English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

27 answers

The reason we went into Iraq and we are not going into Zimbabwe is all to do about America's strategic interests. The Middle East is a breeding ground for terrorists, it has vast oil reserves, and they were believed to have WMD's by the CIA and other governmental agencies. Zimbabwe is a poor African country with very little strategic value at the present time. The United States is currently working with the UN to come up with a solution, but this isn't in our best interests to go alone and spread our troops even thinner. I hope this helps.

2006-10-06 05:23:16 · answer #1 · answered by jflavor82 2 · 0 0

That is a very good question. I am from Zimbabwe and had to leave there in 2003 due to the situation. Believe it or not, there is still a wealth of gold and other minerals too, although all the machinery and equipment is very old and damaged. There is still a basic infrastructure there. Zimbabwe used to be the breadbasket of southern africa and self supporting, (even during the 'Liberation Struggle') i.e. we grew all our own food and exported excess (this stopped when the farmers were forced off the lands thus dropping the country into a starving begging country. The tourism trade has all but ceased due to the current situation there. Its a great pity as Zimbabwe and the majority of its people are hard working, friendly and once your feet have touched the dust and experienced an african sunset in the wildnerness in Zimbabwe, you'll want to keep going back for more, the way of life was awesome and the people outstanding. I really do wish that they could sort it out as I still have family and friends there.

2006-10-07 01:19:19 · answer #2 · answered by tracy r 3 · 0 0

Iraq was about finishing off what his dad left, nothing to do with human rights. Iraq was a much more stable country when So-damn Insane (Sorry, Suddam Hussain) was in charge, and while he did run the country in a throughly undemocratic way and was essentially a monster to the people, one has to wonder if they are in fact worse off now. Zimbabwe has no interest to Washington, so nothing will ever get done, unless the rest of the United Nations got together and delt with it (which is unlikely).

2006-10-06 05:05:23 · answer #3 · answered by Bealzebub 4 · 0 0

The question itself is simple... just what some others already said: no oil in Zimbabwe. As for general questioning of why the US and/or any other country doesn't go in to defend any certain country (in Africa) during time of war/civil war??? Have you ever watched a hockey game??? (NHL in the US) Do you notice that almost every single fight the ref waits until both players involved are done before making any attempt to calm the situation and/or punish them??? It's basically the same as the US foreign policy regarding just about every country in Africa... to me at least. I can't think of any other analogy that would come close to comparison than refs of the NHL.

2006-10-06 05:10:37 · answer #4 · answered by rjakjr 3 · 0 0

The fact that there's no oil or other natural resources to misappropriate is important however it is a lot more complex than that. Zimbabwe is in the state that it is because of outside interference; colonialism, soviet and Chinese funding to armed groups etc. Any country trying to get involved in African politics will be accused of having empirical intent.

who says we stopped human rights violations in Iraq

2006-10-06 05:47:16 · answer #5 · answered by sward 1 · 0 0

Why, so the other countries of the world can tell us we are no good and we are being a bully. We tried to help in Somalia but they did not want it, they thought we were invading their country so the people backed the war words. We have done enough for the world let the other countries do something for a change, I am tired of our men dieing for people that don't give a dam about their own country. Now their is a commercial on TV, that is saying Mr. Bush do something about Darfu, you no what will happen if he dose, everyone that wants him to will say he didn't do it right and that he is a bully and call him every name in the book. So why bother .

2006-10-06 06:11:47 · answer #6 · answered by hexa 6 · 0 0

I agree with the no oil thing but my opinion of africa - its time they learnt.

Have you ever picked a hot pan off the stove and burnt your hand? So you get a towel and put and round the handle so you dont burn your hand.

What they seem to do in africa is keep burning their hand but cant work out why!! They need to learn, i think the same of every country. Why should we keep helping them, i remember as a child listening to teachers at school go on about africa. There is untold potential for africa to become a superpower. They have the resources but have no idea how to utilise them. This has clicked with many afican countries but most see someone doing well and take it. Like when mugabi kicked out all the white farmers and then took the farms and gave them to real zimbabwians. they had no idea how to farm and so they starved. They saw what others had and wanted it.
Why are developed countries assigned the responsibilty to look after countries who are to backward to look after themselves.

2006-10-07 01:27:54 · answer #7 · answered by jj26 5 · 0 0

Because no one wants to face the reason those human rights abuses are taking place.

The theory was that racism and colonialism kept people down in that country. The truth is that the blacks who live there are incredibly racists......genocidally racist. Plus they are infected with the disease of marxism. They pattern themselves after the stalinist socialists and the national socialists (Mugabe's right hand man calls himself Hitler). They loot the country, kill people for fun and have completely destroyed every aspect of life there. They are evil. And nobody but nobody wants to admit that those evil people were put in power because they were black. Racism is at the root of that evil...but not racism against blacks but racism where this behavior in blacks is ignored.

Further, this is another experiment in socialism that has lead to its inevitable result. There are a hell of alot of marxists in the US and in the western world. They control the UN. Despite hundreds of millions of people being cruelly put to death in every single marxist government that has ever existed with no exceptions whatsoever, they simply refuse to admit that marxism in all its forms is evil. Many of them embrace marxism BECAUSE it is evil (a much more serious problem). These people have real power and they completely block any attempt to address Zimbabwe.....just like they have so many times before with other countries.

2006-10-06 05:08:26 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

What would they gain in Zimbabwe? There is no oil, the infrastructure has been destroyed, there is no electricity, fuel, food, etc so the super powers would have absolutely nothing to gain. Remember the slogan 'nothing for nothing' ?

2006-10-06 04:57:16 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Someone hit the nail on the head: no oil. African countries have been dealing with genocide since the early ninties. Our government has failed to play a role since then, I don't really see them making an effort to help now. They would rather police the countries that "make a difference" inside their wallets and checkbooks.

2006-10-06 05:00:12 · answer #10 · answered by ajd1bmf 4 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers