Zimbabwe - Your Thoughts

Remove all ads!

I'm sure you all know of the attrocities taking place in Zimbabwe. Do you believe that other countries should intervene and stop what is happening, or do you believe we should sit back and let things carry on as they are going?

 

This is something that I'm very much of mixed opinion about. In short (as it's nearly 1am), one side of me believes that other countries should already be in there. We're seeing a dictatorship which is putting into practice many things which go against the basic human rights. Where as the other part of me thinks what right do other countries have to determine how Zimbabwe is run?

 

The right of countries to self-determine is one thing. That there is no such thing as a dictator's right to thwart that self-determination and have a little fun for himself, is another. So long as the intervention won't bring more harm than it repairs or prevents, I believe other countries should intervene. But please no more stuff like from Iraq or Afghanistan. It could be done through the UN and all.

 

If we can really help these people without abusing them (Eg Iraq, and Afghanistan), then I am all for it.

Apart from the satisfaction of helping Zimbabwe, will there be any other benefits for such a 'good deed'? If the answer is no, then they will be left to sort themselves out.

 

Who, exactly, is the "we" that's going to be doing the "helping?" Perhaps it's a bit easier for a citizen of Poland or Sri Lanka to say "someone should do something about these attrocities!!" all the while knowing their tiny little country won't be that "someone."

I feel the same about my fellow Americans who support the war in Iraq yet sit comfortably on their couches watching Fox News and emailing their sons and daughters at State U and Harvard, a safe distance from the conflict itself.

If you think something should be done, march down to your local military recruitment agency, sign yourself up and then request to be included in a UN peace keeping regiment. As for me? I'll stay here in the comfort of my home and fire up Baldur's Gate.

 

Poland isn't tiny per European standards. It spans over 312,685 sq km (120,728 sq miles). Polish soldiers have been present both in Iraq and Afghanistan. Currently, one of the zones in Iraq is controlled by Polish armed forces. A very bad call.

If you'd like to read up:

BBC profile
UK's Foreign Office profile
Yahoo profile

It's surprising how little some American citizens know (or care) about their allies, as exemplified by what you wrote, unless you simply disregarded those facts. As for the rest of what you said, soldier is a job. I don't have skills in that area and my own area is the law. I don't feel this takes away my rights to speak about my country's politics and affect them within the range set up for all citizens by the constitution (or a soldier's right to comment on what's lawyers' job for that matter).

[ November 27, 2005, 23:57: Message edited by: chevalier ]

 

+ we have over 38 million citizens, member of NATO and EU. I wonder if you could find Sri Lanka and Poland on the map in a short time

 

I can confirm the fact that Poland is a completely oversized country. No country should count more than 12 million inhabitants, it's completely oversized and unnatural. And so is Sri Lanka with more then 20 million people.

 

we wont bother with zimbabwe because there is nothing to be gained.

 

The UN should get off of their collective asses and pass a couple of resolutions. That should clear the whole thing up pretty quick.

The U.S. is still a little busy in Iraq. I guess it is up to the rest of the world to stop this genocide. Complaining and bashing is real easy, actually doing something takes a little bit of intestinal fortitude (courage) and moral focus. Wake me up when another of our "great societies" decides to intervene.

 

I must say that you offended me with that post.

 

For my country I'm strongly against interventionist policies to all cases that don't disturb peace in Europe or hold a serious threat for our security in other ways. Others can jump around the world and have their young soldiers killed, it's their loss. Zimbabwe is also among the several dictatorships with cruel and murderous regimes, removing them all would cost much more than I'm willing to pay, if someone else wants to pay that price then they can go ahead and do so.

EDIT: Posts done in a mild drunken state usually end up funny.

[ November 27, 2005, 20:22: Message edited by: Morgoroth ]

 

Well, these comments confuse me. There's something very inconsistent here. On the one hand, you're poking fingers at the Iraq/Afghan situation and concerned about not abusing the poor people, but on the other (even after the "apart") seem to be more concerned about getting a reward for the good deed. They don't mesh very well and pretty much state that helping these people just isn't enough -- not without some kind of bonus. I ask you....which is more abusive?? -- going in and TRYING to help and risking the "interfering" mentality, or withholding help because there's no treasure to be gained?

 

Ui, ui, ui. Calm down. It was just tongue in cheek and ironic and was not meant in that way as you obviously understood it and there was certainly no reference to any past wars intendend. And I wasn't talking about Poland, merely about Poland sized countries in general. I am aware that Poland with 40 million people is a pretty large country. In that size-category, we would have the other bigger ones, UK, Italy, France. Than we would have the next bigger size, Germany and Japan. And then the next bigger size, Pakistan, Russia, Brazil, USA. Or smaller ones like Spain, Sweden, the Netherlands. I thought that when someone is calling Poland a small country, what would that person think about actual small countries ? People just value quantity over quality, that's a bad habit and makes China number one.

 

I was talking about other countries points of view with my last paragraph. My government does not represent my personal views and vice-versa.

Helping a country and invading a country are 2 different things. How can we enforce freedom when places such as Guantánamo Bay exist?

Like I said, if we can help Zimbabwe, without resorting to rape and violence, then why not? Unfortunately as there is nothing to gain (unlike Iraq and Afghanistan), then help will not arrive.

 

Yes, it's just tough luck that Zimbabwe doesn't have much or any oil resources, and that so far no interests of a major multinational corporations are compromised.

So why bother indeed? Would it be Nigeria in the same situation however...well intervention would surely be called for sooner or later, maybe a little later...

No matter how much we like it or not, military interventions cost money. If there isn't any monetary gain from the war that outweighs the costs, or a major political gain, then there's no intervention. Humanitarian interests make hardly any profit, and so far weapon industry is booming. This is partly because of the unstable political situations in many parts of Africa. And smuggling's doing great as well, by the way.

 

I'm well aware of Poland's size and involvement in Iraq. To date, Poland has lost 17 soldiers in Iraq. The US has lost 2117. Maybe the Polish are just much better at dodging bullets?

I wasn't trying to insult Poland, I was trying to point out how easy it is for non-US citizens to ask "why isn't someone doing something about the attrocities in ____ ??" when it's the US that foots 99% of the cost and troops.

 

Maybe the Polish are just much better at dying more often from enemy fire than from friendly fire and copter crashes. They tend to be better at handling prisoners and natives, too, you know (which didn't prevent idiots from trying to blame Abu Ghraib on the nearby Polish soldiers). There is a reason why American forces are universally loathed in Iraq and Polish soldiers not nearly as much (they tend to be liked, actually).

99% of troops is way exaggerated. Don't know about costs, but not likely near to what you're trying to claim. Besides, even if, 99% troops and costs of what? Of wars the US want to fight. There's no involvement of the UN in Iraq. Compare to the Balkans and other UN missions. Proportions change radically, don't they?

And don't be so hasty to assume that "someone" means the US. The US are the last single country I'd like to go to Zimbabwe if the UN didn't want to, if we consider the more or less civilised world (it's always easy to be better than China or, well, Zimbabwe). To be honest, I would appreciate it if "someone" did something about the way detainees are treated in the States and I don't just mean the Muslims in Gitmo and Abu (Consider especially page 2 of this thread). Of course, by this I don't mean a Chinese or Irani intervention (before anyone comes up with such ideas) but international structures. CIA "facilities" would be the next on the list, followed by weapon factories. Who gave Saddam his toys, after all? Or trained and equipped Osama and his lads, for that matter. I'm not trying to insult the US, just insisting that exceptionalism is unsubstantiated and harmful. It's time to drop it or live up to it. For the time being, I'd rather not have American forces in Zimbabwe.

But more in-topic, the mess in Zimbabwe is partly a result of the Ian Smith government being bad and the ever-fashionable lefty guerillas of Mugabe being good back in the time. To clean the mess, one needs to get rid of Mugabe for good and either make sure everyone can vote and the elections are fair or divide the country so that the mutually hating groups don't have to coexist. The problem with the UN is that it isn't really interested in overthrowing regimes but more in separating the fighting sides. Still, the Security Council could intervene with troops.

[ November 27, 2005, 17:14: Message edited by: chevalier ]

 

Please. Please. Give us a break here. I CANNOT believe we have sunk to a nya, nya, nya attitude -- my country's soldiers are better than yours!...or they like us better than them! It's idiotic. And how the hell do you even know that American forces are UNIVERSALLY loathed in Iraq?? Ask some children that they've sheltered and fed, if they feel that way. This, imo, was an absolutely absurd statement....and your statement about HOW they die. Death is death, chevalier -- experienced on ALL sides.

 

It's surprising how you don't refer that to your fellow American commenting about Polish soldiers. I didn't start the side-debate on soldiers and it isn't exactly a pleasure to take part in it, not to mention the fact I'm not a fan of any kind of army environments, anyway. However, soldiers' behaviour is very much relevant in international peace operations and it's the American soldiers' behaviour what makes people wonder if perhaps it wouldn't be better to stay away from intervening and leave oppressed countries to their own fate. My point is not to make generalisations but to turn attention to the link between intervention and abuse, as well as the proportion between the abuse by intervents and by the local regime. Please don't try to push me into the American bashing bracket because that's not where I started from. If you read up, you will easily see what arguments have shown up and in what sequence. As for death, yes, it's the same on all sides and equally regrettable, but it's unfair to blame the "how they die" part on me, after the previous comment about perhaps being better at dodging bullets, whatever the pun was. I'm not mincing my words but I certainly don't deserve the kind of reception I'm getting from you.

Erm... isn't that common knowledge? You could ask children sheltered and fed, but then you should ask all people whose family members have been harmed in various ways from dying in collateral fire, through being humiliated or bullied to being detained until further notice, raped, beaten, whatever. To my knowledge, Polish soldiers or Spanish or Ukrainian or Italian or Australian or any other who have been in Iraq except maybe the British (incidents have been reported, although mostly "simple" beating) haven't raped women and children, forced men to wear hoods and copulate with other men, detained people without charges in unhuman conditions. I haven't seen or read about any "Ukrainians/Spaniards/Poles/Italians go home" demonstration, either. I perfectly understand your national feelings and your preference to avoid such subjects, but that preference doesn't make them nonexistent. I realise that most American soldiers are soldiers like any other and that some are true heroes and a couple are living saints, but the ratio of bastards seems to be pretty high. The ratio or the significance, whatever gives. I don't want to single out the States on the negative side but I object to singling them out on the positive one, as well. It's the exceptionalism and the arrogance towards the rest of the world shown in many places, this thread included, that leads to such discussions as this one, unfortunately. Once again let me reiterate that I don't seek to offend you or any other American member of our boards. I would really rather spare you all the hassle, but there are moments when something needs to be said. It seems however, that I will probably have to drop the subject to avoid hurting people's feelings.