View Full Version : Regime Change:Zimbabwe
j.guevara
25th August 2004, 18:55
Recently I read about US plans to oust Mugabe. I don't know much about Zimbabwe or Mugabe. Could someone fill me in??
Pete
26th August 2004, 07:27
I don't think it matters so long as the colonial boundries are still in place.
Funky Monk
26th August 2004, 07:39
Can't really see a reason for the US to do it.
Guerrilla22
26th August 2004, 07:43
Nah, there's no oil in Zimbabwae and on top of that, after that whole Somalia debacle, I think the US is done fucking around in Africa.
RED CHARO
26th August 2004, 12:27
Mugabe is nothing but a fascist!
Mugabe was the leader of two socialist factions that fought against the white ruled apartheid state of Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe). He has ruled the country since 1980 and made no head way towards socialism or land reform, untill a couple of years ago, when the opposition made gains against him. He then turned to nationalism and has turned the people (especialy the youth) into his private army of hate (sorry I didn't know how to express it better)!
I'm a great supporter of socialist alliened governments in Africa, but Mugabe's reign of nationalist terror is atrocious and I don't support him in any way!
As for U.S intervention, I've haven't heard of it!
James
26th August 2004, 12:39
It seems that the extent of british intervention is official wrist slapping, and the occasional working behind enemy lines.
US... i imagine they probably have some form of trade "punishment", but thats about it. Oh and i think a while back they seized some off shore money or something. Although this was a while back.
Zimbabwe NEEDS international intervention. The guy is a bloody dictator. His tactic at election time is to hord up all the food, to act as an incentive for the voters.
h&s
26th August 2004, 12:57
The place does need sorting out, but not through imperialism. A western intervention in Zimbabwe would be no different to the Iraq war, only without the oil, so I doubt it will ever happen.
j.guevara
26th August 2004, 13:49
The Independent of London is reporting that the United States has called for the building of a "coalition of the willing" to push for regime change to end Robert Mugabe's presidency in Zimbabwe. The new U.S. ambassador to South Africa -- Jendayi Frazer -- said the US couldn't diplomatically act on its own but would join a coalition of other countries. The ambassador, who is considered to be a protégée of Condoleeza Rice, said, "We have got to re-look at the approach, that South Africa is taking in terms of quiet diplomacy ... It's not evident that it's working at this point.''
Guerrilla22
27th August 2004, 05:16
The US calls for regime change for all sorts of countries and never does anything about it. I don't think Zimbabwae is too high on their to do list.
Zapata
8th September 2005, 02:56
mugabe should be ousted simply because he blames economic failures on the poor people livign in the shanty-towns outside Harare. bulldozing all of their homes and shops and displacing thousnads will do nothing but hurt. still, he wont be ousted because, after all, zimbabwe aint got no oil
TheReadMenace
8th September 2005, 03:10
He needs to be ousted, but at the same time, if the US or some other imperialist country performs a regime change, that will require occupation for an indefinite period.
It's a catch-22.
andrew
Nothing Human Is Alien
8th September 2005, 03:27
No catch 22 involved. Fuck imperialism. Fuck imperialists interfering in the internal issues of sovereign nations.
Can't really see a reason for the US to do it.
"When Mugabe became prime minister, approximately 70% of the country's arable land was owned by approximately 4,000 descendants of white settlers. Mugabe used force to transfer land ownership from whites to blacks."
"On March 9, 2003, United States President George W. Bush approved measures for economic sanctions to be leveled against Mugabe and numerous other high-ranking Zimbabwe politicians, freezing their assets and barring Americans from engaging in any transactions or dealings with them. Justifying the move, Bush's spokesman stated the President and Congress believe that "the situation in Zimbabwe endangers the southern African region and threatens to undermine efforts to foster good governance and respect for the rule of law throughout the continent". The bill was known as the "Zimbabwe Democracy Act."
TheReadMenace
8th September 2005, 03:32
So Bush is just weakening the guy?
Zapata
9th September 2005, 19:08
mugabe had the right general idea in ousting the descendants of white settlers and giving the land to the native africans. just one problem: no one taught the new landlords how to farm. now zimbabwe, one the region's breadbasket, is facing food shortages. nationalizing land or giving it to its deserved owners is a good idea, bu it can't just be done all at once without planning and teaching the new african landowners how to actually farm. and this is on top of mugabe destroying the homes of the exremely poor outside harare. the united states, or any other nation for that matter, has no justification to invade zimbabwe, but something has to be done about Robert Mugabe.
viva le revolution
9th September 2005, 19:19
'teach africans how to farm'???
who do you think was tilling the land for the white parasitic settlers?
This whole bullshit involving Mugabe is just because he had the audacity to kick off white landowners! God forbid anybody should touch a white man's property!
Zimbabwe is now in a transitional state with major reorganizing taking place. You can't honestly expect utopia at the next moment. Especially one so exploited by the grace of europe. I have faith in Mugabe for his policies and believe that, yes land re-distribution is a neccessity in africa.
Zapata
9th September 2005, 19:46
the sad thing was that the africans were forced to proletarian type labor under white farm landowners, ie physically tilling the soil, planting the seeds, etc. but they were never taught how to manage farms. they simply did what they were told to by the white landowners. putting the land back into african hands is an excellent idea, but one cannot simply do it without planning ahead. nationalizing the farms would have worked too. but in any case, zimbabwe does not have enough food now, and that is a problem regardless of perspective. mugabe is a problem not just because of this farming issue, but also because of his 'realization' that the country's economic woes are thanks to the homeless living in self-built aluminum shanties. destroying them doesn't really help the nation's poor.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2020 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.