Isn't it Time we Invaded Zimbabwe?

hednesfordxcer

Am I alone in thinking our Armed Forces should be in Zimbabwe? But then again, they don't have oil in Zimbabwe do they?

nicklouse

sorry dont you mean Rhodesia?

hednesfordxcer

Now now :twisted:

Neil2oo7

No zimbabwe shouldn't be invaded by the US or Uk armed forces. Can I just ask you a quick question? Have you ever been there? Or have you been there in the last 5 years?

Neily03

My answer depends on what the moutain biking like there.....

schmako

No. We've meddled in enough business that isn't ours.

ExBiker

Schmako wrote:

No. We've meddled in enough business that isn't ours.

Ditto what lionel said!!!!

L60N

I second lionel Richtea. HELLO, is it me your looking for!

hastings

i think that as zimbabwe is a former british colony (rhodesia) we should go there and make a stand against the real terrorists (mugabi)
i think that pm brown is making the right stand my refusing to go the eu summit if mugabi goes

Big n Daft

Wasn't independence about giving people the right to self determination?

Apart from ensuring that elections are fair and free, why should any outside power interfere?

hastings

because they don't live in a democracy and even if they did want to beak out nd fight against mugabe they cant because they are all poor and undernourished because inflation is at 6000% at the moment and rising all the time.

the elections aren't fair and free which is why may countries and key figures such as Gordon brown and the archbishop of Canterbury are speaking out

Big n Daft

Which is why I think we (for we read a multinational, possibly UN force, but better an African coalition) should interfere to ensure the elections are free and fair, but for that reason and that reason only. That does not need a military force to ensure.

Invading just won't help unless there is a long term plan to empower Zimbabwe's people.......Iraq ring any bells?

Military intervention, regime change and supported coup's don't work. You create a power vacuum someone even worse might just fill it. Which is basically what happened to put Mugabe there in the first place.

Let the people have a say, ensure opposition parties are not suppressed, elections are not rigged, basically provide a choice....you might just get a government that will look after it's people while ensuring that the security apparatus still exists to keep society cohesive.

hednesfordxcer

I think history proves that African Coalitions are impossible. Granted some of that is Britain's fault, instead of splitting Africa up by way of tribes, it was done with straight lines that look good on maps. Unlike Iraq, however, an invading force would be genuinely welcomed, although the likes of South Africa would be against it, because if Zimbabwe were to become the "bread basket" of Africa once again, obviously other African countries economies would suffer. But does not Sierra Leonne prove that even a small British force, not governed by gung-ho American chiefs, can make a dramatic difference?

CowboyBob

Britian will not deploy troops to Zim.
The Forces are stretched as it is and retention would suffer even more than it is now if yet another tour was added. Plus the image of Inperialist Colonial soldiers shooting natives would not go down to well and would be PR suicide.

shorty15

Speaking as someone who does this for a living,it aint gonna happen,however personally
I think it would be a good idea,as we could recolonise it and leave the UK to the poles and all the other jetsam and flotsam.

clarkson

as a country, we've ruined enough countries as it is. saddam was apparetnyl 'evil' but now its worse than it was before. at least they had a stable government with no terrorists as such, so no, i dont think we should.

big-hitter

just tell bush that osama is there with some wmd's. then he will invade, america will be hated by the world (again) and we can just sneak in and clean up while posing as a peacforce therefor gaining the worlds trust and respect. OR it could go horribly wrong and bush will probs just nuke it.

jpembroke

When Mugabi dies things will change. It's just a waiting game. Sad for the people suffering but there's not much more can be done.

Anonymous

to the 18 people who have voted yes so far, could i please point out that many of you wont be the individuals actually going there to fight the needless conflict.

I, however, might be!!

(so vote no incase the government is reading this and thinks it is a good idea) 8)

supersonic

Isn't the UK planning on banning Zimbabwean sportsmen/women from competing here?

Cunobelin

Iraq and Iran export Oil from their natural resources

Zimbabwe imports Oil


Therefore it won't happen!

guilliano

Send Jason Bourne to shoot him from a distance and bugger off again. Invasions are costly in terms of both lives and taxpayers money. He should really have been arrested for crimes against humanity when he went to the EU summit and that would have been the end of the matter, but the politicians were too gutless.

Oldmacdonald

No we shouldn't, but we certainly should be investing in the country. Before Mugabe it was the largest exporter of food and natural minerals in Africa, and certainly had one of the strongest economies.

Doom

jpembroke wrote:

When Mugabi dies things will change. It's just a waiting game. Sad for the people suffering but there's not much more can be done.

His name is spelt Mugabe and you are seriously short of brain capacity if you think change is just waiting for him to die. Do you really think that 28years of ZANU PF rule has been maintained by Mugabe on his own? There are numerous people who have benefited from his reign who stand to lose everything should the situation change and who will do anything to ensure it doesn't.

By all accounts there are more ruthless people waiting in the wings that to date Mugabe has kept at bay so his death, which if happens while he is in power, will only serve to bring about a power struggle that will probably be the straw that breaks the back of the Zimbabwe people and leads to violence. Zimbabwe has not hit rock bottom yet and the African nations stand by because they are profiting from it.

Change... dont expect it soon.

wheelbuckler

clarkson wrote:

as a country, we've ruined enough countries as it is. saddam was apparetnyl 'evil' but now its worse than it was before. at least they had a stable government with no terrorists as such, so no, i dont think we should.

Have you been to Iraq? I have, quite a few times and believe me it's not worse than it was before its different but not worse. Don't get me wrong, I don't believe we should be there but to say it's worse to me says you haven't seen the bigger picture.

I don't think it would be right to go to Zimbabwe either, for a start there would be a huge problem with the number of Zimbabwe folk that are serving in the forces, for right or wrong you couldn't rely on them to do a proffesional job out there, thats not meant in a disrespectful way but if someone was making a mess out of my home country and I had to go there to sort it out, I don't think I could do it from the stance that would be expected, I think my heart would overrule my head.

We should start to look after our own interests in our own country for a while, the government seems to be so pre occupied with whats going on elsewhere that they seem to miss that our own country is going down the s**ter.

gk141054

Schmako wrote:

No. We've meddled in enough business that isn't ours.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing"

schmako

Gordon Brown and George Bush, good men? Plus with the state of some parts of this country I think we wouldn't go wrong concentrating a bit more on Britain.

gk141054

Think you took it a little too literally...

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good countries do nothing"

I agree your comments RE: (not so) Great Britain, but that said Zimbabwe is a hell of a lot worse...

I'm not saying we should go in there and kick ass, but we should certainly have facilitated a fair and transparent election there so that the p***k Mugabe couldn't rig it and kill anyone that tried to stop him.... :shock:

schmako

Yeah, think I did! I could see it becoming another Iraq if we were to intervene in anything over there though. I think someone should just assassinate Mugabe, but thats me..

Bikedevil

Zimbabwe needs fair democratic elections to remove Mugabe, a bullet - so to speak - would create a power struggle and more than likely civil war. It needs to be left alone by the West.

Doom

Schmako wrote:

Yeah, think I did! I could see it becoming another Iraq if we were to intervene in anything over there though. I think someone should just assassinate Mugabe, but thats me..

Umm.. No an assassiniation wouldn't be very clever. Zimbabwe is run by Mugabe in agreement with his Junta, or war council, made up of his army generals and a very few other select members in postions of power and influence. They have already indicated that if he was to step down they would turn Zimbabwe into a military state and if you think Mugabe is ruthless then these guys have the potential to make the Kenyan's look fair minded.

They are widely believed to have orchestrated the Matabeleland massacres killing thousands purely for being part of a different tribe.

BIKEDEVIL wrote:

Zimbabwe needs fair democratic elections to remove Mugabe, a bullet - so to speak - would create a power struggle and more than likely civil war. It needs to be left alone by the West.

I don't see civil war taking place as the Shona as a collective are far too placid and at the hands of Mugabe and his cronies have been beaten and threatened for too long to act as a cohesive group and act. Africa needs to grow a pair and start to realise that the Zimbabwean situation is bad for the region and take active, public steps to resolve this. Maybe when the South African Rand hits 30-1 to the Pound and investment starts to look elsewhere will something change.