My last post was aimed at Argent Towers, in case anyone’s confused.
Well, your presumption is wrong. There’s nothing jokey about the sentence, though it is a response to a rather far-fetched hypothetical. I read the OP as “you just ventilated Mugabe”, as in, me, personally, has suddenly seized power in Zimbabwe by whatever means and executed its current president.
Sure, maybe I could accomplish my goals without having to eliminate too many people, perhaps with house arrests or forced exiles. In any case, it’ll be necessary to break up Mugabe’s corrupt inner circle. and seize back whatever assets he gave them to keep them loyal, including all the expropriated farms.
It’s certainly the most important point, on the basis that people who can eat are less inclined to violence. Secondary steps will be to establish agricultural schools and universities, for which outside aid will, I’m sure, be necessary. For a time, many of these imported experts will very likely be white, but that can’t be helped. In any case, rebuilding educational and industrial centers and promoting from within will be paramount. Education and birth control for women will be part of this.
Fine, pick whatever time period you like. There have been references in this thread to times where Zimbabwe was a net food exporter and its currency was strong. That’s my goal. I have no illusions there was ever a utopic period in Zimbabwe’s history.
Then we reset it to some degree and transition in a different direction.
Look, if you don’t like my approach, feel free to suggest one of your own. If you’d rather just call me arrogant, well, have fun with that.
Where in this thread has anyone expressed such nostalgia?
Well referring to it as an ‘oasis’ gets me goat, and Argent’s theory that everything was fine until the colonials left was another slight niggle.
But you seem not entirely unreasonable, despite the penchant for executions and foreign intervention. So, deep breath:
Good goal. But the times you refer to came with a price. There must be another way of achieving these goals without going down the same road. Good currency and farm under white rule does not mean white rule good.
As to myself I have more hopes than ideas, but I refer you to one of my first posts. A government of national unity including the MDC and those who still are reasonable in ZANU PF seems the best way forward.
OK, then leave Mugabe where he is and THEN do nothing. The result would be what? Murders, rapes, arson, theft, starvation, disease, different completely from the murders, rapes, arson, theft, starvation and disease that they’re suffering from now.
The solution is five times the size of the problem and almost twice as violent in the short term. You’ve got to not only eliminate Mugabe and his supporters completely and publicly, but you’ve got to pour HUGE amounts of resources into the region, not the least of which being military. You’re going to have to kill a LOT of people. You’re going to have to build and rebuild a LOT of infrastructure and you’re going to have to re-establish supply lines for the region for food, water, clothing and other items necessary for even the simplest daily living, not to mention building supplies. Rebuilding Africa is going to be an ugly business that takes it’s toll on the world, but simply tossing dollar after dollar into an empty pit of need eventually becomes meaningless.
You can talk all you want about soft-handed pseudo-fixes, but unless you can take control of the country, its’ resources, people and land, and get it started on a guiding path toward prosperity, nothing will ever change.
What does calling it a “food-exporting oasis of relative stability” get? A sheep?
As I read it, Argent’s stance is that white-run stability is better that black-run chaos. Personally, I’d prefer constitutional republic-run, with race being irrelevant, but if I need a violent transitional period to get there, so be it.
I don’t give a fuck about white rule. I propose a decade of Bryan-rule, after which self-rule become the, heh, rule, under a constitution and strong court system with checks and balances and such.
Sure, reasonable people are useful. The current political parties might have to be trashed, though, or whatever parts of them are held together by violence and tribalism rather than shared political goals under rule of law.
Maj. Strasser: What is your nationality?
Richard Blaine: I’m a drunkard.
Capt. Renault: That makes Rick a citizen of the world.
Stranger
Blinkers?
And as I read it that’s a stupid stance. Once again, it was not a stable country under white rule.
Those violent transitional periods can be real buggers.
Count me out then.
You think?
Do you actually know anything about political and tribal affiliation in Zimbabwe?
Well, if I’m ever in a position to depose Mugabe, I promise to visit a library first.
American foreign policy summarized in a single sentence. “Hey, did you bring the Cliff Notes History of Southeast Asia? Why are these guys fighting each other again? Will bombing them back into the Stone Age help?”
Stranger
I don’t think anyone’s said they were. They were for a while in the 80s, everyone was. Now, not so much. So why skip over the intervening years and regress to the Civil War period?
I don’t know about “massacred” - there’ve been some killings, but a heck of a lot more beatings. It’s not Rwanda or Darfur.
No-one’s deliberately being poisoned with anthrax, rat poison or cholera?
Straw Man arguments win you nothing.
How about you rebutt the cited facts that life under Smith was absolutely nothing like you claimed it was. Rhodesia was not an economic success and people were being massacred in the streets.
I’m Canadian, actually. We like to respond to silliness with sarcasm.
MrDibble, I’m not saying Rhodesia was a perfect country but seriously - you really think it was not an “economic success” compared with a place where they have to issue one-billion-dollar bank notes? And our new guest said he was tired of the myth that Rhodesia was some kind of perfect place where everyone was happy and rich. Well, for God’s sake, people, I’m not saying that it was. The place had problems. The biological warfare thing (if it’s true) is some sick shit - but America gave the Indians diseases on purpose, and had slaves, and did a lot of other horrible things too, and guess what - I still would rather live in America than Zimbabwe. Or anywhere else on the planet, for that matter.
I’m not saying that Ian Smith’s government was perfect. What I am saying is that it is definitely an improvement over Mugabe’s “government.” I put that word in quotes because it doesn’t deserve to be considered a legitimate government - it’s more of a pack of rabid wolves. Anyone arguing that Rhodesia was somehow worse overall than Zimbabwe is at the moment, is clutching at straws or delusional.
This page would be of interest to everyone here. Captain David Scott-Donelan of Rhodesia says,
Think about that. This is the most elite unit in the Rhodesian army and it’s 90 percent black. Why weren’t those blacks running off and joining the black “liberation armies” (which were completely backed by communist regimes and which operated on communist terrorist philosophy.) According to Wikipedia the draft in Rhodesia only applied to white males during the Bush War, yet the army was 90 percent black. Think about that. If the place was so oppressive, why did those blacks put their lives on the line for it? They weren’t being forced to.
What does this mean?
Ummm, quoting a mercenary who used to work for the apartheid South African SAS might not help your argument so much.
You really don’t know what you are talking about. The Selous Scouts were one of the few (possibly the only?) integrated forces in the Rhodesian army. They numbered only about 1500 men and recruited their black troops from captured guerrillas who were given a choice of prison / execution or joining up.
Yeah mate, I’m British and we do the same.
This reminded me of how the publishers Bradt got a massive order from the US government of this book in early 2003. They do a guide to Iran as well . . .
Finally Sitnam, Bob and Morgan meeting finally is a first step only, but is excellent news. Hopefully the sides can be shoehorned into a national unity government and the country can start on the (long) road to recovery.
First sentence, fair enough. Second sentence?!
Zimbabwe is in a terrible crisis. But it’s not the worst place in the world. Get some perspective. Or at least some knowledge.
No no, what I meant is I would rather live in America than in any other place on the planet.
I would certainly rather live in Zimbabwe, as bad as it is, than, say, Darfur.
Ah, ah! Sorry for that one then.
No, that’s* your* straw man. *I’m *saying it was not an economic success compared to a well-run country.
So why would you want to regress to *that *state, rather than trying something different?
:rolleyes: You have a cite that says different to mine?
I’d rather live in Zimbabwe today than the America that slaughtered Indians and kept slaves. But then, I’m not White. :dubious:
No, but you are saying it is an ideal to be returned to.
“Lesser of Two Evils” is a variant of the false dilemma fallacy. It’s bad logic, plain and simple.
Still with the strawman, even when its been pointed out to you? No-one’s saying Zimbabwe isn’t in a bad way. We just disagree that regression to UDI Rhodesia is a viable alternative, and we disagree with (and have shown to be false) your rosy picture of life under the Ian Smith regime. Cites which you have completely failed to address or rebutt, BTW.
Quislings and collaborators and misguided fools and profiteers and cowed people and the ignorant and plain 'ornery folk have always been on the wrong side of any conflict. There were Blacks in the South African Special Forces too, and it wasn’t just Whites turning in escaped slaves in the South, I’m sure. The expression “house nigger” didn’t originate in Africa.
And you use the word “communist” like its some sort of rhetorical trump card. And they weren’t “terrorists”, they were freedom fighters. Reason being, they won. 
Takes its toll on the world? No kidding. Just for Zimbabwe you’re probably going to need 60,000-100,000 troops for at least the first few years, tens of thousands on an ongoing basis. Thousands more engineers, judges, police, doctors and whatever. Billions and billions of cash. Or, to put it another way, if the EU countries were to walk away from all their military comittments in the Balkans, Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere then MAYBE they could assemble enough resources to take on a project like Zimbabwe. Or perhaps the US could pull 50% or more of its troops out of Iraq and send them. Which would you prioritise? Zimbabwe, Afghanistan or Iraq? As for ‘rebuilding’ the whole of Africa - the mind boggles. The US, EU, Chinese and Russians together might be able to recolonise the continent, but it would be stretch.
The status quo is certainly not better than some ideal ‘solution’ - the problem is that there is absolutely no alternative solution to impose. The only countries who give a shit about Zim or the rest of Africa are utterly bogged down in the GWOT or are too poor to look after their own people, never mind their neighbours. I suppose the Chinese or the Russians might be able to pull together enough forces to stabilise the country, but why would they bother getting involved in a mess like that when they can just buy whatever they want from Mugabe for peanuts?
So you’re left with a choice of:[ul]
[li]Leaving the shitty situation as it is and hoping for the best[/li][li]Whacking Mugabe and almost certainly toppling the country into anarchy and civil war, with no-one on hand to pick up the pieces[/ul] [/li]That’s not a great set of choices, but the second looks worse. I haven’t included The Magical Empire Pixies From The Past because I am not aware of anyone discovering a portal to the parallel universe from which they could intervene.