Robert Mugabe, a brutal megalomaniac dictator is systematically destroying his country and torturing his political opponents. Blair, yapping at the heels of Bush, went after and destroyed the Iraq ruled by Saddam Hussein - why not Robert Mugabe?
2007-03-15 05:40:57 · 17 answers · asked by Rainman 4 in News & Events ➔ Current Events
It was the Labour party and Harold Wilson who pushed for Mugabe to take over Zimbabwe. Mugabe has always been a poster child for Labour and the end of white rule. It is a bit hard to have to admit you backed the wrong horse and installed a monster.
2007-03-15 06:01:19 · answer #1 · answered by Elizabeth Howard 6 · 3⤊ 2⤋
They should be! In my opinion the British with the help of USA put him there. Since their involvement the country has just fallen apart. Rhodesia was a well run country even though it had world sanctions against it for many years (again thanks to the above two). The white people of Rhodesia were mostly British and were let down and actually picked on by the British government.
I think that at 83 everyone thinks Mugabe has not long to go and he will stand down. Not likely, he can be had up for humanitarian and war crimes once out of office. His successor will also be corrupt as he will be appointed by Mugabe to protect him. Basically everyone in the ruling party from the top dog to the tea boy is corrupt.
2007-03-15 18:02:16 · answer #2 · answered by ALISTAIR R 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Because Saddam was a regional threat, Mugabe isn't.
Because we could get to Iraq by sea and via neighbouring allies. Zimbabwe's neighbours wouldn't let us through.
And why all the concern about Zimbabwe. What about all the other countries with oppressive regimes?
2007-03-15 11:48:10 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Because Zimbabwe does not have or control oil supplies (or any other strategic product) like Iraq has, and anything to do with endangering oil supplies is like a red flag to GW Bush as the USA uses more oil per capita than any other country on earth - as Tony Blair does what the USA President tells him to do, he will not intervene in Zimbabwe unless (for some unlikely reason) Mr Bush tells him to.
2007-03-15 09:16:05 · answer #4 · answered by blondie 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
They and the West are concerned. The issue is what to do. Further sanctions will only hurt the poor. Strenuous efforts must be made to convince South Africa that Mugabe must go, followed by free and fair elections and a massive aid program to restart the economy.
2007-03-15 07:04:13 · answer #5 · answered by James Mack 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
i think of Tony Blair shouldn't proceed be the chief of the Labour party, although i might surely proceed to help the party. Tony enjoys being George Bush's lapdog too plenty. Pant, pant! he's the worst excuse for a socialist chief Britain has ever had. In a manner, he's like Margaret Thatcher along with her hero-worship of undesirable Ronnie.
2016-11-25 21:53:42 · answer #6 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because like Bush there has to be something to gain from an invasion. With Iraq it was oil, revenge and the title in history text books has being the first ones to dis-empower Saddam.
With Zimbabwe, well who knows what they have to offer
2007-03-15 05:49:14 · answer #7 · answered by amore 1 · 4⤊ 1⤋
I'd rather Mugabe invaded Britain and removed that brutal megalomaniac dictator Blair!
2007-03-15 05:45:32 · answer #8 · answered by A True Gentleman 5 · 4⤊ 4⤋
Tony Blair doesent even care a hoot about atrocities in the UK never mind AFRICA,Blair is Bushes sidekick and a complete joke! he should stand down.
2007-03-15 05:49:06 · answer #9 · answered by leopardshaz 5 · 4⤊ 3⤋
Blair is an expert in hypocrisy.
2007-03-15 13:39:18 · answer #10 · answered by LongJohns 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋