What's to be done with Zimbabwe?

[Princhester]

@mswas

Mugabe needs to be assassinated.

Won’t make any difference. See this story. Zimbabwe is fucked. Once the military start thinking of themselves as part of the executive government instead of a tool of the executive government, they will not give up the power they have discovered they can wield.

If Mugabe is assassinated tomorrow there is no way in the world the military behind Mugabe will just say: “Oh well, now we’ll hold some free and fair elections and stand behind whoever is elected, even if they are not our man”.

The genie is out of the bottle.

[brazil84]

@MrDibble

14 years after the transition to democracy. Do you see how there’s a difference between that and the middle of a bloody civil war?

Not an important difference, no.

[MrDibble]

@brazil84

Not an important difference, no.

Why not? One is optimism for an uncertain future expressed by a majority elite, not based on experience, the other is based on years of experience with a plural nonracial democracy. If you can’t tell that the differences are important, well, what can I say? You’re not here, you’re hardly qualified to judge.

[brazil84]

@MrDibble

You’re not here, you’re hardly qualified to judge.

That’s correct, I’m not in South Africa. I’m not an old man, but I’ve heard “This Time It’s Different” enough times in my life to be a skeptic.

[Quartz]

@MrDibble

What does that tell you? To me, it says some whites just don’t like black majority rule. There’s a word for that…

It tells me that they were sufficiently foresighted to see where Zimbabwe was going.

I do hope that South Africa doesn’t turn into another Zimbabwe, but I expect and fear that it will.

[Rodgers01]

@MrDibble

No worse than a coke-snorting, AWOL,business-into-ground-running, war-starting, in-bed-with-Big-Business plutocrat.

Mmmmm, much as I dislike George Bush and hate many of the things he’s done to my country, if I had to choose between what I knew of him before he became president and what I know of Zuma in these months before HE becomes president, I may well have been a Bush voter. Zuma may turn out to be a far better president, but based on the early warning signs he looks like a disaster. Though again, this is with the caveat that I’m not a South African – maybe things just don’t look as alarming down there.

[grimpixie]

@Quartz

I do hope that South Africa doesn’t turn into another Zimbabwe, but I expect and fear that it will.

Now if only we could make everyone think like that, we could be certain that it would happen!! Investors would take their money elsewhere, less jobs would be created, unemployment would rise and people would be forced to turn to crime!! A vicious cycle ensuring civil unrest and instability…

[smiling_bandit]

@DangleYourModifier

You are right. No country is immune. And yes South Africa is certainly closer than many countries. My point was simply that Zim and many other African countries were teetering on the brink of anarchy all along, despite the “good” reports about their “success”. In many cases most of the country never really progressed much beyond rural subsistence farming. In other words their was little to begin with and not much needed to break it down to nothing. In SA there is much more development, more of a functioning socio-economic system, and therefore the road to travel to complete anarchy is longer and less likely.

It’s likely to take longer if it comnes to that. But all countries go up in flames… eventually.

[MrDibble]

@Quartz

It tells me that they were sufficiently foresighted to see where Zimbabwe was going.

In the 80s? 20 years ago? That’s a lot of foresight, I should get them to do my stocks for me.

Personally, I think it’s because they were racists who couldn’t handle being top dog anymore. Once UDI failed and they also lost the Bush War, they tucked tail and ran.

[MrDibble]

@Rodgers01

Mmmmm, much as I dislike George Bush and hate many of the things he’s done to my country, if I had to choose between what I knew of him before he became president and what I know of Zuma in these months before HE becomes president, I may well have been a Bush voter.

That’s my point - you really can’t tell until someone’s actually doing the job.

@Rodgers01

Zuma may turn out to be a far better president, but based on the early warning signs he looks like a disaster. Though again, this is with the caveat that I’m not a South African – maybe things just don’t look as alarming down there.

I think he’ll be a little corrupt, but on a small scale because there are enough checks and balances in the South African system to stop him turning dictator. The 3-way coalition that runs the country isn’t a comfortable one, and if it were to split, the ANC might not have its easy majority anymore.

I also think Zuma will luck into having a competent enough Cabinet that the country will keep ticking over pretty much as it has been doing. But we’ll see. I’m certainly not going to run around like Chicken Little until things actually are bad. Plus, you know, I’m in Cape Town, it’s like another country down here…

[ralph124c]

…for the future of Zimbabwe. Wrecked roads, wrecked railroads, wrecked infrastructure…and ex-dictators living it up in Monaco and Switzerland!

[BrainGlutton]

@smiling bandit

It’s likely to take longer if it comnes to that. But all countries go up in flames… eventually.

Still, a country can go up in flames, survive, and rise from the ashes. China has done so many times over the centuries.

[smiling_bandit]

@BrainGlutton

Still, a country can go up in flames, survive, and rise from the ashes. China has done so many times over the centuries.

And that’s the question. How long until a nation does so, how destructive will it be, and what will rise from the ashes?

[BrainGlutton]

@BrainGlutton

No, but seeing David Horowitz’ name associated with anything usually does.

Seriously, Quartz. I’m not saying conservatives never deserve to be listened to. But on the credibility scale, David Horowitz is much nearer to Lyndon LaRouche than to George Will, and I can’t imagine why anyone would seriously link to anything published by Horowitz or under Horowitz’ imprimatur in a GD post. What in Og’s name were you thinking?!

[Martini_Enfield]

@MrDibble

Boy, 1994 must have sucked for them. Out of the frying pan… In fact, I wonder how many of the current “South Africans” fleeing SA used to be from Zim?

Quite a few, IME. When I get people coming into work with what sounds like a South African accent, I ask them if they’re from South Africa or Rhodesia.

You should see their faces light up at the mention of Rhodesia- people ask if I’ve been there, they’re impressed that I used the country’s “Correct” name, etc. From a sales point of view it adds to increased sales, but it’s also interesting from a personal observation point of view as well.

[Quartz]

@BrainGlutton

Seriously, Quartz. I’m not saying conservatives never deserve to be listened to. But on the credibility scale, David Horowitz is much nearer to Lyndon LaRouche than to George Will, and I can’t imagine why anyone would seriously link to anything published by Horowitz or under Horowitz’ imprimatur in a GD post. What in Og’s name were you thinking?!

I’m going to bite on this, though I probably shouldn’t.

Since when should you control what I read? I live in a free country, as do you. I try to read as many differing sources as I can. Right wing, left wing, whatever. You’re showing the intolerance of the Soviets.

And if the worst you can do is criticise the source, then you can obviously find no fault with the article itself.

[BrainGlutton]

@Quartz

Since when should you control what I read? I live in a free country, as do you. I try to read as many differing sources as I can. Right wing, left wing, whatever. You’re showing the intolerance of the Soviets.

And if the worst you can do is criticise the source, then you can obviously find no fault with the article itself.

I’m controlling nothing. I sometimes read Lyndon LaRouche’s stuff myself, and Hugh Hewitt’s, and I lurk on Stormfront and Free Republic. But if you tried to use any of those sources as cites here, cites in support of an argument, as distinct from instances of things to cringe at or laugh at, I would shoot you down, and any cite to David Horowitz deserves the same; as does that other site you linked, “The Other Side.”

[Rodgers01]

This shocked me. I knew things were bad in Zimbabwe, but until now most of what I’d heard about were beatings and arrests. Maybe I haven’t been following the situation closely enough…

[BrainGlutton]

@Rodgers01

This shocked me. I knew things were bad in Zimbabwe, but until now most of what I’d heard about were beatings and arrests. Maybe I haven’t been following the situation closely enough…

Not that this excuses him, but as Princhester noted in post #61, all this now appears to have passed out of Mugabe’s control. The dicatorship is now institutional, specifically a military kleptocracy, and Myanmar/Burma shows us how difficult that sort of thing can be to dislodge.

[Xema]

@BrainGlutton

But if you tried to use any of those sources as cites here, cites in support of an argument, as distinct from instances of things to cringe at or laugh at, I would shoot you down, and any cite to David Horowitz deserves the same

Perhaps when you’ve tired of bleating about the source, you might put yourself to the trouble of saying what you find wrong about the linked article. Is your refusal to do so not the antithesis of debate?