Zimbabwe

July 10, 2008, 3:41 PM

Nasty little country with a nasty leader. We all know what Bobby has been doing to his citizens and that he has been doing it a long time now. He is now forcing people to drink fertiliser, which basically burns all their organs and they die an excruciatingly painful death. But enough about that.
What do you think should be done?
Military intervention, and please no pathetic jokes about oil,
Economic sanctions,
Let Mbeki/Zuma negotiate,
or nothing.
Anyway say what you think could and should happen in Zimbabwe.

July 10, 2008, 9:55 PM

I say they hire a few "Private Government Contractors" aka Mercenaries to get in there and get the job done. That should take care of the problem, in and out.

July 10, 2008, 10:54 PM

Quite frankly, this genocide has gone far enough. Mugabe and his party are scum. No matter what the consequences are in South Africa, the cost and aftermath of taking military action would be much lower than those of allowing Mugabe to stand testament to a victory of tyranny over peace and freedom.
However, the biggest concern is how such action could be conducted. Some politicians at home might not care, but there is sufficient reason to care about such. Zimbabwe's neighbour states should be pushed to take action, and be supplied with the the hardware and funds neccessary for a successful toppling of Mugabe. A direct western intervention would confirm the ZANU-PF's message, and thus local nations are the only nations which can do something about it. Rebellion from inside the regime, I don't know.
Mugabe is a brutal, cheating bastard who needs to be shot ASAP. If he were to die in office, that would be an ultimate victory for him.

July 11, 2008, 12:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Placebo

Nasty little country with a nasty leader. We all know what Bobby has been doing to his citizens and that he has been doing it a long time now. He is now forcing people to drink fertiliser, which basically burns all their organs and they die an excruciatingly painful death. But enough about that.
What do you think should be done?
Military intervention, and please no pathetic jokes about oil,
Economic sanctions,
Let Mbeki/Zuma negotiate,
or nothing.
Anyway say what you think could and should happen in Zimbabwe.

I think you and me(and Piedmon if he wants) should all dress up as Rambo and wreck havoc on that bastard. .

Honestly I don't know what should be done. An assassination and quick installment of democracy perhaps?

- Kuja

July 12, 2008, 11:55 PM

Nothing.

You can't save people, they have to save themselves.

This sort of thing has happened throughout history, all that happens is one dictator is replaced by another. Look at iran in '59, where the US deposed the democratically elected leader because his policies didn't agree with theirs... see how that turned out?

The fact of the matter is that if people get involved, everyones own agenda comes up. Let countries rule themselves. By the token of you guys, europe should have assassinated the founding fathers for their silent permission of the slave trade for years. If we go around judging everyone and killing those who don't fit with our standards, we run the risk of becoming just like them.

Unless they start threatening other countries, we should stay well out of it, and trust the people to rebel if its neccessary.

Democracy doesn't work anyway. It just comes down to who can brainwash the idiots the best. (since 50% of the country, statistically, are idiots)

July 13, 2008, 3:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Decado

Nothing.

You can't save people, they have to save themselves.

This sort of thing has happened throughout history, all that happens is one dictator is replaced by another. Look at iran in '59, where the US deposed the democratically elected leader because his policies didn't agree with theirs... see how that turned out?

The fact of the matter is that if people get involved, everyones own agenda comes up. Let countries rule themselves. By the token of you guys, europe should have assassinated the founding fathers for their silent permission of the slave trade for years. If we go around judging everyone and killing those who don't fit with our standards, we run the risk of becoming just like them.

Unless they start threatening other countries, we should stay well out of it, and trust the people to rebel if its neccessary.

Democracy doesn't work anyway. It just comes down to who can brainwash the idiots the best. (since 50% of the country, statistically, are idiots)

Okay, what I think you're missing here is that war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide are all international crimes. This means that, yes, other countries CAN legally get involved. Other countries have the duty to get involved and end those crimes. The real problem is that the UN, the organization through which countries are supposed to stop these crimes, is largely powerless. The only viable options are threats and sanctions. The UN doesn't really have an army of its own, and the forces that they DO send to other nations aren't allowed to fire upon others unless they are attacked. The P5 recently voted to impose sanctions on Zimbabwe, but Russia voted against it, claiming it would be meddling. This isn't about democracy. Mugabe was NOT democratically elected. He is guilty of crimes against humanity. I personally think that the UN doesn't get involved enough. They sat back and allowed Rwanda happen, they let Cambodia happen, they let East Timor happen, and they recently let Darfur happen. When are they going to actually get their act together and DO something? I think they need to get involved in Zimbabwe before the situation gets worse.

July 13, 2008, 11:08 AM

I'm not talking about the legality of it here, i'm talking about our predeliction for trying to change the course of things.

Go read any history book, it's absolutely full of genocide and war crimes, go read how often a knight in shining armour came to save people then. Didn't happen.

Fact is that the people either learned to fight, they learned to run, or they learned to overthrow by subterfuge.

Whenever we try to "help" it backfires. Take a look at afgahnistan. Oh noes, the evil russians are going to wipe out the poor afgahsn, lets give them weapons.
Forward 20 years
Oh shit, the afgahns are killing us with our own weapons.

Seriously, this platform of "They're doing something wrong, lets get them!" Cannot work. Where do we stop deciding who is doing something wrong? It starts out with war crimes. Then someone points out hey, racism is bad too. Next thing you know, its sexism. Suddenly the entire world is expected to share the values of the west and anyone who doesnt gets blown up to "protect that countries citizens"

It's not a sustainable solution, and it's not one we should be looking at.

Go look at any empire in history. Look far enough back and you'll find genocide, you'll find war crimes, they didn't last. They never do.

Sure it sucks for people born in zimbabwe, but fuck, more people die of TB, of starvation, or water-born diseases every month than the entire fucking population of zimbabwe, and we don't need to kill anyone to fix them! We just need to take some of the money that we use to fly around in lear jets and stayin 5 star hotels, and give it to some people to grow crops and dig wells.

If you're going to pull the "oh poor them" card, you need to get your priorities straight. People are very good at getting blindsided.

Oh look, theres a bad guy we can hate! Lets get him and forget all about the millions of people dying over there! Quick! KILL THE BAD GUY!

Thats not a dig at anyone personally, thats just how our minds work, and unless it's something you absolutely know, it's how you'll think.

July 13, 2008, 5:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Decado

I'm not talking about the legality of it here, i'm talking about our predeliction for trying to change the course of things.

Go read any history book, it's absolutely full of genocide and war crimes, go read how often a knight in shining armour came to save people then. Didn't happen.

Interesting. I also don't remember reading about any sort of giant organization comprised of 192 independent nations. You know, kind of like the United Nations. Do you remember such a thing? Well, regardless, such an organization exists now. Interestingly enough, one of their main objectives is to prevent things such as genocides, war crimes, and crimes against humanity from occurring.

Quote:

Fact is that the people either learned to fight, they learned to run, or they learned to overthrow by subterfuge.

Learned to fight or run, huh? You mean like in Rwanda when the Hutus set up roadblocks everywhere and slaughtered men, women, and children with machetes because of their ethnic background? You know, the genocide that the world completely ignored, the one where when all was said and done, close to a million people were dead? Should the women and children who were raped and hacked to death have learned to fight more efficiently? Run away from the mobs of Hutus? Get real.

Quote:

Whenever we try to "help" it backfires. Take a look at afgahnistan. Oh noes, the evil russians are going to wipe out the poor afgahsn, lets give them weapons.
Forward 20 years
Oh shit, the afgahns are killing us with our own weapons.

Oh god, your grasp of politics makes me lol so hard. So, there was this thing went on from the 1950s to about 1989...it was called the COLD WAR. Maybe you've heard of it? See the funny thing is, the two countries involved-- the United States and USSR-- never directly fought. Instead, it was done through different international 'stages'. Afghanistan is a good example. The United States didn't give a shit about the Afghani people. We were more concerned about the USSR gaining power there, which would be a threat to America. America was extremely paranoid during the entire Cold War-- who can blame them? For a good forty years, the threat of a nuclear war hung over everyone's heads. Thus, any territory gained by the USSR was a setback for America. And you know what they say, hindsight really IS 100% isn't it? Well, sadly for America, their magical crystal ball wasn't working, so they didn't know their actions in the 1970s would come back and bite them in the ass. Okay, let's also realize that the interference by America was UNILATERAL-- read: ONLY AMERICA-- and it was for purely political reasons. What we are discussing in this thread is collective action by all nations to punish those who are violating SERIOUS international laws and committing serious crimes against humanity. The two political situations are completely different, and thus not comparable. Thank you for trying, but fail.

Quote:

Seriously, this platform of "They're doing something wrong, lets get them!" Cannot work. Where do we stop deciding who is doing something wrong? It starts out with war crimes. Then someone points out hey, racism is bad too. Next thing you know, its sexism. Suddenly the entire world is expected to share the values of the west and anyone who doesnt gets blown up to "protect that countries citizens"

It's not a sustainable solution, and it's not one we should be looking at.

Go look at any empire in history. Look far enough back and you'll find genocide, you'll find war crimes, they didn't last. They never do.

Actually, it's very simple. The narrow approach to international law lays it out quite nicely: anything that is a direct physical threat to human security is a war crime/crime against humanity. This includes murder, rape, torture, etc. Genocide is any large scale forced murder or forced migration of a group of people with the intent to cause their annihilation. That's kind of the watered down version, but there you have it. This was decided after the Tokyo and Nuremberg trials. Hey, and last time I checked, Germany was part of the "west." We aren't talking about controversial crimes here. We're talking about genocide, rape, and slaughter of civilians-- including children. Yes, I'm aware that the United States-- among other western nations-- is guilty of crimes against humanity. Unfortunately, the system is somewhat flawed, and oftentimes countries find that they are being subjected to victor's justice. The system is flawed, I realize. Does this mean we should sit back on our asses while people are needlessly slaughtered? Um...how about no? And wow, that's a GREAT argument! "Well, these things in history happened...and they didn't last, so we should just sit and watch." Or, hey, I have a better idea....maybe, if the United Nations actually interferes, they can PREVENT the needless slaughter of millions of people.

Quote:

Sure it sucks for people born in zimbabwe, but fuck, more people die of TB, of starvation, or water-born diseases every month than the entire fucking population of zimbabwe, and we don't need to kill anyone to fix them! We just need to take some of the money that we use to fly around in lear jets and stayin 5 star hotels, and give it to some people to grow crops and dig wells.

If you're going to pull the "oh poor them" card, you need to get your priorities straight. People are very good at getting blindsided.

Oh look, theres a bad guy we can hate! Lets get him and forget all about the millions of people dying over there! Quick! KILL THE BAD GUY!

Thats not a dig at anyone personally, thats just how our minds work, and unless it's something you absolutely know, it's how you'll think.

Ohhhh nice try, but no. Yes, it's true that millions die of preventable diseases. There are programs dedicated to that sort of thing. A lot of them. Oh but a fun fact: you know what displacement camps are a breeding ground for? Starvation and those diseases you mentioned. You know what causes displaced persons? BAD GUYS! You know what is often the cause of really shitty conditions in a country? A SHITTY GOVERNMENT! Notice how diseases and food shortages increase during turbulent times-- such as civil wars? Whoa, see how it totally relates? Anyway, we are discussing United Nations intervention in the case of international law breaking. Not diseases. So diseases are irrelevent in this discussion. Though if you think that the millions of dollars poured into International Criminal Tribunals or International Criminal Courts would magically be given to organizations that deal with preventable diseases in third world nations, you're cute, but no. That's not how the world works. So whether the UN chases after men who are guilty of genocide, the same amount of attention/money will be given to people who die of preventable diseases. And well, if we're thinking logically, we want to maximize the amount of people saved from preventable deaths, right? So LOGICALLY, we would encourage the United Nations to stop genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. Unless, y'know, you're okay with millions of civilians dying. Then you're just kind of a shit human being, imo

July 13, 2008, 5:50 PM

We're NOT discussing the UN though, thats the problem. We're discussing zimbabwe.

YOU are discussing the UN, because you're studying it. Very good, go study it over there.

As for your (really nor very smart) when has there been an organisation fo XXX countries?

British Empire. Persian Empire. Macedonian Empire. They all contained (or controlled/were allied with) about the same %age of the world population as the UN does

(granted you may have to disclude one country - china- from the figures, since it accounted for about 25% of the worlds population on its own for a long time)

Still nice try though.

All i have seen you do is sit there and talk about how the UN should do this and the UN should do that since thats what the UN is for. I didn't see you explain to me, beyond your "omg if you want peoples to die you're evil!" shit, why that interference now will be any different from the FAILED interference of it, and other countries before. Fuck, the UN has tried to do this kind of things before. it SUCKS at it. If thats your big solution, then sorry, but you're blind

OMG bad things are happening, we must fix quick!

Sounds good as a soundbite, makes you seem like a nice person. Totally unworka