Simon Darkshade
Mysterious City of Gold
Here is a nation torn apart by a tyrannical dictatorship who uses murder, torture and theft as its instruments of power. It's economy has gone to pieces, and its citizens, both black and white, are subject to the most outrageous abuses.
Election rigging and threats of the Zimbabwean military intevening if Mugabe is not "re-elected" add to what is a most deadly broth.
Yet the man is supported by a conference of local African leaders, who did not even tacitly censure his actions. The only action proposed is the eventual freezing of Mugabes international assets, and maybe even a strongly worded statement of disapproval. There is some mention of suspension from the Commonwealth, however I do not think the lily livered diplomats would really go that far. Someone might call them imperialists, and we can't have that happening, can we?
About the only good thing about the former apartheid South African regime is that they would have intervened militarily by now.
And that is the type of action I believe is required - responsible intervention to remove a most despicable dictator, and kill him and all his cronies. Only then will Zimbabwe be able to progress as a modern nation, instead of heading screaming back into the Dark Ages like it is at the moment.
The risk of getting bogged down in a quagmire is quite minimal, as we can see from the Tanzanian invasion of Uganda to get rid of Idi Amin.
The vast majority of the people do not support him, but are cowed by his murderous mobs.
As previously mentioned, unfortunately, Mugabe's African neighbours do not perceive him to be majorly out of line. So, therefore, some other powers must shoulder the responsibility, those with traditional links to the area. If South Africa could be involved, it would be very convenient, but the government there would not be conducive to such action.
Even a non-official group would be a possibility.
I guess I am just sick of this matter getting lip service at best in the press, who moan about there being no solution to this situation, and the craven diplomats who strongly condemn what is going on, and threaten to take ceremonial action, and even contemplate economic sanctions at a later stage. It is my argument that such gestures would have no effective impact upon the situation, and what is needed is direct action.
One is not passing the buck to the US, UK etc, but rather saying that military intervention of some description looks to me the quickest and most effective way to ameliorate the situation. At the very least, I would like to spark up some debate on the matter.
What should the West do about the situation in Zimbabwe?
Election rigging and threats of the Zimbabwean military intevening if Mugabe is not "re-elected" add to what is a most deadly broth.
Yet the man is supported by a conference of local African leaders, who did not even tacitly censure his actions. The only action proposed is the eventual freezing of Mugabes international assets, and maybe even a strongly worded statement of disapproval. There is some mention of suspension from the Commonwealth, however I do not think the lily livered diplomats would really go that far. Someone might call them imperialists, and we can't have that happening, can we?

About the only good thing about the former apartheid South African regime is that they would have intervened militarily by now.
And that is the type of action I believe is required - responsible intervention to remove a most despicable dictator, and kill him and all his cronies. Only then will Zimbabwe be able to progress as a modern nation, instead of heading screaming back into the Dark Ages like it is at the moment.
The risk of getting bogged down in a quagmire is quite minimal, as we can see from the Tanzanian invasion of Uganda to get rid of Idi Amin.
The vast majority of the people do not support him, but are cowed by his murderous mobs.
As previously mentioned, unfortunately, Mugabe's African neighbours do not perceive him to be majorly out of line. So, therefore, some other powers must shoulder the responsibility, those with traditional links to the area. If South Africa could be involved, it would be very convenient, but the government there would not be conducive to such action.
Even a non-official group would be a possibility.
I guess I am just sick of this matter getting lip service at best in the press, who moan about there being no solution to this situation, and the craven diplomats who strongly condemn what is going on, and threaten to take ceremonial action, and even contemplate economic sanctions at a later stage. It is my argument that such gestures would have no effective impact upon the situation, and what is needed is direct action.
One is not passing the buck to the US, UK etc, but rather saying that military intervention of some description looks to me the quickest and most effective way to ameliorate the situation. At the very least, I would like to spark up some debate on the matter.
What should the West do about the situation in Zimbabwe?