why have never stopped Mugabe ??

Question

If the reason for invading Iraq was honestly about overthowing a despot , then why have we never invaded Zimbabwe?? At least us Brits have recent historic links unlike Iraq

Answer 1

I do agree that something should be done about Robert Mugabe, he has ruined Zimbabwe.

I think you'll find that we do also have historic links with Iraq.

On 11 November 1920 Iraq became a League of Nations mandate under British control with the name "State of Iraq".
The British government laid out the political and constitutional framework for Iraq's government.

Answer 2

It is because in the UK we have no real desire to police the world i the same way that USA does. We only joined in iraq because of weak leadership who decided to get into bed with the USA as opposed to join our EU partners.
Plus Mugabe will have friends in the region so it would not be just taking on Zimbabwe. You may not be old enough to remember the first revolution in Zimbabwe: you may find: - "Mukiwa: A White Boy in Africa" by Peter Godwin an interesting read. Alos there are many who remember the UK colonisation of the region or at least what it was like then - I guess they may not be keen to see the white rule again, but equally Mugabe is not the man for the job (Idi Amin also springs to mind)

Answer 3

This question is one that involves the past colonialisation of Rhodesia and subsequent UDI under Ian Smith, at least from the point of view of British involvement.

During the switchover from Rhodesia to Zimbabwe (an event which I was, at the age of 10, unfortunately in the middle of) Mugabe, backed by Russian 'advisors' intimidated the (for want of a better phrase) politically ignorant native Rhodesians into voting for him by saying such things as 'we can tell who's x is on the paper', and regardless of the dubious circumstances of his victory, this made him the 'democratically' elected leader of the newly formed state of Zimbabwe.

We know now that the illusion of democracy within Zimbabwe is merely that, an illusion, but add that illusion to the previous links that you speak of, and automatically thoughts will turn to the British led apartheid like regime that has marked most of Rhodesian history ... an accusation of that sort could be devastating to a government in the current world political climate.

The only way that Zimbabwe would be 'liberated' from Mugabe's murderous rule (being of the Shona tribe from the Northern area of Zimbabwe, Mugabe has murdered countless of the rival Matabele from the south of the country) would be for the United Nations to actually acknowledge that there is a problem which falls well within their charter (They were formed to ensure that atrocities such as those seen in WW2 would never be committed again, a premise which has to date been 'hit and miss' at best), and begin multinational operations against his regime directly.

Also to those of you who are saying Mugabe does not have oil ... this is indeed true, however Zimbabwe has other resources which would be valuable to other countries.

Answer 4

Because there is no oil in Zimbabwe.
And if America or anybody else do invade Zimbabwe it will be racism.
Yes my friend: Black people know how to use that when things go wrong. They manupilate the world currently with this.
I've been to countries in Europe and saw how they use their color to get what they want.
Then there are so many bad poltics and dictators in Africa, nobody will know where to start.
Also many are Muslim countries which will lead to more terrorism.Not very nice, but they do abuse their religion for political gain.
You talk about Zimbabwe; Go to South Africa and you will see how they use "democracy" to abuse the rights of people.Even worse than Mugabe, because South Africa was a 1st world country governed by 3rd world politics now.

Yes, Africa abuse religion and color to get things their way and not the peoples way which should be democracy.

Answer 5

I can only answe this question with questions....

Does Zimbabwe have oil?

Did Mugabe lose a battle but win a war against Bush senior (Sadam remained in power after the Kuwaiti/Iraq conflict and proceeded to blow raspberries at Bush's daddy in the early 90s)?

Would the US be able to brow beat neighbouring African countries such as South Africa into supporting/allowing a conflict via use of their sovreign territories?

What strategic advantage would the US gain from invading Zimbabwe?

Answer 6

sorry to correct you, but iraq was originally created by the brits, who gave it a monarchy and every thing.... the fact that the monarchy was over thrown thereby removing the brit puppet is beside the point :)

if you believed that iraq was about doing a good deed for people, then you are really gullible... sorry but that is the truth and you are gonna have to face it one day. and that's why mugabe is still there, as well as all the other despots.

Answer 7

I agree - Blair's support for Bush in Iraq made sense ONLY in the context of a reciprocal agreement to get rid of Mugabe and his vile despotic regime which has destroyed a country, killed millions and made him personally obscenely rich.
Without South African support and with the political and economic might of the black African nations ranged against what would be seen as a new colonialism, the poor long-suffering Rhodesians have no one to help them but themselves.

Answer 8

Because, despite Mugabe being a complete pyscho, everyone there seems to love him.
You have to realise that as an ex-colonial power, for us to go in and overthrow a leader would see thousands and thousands of people from all the surrounding countries swarm in to help. His own people might not, but he has the support of his neighbours.
Even with the best of intentions, our presence would be viewed as another attempt at bringing the locals to heel.

Answer 9

Not much oil in Zimbabwe. Plus how many wars are we going to commit to in one go? We are already fighting on 2 fronts. A third would stretch the army to breaking point

Answer 10

How much oil does Zimbabwe have What are is gas reserves. Are the uranium mines producing mind boggling amounts. No !well best leave them to there democratically elected government. People only have despotic leaders and governments that need sorting out if the West wants something. All they have is poverty corruption our politicians will no doubt let them keep it