BF2S Forums So when are the US and TB gonna liberate Zimbabwe?

Kmarion wrote:

Your theories although different most of the time at least usually make sense to me, this is not one of them.

See post #19. I'm being sarcastic in the OP.

CameronPoe wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Your theories although different most of the time at least usually make sense to me, this is not one of them.

See post #19. I'm being sarcastic in the OP.

I missed it sorry, kinda figured.  You said to some extent. Do you think there should be any involvement of any other country then? Given your facts? If so who and what?

1) Suppression of all opposition to the incumbent political party: check
2) Human rights violations (such as demolishing the homes of 700,000 people most of whom support the opposing political party): check
3) Election tampering: check
4) Rampant inflation and dire dire poverty: check
5) Ruthlessly despotic leader: check
6) Intimidation of voters: check
7) Abysmal life expectancy (men - 37 yrs, women - 34 yrs): check
8) Censorship of the press (ranked 155 out of 167 for press freedom): check
9) Acquisition of privately owned land without payment of reparations: check

Last edited by Kmarion (2006-09-04 06:53:01)

Kmarion wrote:

I missed it sorry, kinda figured.  You said to some extent. Do you think there should be any involvement of any other country then? Given your facts? If so who and what?

1) Suppression of all opposition to the incumbent political party: check
2) Human rights violations (such as demolishing the homes of 700,000 people most of whom support the opposing political party): check
3) Election tampering: check
4) Rampant inflation and dire dire poverty: check
5) Ruthlessly despotic leader: check
6) Intimidation of voters: check
7) Abysmal life expectancy (men - 37 yrs, women - 34 yrs): check
8) Censorship of the press (ranked 155 out of 167 for press freedom): check
9) Acquisition of privately owned land without payment of reparations: check

I don't believe military intervention to bring about political regime change is generally wise or generally the right thing to do. I believe in humanitarian and financial assistance but to fight someone elses fight devalues their sense of 'possession' of a revolution and generally the intervention steers the newly reborn country in a direction of the interventionists choosing (which smacks of imperialism and is usually quite disgruntling to the 'liberated' folks). Political systems in countries evolve. Most western nations have fought all of their civil wars and have evolved to become relatively free and democratic nations. We weren't handed democracy or freedom by some 'benevolent' overseer and it didn't take 5-10 years. The blood, sweat and tears of our ancestors won it for us. We need to butt out of less developed nations so that they can evolve into nations of their own choosing, which may or may not have a similar culture or political system to our own. Sometimes bloodshed is necessary and sometimes you have to let various factions duke it out because it really is none of our business. We can't pretend to know what's 'right' for completely alien cultures. I say military intervention is best left for retaliation and/or responding to crystal clear and present threats of war.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2006-09-04 11:10:10)

aardfrith wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

haffeysucks wrote:

What's TB?  Tuberculosis?

Tony Blair. It's unfair to say 'UK' because the man is about as representative of the UK as Barbara Streisand. He's a one man party - a dictator so to speak.

So when's Dubya going to do something about that dictator?

He'll put him on the board of Halliburton. Luckily for Bush, David Cameron will probably fill TB's boots. *Despair*

CameronPoe wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

I missed it sorry, kinda figured.  You said to some extent. Do you think there should be any involvement of any other country then? Given your facts? If so who and what?

1) Suppression of all opposition to the incumbent political party: check
2) Human rights violations (such as demolishing the homes of 700,000 people most of whom support the opposing political party): check
3) Election tampering: check
4) Rampant inflation and dire dire poverty: check
5) Ruthlessly despotic leader: check
6) Intimidation of voters: check
7) Abysmal life expectancy (men - 37 yrs, women - 34 yrs): check
8) Censorship of the press (ranked 155 out of 167 for press freedom): check
9) Acquisition of privately owned land without payment of reparations: check

I don't believe military intervention to bring about political regime change is generally wise or generally the right thing to do. I believe in humanitarian and financial assistance but to fight someone elses fight devalues their sense of 'possession' of a revolution and generally the intervention steers the newly reborn country in a direction of the interventionists choosing (which smacks of imperialism and is usually quite disgruntling to the 'liberated' folks). Political systems in countries evolve. Most western nations have fought all of their civil wars and have evolved to become relatively free and democratic nations. We weren't handed democracy or freedom by some 'benevolent' overseer and it didn't take 5-10 years. The blood, sweat and tears of our ancestors won it for us. We need to butt out of less developed nations so that they can evolve into nations of their own choosing, which may or may not have a similar culture or political system of our own. Sometimes bloodshed is necessary and sometimes you have to let various factions duke it out because it really is none of our business. We can't pretend to know what's 'right' for completely alien cultures. I say military intervention is best left for retaliation and/or responding to crystal clear and present threats of war.

I agree to some point , but when you say sometimes bloodshed is neccasary I have to disagree when it comes to the mass murder of innocents. I do find it odd for you to say how it's ok to send money and but we should butt out. Your stance is that other nations were fine without the assitance of others before, so how is this different with regards to humanitarian and financial assistance now ?

Last edited by Kmarion (2006-09-04 09:00:23)

CameronPoe wrote:

Zimbabwe:

1) Suppression of all opposition to the incumbent political party: check
2) Human rights violations (such as demolishing the homes of 700,000 people most of whom support the opposing political party): check
3) Election tampering: check
4) Rampant inflation and dire dire poverty: check
5) Ruthlessly despotic leader: check
6) Intimidation of voters: check
7) Abysmal life expectancy (men - 37 yrs, women - 34 yrs): check
8) Censorship of the press (ranked 155 out of 167 for press freedom): check
9) Acquisition of privately owned land without payment of reparations: check

So when are the troops heading out there? Would it help if the zimbabweans stuck headscarves on?

10) Oil?  None, why bother then?

wow some people her should go into politics themselves :rolleyes to CameronPoe:

[being sarcastic]

CameronPoe wrote:

haffeysucks wrote:

What's TB?  Tuberculosis?

Tony Blair. It's unfair to say 'UK' because the man is about as representative of the UK as Barbara Streisand. He's a one man party - a dictator so to speak.

Forget the rest of the debate, your right there about that grinning idiot, has done a good job or wrecking this country!!

AAFCptKabbom wrote:

Tony Blair. It's unfair to say 'UK' because the man is about as representative of the UK as Barbara Streisand. He's a one man party - a dictator so to speak.

Kmarion who makes money from high oil prices? Texans with oil wells? Corporations like Exxon and BP? Peronsally I think it was only partly to do with control of resources. Mainly I think it was Israeli-driven.

Yes, usually those areas that have great mineral wealth or oil resources or pose a threat to the terrorist state of Israel.

Damn Cameronpooh - I'm noticing a pattern!  No!, not the obvious anti-semitic prejudice. 
I read a lot of your post, since everyone needs to be open minded and the fact you have a lot to say, and I have a question - Is there anyone or anything you like {other than yourself and your own views}?

LOL. I like cheese. And sometimes pie.

Rhodesia had been doomed since the Unilateral Declaration of Independence. The British and UN enforced embargo hampered efforts during the Bush War, but it still could have pulled through - were it not for the South Africans dropping her like a hot plate. It's a sad story, but in the end ZANU, and Mugabe came out on top. It was clear back then that he was an evil bastard, he hasn't had a sudden change in personality. To put things in perspective, Rhodesia used to be the bread basket of Africa, now it doesn't have enough bread to feed it's own people. This change has come about since Mugabe has been in power, and every competant Rhodesian was forced out of the country.

It's too late for Zimbabwe - Rhodesia was the success story, but it suited the global community to fuck it over at the time. Mugabe will be deposed eventually, but will most likely be replaced by someone equally despotic.