PDA

View Full Version : Brutal crackdown in Zimbabwe


pseudobrit
Mar 24, 2003, 11:32 AM
So when do we invade to liberate the oppressed?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/2881093.stm

zimv20
Mar 24, 2003, 12:12 PM
sorry man, i don't think anyone's gonna bite.

Taft
Mar 24, 2003, 12:18 PM
If you can answer a single question with a 'yes', I'm sure our government will do something about it. This question is of the utmost importance in helping us decide what is right and what is wrong. What is evil and what is good. In fact, this question has become our country's litmus test for acting against foreign governments.

What is this question? You might be asking. Simple...

Does acting now serve our government's short term interests?

Its just that easy. If we can show that there is something in it for us, our government will move.

Can't come up with any valuable exports or strategic military positions? I'd say you're up crap-creek minus a paddle.

Sorry.

Taft

LethalWolfe
Mar 24, 2003, 12:19 PM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
So when do we invade to liberate the oppressed?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/2881093.stm


You could ask the same question to every other country on earth. We all remember how effectively the UN handled the genocide in Rwanada<sp?>...


And just for the record, I'm not in the "liberation is sole justification for war" camp so please don't label me a hypocrite. :)


Lethal

Kid Red
Mar 24, 2003, 12:37 PM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
So when do we invade to liberate the oppressed?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/2881093.stm

If they had oil, or something of national value to the US or they were white, we'd be doing something. That's the sad truth. At least with Cliton we helped a few black nations, but I wouldn't expect anything from Bush.

I can't believe modern nations allow that type of rule to go on no matter where it is taken place. Black or white, there are still humanitarian atrocities going on that need to be addressed. At least the US could arm the resistance like we've done in many other conflicts to make the fight fair.

pseudobrit
Mar 24, 2003, 12:49 PM
Originally posted by Kid Red
At least the US could arm the resistance like we've done in many other conflicts to make the fight fair.

Historically, we've armed the resistance before. But the resistance was military dictators.

The UN ignored Rwanda because nations in the Security Council (esp. the US) thought it would be bad for public opinion if we sent troops to die for impoverished third-world Africa.

Maybe they'll find oil in Zimbabwe tomorrow and we'll be launching an invasion next month.

macfan
Mar 24, 2003, 12:58 PM
This has been going on for a long time. It has been handled throught "diplomacy." The government has been using food aid as a political weapon. It would probably take 100 SAS troops 90 minutes to overthrow the government there.

zimv20
Mar 24, 2003, 01:01 PM
Originally posted by macfan
This has been going on for a long time. It has been handled throught "diplomacy." The government has been using food aid as a political weapon. It would probably take 100 SAS troops 90 minutes to overthrow the government there.

for a minute there i thought you were referring to the iraq situation.

NavyIntel007
Mar 24, 2003, 04:23 PM
Originally posted by Kid Red
If they had oil, or something of national value to the US or they were white, we'd be doing something. That's the sad truth. At least with Cliton we helped a few black nations, but I wouldn't expect anything from Bush.

I can't believe modern nations allow that type of rule to go on no matter where it is taken place. Black or white, there are still humanitarian atrocities going on that need to be addressed. At least the US could arm the resistance like we've done in many other conflicts to make the fight fair.

Don't they have diamonds?

skunk
Mar 24, 2003, 04:30 PM
Originally posted by NavyIntel007
Don't they have diamonds?
No:rolleyes:
Lots of tobacco, though. You know, that stuff they call "Virginia". :rolleyes:

LethalWolfe
Mar 24, 2003, 05:02 PM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
Historically, we've armed the resistance before. But the resistance was military dictators.

The UN ignored Rwanda because nations in the Security Council (esp. the US) thought it would be bad for public opinion if we sent troops to die for impoverished third-world Africa.

Maybe they'll find oil in Zimbabwe tomorrow and we'll be launching an invasion next month.


I thought you would be happy that the US isn't sending in the military sense you seem opposed to that sort of thing.

Anyway, the UN did send a small amount of troops, mostly Belgian IIRC, to Rwanda. Unfortunetly the restrictions placed on them by the UN (sense they were a "peace keeping" force) restricted them from using force unless they themselves were attacked. So all they could do was plead w/the UN for more help and watch the people they were sent to protect get slaughtered. Another glorious moment for the UN and the world community...



Lethal

jelloshotsrule
Mar 24, 2003, 05:34 PM
Originally posted by macfan
This has been going on for a long time. It has been handled throught "diplomacy." The government has been using food aid as a political weapon. It would probably take 100 SAS troops 90 minutes to overthrow the government there.

the diplomacy isn't working there. so why aren't we invading?

and if it'd be as easy as your expert analysis concludes, why not go for em?

mymemory
Mar 24, 2003, 08:21 PM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
So when do we invade to liberate the oppressed?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/2881093.stm

They have no oil.

mymemory
Mar 24, 2003, 08:27 PM
Originally posted by Kid Red
If they had oil,

Kid Red I didn't read your post, I just went directly to reply.

Do you know what is really sad?

People in my country swear that afre Husseing, Bush is comming for Chavez! Oh-my-God!!! I'm so embarased of being venezuelan some times. That is why I wnat to leave, people are so stupid around here, chavez will stay for a long time while people still so inmature politically speaking.