Action on Zimbabwe

Personally I think this matter should be left to the African Nations to sort out, If any European Country or America get involved then all the egg heads will be jumping up and down slagging them all off. Now this problem is in a landlocked country surround by Mugabe's friends so let them sort it out for a change, if they don't it will spill over into their countries

I'm with the Para on this. Let them sort it out this time.
 
Yeah, it'd be great if we could let countries with likely civil wars or other problems figure it out for themselves... That way none of our guys has to die for the freedom of someone on the other side of the planet, and once they're done shooting each other they don't hate us (as much).
 
Well, mr. Mugabe has clearly stated that "Only God can remove me from my post as president".
So we better hope that God takes action soon.

As for the rest of the African union...their hands are tied by old bonds between the African leaders who have similar stories of corruption, brutality and lack of democratic will...

So let's just hope that God decides to drop a piano on Mugabe some day in the near future.
 
Yep,... lets just ignore it and hope it will go away. There'll be plenty of time for justifying our inaction and wringing our hands after all the poor are dead. the same as we did in Rwanda etc.

Same old, same old.

I say that it's time for a justifiable assasination, a Hellfire enema perhaps when he's on the reviewing stand with all his cronies at the next military parade in honour of himself.
 
Last edited:
Spike, I understand your sentiments and believe me, I don't like it much, but because of the massive unpopularity of any kind of intervention, "why we did nothing" must be answered by the anti-war protesters who will protest anything military.
Not referring to cases where people protest an unjust war, but people who protest the liberation of Kuwait and people who protest intervention in Somalia etc... the type who don't protest only when they never got to hear about the conflict.
I believe it is our duty to make sure that leaders around the world remain just, but apparently this is difficult for some people who have no knowledge for anything other
than what channel number MTV is on to understand. They think being international and sophisticated is jumping around wearing colorful clothing.
Then soon the press jumps on it, everyone thinks it's cool to protest the war (regardless of reason...).
Like I said, it no longer matters whether or not war is just or not. And if we conduct a righteous assassination, we're called a terrorist state.
 
You are thinking too black and white my hardcharging marine corps buddy.

This need not be a long war.
This need only be a war for the exact amount of time it takes to place Mr Mugabe on the sidelines, perminently.


And you will have to concider the cost of doing nothing before you say that´s the best option.
In Rwanda the world didn´t intervene.

In The Congo the world stood by untill the casualties became unacceptable.
Then (in this case) the EU force went in and declared a safe zone in Bunia.
In a short amount of time the locals grasped the concept.

In Chad on the Sudaneese border the refugee camps are protected.
There are still lunatics in this part of the world, but there are also places where people if they decide they have had enough and flees have safe havens.


My point is.
I dunno if the world should intervene or not.
But if it´s going to happen it´s gotta be done in time and with the proper amount of force.
The key is to guarantee safety for civilians in an area large or small.
How you accomplish that mission best is for thinktanks to decide.
In this case I personally think that if you take the head of the snake it will not grow a new one. It´ll wither and die.

My humble opinion.
//KJ.
 
I say that it's time for a justifiable assasination, a Hellfire enema perhaps when he's on the reviewing stand with all his cronies at the next military parade in honour of himself.

I agree with this, remove Mugabe and the problem I think is pretty much solved.
Its not like he has much of an institution and it looks pretty much like the nation is on the verge of civil war anyway, I say balance his views with about 2g of lead and turn the place over to the AU in terms of peace keeping.
 
Yep,... lets just ignore it and hope it will go away. There'll be plenty of time for justifying our inaction and wringing our hands after all the poor are dead. the same as we did in Rwanda etc.

Same old, same old.

I say that it's time for a justifiable assasination, a Hellfire enema perhaps when he's on the reviewing stand with all his cronies at the next military parade in honour of himself.


I hear you mate, and I get the point, but...
There's a major BUT here..

Mugabe is a sly old bugger, well versed in the rethorics that kept him afloat for so long.
Every step he takes is carefully argued for by the everlasting fight for freedom for Zimbabwe, freedom from the evil colonists of the white western world.
Thereby he has managed to block most normal ways of intervention from the international society, as any attack on him and his politics is an attack against the freedom of the people in Zimbabwe.
Even though this freedom is merely hypothetic...

And he status he enjoys in Africa as a great freedom fighter, and leader of the struggle against white colonists stands almost unaffected by his cruel actions in Zimbabwe.

So a full scale invasion in order to free Zimbabwe of his reign will only backfire in our face.
 
Every step he takes is carefully argued for by the everlasting fight for freedom for Zimbabwe, freedom from the evil colonists of the white western world.
That is why we must not charge into Zimbabwe with an occupying army, but just surgically remove the source of the infection and let any replacements realise that they will come to the same sticky end should they not behave in a civilised manner.

Saddam could have been given the same treatment and it would have saved a lot of grief for many people.

Diplomats say, "We don't do assasinations", but they don't turn a hair at sacrificing thousands of innocent lives to try and achieve the same ends. They're strange cattle, our diplomats???
 
Last edited:
Diplomats say, "We don't do assasinations", but they don't turn a hair at sacrificing thousands of innocent lives to try and achieve the same ends. They're strange cattle, our diplomats???

ASIS might say something different about that just quitely.
 
OK, lets go for that concept, tune in on his cellphone and home a rocket into his pocket, but make sure you get the next 2-3 guys in the line too!
He's one big poster for his own policy, but he's not alone running the country (down) you know.

It's far better than both full scale invasion, and military support to resistance groups.
The invasion idea would only backfire and create a new Vietnam/Afghanistan/Iraq (in that sequense) for us.
And for jungle war with guerilla groups, I think that poor old country has seen too much of that allready.
 
The sad thing is that Zimbabwe is not a poor country, until Mugabe went off his rocker and decided he was above the law Zimbabwe was a prosperous country that was one of the world leaders in food exports now they have massive inflation and are one of the worlds most dependent nations of food imports.

Basically I think the answer is to get rid of the crazy SOB at the top and keep doing it until one of them does the job properly and as far as military support and governance goes turn over all aspects of the role to the African Union so as to avoid the "colonial inferences", and if they can't do the job then its time they learn't to do it because the bulk of Africa desperately needs some effective leadership.
 
Yeah, it'd be great if we could let countries with likely civil wars or other problems figure it out for themselves... That way none of our guys has to die for the freedom of someone on the other side of the planet, and once they're done shooting each other they don't hate us (as much).

Here's the deal. We're damned if we do and damned if we don't in these situations. The scenerio always plays out the same.

You send in troops to quell the the situation give them BS ROEs then as LeEnfield pointed you end up getting slagged on for imperialistic adventures, nation building and the like. The world community and the UN which are usually content to wring their hands and bemoan the fate of those poor people run you thru a meat grinder and question your motives. The jackals in the media look for anything they can find to cause a "scandal" and it rapidly degrades. God forbid you have an incident like Black Sunday then the politicans loose their backbone and viola end of mission.

If you don't do something then your uncaring and isolationist and only worried about yourself. It's a lose lose situation.

Yeah you could take Mugabe out with a well placed JDAM but as Monty pointed out you better get his sucessors too. If not it's just the same old bunch of foxes guarding the hen house.

So you end up putting boots on the ground replace one tin pot despot with another tin pot despot. Lose a few lives in the process and nothing changes. It's a never ending circle and IMO not worth endangering the lives of service members just so some pol's and highminded do gooders can feel good about showing how much we care. The only thing thats gonna change is the name of the leader at least until the troops leave and the next coup, Then what? We have to go back? Not worth it.
 
All countries that have made some thing of themselves have done it them self's, change can only really come from with in. It may be bloody and costly, but it is their change. Most of the European countries have gone through this sort of upheavals but have come through it for the better in the finish. Now if they can fight for Independence why can't they fight for change. If we do it all for them then they wont get the changes that suit them and we will held responsible for all their future problems
 
Right. We have lived with the constant accusation from the 3rd world that Europe should have left Africa alone and that they would have developed better without any intervention from us.
 
African fun and games, more screwed than the ME.

That may be true but if there is no attempt to stabilise Africa with some effective governance it will end up like the Middle East as well just look at Somalia and the pressure that Morocco is under with groups trying to destabilise the nation.

Why not blame Egypt as they were the first great Colonial power every one else just followed on

I am not sure there is any real correlation between the Egyptian empire of 3000 years ago and the colonial actions of European empires of 100-200 years ago.
 
Last edited:
Look before you leap says Guildford, Surrey.(Letters):-

"Having been brought up in South Africa I have followed with bemusement the calls for military action against Robert Mugabe. These calls ignore the basic question: how would Western troops and their equipment get there?

Given that Zimbabwe is land-locked, it would be necessary to pass through one or more neighbouring states. The obvious choice is South Africa, but if President Mbeki is not even prepared to condemn Mugabe verbally, he is hardly likely to allow his ports and transport infrastructure to be used for an invasion.

The alternatives are Namibia, Mozambique and Tanzania. Mugabe and Namibia's President Nujoma have been friends and comrades-in-arms for half a century, and anyway Namibia's only port, Walvis Bay, is too small for the job.
Mozambique has two reasonable ports, Beira and Maputo, but is riven with tribal animosities and also has strong ties with Mugabe. The routes from Beira and Maputo to Zimbabwe are also excellent guerrilla terrain.

In Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania has a port which might be up to the job, but the roads to Zimbabwe are appalling and the only alternative is a metre- guage railway, and getting from Dar Es Salaam involves passing through Zambia, which also has strong ties with Mugabe.

Of course it would be militarily feasible to force any or all of these states to co-operate, but I doubt it would be diplomatically sustainable.

Some wonder whether Mugabe's troops would 'put up much of a fight'. If a pitched battle were envisaged it would be a walkover - but Mugabe does not do pitched battles. If he had fought a pitched battle against Ian Smith, his forces would have been annihilated and we should never have heard of him.

Mugabe's forte is querrilla warfare, and we should reflect that Ian Smith, with 100,000 troops as well trained as the British Army and with better motivation - they were fighting to defend their homes - were unable to achieve better than a stalemate.

So - even if the access problem can somehow be solved, and even admitting that Soviet weapons suppplies are history, we would be looking at committing 100,000 troops for several years."

-Guildford, Surrey.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top