Catholics (in RECENT years, let's not go back to Cromwell or Wolf Tone) and what's happening in Zim (OR Iraq) or even what happened to US Blacks in the 50s and 60s, or to Native Americans 100 years before that.
However. The way in which this argument has centred on the treatment of the farmers does make it look like a grubby and rather self interested debate, as Westie suggests and makes it all to easy for Mugabe to paint us as colonialists who haven't grasped the changed realities of the situation in Zimbabwe.
Where he is wrong, though, is that regime change isn't required to change the underlying situation. I'm not even sure that real democracy will necessarily help, since (yet again) we drew the borders in the wrong place, giving an unbalanced tribal mix. I can't remember whether Nkomo's lot were Ndebele, or Shona, or whatever, but I do remember that since the Lancaster House agreement there has been no underlying stability even in black Zimbabwe.
Moreover the white farmers are a powerful irritant and a natural scapegoat, and most of them chose to stay where they were. I wouldn't condone violence towards them, of course, but nor do I think we should feel any great debt to them, beyond the debt of honour we owe all those who have fought with us and for us over the years.
Few sensible people would object in principal to the notion of Africa for the Africans, and the theory of land reform is fine, as long as existing farmers are compensated. There's also the practical matter of how land ownership impacts on the ability of the country to feed itself, which gives a powerful reason for leaving the White farmers well alone, even if they have to lease the land they farm from the nation, or if the nation claims ownership of that land.
But this is a distraction (and a welcome one for Mugabe). If there is a reason to intervene it is to restore democracy and ensure fair treatment for all the minority peoples in Zim, black AND white.
Morally, Mugabe deserves to be removed. Practically, removing him will ease suffering and may prevent starvation. He is an undemocratic tyrant, and has engaged in military action outside his own borders. To say that he represents any less of a threat to his neighbours than Saddam is arguable. He lacks WMD however, so represents no real threat to the USA or Israel.
So where's the grubby self interest again?
However. The way in which this argument has centred on the treatment of the farmers does make it look like a grubby and rather self interested debate, as Westie suggests and makes it all to easy for Mugabe to paint us as colonialists who haven't grasped the changed realities of the situation in Zimbabwe.
Where he is wrong, though, is that regime change isn't required to change the underlying situation. I'm not even sure that real democracy will necessarily help, since (yet again) we drew the borders in the wrong place, giving an unbalanced tribal mix. I can't remember whether Nkomo's lot were Ndebele, or Shona, or whatever, but I do remember that since the Lancaster House agreement there has been no underlying stability even in black Zimbabwe.
Moreover the white farmers are a powerful irritant and a natural scapegoat, and most of them chose to stay where they were. I wouldn't condone violence towards them, of course, but nor do I think we should feel any great debt to them, beyond the debt of honour we owe all those who have fought with us and for us over the years.
Few sensible people would object in principal to the notion of Africa for the Africans, and the theory of land reform is fine, as long as existing farmers are compensated. There's also the practical matter of how land ownership impacts on the ability of the country to feed itself, which gives a powerful reason for leaving the White farmers well alone, even if they have to lease the land they farm from the nation, or if the nation claims ownership of that land.
But this is a distraction (and a welcome one for Mugabe). If there is a reason to intervene it is to restore democracy and ensure fair treatment for all the minority peoples in Zim, black AND white.
Morally, Mugabe deserves to be removed. Practically, removing him will ease suffering and may prevent starvation. He is an undemocratic tyrant, and has engaged in military action outside his own borders. To say that he represents any less of a threat to his neighbours than Saddam is arguable. He lacks WMD however, so represents no real threat to the USA or Israel.
So where's the grubby self interest again?
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 398
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dare I say that the typical UK citizen should fear little from a terrorist attack, he probably has better odds of winning the national lottery than of dying at the hands of an Iraqi terrorist.
Despite these odds we still manage to kill over three hundred UK citizens a month on our roads! Surely, instead of spending billions on bombing Iraq we should widen the A12 south of Chelmsford????
To get back to the point - Mugabe is black and can therefore do no wrong in this Left wing age of white 'mea culpa' Tony Bliar would rather sell out the (white) Gibraltarians in the name of some European utopia than bother himself with the unseemly ethnic cleansing in Zimbabwe.
PS: Is nobody interested in the fact that our independent Nuclear Deterrent is in the hands of a retired ships steward? Frankly I am more worried about 'Our John' than Saddam Hussein.
Despite these odds we still manage to kill over three hundred UK citizens a month on our roads! Surely, instead of spending billions on bombing Iraq we should widen the A12 south of Chelmsford????
To get back to the point - Mugabe is black and can therefore do no wrong in this Left wing age of white 'mea culpa' Tony Bliar would rather sell out the (white) Gibraltarians in the name of some European utopia than bother himself with the unseemly ethnic cleansing in Zimbabwe.
PS: Is nobody interested in the fact that our independent Nuclear Deterrent is in the hands of a retired ships steward? Frankly I am more worried about 'Our John' than Saddam Hussein.