Mugabe

Amazingly, Missi, I find myself agreeing with Shacks (shit happens). A bunch of balaclava-clad semi-neanderthal beer monsters can overthrow an ameuterish hi-jacking mission, but not a ruthless, trigger-happy, connected government. Far, far too many layers. The actual cost? Too much. Then, as Shacks says, where do you draw the line? At what point is the corruption rife in Africa just acceptable enough to bring the blood back to simmering temperature? Though, I must say, what you're proposing would be a relatively just war. Relative to Iraq. But then, you bought the spin about that. So did a lot of people. There's so much we don't understand, innit.

Very "ameuterish" spelling. Ho hum, as the chief exec might say.

J-lo Pull my finger.

Actually Paul, from where i stand the two scenarios have little if nothing to distinguish them from each other. Both countries had/have a murderous bastard in the driving seat. My feelings about Iraq were only ever about the elimination of an evil bastard. In my mind that's good enough. In both cases thousands of innocent people were/are either being starved to death, beaten to death or merely murdered to suit the whim of the driver. I know smileymykletwat will say that it's still happening in Iraq but the information 'I' hear is that a relatively small number of people are dying at the hands of the remnants of the old regime. This is inevitable but is no excuse for doing nothing. If the UN grew some claws and unilaterally declared war on dictators they would eventually be a thing of the past. It's ok for us to sit here in relative luxury and security and say, 'oh we can't do that, that's not nice', but those at the sharp end just want some personal safety and food. You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs. (don't worry about the spelling, I accidentally used 'genome' instead of 'gene' a few days ago, though I expect the twat will pick it up and suggest you don't know the right spelling)

So do you think the UN could stop every oppressed person in the world being oppressed? If it could be arsed? Even if it could (which I doubt), the UN is a diplomatic, political organisation -- and will always act as such. In reality, those that grow claws do so to get some hands on some readies. Who am I thinking of? Clue: A country that starts with "A". And ends with "A". And sometimes doesn't see eye to eye with the weedy old there's-2-sides-to-every-story UN. But I share your vision of a world that kicks the shit out of any hard country even starting to give a gay country a funny look. It's kind of post-modern rewriting of the hippie sixties "give a peace a chance" message. Peace by big balls. I like it. If the council-estate chemists ever manage to create a dope-alcohol hybrid, the message may spread.

Mugabe didn't need to 'con' anybody, that's what our government and those of most of the world have to do. when you're him you just threaten and kill and cheat and manufacture whatever results you think will keep the rest of the world off your back long enough to have your super ego wanked for a few more years. It's about lines and their crossing, admittedly we keep moving the lines in the interests of peace and global politics/commerce but waiting until that line finally crosses your front door step is way too late in my view. If you want to talk to a Frenchman then learn French. If you want to talk to a killer....

The whole point of the UN was to play world policeman, albeit through politics, BUT if no one takes any notice of it they might as well shut up shop and surrender to anarchy. It's my genuine belief that unless the UN starts to behave responsibly, and by that I mean enforces it's decisions, there is no hope for this planet whilst humankind prevails here.

Here's next weeks hate candidate.. North Korea is under scrutiny for its human rights record as reports filter out of persistent abuses including public executions of captured defectors. "It is not an exaggeration to say that the country probably has the worst human rights situation anywhere in the world," said Bill Rammell (The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs). I'm expecting Iran in the very near future.

I agree, Ely, the "tank rolling in to our town" image I used was probably misjudged. I was trying to say we really don't understand conflicts properly till they affect us...but anyway, that's not the point: I draw the line at a country getting invaded by a clear aggressor; ie. the tanks rolling in to anyone's town. But human rights issues? Corrupt governements? Jesus, that's a big global undertaking.

Perhaps you could compile a 'Top Of The Pots' - Top 20 most desirable assasinations. With a competition to see who can devise the most viable methods for killing the top 3. Prize.... eternal damnation perhaps. Oh, no, of course, the new rules are you can kill anybody you don't like if you can convince yourself that they deserve it :o)

I think I was under a different name when I disliked your poem about "being British" : conquering the world by the sword (good) , having a few beers in Ibiza (bad). But that's by the by. Trust me, I won't. Laters.

Not meant for you personally Paul, just to the general let's kill people and make the world a better place brigade.

Here is something from 12 months ago...

Missi, although your knee-jerk gung-ho kill 'em all viewpoint sometimes makes me retch (or laugh), I must confess to sometimes feeling the same kind of helpless "god, can't anyone DO SOMETHING?!" about the problems in the world. It comes from being an idealist, I think. The problem with taking out a dictator is, the power-vacuum left behind is almost inevitably filled by yet another shit-head dictator from the opposite side (look at Argentina, for example). Unless the people do it themselves and have a good idea of what they would like to see in _place_ of the dictatorship, it's incredibly difficult to instigate any changes; anarchy is usually the end point. Look at Iraq: bless the naive idea that we could go in, depose ol' Saddam, and bring freedom and democracy to a suffering country. It's a very nice thought, but the realities of the people involved, who have been terrorized, brutalized, and cowed for 25 years, are much more complicated. [%sig%]

Although, as an addendum, I should say that they may yet get there in the end...

Okay, I exaggerate. But the "feel" of the poem (and what are poems, but to provoke feelings?) was: the empire days were great. Now look at all these skanks and their hopeless lives. I'll tell you what I think's great about England: we don't give two shits about our (paid) job. We do it to pay the bills. Nout else. But the French beat us hands down at even that. Though they're f**king clueless about having a good time in comparison. We English pay the bills, get away with minimum effort, have unfulfilled dreams, keep friends and family happy, then piss the rest up against a wall and take pills that make us feel all nice. England, my England. Anyway, you're keeping me away from 50 sketches, Lord Shacks.

oh dear, what has happened to this thread? not sure what to say about mugabe george, to make a pregnant woman dance at spearpoint till she miscarries makes me feel sick to the stomach. I don't know what the solution is, is hard to just look on at another's suffering and not be able to do anything about it. Though I feel he should be imprisoned for these crimes against humanity, I don't know how it can be done. There are many dictators, how can we crush every single one? And is it right to interfere with another nations problems like this? I don't know, perhaps if I was living in Mugabe's country, and the UN stormed in to overthrow his government. I would probably be excited that things were going to change, but at the same time I would be afraid; war is a terrifying thing. I never feel that violence is the right way to go about things. But then I cannot think of any other way to stop him. If the people of Zimbabwe were to rise up and fight him...

>> ..There are many dictators, how can we crush every single one? And is it right to interfere with another nations problems like this? ... << Richie, we have to start somewhere. Remove one. Then another... It's not a case of another nation, it's a case of other humans, individuals being tortured, starved and murdered. the answer is YES, we ALL have the right to intervene on behalf of our fellow human. National borders have fuck all to do with it. It's human rights, and those that don't respect them MUST be removed by any means available. The consequences are the price we all pay for allowing the ill-treatment in the first place.

Fuck You Missi. I agree.

There may be hope for you yet then.

Violence is the right way to go about things sometimes. You - or at least half of Europe - would be speaking German, goosestepping into work, and forced to inbreed if someone (a wretched Tory, too) hadn't decided to kick some ass in a little skirmish circa 1940. An army's raison d'etre is not to provide Green Goddesses when firemen go on strike. In this world -- yeah, I'll say it: ONE world -- it's there to kick the shit out of dickhead bully nations. Or should be. But to step in where there's no foreign invasion. To jump into a country where war (one-sided or not) doesn't really exist: the question remains: where do you stop. The spear-miscarriage thing reminds me of the all that stuff about the IRA blowing up babies in prams in the nineties. Evocative language can simplify a situation, and especially to get stupid people on side. It's called propaganda. But behind all that, there's stuff we'll never even try to understand till a tank rolls into our own town. And I'll just make it clear: I'm not calling anyone stupid on this thread.

At which point you will suddenly decide, along with all the other anti-war proponents and general pacifists, that it was a good idea after all? Arcger, my viewpoint is anything but 'kneejerk'. I can assure you that I arrive at my views after many hours, days, months of careful consideration of what options are open. The difference between myself and many others here is that I wouldn't flinch in the face of having to fight fire with fire, if that is the only realistic option. As I've said many times, sometimes you have to fight for peace and democracy. I hate the idea as much as anyone i know BUT sometimes it's unavoidable. Mykle you and your wanky opinions are of no interest to me at all. You are, and always have been a c**t as far as I am concerned. I have no reason to believe you will improve with the passage of time.

Well, you didnt say *i* couldnt bleat about there being no oil. So why HAVEN'T the west steamed in then George? Rigged elections and mass murder not enough of an excuse? Well, it was enough of an excuse to invade and ravage Iraq. Apparently. (it couldnt be that he has no nuclear capacity either could it?)

It didn't stop at the spear dancing, apparently there were over 800,000 votes cast in Mug-a-bee's favour by dead people. It was an illegal election by almost anybody's standards. You don't need a tank in town to explain starvation in a country that used to be known as the bread basket of Africa. Turning the other cheek is a cop out.

Missi, you KNOW we very nearly see eye to eye on this. But you know I could do some research (Easter holidays, plenty of time on my hands) and provide info on myriad African nations with oppressive regimes that you -- because it's not in the news everyday -- are turning the other cheek to. I'm a realist. If a country gets invaded, looted, and raped by another country, we can step in. If a country does it to itself, well, Jesus -- the UN should have sent in a wrecking crew over here in the eighties. It's TOO widespread. It's TOO ambitious.

So you'd just shrug and say it's no ones business? How can I turn the other cheek to something I'm unaware of? >>...If a country gets invaded, looted, and raped by another country, we can step in...<< What you're telling me is that it's ok for a nation's masters to commit these crimes themselves? I'm sorry Paul, I CAN'T buy that.

OK, you could say I am a little biased as my sis-in-law is a Rhodesian, forced to flee for her own safety.

You win George - I merely assert that you are a moron but you constantly prove it!

"At which point you will suddenly decide, along with all the other anti-war proponents and general pacifists, that it was a good idea after all?" Well, Missi, this is the conundrum, innit? I'll never argue that getting rid of Saddam was a bad idea; clearly the man had to go (as do several other troubling regimes). It's not so much the 'getting rid of the dictator' I have trouble with (although the thought of covert CIA-type assassination operations troubles me deeply; the US has already done this in Latin/South America!), it's the general, 'let's impose democracy on the suddenly liberated country'. I mean, democracy is an evolving and highly flawed ideology. Europe had to move through imperialism, feudalism, nation-state, more imperialism, fascism, etc. to get to the EU phase, and some places are STILL working it out. It takes _time_ for people to adjust to a new paradigm; it takes time for them to get over the shock of losing the old paradigm, no matter how terrible it was. You can't cookie-cutter democratize countries, especially those that have never really had it. That's all.

Now, now. Not all Americans get to suck off the big money tittie, Jasper. And not all of 'em are 'fat, dumb, and happy'. The collapse of the American economy won't affect those who could actually do with a good caning; they've already got their billions tucked away nicely in some offshore bank in the Caymans. As usual, it'll just affect the poor suckers trying to make the mortgage payments. Justice is seldom fair or unbiased, despite what the statues of a blindfolded lady holding scales in front of every courthouse might suggest. Like with the whole Enron thing: I felt the best justice would be to have those greedy sonsabitches who bilked everyone in their workforce of their life savings, go work at McDonald's for five bucks an hour. Just try to fill up the tank of your Rolls on those wages! Alas, it'll never happen. They'll be 'fined' and spend some time in a comfortable miniumum security prison. I won't even get the satisfaction of knowing that in prison they'll get as good a fucking over (or into!) as they've done to others on the 'outside'.

For heaven's sake. Hitler preached similar drivel: get a grip - Missi's Fascist's Forum. Why don't the three of you go out there and do the job yourselves - you could talk him to death!

Come on, Missi. You know I'm not saying that. It's not okay. It's wrong. You should get involved with Amnesty International -- a great organisation, who do great work. I just have a problem with your idea that sending the boys in is the answer to everything. We didn't send the boys into South Africa during its darkest days, did we? We just stood by and cheered on the goverments biggest threat (ooh 'eck, say it quietly, a terrorist). So if I made you aware of fifty downtrodden starving African states f**ked over by their governments, what would you say? Oh yeah, now I'm aware, send the boys there too... That's a lot of soldiers, mate.

If you have a personal interest, that's fair enough. I'd feel the same. If Blair had a sister involved, we'd be in there for sure.

And come on Mykle, you used to be good at talking. You know, intelligent debate and that. Come back.

I see, so in principle you agree with me then. I can see there is some sense in your fears but I believe it's a mistake to let our fears for future problems to prevent us from dealing with the ones here now. I would always have been in favour of the UN having control of what kind of government is acceptable to the rest of the world (and don't let us forget that in the last 100yrs the world has shrunk to such a degree that what happens elsewhere now affects us all). It was never in my mind that 'liberating' nations should have the right per se to impose their own brand of government, BUT world citizens everywhere must have the right to live free of fear, hunger and persecution. It's my belief that this can only be guaranteed by a REAL UN.

Could it be that it's because Britain made such a pigs ear of handing the place over before? Well, as far as those whites who had all their assets frozen before they managed to leave go, anyway. And, according to those whites, a pigs ear for those happily working for them. Complex one isn't it?

I suspect the reason there's been no intervention, so far, is because most southern African states are seen as nothing more than a drain on world resources, quite apart from the fact that they are also seen as so bloody backward and breeding like rats that the western world would almost certainly like to see them decimated. They cost too much in medical aid and food programmes. For my part I'd be in favour of removing the bastard by force. TOMORROW!

In terms of the amount of misery caused to fellow human beings, I put Mugabe right up there with the Pope, Tony Blair and mississippi. The democratically-elected Mugabe has been beastly to too many people in his charming country. The dead Pope caused more human suffering on all continents than almost any other modern public figure. Tony Blair is a dissemblling war criminal who has lost my vote. mississippi has an upsetting haircut and spends a lot of his time shouting into sewers at the people who live there.

I've heard tell of him shouting into dumpsters also.

So you don't very much care about Mugabe one way or the other then?

That's "to be gained."

So be it. maxie, we all make typos, stop being childish.

Mykle's attitude to me has nothing whatsoever to do with intelligent debate, Paul, he's miffed at coming second in what he saw as a competiton. It was not. He's still smarting and it's time he grew up. Every silly remark he makes about me just reinforces what most here thought about him anyway. He claims his behaviour last time was caused by a personal crisis. What is it THIS time?

*slowly opens one beady eye* *makes mental note of new possible rock basking domain* *closes beady eye*

I got side-tracked there for a moment....back to the topic. As you are aware paul, there are degrees of despotism and Mugabe far outstrips the SA of yore. I'm not suggesting that 'sending in the boys' is the universal panacea for all bastards, but there are a few instances where it's possibly not only the obvious solution, but the expedient one too. As I've remarked in the past, the spectre of the UN removing dictators one by one would possibly have the effect that the hanging lobby claim a return to capital punishment would have, ie, a deterrent to others. If a league table of the worst was drawn up and systematically dealt with, one at a time, the 'boys' count would remain at a pretty constant and sensible level, (they should be drawn from EVERY signatory to the UN plus the state being returned to law and order). I can see that this idea is pie in the sky, but let's be honest here, the current methods of world peace-keeping are failing miserably or at best working against the grain. We have to start somewhere, and spending decades talking and doing nothing is a complete waste of time, meqanwhile the worlds oppressed are dying in their thousands. AI wouldn't have any truck with me, I'm too radical, they mean well but their inate pacifism is a handicap. Sometimes you have to fight for peace and what's right.

>> ...mississippi has an upsetting haircut and spends a lot of his time shouting into sewers at the people who live there... << Hahahahahaha... that's so funny Mr Gardenia, especially as those I shout at in the main are the Goon, the kangaroo jockey and mykle. Sewer dwellers to a rodent. The haircut has got out of hand of late.

Have you stopped taking the pills again, George? What competition was this then - let's alert people to what a Fascist, rabble-rouser, Missi is? Your thinking is so warped and divicisive that you've even turned your own wife into a terrorist! Who knows, next week you might be encouraging rent a mob to murder her to stop futher atrocities in the Missi household. Don't you ever wonder why Ghaddafi, once villified like Mugabe, is now such a nice man, George, he's selling us oil. If you had an ounce of intelligence and imgination you would realise that you are continually fooled by spin and propaganda designed to effect morons like you - which, ironically, is how Mugabe managed to con the voters to vote him back.

Or perhaps you could pray for him.

It's the S**t you spout that stinks out the sewer Sludge.

apologise.