why do we not intervene to stop mugabe starving his people to death ? Is there no oil there to justify it?

Answer 1

When the first Zimbabwe hijacker flies a plane into the pentagon we will. But you are welcome to ask our Democratic controlled Congress that question.

Answer 2

Mugabe has no oil. His country used only to produce lots of copper and tobacco. Since we're all supposed to be giving up tobacco anyway, why bother about him? Last I heard inflation in Zimbabwe was running at around 1500% a year - even this could be an under estimate.

Mugabe is soon to hand over power to another person, not sure who. Mugabe is now 83 [I think].

Answer 3

Tony Blair is, at least on paper, a Labour Prime Minister. It was a Labour government that destroyed Rhodesia and allowed it to fall into the hands of a power-hungry, black nationalist, self-affirmed communist rather than try to come to an arrangement where democracy would survive and all the residents of Rhodesia would profit. Therefore, for Britain to act over Zimbabwe would be akin to the Labour party admitting it got it wrong with Rhodesia and we all know that Labour is stubbornly incapable of admitting to it's mistakes. Remember it is trendy amongst Labour's supporters to support the Third World without reservation even when catastrophic mistakes have been made and basic human rights have been trampled. Blair also fears that if Britain acted directly over Zimbabwe, Mugabe's accusations about the West meddling in African affairs would ring true.

What makes me so mad is that Mugabe had been in power for over twenty years before he moved the white farmers off their land thus crippling the economy and destroying any semblance of liberty in Zimbabwe. Why is it that within twenty years of independence Mugabe hadn't done anything to ween the economy off its dependence on cash crops? Surely trying to diversify the economy into manufacturing would have led to greater prosperity for all the Zimbabwean people. Mugabe is a syphilitic thug and the Devil is rubbing his hands together as he contemplates Mugabe's imminent death.

Answer 4

K.Marx III. is living in a dream world with his answer.He is effectively saying the same things that like minded, miguided people were saying during the 1970's about Uganda under Idi Amin. And now, just as then we've left it too late to do anything about it.To suggest that the west is responsible for the atrocities inflicted on the poor starving people of Zimbabwe is absurdity beyond belief. It is the very attitude of of people who can't see things for what they really are that allow people like Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin,Saddam, Amin, and Mugabe to seize power in the first place. Apologists for power crazy dictators should check up on their history first. I am not a historian myself,(I'm actually a physicist),but I make it my business to know about what matters.You are pretty much spot on about the oil, but the lack of any direct military or terrorist threat to the west also plays a big part in our apathy towards the Zimbabwe situation.We should be ashamed of ourselves.
Just one more thing. Is the answerer who styles himself K.Marx III actually that "bootlicker-to-the-world's dictators" Mr.George Galloway M.P.?

Answer 5

No oil no poppy plantations.If Mugabe set up terrorist training camps that might help.I have been saying on Q&A that there are many dictators at least as bad if not worse than Sadam but the ussual tossers come out with the same answers that he had to go,only one reason OIL!!!!!!!!!!

Answer 6

Babe you are in a very small minority of people that even thinks about it. The only reason the US and GB went into Iraq was for the oil and to reap the benefits of it. Mugabe should be shot, not for oil or any riches reaped afterwards but because he is the second hitler and will kill his own to gain wealth and power.

Answer 7

It is not Mugabe starving his people to death but Western governments as usual wanting control over third world countries. Meddling. He is right to tell them to go jump. China is providing aid and trade. Good luck Zimbabwe. I like to speak for oppressed people

Answer 8

That's because there's celebrities and politicians whom believe in giving under-developed governments millions and billions of dollars to end hunger through the United Nations. This isn't a bad idea but the fact is that money falls in the hands of dictators and the elite whom uses the money for weapons, http://www.voteprimous.com

Answer 9

Does Mugabe reprent a threat to the USA? No. That's why.

In case nobody noticed, Afganistan is not exactly a major source of oil.

Answer 10

The consensus of the people is required to undertake an action of the nature you are describing. And Congress has achieved no such consensus.

Try to make something deviant out of it, but it really comes down to the will of the people.

And people opposed to the war in Iraq have no justification to go to war in Africa.

Answer 11

Because the liberals of the world aren't heartbroken when white farmers are murdered for their land, even if it does starve the black population.