PDA

View Full Version : Zimbabwe 'elections'



Garvinator
03-04-2008, 02:46 AM
Been starting to think, with Robert Mugabe a no show since Saturday, that he might have already left the country after his cronies started telling him that we tried to fix the election and you still have lost.

Capablanca-Fan
03-04-2008, 01:16 PM
Been starting to think, with Robert Mugabe a no show since Saturday, that he might have already left the country after his cronies started telling him that we tried to fix the election and you still have lost.
Ah yes, the darling of that loser Malcolm Fraser, and another Marxist to turn his country from a breadbasket to a basket case.

Igor_Goldenberg
03-04-2008, 02:09 PM
Somehow I doubt the new government in Zimbabwe is going to be much better.
Let's see if they return farms to their previous owners.

Basil
03-04-2008, 05:28 PM
Somehow I doubt the new government in Zimbabwe is going to be much better.
Let's see if they return farms to their previous owners.
You can't be serious Igor. The difference between a dictator and a democratic man in touch regardless of his various policy tweaks will be enormous. FWIW I have family in Zim and have lived there.

Igor_Goldenberg
04-04-2008, 08:37 AM
You can't be serious Igor. The difference between a dictator and a democratic man in touch regardless of his various policy tweaks will be enormous. FWIW I have family in Zim and have lived there.
There is a difference between a democratic man and democratically elected man. I have no idea which one is Mr Tsvangirai.

It will be evident very soon, however. The main question is:
Is he going to return repossessed farms to their previous owners?

Ian Murray
04-04-2008, 07:28 PM
...Is he going to return repossessed farms to their previous owners?
Do you mean the original African owners or the European settlers?

MichaelBaron
04-04-2008, 07:46 PM
Somehow I doubt the new government in Zimbabwe is going to be much better.
Let's see if they return farms to their previous owners.

At least they can not make things any worse :)

Capablanca-Fan
04-04-2008, 11:02 PM
Do you mean the original African owners or the European settlers?
Probably the Europeans who developed the farms to such a degree that Zimbabwe was the breadbasket of southern Africa. But they went to pot after Malcolm Fraser's beloved Robert Mugabe stole them and handed them to his thuggish cronies.

Igor_Goldenberg
05-04-2008, 12:08 PM
Do you mean the original African owners or the European settlers?
African owners had a land. European settlers cultivated it and made it a farm. The answer is self evident.

Capablanca-Fan
07-04-2008, 12:08 AM
Walter Williams, economist at George Mason uni and himself black, and lived in South Africa for a while during Apartheid, writes in South Africa After Apartheid: Black Rule Alone is No Guarantee for Black Freedom (http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=1376) (2002):


The tragic fact of business is that ordinary Africans were better off under colonialism. Colonial masters never committed anything near the murder and genocide seen under black rule in Rwanda, Burundi, Uganda, Nigeria, Mozambique, Somalia and other countries, where millions of blacks have been slaughtered in unspeakable ways, which include: hacking to death, boiling in oil, setting on fire and dismemberment. If as many elephants, zebras and lions had been as ruthlessly slaughtered, the world's leftists would be in a tizzy.

When Zimbabwe, then Southern Rhodesia, was under white rule, the ANC demanded the ouster of Prime Minister Ian Smith and the installation of black rule. Today, Zimbabwe's Minister Robert Mugabe commits gross violations of black and white human rights. With the help of lawless thugs, Mugabe has undertaken a land-confiscation program from white farmers. Instead of condemning Zimbabwe human-rights abuses, the South African government has given Mugabe its unqualified support.

Andrew Kenny says that whites treat blacks like animals. When a dog misbehaves, we don't blame the dog — we blame the owner for improper training. In Africa, when blacks behave badly, Kenny says colonialism, imperialism, apartheid, globalization or multi-nationalism is blamed for not bringing up blacks properly. Liberals saw South Africa's apartheid and other human-rights abuses as unjust because blacks were suffering at the hands of whites. They hold whites accountable to civilized standards of behavior. Blacks are not held to civilized standards of behavior. From the liberal's point of view, it might even be racist to expect blacks to adhere to civilized standards of behavior.

MichaelBaron
07-04-2008, 10:17 AM
I am starting to get doubts that transition of power is going to take place. Mugabe appears to be wanting to hold on to power. An article in The Age yesterday was talking about Police guiding access to all of the government offices and not letting oppositing lawyers to enter High Court to launch a protest against the delay of election results being announced.

Southpaw Jim
07-04-2008, 01:12 PM
Plus, Mugabe's party is demanding a recount.. could get ugly.

Garvinator
07-04-2008, 01:15 PM
Plus, Mugabe's party is demanding a recount.. could get ugly.
What do you mean, could get ugly. It cant get any uglier for Zimbabwe.

Usually these types of situations are only resolved one of two ways, civil war or assassination.

A despot leader who will not go and will not recognise the will of the people.

Southpaw Jim
07-04-2008, 02:09 PM
I would tentatively suggest that civil war would be worse than the present situ. Think of something like Rwanda..

Capablanca-Fan
16-04-2008, 11:47 AM
You got him in, so help kick him out (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23545662-7583,00.html)
Hal Colebatch
The Australian, 16 April 2008


IT is hard to know exactly how much responsibility Malcolm Fraser bears for the installation of Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe, but it is generally agreed that he played an important role.

Fraser's 1987 biographer Philip Ayres wrote: "The centrality of Fraser's part in the process leading to Zimbabwe's independence is indisputable. All the major African figures involved affirm it."

Tanzanian president Julius Nyerere said he considered Fraser's role "crucial in many parts", and Zambian president Kenneth Kaunda (whose own achievements included making his country a one-party state) called it "vital".

....

Former Australian diplomat and Commonwealth specialist Tony Kevin has also claimed that Fraser "challenged Margaret Thatcher's efforts to stage-manage a moderate political solution".

....

When Fraser was working to install Mugabe, Zimbabwe-Rhodesia had a black majority government under bishop Abel Muzorewa, a moderate without Mugabe's Marxism or association with terrorist atrocities. This government's constitution reserved 28 of 100 parliamentary seats for whites, still a disproportionately large number. There was universal adult suffrage.

Muzorewa was apparently prepared to work closely with whites, who he recognised were vital to the economy, and he was also favoured by Thatcher (the "moderate" solution that Kevin credits Fraser with opposing). His record suggested he was a man who rejected violence and sought a peaceful settlement.

There had already been considerable changes away from white supremacy in the latter days of the Ian Smith regime. The armed forces, for example, had been taking black officers.

A Muzorewa regime might have failed, though with strong British and other Commonwealth support it could have had a good chance of success. In any event, it is hard to imagine how a Muzorewa-led Zimbabwe, retaining the whites' agricultural, commercial and administrative expertise, could have led to a worse outcome than that which has transpired, with the country bankrupt, people starving and democracy in ruins.

Mugabe never changed his spots: Before turning on the whites, he waged a quasi-genocidal war against the Ndebele people, with an estimated 20,000 murdered. He also committed thousands of troops to a vicious, largely pointless war in the Congo. There have been endless reports of brutality and torture, including the vicious punishment of police who tried to show humanity to prisoners.

Mugabe came to power tainted with atrocity. Some members of the Patriotic Front, of which he led the biggest faction, specialised in cutting the noses and lips off uncooperative blacks, and shot down civilian airliners, in one case then massacring the survivors at the crash site. Naturally, no one was prosecuted for these crimes.

Until the recent elections, Fraser had never publicly criticised the Mugabe regime or said anything to encourage the democratic Opposition in Zimbabwe, not even when Mugabe's thugs raided the Zimbabwe office of aid organisation CARE and abducted the director, though Fraser had been chairman of CARE Australia and president of CARE International.

This is despite Fraser's continuing interest in African affairs and also despite his various lectures to the Howard government on morality. He suggested in the 2002 Walter Murdoch lecture that Australia was deficient in respecting the "rule of law", when Mugabe had just arrested and manacled a retired High Court judge who had dared to find a Mugabe crony guilty of contempt of court. In the same lecture he said: "We should not seek to live in a state of denial concerning our past ...

MichaelBaron
18-04-2008, 04:44 PM
Unfortunately while elections are long over, the story is just unfolding sigh...It is clear now that Mugabe is refusing to go!

Garvinator
29-06-2008, 01:46 PM
Unfortunately while elections are long over, the story is just unfolding sigh...It is clear now that Mugabe is refusing to go!
Michael certainly got this one right, even though it was not difficult to predict ;) :(.

The most concerning thing to me is that one of the major politicial players for any kind of a solution recently testified in a rape trial that he could not have caught AIDS because he showered after having consentual sex with the alleged rape victim :eek:

Other African leaders either love Mugabe or are currently involved in civil wars against their own people in their country.

The only hope I see is for troops on the ground, but who is going to do this. It will not be the UN as China as a veto vote on the Security Council.

Capablanca-Fan
29-06-2008, 02:03 PM
Michael certainly got this one right, even though it was not difficult to predict ;) :(.
Yet lefties for decades pushed for removal of the evil white colonialists without stopping to consider whether the replacement was even worse.
Most Blacks in Africa have been far worse off under black despots than European imperialism. See Were blacks better off under apartheid? (http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams010902.asp) by economist Dr Walter Williams who lived in South Africa for a few years and is himself black. The current western tolerance for evil butchers like Mugabe is racist: holding blacks to lower standards of decency than whites, and contemptuous of black victims when they are murdered and tortured by other blacks.


The only hope I see is for troops on the ground, but who is going to do this. It will not be the UN as China as a veto vote on the Security Council.
All Western democracies should pull out of the monumentally corrupt UN. If America alone withdrew funding and expelled their HQ from NY, it would collapse of its own accord.

Spiny Norman
30-06-2008, 06:09 AM
Allowing former terrorists (sorry, freedom fighters) to hold power is a dangerous game. Sometimes it can work (dunno, maybe East Timor is an example?) but I suspect most times the leopard cannot change his spots. I think the reason for this is that a terrorist, accustomed to power proceding from the muzzle of a gun, when faced with a recalcitrant electorate, is likely to revert to "what he knows" ... which just happens to be murdering those who oppose him. Q. Why hasn't someone stuck a bullet into Mugabe? The prospect must surely be tempting for many people over there.

MichaelBaron
30-06-2008, 01:06 PM
The question is: "Is there anything at all that can be done in order to remove Mugabe from power"? Unfortunately i am afraid the answer is no :(

Southpaw Jim
30-06-2008, 01:14 PM
I dunno, the US seemed to see no problem in removing Saddam Hussein from power :whistle:

Oh wait :doh: Iraq has oil...

Garvinator
30-06-2008, 01:17 PM
I dunno, the US seemed to see no problem in removing Saddam Hussein from power :whistle:

Oh wait :doh: Iraq has oil...
I do not think the US would have any problems proving that Zimbabwe has a weapon of mass destruction :uhoh:

Capablanca-Fan
30-06-2008, 01:29 PM
I dunno, the US seemed to see no problem in removing Saddam Hussein from power :whistle:

Oh wait :doh: Iraq has oil...
Oh wait, the Other Lefty can't think of anything better to do than harp on about this furphy. But if the US were really after oil, they could have had Kuwait's, or for that matter, plenty in ANWR, off the American coast, or in their abundant oil shale.

But Zimbabwe isn't paying money to suicide bombers' families as Saddam was.


I do not think the US would have any problems proving that Zimbabwe has a weapon of mass destruction :uhoh:
As most worldwide intelligence agencies at the time believed, as did most Dems and Chairman Rudd, a belief that Saddam himself was happy to bluff about with his games with weapons inspectors as if he had something to hide.

Southpaw Jim
30-06-2008, 01:39 PM
Oh wait, the Other Lefty can't think of anything better to do than harp on about this furphy.
Furphy?? The Caretaker Leader of the Opposition told us as much! :hand: :P

Capablanca-Fan
30-06-2008, 01:53 PM
Furphy?? The Caretaker Leader of the Opposition told us as much! :hand: :P
What would he know? The evidence is strongly against this lefty paranoid Bush/Howard Derangement Syndrome symptom.

Southpaw Jim
30-06-2008, 02:03 PM
Well he was the Minister for Defence when he said it! One would hope that our Minister of Defence would know why we went to war...

[/potstirring]

Capablanca-Fan
30-06-2008, 03:24 PM
Well he was the Minister for Defence when he said it! One would hope that our Minister of Defence would know why we went to war...
I'm not hopeful. I'm also not hopeful that you have represented him fairly. Both Howard and KRudd said it was indisputable that Saddam had WMDs, and Howard and Bush were most vocal that Saddam had to be removed because he was a butcher of his own people and a danger to the region.

Basil
30-06-2008, 03:59 PM
I dunno, the US seemed to see no problem in removing Saddam Hussein from power :whistle:
• Military action in Zimbabwe is a possibility.
• Military action has previously been used where oil wasn't concerned.
• The mere fact that oil existed in Iraq didn't make the Iraq action about oil.

I'd offer that if the world hadn't cringed so 'orribly at the prospect of removing Saddam by force (each nation refusing to oust Saddam on account of its own cringers and therefore taking a locally politically expedient position - The French for example; then military suggestion would be on the table.

What we now see is the global 'group think' paralysis reaction:
• Who wants to suggest military force?
• No one. We saw how governments were tossed by its people at that suggestion.
• What are we going to do? Any ideas?
• Sanctions? :wall: Oh yes, Mugabe'll really hate that (while he lives like a regal despot and his people suffer) :wall:
• Hmmm. Anyone want to suggest military action? <tap tap>

And so the cringers who yelled loudly against military action in Iraq now sit ashamed/ head in sand/ stunned/ paralysed/ confused ... whatever about how the planet can't do anything. Can you see Obama sending out the troops? Rudd?

Well done people. :clap: OK, that's enough intellectual chat. What are we doing for the weekend? Cricket? I know, let's have a BBQ and talk about the mess in Zimbabwe :wall:

Capablanca-Fan
30-06-2008, 04:10 PM
Indeed, the neo-Chamberlainite "anti-war" lefties have made the world safe for evil despots like Mugabe. Especially because he's black, and lefties all over the world have held blacks to lower standards.


War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. — John Stuart Mill

Axiom
30-06-2008, 04:20 PM
• Military action in Zimbabwe is a possibility.
• Military action has previously been used where oil wasn't concerned.
• The mere fact that oil existed didn't make the Iraq action about oil.

I'd offer that if the world hadn't cringed so 'orribly at the prospect of removing Saddam by force (each nation refusing to oust Saddam on account of its own cringers and therefore taking a locally politically expedient position - The French for example, the military suggestion would be on the table.

What we now see is the 'group think' paralysis global reaction:
• Who wants to suggest military force?
• No one. We saw how governments were tossed by its people at that suggestion.
• What are we going to do? Any ideas?
• Sanctions? :wall: Oh yes, Mugabe'll really hate that (while he lives like a regal despot and his people suffer) :wall:
• Hmmm. Anyone want to suggest military action? <tap tap>


i can almost hear that sung to the tune of "how do you solve a problem like maria (mugabe)" :cool:

i would suggest your answer lies somewhere behind the question "who and what powers are supporting mugabe ?" (as opposed to saddam in 2003)

it is who is in or out of the complex global power game/struggle that largely determine who is ousted and who is not . And valuable resources eg. oil are a well known significant component in deciding on military conflict.

Capablanca-Fan
01-07-2008, 01:31 AM
If only Mugabe were white (http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/29/opinion/edkristof.php)
By Nicholas D. Kristof
NYT 28 June 2008


Zimbabweans suffered so much for so many decades from white racism that the last thing they need is excuses for Mugabe's brutality because of his skin color.

Life expectancy in Zimbabwe has already dropped from the low 60s to the high 30s. It's true that he has created more trillionaires than any other country, but that's only because inflation may be as much as 10 million percent. Anyone with $90 is a trillionaire in Zimbabwean dollars, and buying a small loaf of bread costs 1 billion Zimbabwean dollars.

When I grew up in the 1970s, a central truth was that Ian Smith was evil and Mugabe heroic. So it was jolting on my last visit to Zimbabwe, in 2005, to see how many Zimbabweans looked back on oppressive white rule with nostalgia. They offered a refrain: "Back then, at least parents could feed their children."

....

If only Mugabe were a white racist! Then the regional powers might stand up to him. For the sake of Zimbabweans, we should be just as resolute in confronting African tyrants who are black as in confronting those who are white.

Axiom
01-07-2008, 01:49 AM
If only Mugabe were white (http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/29/opinion/edkristof.php)
By Nicholas D. Kristof
NYT 28 June 2008


Zimbabweans suffered so much for so many decades from white racism that the last thing they need is excuses for Mugabe's brutality because of his skin color.

Life expectancy in Zimbabwe has already dropped from the low 60s to the high 30s. It's true that he has created more trillionaires than any other country, but that's only because inflation may be as much as 10 million percent. Anyone with $90 is a trillionaire in Zimbabwean dollars, and buying a small loaf of bread costs 1 billion Zimbabwean dollars.

When I grew up in the 1970s, a central truth was that Ian Smith was evil and Mugabe heroic. So it was jolting on my last visit to Zimbabwe, in 2005, to see how many Zimbabweans looked back on oppressive white rule with nostalgia. They offered a refrain: "Back then, at least parents could feed their children."

....

If only Mugabe were a white racist! Then the regional powers might stand up to him. For the sake of Zimbabweans, we should be just as resolute in confronting African tyrants who are black as in confronting those who are white.
black tyrants make a great cover for white tyranny

Capablanca-Fan
02-07-2008, 11:31 AM
Well he was the Minister for Defence when he said it! One would hope that our Minister of Defence would know why we went to war...

[/potstirring]
Then check out his reasons when he replied to Chairman Rudd in parliament about his surrender withdrawal from Iraq; an extract is in Quadrant July–August. He points out that the Chairman was adamant that Saddam had WMDs and was capable of developing nuclear weapons, and Saddam was playing games with the weapons inspectors as though he had something to hide.

Dr Nelson also reminds us of Saddam's torturing 70,000 people a year over 15years, 5000 Kurds gassed in 1988, attempted genocide of Arabs in the southern marshes and the monstrous envoronmental vandalism of the draining of these marshes, the discovery of 260 mass graves with 300,000 bodies. And without the invasion, Libya wouldn't have 'fessed up to its own WMD program and A.Q. Khan's nuclear proliferation network would not have been discovered. Now the surge is winning against al Qaida in the Anbar province.

But this won't stop all the lefties' mantras, "No blood for oil", "Bush lied, kids died" and such crap.

Southpaw Jim
02-07-2008, 01:29 PM
All this may be perfectly true (but lets not forget that Rudd was dependant on what the Government of the day chose to tell him), but you're ignoring the fact that Nelson said that protection of oil interests was a factor. I didn't deny that WMD was thought to be a justification at the time, so you're really fishing for a different argument, using red herring as bait :hand:

And it's not a surrender, it's just a redeployment to areas of arguably greater tactical and strategic need in the "War on Terror"... Afghanistan's just a different theatre..

Capablanca-Fan
02-07-2008, 01:57 PM
All this may be perfectly true (but lets not forget that Rudd was dependant on what the Government of the day chose to tell him),
He had access to the intelligence, and was dogmatic that Saddam had WMDs and:


"has invaded his neighbours, in complete violation of international law, and he is in possession of weapons of mass destruction, which in the past he has used against his own people as well as his neighbours. None of these matters are the subject of dispute." — Kevin Rudd, Hansard, 17 September 2002.

"There is no debate or dispute as to whether Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. He does." — Kevin Rudd, Lateline, 24 September 2002.


but you're ignoring the fact that Nelson said that protection of oil interests was a factor.
If he said that, this was only one of many factors:


I didn't deny that WMD was thought to be a justification at the time, so you're really fishing for a different argument, using red herring as bait :hand:
I was pointing out that there were many reasons to invade Iraq:


"We’re talking about a regime that will gouge out the eyes of a child to force a confession from the child’s parents. This is a regime that will burn a person’s limbs in order to force a confession or compliance. This is a regime that in 2000 decreed the crime of criticising it would be punished by the amputation of tongues. Since Saddam Hussein’s regime came to power in 1979, he has attacked his neighbours and he’s ruthlessly oppressed ethnic and religious groups in Iraq — more than one million people have died in internal conflicts and wars. Some four million Iraqis have chosen exile. Two hundred thousand have disappeared from his jails never to be seen again. He has cruelly and cynically manipulated the United Nations oil-for-food programme. He’s rorted it to buy weapons to support his designs at the expense of the well-being of his people. Since the Gulf War the people of Iraq have not only endured a cruel and despotic regime but they’ve had to suffer economic deprivation, hunger and sickness.

And we should never forget that economic sanctions imposed have had a humanitarian cost. That cost has been made worse by Saddam Hussein’s rorting of the sanctions regime. Those sanctions could have been lifted years ago if Iraq had complied with the requirements of Security Council resolutions about disarmament.

It is too easy to limit, it’s too easy for some people to limit the humanitarian considerations to the consequences of military conflict. In truth there’s nothing easy or reassuring or comfortable about the problem of Iraq. Surely it is undeniable that if all the humanitarian considerations are put into the balance there is a very powerful case to the effect that the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime would produce a better life and less suffering for the people of Iraq than its continuation."
— John Howard, National Press Club address, 13 March 2003 — 7 days before the Iraq invasion.


And it's not a surrender, it's just a redeployment to areas of arguably greater tactical and strategic need in the "War on Terror"... Afghanistan's just a different theatre..
Of course it's surrender, and the terrorists will treat it as such, just as Osama was emboldened by Klinton's abject retreat from Somalia.

Ian Murray
31-07-2008, 10:35 AM
From next month Zimbabweans won't need such large pockets - http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/africa/07/30/zimbabwe.money.ap/index.html

At today's exchange rate, one Aussie dollar is woth ZWD 54,374,177,412

eclectic
31-07-2008, 11:29 AM
what would happen if bernacke were to do that?

would it help bail the usa out of its sub prime mess?

:confused:

:uhoh:

:P

Ian Murray
01-08-2008, 08:31 AM
what would happen if bernacke were to do that?

would it help bail the usa out of its sub prime mess?:P
Devaluing the greenback from one trillion to one could possibly make world markets a little twitchy

Igor_Goldenberg
01-08-2008, 10:42 AM
Devaluing the greenback from one trillion to one could possibly make world markets a little twitchy

And leave almost everyone penniless (or I should say cent-less), with, maybe, an exception of Warren Buffet, Bill Gates and few others who would have few cents left.:D

On the hand, US cent will be in a very high demand around the world.