2007-09-22 01:41:48 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Saddam was arguably less cruel to his subjects, but we invaded Iraq........
2007-09-22 01:42:41 · update #1
no chance ( although the Americans would need a map to find it )
2007-09-22 09:23:46 · answer #1 · answered by bruce m 5 · 3⤊ 2⤋
It is incorrect to say Mugabe is cruel when in fact it is all western propaganda and sanctions. Sanctions have killed off many Zimbabwean children than Mugabe ever can.
Do not forget there is a sort of residual colonial mentality among the older Zims who compare these lean times to those fatter ones under slavery, but re education and jail soon puts that right.
When Ian Smith's regime was jailing and killing black people I dont recall anyone except Mugabe's armed forces doing anything about it
2007-09-22 03:39:21 · answer #2 · answered by Maxi Robespierre 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
If there was oil in Zimbabwe threre is not a chance that Mugabe would still be in power. Not a single teeny weeny chance. No way. There would be American flags fluttering from every flag pole.
2007-09-22 03:41:58 · answer #3 · answered by wee.rossco 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
You mean Mugabe ok? (there goes my best answer). No way of course. If it meant anything to the West he'd have gone a while ago (with a little help).
Remember Amin? his own people forced him out by military might.
2007-09-22 07:42:36 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
In a word, no.
We all know why Iraq was really invaded, and Zimbabwe would be the same if they had anything we wanted, or rather, the Americans wanted
2007-09-22 01:48:59 · answer #5 · answered by Mr Biscuits 2 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Not a snow balls chance in hell. He would have been deposed and the US would be there now. Actually I doubt he would have ever come to power unless he started off doing what the US wanted. Just like Saddam.
2007-09-22 01:52:54 · answer #6 · answered by cutsie_dread 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
NO. We would go in after WMDs, and seek to remove a
"brutal " dick-tater. And for years we would keep a force there to impose "freedom" and " democracy" on them at gunpoint. Meanwhile the spice must flow.
2007-09-22 02:01:21 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Very good question to which my answer is 'No way' . Our mate George would have sent the troops in long ago to save the people from this tyrant....oh and while there he might have also sent in contractors associated with the oil industry just to make sure everything was okey dokey.
2007-09-22 01:50:14 · answer #8 · answered by Kay P 3 · 4⤊ 2⤋
Lets put it this way, do you think that the debacle that was Yugoslavia's disintegration would have been allowed to go on for ten years before the UN / NATO & USA finally stepped in if there had been an oil?
2007-09-22 01:52:32 · answer #9 · answered by Anchor Cranker 4 · 1⤊ 3⤋
well nice left wing and anti war protesters have made it political suicide to go help people and of course it would be racist to imply that an African doesn't have a fukin clue how to run there own country
2007-09-22 07:33:38 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Hi Doc,
He wouldn't but the Americans would.
2007-09-22 04:30:46 · answer #11 · answered by john m 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋