Can someone please invade Zimbabwe? - Page 5

Drake Tungsten · March 31, 2003, 01:08

The condescending part was the implication that Sikander has only read Soldier of Fortune articles on the subject...

Go back to your ivory tower.

molly bloom · March 31, 2003, 01:12

Quote:

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Quote:

If you steal something, your children have no right to it.

Do the black children in Zimbabwe have the right to eat? Mugabe's idiotic reforms took that away...

I think you should spread your sympathy out- to the black children of Mozambique, Angola and Zaire. The terrorists of Renamo caused a famine resulting in over 100 000 deaths in Mozambique. Child infant mortality in Zaire rocketed under Mobutu. Which superpower propped up Mobutu? Which superpower sold arms to South Africa- which prosecuted war against the front line states? Peasant farmers still lose limbs in Angola and Mozambique when they dare to go into fields. If you think the American money spent on those land mines was money well-spent, so be it.

Zimbabwe: Intersection of Human Rights, Land Reform, and Regional Security
By Carol Thompson
November 2000

"U.S. foreign policy has long been a major source of insecurity in Southern Africa. U.S. support of UNITA (National Union for the Total Independence of Angola) and other right-wing guerrilla forces in Angola, dating from the 1970s, is well-documented. Currently, the U.S. is complicit in the marketing of "blood diamonds"--diamonds being sold by UNITA to finance its war atrocities in Angola. UNITA commander Jonas Savimbi has been declared a war criminal by the UN, yet he is still able to sell his diamonds freely on the international market. "

The struggles for civil liberties, economic redistribution, and regional security are still very much on the agenda of post-apartheid Southern Africa. These goals must be pursued together, for the absence of one will destroy the others. U.S. foreign policy should not sanctimoniously advocate respect for human rights while ignoring pervasive economic inequality and regional security issues.

(Carol Thompson is a specialist on Southern Africa and a professor of political economy at Northern Arizona University. She is on sabbatical, doing research and writing at the University of Zimbabwe.)

Drake Tungsten · March 31, 2003, 01:14

So you're blaming the current famine in Zimbabwe on the US?

Ted Striker · March 31, 2003, 01:15

Of course!

chequita guevara · March 31, 2003, 01:18

Quote:

Originally posted by Ted Striker
Oh, and by the way,

The British Government formally granted independence to Zimbabwe on April 18, 1980.

That's like saying that the US formally recognized Red China in the 1970s. It was twenty some years after the fact. Rodesia declared independence in the 1960s.

Ted Striker · March 31, 2003, 01:23

So what? It's always been a British Protectorate and the British have always reserved the right to directly intervene, and they did exercise that right.

The British also directly ruled Zimbabwe during 1979-1980. That sounds pretty involved to me.

Drake Tungsten · March 31, 2003, 01:23

Quote:

Zimbabwe: Intersection of Human Rights, Land Reform, and Regional Security
By Carol Thompson
November 2000

"U.S. foreign policy has long been a major source of insecurity in Southern Africa. U.S. support of UNITA (National Union for the Total Independence of Angola) and other right-wing guerrilla forces in Angola, dating from the 1970s, is well-documented. Currently, the U.S. is complicit in the marketing of "blood diamonds"--diamonds being sold by UNITA to finance its war atrocities in Angola. UNITA commander Jonas Savimbi has been declared a war criminal by the UN, yet he is still able to sell his diamonds freely on the international market. "

The struggles for civil liberties, economic redistribution, and regional security are still very much on the agenda of post-apartheid Southern Africa. These goals must be pursued together, for the absence of one will destroy the others. U.S. foreign policy should not sanctimoniously advocate respect for human rights while ignoring pervasive economic inequality and regional security issues.

(Carol Thompson is a specialist on Southern Africa and a professor of political economy at Northern Arizona University. She is on sabbatical, doing research and writing at the University of Zimbabwe.)

The best part about this molly quote is that, while the title would seem to indicate that the article is about Zimbabwe, Zimbabwe isn't mentioned once in the excerpt molly quoted. Good show!

chequita guevara · March 31, 2003, 01:26

Quote:

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Quote:

If you steal something, your children have no right to it.

Do the black children in Zimbabwe have the right to eat? Mugabe's idiotic reforms took that away...

No doubt he'd doing it at a very bad time, as almost all of South East Africa is in a famine at the moment. I think it could have been handled in a much better manner, but what Mugabe was trying to do was force Britain and the US to live up to their agreements. By moving unilaterly against the white land-owners, he was trying to force their hand, but the US and GB don't care about a two decades old agreement they had already renegged upon. A leader they don't like discredits himself and they don't spend any money on it.

chequita guevara · March 31, 2003, 01:30

Quote:

Originally posted by Ted Striker
So what? It's always been a British Protectorate and the British have always reserved the right to directly intervene, and they did exercise that right.

So what? Britain [i]didn't rule the country between 1965 and 1979. When they "granted" independence to Zimbabwe, they were merely recognizing a fifteen-year old fact.

Quote:

The British also directly ruled Zimbabwe during 1979-1980. That sounds pretty involved to me.

Irrelevent. Rhodesia was independent from 1965 to 1979. Britain was only handling the transition from white minority rule to Black majority.

molly bloom · March 31, 2003, 01:33

Quote:

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
So you're blaming the current famine in Zimbabwe on the US?

Your logic seems to be on a par with ted's arithmetic and history. If I blame someone for something, I don't shy away from saying so. Please point out where in any of the posts I have blamed the famine in Zimbabwe on the U.S. . And I don't mean imply, or draw an inference- point out where I state that. Of course the fact that there has been a several years' long drought in southern Africa seems to have escaped some of our contributors. But don't let that stop you posting.

As for my ivory tower- well, it seems to have given me a slightly better grasp of African history than some people's. As for being condescending to Sikander- he only instanced Soldier of Fortune as a reference, cited no articles, gave no links or any other kind of useful information other than his recollection. He also tried the old smoke and mirros routine, by implying I had referred to who was more responsible for Renamo, or who controlled them. Not part of my post at all.

"The World Bank and IMF have sanctioned Zimbabwe for its war expenditures, although both financial institutions continue to lend to Uganda, whose troops support the rebels in the Congo. Although Zimbabweans believe the U.S. and international agencies are not being evenhanded, they are also overwhelmingly against Zimbabwean troop involvement in the war because it diverts funds from development needs. SADC leaders have consistently been in the forefront of negotiations for peace, beginning one month after the Uganda/Rwanda invasion in 1998. "

Now I'm not a defender of Mugabe, but what the hell is Uganda doing getting involved in a war in Central Africa? Or Rwanda? Oh that's right- the U.S. sells arms to both, and has supported and trained Kagame and Museveni.

Drake Tungsten · March 31, 2003, 01:34

Quote:

If I blame someone for something, I don't shy away from saying so. Please point out where in any of the posts I have blamed the famine in Zimbabwe on the U.S. . And I don't mean imply, or draw an inference- point out where I state that.

Oh, I see. Your post about Angola wasn't meant to imply that the US is responsible for the problems in Zimbabwe as well; it was just a completely irrelevant post. That's much better...

Ted Striker · March 31, 2003, 01:36

Quote:

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Quote:

Originally posted by Ted Striker
So what? It's always been a British Protectorate and the British have always reserved the right to directly intervene, and they did exercise that right.

So what? Britain [i]didn't rule the country between 1965 and 1979. When they "granted" independence to Zimbabwe, they were merely recognizing a fifteen-year old fact.

Quote:

The British also directly ruled Zimbabwe during 1979-1980. That sounds pretty involved to me.

Irrelevent. Rhodesia was independent from 1965 to 1979. Britain was only handling the transition from white minority rule to Black majority.

Quote:

Following the abrogation of the company's charter in 1923, Southern Rhodesia's white settlements were given the choice of being incorporated into the Union of South Africa or becoming a separate entity within the British Empire. The settlers rejected incorporation, and Southern Rhodesia was formally annexed by the United Kingdom that year. Until 1980, Rhodesia was an internally self-governing colony with its own legislature, civil service, armed forces, and police. Although Rhodesia was never administered directly from London, the United Kingdom always retained the right to intervene in the affairs of the colony, particularly in matters affecting Africans.

http://www.rhodesian-chronicle.co.uk...as_history.htm

Ted Striker · March 31, 2003, 01:38

By the way Commie, you and the Wannabe Eurocom are missing the point entirely.

Africa is ****ed up from Eurocom rule. A rule that messed up the natural order of things there that had existed for centuries.

The reason Zimbabwe is ****ed up is because it was setup that way.

molly bloom · March 31, 2003, 01:50

Quote:

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

The best part about this molly quote is that, while the title would seem to indicate that the article is about Zimbabwe, Zimbabwe isn't mentioned once in the excerpt molly quoted. Good show!

Ah yes, the descent into facetiousness. Do you and ted share the same scriptwriter?

The article is a very long and informative one which covers the history of post colonial land reform and issues touching on land reform, such as external threats, the Cold War, and so on. Sorry if that's not absolutely clear, but if you'd pay attention you'd notice I have referenced the article on more than one occasion.

By the way ted, just so you get it through your skull- one year before Rhodesia declared U.D.I. Northern Rhodesia (Zambia) was granted independence. Is it your contention that Great Britain still controlled Zambia? Or Botswana? Or Kenya?

Love the insults ted.

They make feel warm all over.

They're so much easier than learning or research aren't they?

How many hundreds of years ted? (uncle) Ho ho ho

Drake Tungsten · March 31, 2003, 01:53

Quote:

The article is a very long and informative one

So why did you post an excerpt that was neither long nor informative?

Quote:

Sorry if that's not absolutely clear, but if you'd pay attention you'd notice I have referenced the article on more than one occasion.

I haven't really been following this thread too closely. Long on volume, short on substance, thanks in no small part to your efforts...

Ted Striker · March 31, 2003, 01:58

Quote:

How many hundreds of years ted?

You really are ignorant.

Quote:

1479: Portuguese build Elmina Castle on West African Coast.
1497: Vasco da Gama [Portuguese] sails to East Africa.Voyages of Discovery Chronology
1505: Portuguese destroy Kilwa.
1528: Portuguese capture Mombasa.
1652: Dutch settle at the Cape of Good Hope.
1680: Ashanti Kingdom is formed by Osei Tutu of Kumasi.
c. 1750: Buganda becomes the leading Lake Kingdom.
1780: First "Kaffir War" between the Bantus and the Boers in South Africa.
1784-1820: Oyo Kingdom collapses; Yoruba Civil Wars

http://campus.northpark.edu/history/...lon.Chron.html

Dom Pedro II · March 31, 2003, 02:02

I can't even tell what is being argued....

Ted Striker · March 31, 2003, 02:05

I am saying that Africa is a European problem and should be handled by Europeans.

molly is blaming all of Africa's problems on the CIA.

Ted Striker · March 31, 2003, 02:08

Quote:

Colonizations

The modern European colonization of Africa was begun by the Portuguese, who established trading stations on the coast in the 15th and 16th centuries. The interior of what Europeans called "the Dark Continent" was not explored or colonized until the 19th century. By the early 20th century nearly all of Africa had been subjected to European rule. Since World War II, 49 nations have gained their independence, but the colonial experience left Africa with arbitrarily defined boundaries, a diversity of political systems and problems, and economies dependent upon the industrialized world.

Africa's peoples remain sharply divided by race, language, religion, and politics in a complex cultural mosaic. In 1995, Africa contained about 13 percent of the world's population and was the second most populous continent after Asia. Few of its states are ethnically homogeneous, and only a few have developed a strong sense of national unity. For centuries traditional values prevailed. Africans identified first and foremost with members of their own tribe or nation and avoided or competed with those who spoke a different language or were of a different culture. The imposition of colonial boundaries without regard for the indigenous cultural mosaic exacerbated divisions among the African people.

http://members.tripod.com/cmdeaf/stats/h-africa.htm

Dom Pedro II · March 31, 2003, 02:10

Well then... I think that if the Europeans messed up Africa (and they most certainly did) then the last thing they should do is get involved in trying to undo it. Let the Africans fix it themselves... they will. It may take a long time, but history has a long attention span, much longer than us.

Secondly, certainly the CIA is not responsible for all of Africa's problems... but they haven't exactly been a blessing for the continent either.

molly bloom · March 31, 2003, 02:19

Quote:

Originally posted by Ted Striker
I am saying that Africa is a European problem and should be handled by Europeans.

molly is blaming all of Africa's problems on the CIA.

Well the first part of your statement is an opinion- Africa is in part an African problem, in part a problem dating from pre-colonial times and European, Turk and Arab colonial times, and in part to do with climate change, the Cold War and religion. Rather more complex than sticking your chin out at an antique map and saying 'hoopla!'

As for being ignorant- I don't mind you displaying yours, but don't accuse me of being ignorant. Saying that Europeans controlled Africa for hundreds of years on the basis of isolated Portuguese trading posts on the coasts is like saying Europe controlled China because of the concessionary ports. A thin littoral and a few slave forts does not imply control of the continent- (Ancient Rome had a trading post at Malindi, for instance- it didnt control East Africa)- which, if you had any in depth knowledge of Africa you would know.

The second part of your statement is an outright lie.

I have not blamed ALL of Africa's problems on the C.I.A., but I have shown where U.S. intervention and C.I.A. coups have wrecked post-colonial states- Zaire, Angola, Ghana, Mozambique and the economies of the SADC, for instance. Anyone with even a slight knowledge of post-WWII African history would know that. But not you, Ted.

Drake- if you aren't going to read in depth, then don't bother. Your sarcasm is on a par with your facetiousness. If it's big on detail (not long) it's to make up for ted's deficiencies- and if you haven't been following it closely, how would you know about the substance or otherwise?

Ted Striker · March 31, 2003, 02:29

I like it when people blame the victim. It's Africa's fault! Whatever.

And the map pretty much says it all. If you can't grasp that then continue to post lengthy, repetitive posts that say nothing.

Eurocoms went to Africa and raped the place dry.

Eurocoms left and carved the place up.

The tribalism excuse you keep throwing out is complete BS. If some of those tribes had their own places to live (the places they lived before Eurocom took them away) there wouldn't be so many problems. But Eurocom threw a bunch of tribes into the same country, and then up and left the place.

And check your history. Eurocoms pretty much DID control most of China for a short time. The British opium trade decimated Chinese society.

TheStinger · March 31, 2003, 07:35

Yoor use of the phrase Euro com makes a mockery of what you are saying.

Yes in many cases colonial rule has been damaging. the real cause of Africas problems though are the fact that after WW2 the europeans withdrew too quickly without ensuring democratic governments were embedded. In the 60's many of Africas economies were on a par with those of SE Asia and what happened, tin pot dictators took over who because they wern't communist and were supported by the US. So Europe messed up by ensuring what they left would struggle to survive, and the US made it worse by supporting people who in their own country would be locked up. Everybody had a prt to play in what happened.

VJ · March 31, 2003, 07:58

Ted, I would just like to state my opinion, so don't take it so personally...:
Based on your comments here, I think that you are a moron.

Have a nice day, no offense intended

Arrian · March 31, 2003, 12:17

What a crap thread. The whole thing is a pissing contest over who ****ed up Africa.

Mugabe is not a nice fellow, this is clear. Then again, I dunno if he ranks in the top 10 nasty fellows running countries on Earth. That doesn't change the fact that his current policies are clearly not only wrong, but stupid.

On the other hand, a more active role in assisting land reform by the former colonial power (UK) might have been helpful. It would at least have undercut Mr. Mugabe's "The Brits are oppressing us! The whites in Zimbabwe are just colonialists!" arguements. At best, it might have prevented him from playing the land reform card at all. And then he might have actually lost the election (despite physically terrorizing his opponents).

Instead, the country's economy is shot to ****, the farms lie fallow, and lots of farmers who moved in post-1980 and paid for their land fair & square are getting screwed.

So whose fault is it? ****. The root is clearly the takeover of the place by colonials. That's how black Zimbabweans ended up with almost none of the good land. But once a generation or two passes, things get a little fuzzy, wouldn't you say? The farms were productive - they were the major force in the economy. The farmers reinvested in their farms - buidling irrigation systems and other improvements. They employed people. But yet, the land distribution remained a sore point. So IMO, the government of Zimbabwe (Mugabe & Co.) bear a chunk of the blame too. They talked about land reform for a long time, but never did much. Even if it's true that the UK & US (didn't know we had pledged money) reneged on their pledges without cause (I thought there was a reason for it), that shouldn't mean that the government could not have done anything on its own. Hell, the party members roll around in Mercedes-Benz and have Swiss bank accounts.

I'm sure the US (and USSR) take some blame for the Cold War power plays that went on. But trying to shift the blame to the USA from Europe for the mess that is Africa... heh, that's pretty funny.

I swear, if Aliens invaded the Earth tomorrow, people on 'poly would put together long posts, complete with links, that explained how it was triggered by US aggression.

-Arrian

molly bloom · April 1, 2003, 02:08

Quote:

Originally posted by Ted Striker
I like it when people blame the victim. It's Africa's fault! Whatever.

And the map pretty much says it all. If you can't grasp that then continue to post lengthy, repetitive posts that say nothing.

Eurocoms went to Africa and raped the place dry.

Eurocoms left and carved the place up.

And check your history. Eurocoms pretty much DID control most of China for a short time. The British opium trade decimated Chinese society.

Golly gee, ted, them’s fightin’ words!

I think you need to take a chill pill. The idea that somehow the British Empire controlled China because of the opium trade is so funny, it’s worthy of being a Carry On film. Does Bolivia or Colombia control much of the United States then? Are the Cali and Medellin cartels responsible for much of your country’s governance? Was Pablo Escobar in Reagan’s cabinet? This may be a part of American history I missed out on.

Please explain, if Europe is solely responsible for Africa’s current situation, how an African country with one of the shortest experiences of colonial occupation can be a basket case the way that Ethiopia is. One billion tons of top soil lost, famines on a regular basis, deforestation and explosive population growth- and yet Italy had hardly occupied it for any time at all. It’s curious that at a time when his country was wracked by hunger, Haile Selassie could prosecute a war against Eritrea with U.S. aid, and feed his dogs- whilst his countrymen died through hunger. The photos of him feeding his pampered pooches whilst thousands died of malnutrition were one of the impetuses behind his removal.

Please explain how a trade imbalance between the industrial nations of the north and Africa is all to do with hardly over a half century’s occupation of the Continent by European nations.

Please explain how desertification affecting not only the world’s largest desert but also the Sahel and the Namib and Kalahari is the fault of European powers.

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/tiempo/issue08/desert.htm

Please explain how the destabilisation of the black ruled front line states by South Africa and Rhodesia and their proxies (with U.S. help) was the fault of Europe.

www.anc.org.za/ancdocs/history/aam/abdul-6.html

Please explain how Africa having the highest population growth rate in the history of the world is Europe’s fault.

(The World Bank predicts the population of sub-Saharan Africa to quadruple in the next fifty years, to 1.8 billion people)

Please explain how Kissinger’s ‘tar baby ‘ policy and realpolitik and Reagan’s ‘constructive engagement’ helped free the front line states from South African state terrorism and economic warfare.

http://www.etv.co.za/~kanthanp/Perspex/19990924.html

Please explain how after thirty years of United States’ aid and tutelage, Zaire can be the eighth poorest country in the world, despite having some of the richest deposits of rare minerals in the world.

http://www.zmag.org/ZMag/articles/June97Wright.htm

Please explain why the United States sponsored a civil war in Angola when the MPLA government was not only willing to sell it oil, but also to buy American goods.

“These episodic legislative efforts should not blind us to a more general pattern wherein US foreign policy actually worked against the precepts of Wilsonianism. The overall history of US activity in Africa during the cold war reads like a litany of anti-Wilsonian practices justified in the name of containing communism. This included US support of such brutal dictators as Mobutu, Moi, Barre, Nimieri, and Selassie, whose human rights records were among the worst in Africa. Billions of dollars were spent to roll back communism. Indeed, US weapons played major roles in conflict situations in Angola, Ethiopia, Liberia, Zaire (now the Democratic Republic of Congo-DRC), Namibia, Somalia, Sudan, Uganda, and Sierra Leone.”
http://web.africa.ufl.edu/asq/v2/v2i2a3.htm

Please explain why growth without development in Liberia and Angola and Zaire is a good thing, and which companies benefit from it.

Amilcar Cabral, founder of the liberation movement the PAIGC of Guine and the Cape Verde Islands, had this to say about the idea that Africans could not be responsible for some of their own problems:

“We have to scrap colonial culture (the culture of white superiority and black inferiority). We have also to scrap the negative aspects of our own culture [belief in witches, oppression of women, contempt for literacy]...We have to build a new culture that is based on our own traditions, but respecting everything that the world of today has conquered for the service of mankind.”

“Mario de Andrade, an internationally-known Angolan intellectual with a deep knowledge of Cabral's work, has commented on this problematic and on its most remarkable characteristic, its ceaseless engagement of reality. Of the way Cabral seized reality and continually returned to it to adjust it and to give it new contours de Andrade said: "He understood the essence of the magical mentality with which the African spirit is impregnated and the ambivalence of beliefs. A teacher, he frequently encouraged a militant reflection on negative cultural influences arising from regressive features from the past (superstitions, taboos, rites and practices) and on the harmonious integration of traditional values as a function of modern progress.”

http://www.umassd.edu/specialprogram...acaddress.html

As Basil Davidson, an expert on African history said-

“...that while the East-West promotion of rival interests and ideologies has certainly impinged on Africa... it remains an external influence from which Africa can only be the loser”.

Any serious analysis of Africa’s current predicament would offer some kind of comparison between the Africa of colonial times and the Africa of independence, and the state of Africa now.

Your emotive bluster signally fails to do that- and simply reiterating that Europe raped Africa again and again isn’t evidence, it’s just hot air.

The rape can’t have been that successful, one would have thought, to leave Ghana with one billion dollars in the bank at independence in 1957.

And finally ted- learn some foreign history.

Ted Striker · April 1, 2003, 02:15

I'd say the Italians were overachievers!

Oh, and speaking of foreign history, you've forgotten that Ethiopia was also administered by Britain.

Desertification happens when land gets mismanaged, or, in this case raped.

Feel free to post more lenghty posts though.

Ted Striker · April 1, 2003, 02:17

Oh, and please read up on the Opium Wars. You have no idea what you are talking about. There's a thread around here about it somewhere.

ravagon · April 1, 2003, 02:50

Quote:

Originally posted by molly bloom

Please explain,

Please explain

Please explain

Please explain

Please explain

Please explain

Irrespective of your apparent regard for Ms Hansons policies, please refrain from making further use of the "please explain" bit. Its making me nauseous.

Ta very much.

molly bloom · April 1, 2003, 02:57

Quote:

Originally posted by Ted Striker
I'd say the Italians were overachievers!

Oh, and speaking of foreign history, you've forgotten that Ethiopia was also administered by Britain.

Desertification happens when land gets mismanaged, or, in this case raped.

Feel free to post more lenghty posts though.

Only if you post some intelligent ones, that actually reply to points brought up.

You're so funny, you should have your own show. Are Barnum and Bailey still operating?

Please feel free to show us how long Great Britain 'administered' Ethiopia for, between Haile Selassie returning to southern Sudan in 1941 to lead force of Ethiopian patriots, and the withdrawal of British armed forces.

(I hadn't forgotten at all- it was such a short interlude it hardly seems worth mentioning)

Please also show us your detailed analysis of this brief presence on the Ethiopian landscape and economy.

Please also show us who is 'raping' the Sahara, when it started, where it is happening and where this can be attributed to Europeans. Otherwise, your comment is flippant, ignorant b.s.

As for patronising me about the Opium Wars- thanks but I'm more than sure my knowledge of Victorian foreign policy and its effects is greater than yours.

If you seriously imagine Great Britain 'controlled' China, then state how it did so, and how far this control extended. To Chinese borders with Russia, perhaps- as far as Tibet, perhaps?

Otherwise you're just doing what you've done all the way through this thread- revealing a remarkable ignorance of world history.