Can someone please invade Zimbabwe? - Page 2

Sikander · March 24, 2003, 22:40

Quote:

Originally posted by CerberusIV
No oil = no invasion. It is not politically correct to invade a country just to secure a safe supply of tobacco.

That depends on how long the pc philosopher has been out of smokes!

Ted Striker · March 24, 2003, 22:43

Or copper either!

Drake Tungsten · March 24, 2003, 22:44

Quote:

No blood for oil, meat, nitrates, coffee, chocolate, fruit, or tobacco!!!

Damn straight, especially the nitrates!

molly bloom · March 24, 2003, 22:49

While we're at it, how about invading West Papua?

http://www.newint.org/issue344/madness.htm

Spiffor · March 24, 2003, 23:01

West Papua seems to be a very lovely place too

While we're accounting for horrors worldwide, does anybody know if the madness in Liberia continues ?

molly bloom · March 24, 2003, 23:07

Quote:

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Why don't you Euros take care of it...

The way the Yanquis took care of Liberia?

http://www.hrw.org/wr2k1/africa/liberia.html

Ted Striker · March 24, 2003, 23:20

Excluding Liberia, Eurocoms should be directly responsible for taking care of Africa.

Drake Tungsten · March 24, 2003, 23:22

Quote:

Excluding Liberia, Eurocoms should be directly responsible for taking care of Africa.

That's being pretty cruel to Africans, isn't it?

Spiffor · March 24, 2003, 23:23

Ted Striker :
In case of Africa, you don't talk about Eurocoms, but Euroimperialists.

Ted Striker · March 24, 2003, 23:25

[robot voice]

I am not familiar with your terminology.

Ready.

[/robot voice]

Carver · March 25, 2003, 00:13

Quote:

Originally posted by Gangerolf
I know it's not PC to say so, but history has shown pretty well
that Zimbabwe was a happier place when it was Rhodesia.

Only if you were a white Boer or Briton. This crisis has been directly precipitated by the United Kingdom's failure to honor its obligations under the Lancaster House agreement.

The UK agreed to fund a land redistribution program to help return some of the land stolen by whites to the black majority. They have failed to do so. The Zimbabwean government has now proceeded with land reform without British cooperation. White resistance has resulted in a program that is less orderly than desired. The government has certainly committed abuses, but the land issue remains Zimbabwe's central problem.

Do you really think, Gangerolf, that the blacks were happier having their property stolen and their women raped by whites under Rhodesia? ...When whites could kill, maim, or humiliate blacks at will, without punishment?

Only a white vuck off like yourself would say that.

Ted Striker · March 25, 2003, 00:15

Rhodesia is one of the worst of the worst.

No blood for diamonds. (Not joking - literally).

molly bloom · March 25, 2003, 01:28

Quote:

Originally posted by Ted Striker
Rhodesia is one of the worst of the worst.

No blood for diamonds. (Not joking - literally).

No, Zimbabwe isn't. For the luxury equipped basket case model state one has to travel to Angola, Zaire, Liberia, Rwanda or Burundi. Or formerly, Uganda. Or southern Sudan. There are far worse places than Zimbabwe, but that being said it doesn't mitigate Mugabe's dictatorship, or stifling of political dissent.

http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news/brief...abwe0600.shtml

Even so, the Amnesty report reads just like the ones I used to read on Central and South American dictatorships- Somoza, Duvalier, Trujillo, Pinochet. How come they could flourish next to the land of lady liberty?

Ted Striker · March 25, 2003, 01:32

I'm talking back when it was Rhodesia, wannabe Eurocom.

Africa as a whole is much worse off than South America, and just coincidentally wholly and DIRECTLY ruled by Eurocoms for most of this century.

Oh, and by the way, the Spanish footprint has a bigger impact in South America than the American one.

Spiffor · March 25, 2003, 01:41

I told you there are no Eurocoms in Africa, only Euroimperialists

molly bloom · March 25, 2003, 01:44

Quote:

Originally posted by Ted Striker
I'm talking back when it was Rhodesia, wannabe Eurocom.

Africa as a whole is much worse off than South America, and just coincidentally wholly and DIRECTLY ruled by Eurocoms for most of this century.

You are incorrect. Liberia was America's disaster. Ethiopia was independent for much of the century.

And cut the name calling, it's petty. Besides which- are you seriously suggesting America did a great job with its empire? The Philippines? Cuba?

It is to larf, really.

Ted Striker · March 25, 2003, 01:49

Liberia is the ONLY place with American involvement. That's a scratch on a much larger surface of a European created disaster.

Look at the damn maps. You will see Brit German Italian French Belgian colors splattered all over the entire continent.

Imran Siddiqui · March 25, 2003, 01:52

Quote:

Besides which- are you seriously suggesting America did a great job with its empire? The Philippines? Cuba?

Puerto Rico looks pretty good. As do all the Western States (including Alaska and Hawaii), as well as Wake and Guam and American Samoa. You expect every place in an empire to turn up roses?

And the Philippines was the ONLY colony in history where the indigenous people could gain positions of power and have authority over people from the colonizing country. The Phillipine head of engineering in the 1920s was a Filipino, who gave orders to white Americans. That's a hell of statement compared to what happened in other empires.

chequita guevara · March 25, 2003, 01:56

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

Besides which- are you seriously suggesting America did a great job with its empire? The Philippines? Cuba?

Puerto Rico looks pretty good.

Compared to what? The only places in the US poorer than Puerto Rico are the Indian reservations that don't have casinos.

Ted Striker · March 25, 2003, 01:56

Look, the point here is that Eurcom should be the one to clean up the African disaster:

Imran Siddiqui · March 25, 2003, 01:59

Quote:

Compared to what?

Ever been to parts of the former British Empire before? Or any other former colony?

chequita guevara · March 25, 2003, 02:00

Do you think you're being profound?

Anyway, given the support the US has given to anti-democratic movements and dictators there in the last half century, we've got our own fair share of mess to clean up.

chequita guevara · March 25, 2003, 02:00

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

Compared to what?

Ever been to parts of the former British Empire before? Or any other former colony?

Does Canada count?

molly bloom · March 25, 2003, 02:02

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

Compared to what?

Ever been to parts of the former British Empire before? Or any other former colony?

You mean like Singapore? Australia? New Zealand? Kuwait? Canada?

Felch · March 25, 2003, 02:02

Quote:

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Compared to what? The only places in the US poorer than Puerto Rico are the Indian reservations that don't have casinos.

Compared to the rest of Latin America. If Puerto Rico were independent it would be the wealthiest nation in Latin America, and I believe, the third wealthiest in the Americas.

Ted Striker · March 25, 2003, 02:02

Okay former British colonies that don't have a majority of British descended people.

Ted Striker · March 25, 2003, 02:02

AKA WHITE PEOPLE

Ted Striker · March 25, 2003, 02:04

Quote:

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Do you think you're being profound?

Anyway, given the support the US has given to anti-democratic movements and dictators there in the last half century, we've got our own fair share of mess to clean up.

I don't deny that.

But this thread is about Africa.

Imran Siddiqui · March 25, 2003, 02:06

Quote:

Does Canada count?

No, it's a settler colony. It is not comparable to the US 'empire' (as long as you don't count 'the West US' as part of it)

Quote:

You mean like Singapore? Australia? New Zealand? Kuwait? Canada?

Take out all the places that were settler colonies (ie, British moved in), and see what they did to the natives.

I'd MUCH rather be in Puerto Rico than India, Kuwait, Pakistan, etc.

Spiffor · March 25, 2003, 02:08

I agree with Ted.
A good part of the African disaster is directly due to Europe's sheer incompetence or unwillingness to improve the situation.
France has played an especially important role, by keeping its postcolonial influence pretty everywhere in the French-speaking countries (including Zaïre and Rwanda), and tries to expand its influence in other countries by being buddy-buddy with every tinpot dictator.
It was great for Elf and other firmas, but the African people suffered greatly from this.

However, the African mess cannot be repaired without a voluntary action and even initiative from the Africans, or at least the African elites. Africa cannot accept decisions solely met in Paris or London anymore. The French compromise suggestion for Ivory Coast is an example of this : de Villepin suggested the formation of a national government encompassing elements from the rebellion and from the regular government, and the whole population rejected it violently, accusing France of favoring the other side.