That would be clever. Our track record is excellent ... 100% rubbish. Iraq and Afgahnistan. I think Zim is quite capable of destroying itself without destabilising it with troops and leaving it open to attacks from its neighbours.
xxR
2007-11-06 03:00:13
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Why should we? They have nothing we want. Such is capitalism,(which I don't like) but why are they starving? Their "ruler" lives a life of opulence and over-indulgence, let the people decide, because at the end of the day there are more of them than there are of him. We have enough conflicts going on in the world, we do not need to resurrect old ones. They wanted independence and they got it. How much money has the "West" ploughed into African nations? The "Commonwealth" is defunct, nations cannot seek true independence and then come back and expect those who were expelled to save them. Of course the Empiralists gained much from their domination, but it was not done in my name or history. Much of the UKs wealth was built on this, but my ancestors were too busy producing cotton, prostituting themselves, or cleaning chimneys to care! My family did not get rich on the back of this. I am still working class, will have to work till I die, just like most of us.......I have nothing left to give I'm afraid......It's time a nation stood up and defended itself. .Harsh but true......As it is here, as it is there.
2007-11-06 10:30:34
·
answer #2
·
answered by Willow 6
·
2⤊
0⤋
The British government has already tried to intervene before and as usual there are two faces that Zimbabweans and the World are used to seeing. One is the seemingly ageless visage of their current President, Robert Mugabe, and the other is that of Tony Blair now Gordon Brown. The last polls to be held in the southern African country two years ago were billed as the “anti-Blair” election. After seeing off rumours of a palace coup from members of his own ruling party earlier this year, Mugabe launched into a four-hour speech in which he made no mention of millions of starving Zimbabweans, nor of astronomical inflation. There were, however, countless references to the former British prime minister and his sinister plot to recolonise Zimbabwe.The UN speech this year did not spare the U.S also . And so it has been for the past five years. Mr Blair told the Earth Summit in Johannesburg that the state of Africa was a “scar on the conscience of the world”.Mugabe replied: “Blair, keep your England and let me keep my Zimbabwe.”
Blair once mentioned that Britain was a pioneer of democracy . Mugabe replied " if Britain was a pioneer of democracy it should have granted independence to all British colonies long back, however I am the pioneer of democracy for I fought the imperialist Britain" .
Ever since Mr Blair’s public attack on the disastrous handling of the seizure of white-owned farms in Zimbabwe, Mr Mugabe has used the notion of a foreign conspiracy to enduring effect. Meanwhile, a country that was once the breadbasket of Africa has lurched into famine and the British Government has abandoned its megaphone diplomacy in favour of back channels and what the South African government calls “quiet diplomacy”. In the 27 years since emerging as the first leader of independent Zimbabwe, the former Catholic school teacher has proven himself incredibly adept at twisting the words of his allies and opponents and staying a step ahead of both. While the 83-year-old President is often portrayed as a cartoon of an African dictator in the British press, he has managed to identify himself so completely with the independence struggle that white critics are seen as a neo-colonialist and possibly racist. The very slim hope of political progress in Zimbabwe now rests with talks under way in South Africa. The International Crisis Group, an independent think-tank, said this week that British attacks on the Mugabe regime had been “counterproductive” and sanctions “ineffective”. Pressure building up on the E.U / A.U summit in Portugal . No one close to the drawn-out negotiations in Pretoria seems keen for Britain to pick up the megaphone again. And Gordon Brown Seems to boycott the summit already amid fears of a Mugabe lash .
Unfortunately nothing will be done in the Hour Of Need for Zimbabweans .
2007-11-06 15:32:25
·
answer #3
·
answered by Dir33 4
·
0⤊
1⤋
without the cooperation of neighboring African worldwide places, no exterior help will paintings. And Africans in many situations like and get excitement from Mugabe. He replaced right into a "liberator" and "freedom fighter" so something he's executed through fact; like committing mass homicide between the individuals of his very own united states; stealing from people who produce and giving the proceeds to his very own friends, family members, cronies; and so on. are handed over, forgiven, or maybe authorized of. Too many certainly have self belief his tirades suitable to the subject concerns of Zimbabwe nevertheless being brought about via colonial rule and out of doors interferrence. So no, if the nieghboring worldwide places do no longer call for help from something of the worldwide to rid Zimbabwe of a despot, we could consistently no longer use tension to eliminate him.
2016-10-15 05:47:44
·
answer #4
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
How can we intervene?
The whole point of Zimbabwe winning its independence was that they did not want British involvement. They wanted to rule their own destiny.
If we get involved we would be accused of trying to reassert imperial control over them.
2007-11-06 20:49:50
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
The British and other nations exploited Africa,but that is life.Eventually we were kicked out or left voluntarily,so why would we need to go back.Yes there is no oil,but isn,t it time that the African nations grew up and took responsibility for themselves.They cannot keep blaming us for their lack of progress.
2007-11-06 03:38:03
·
answer #6
·
answered by dejavu 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
When it doubles its defence spending.
Direct your question to South Africa. Zimbabwe gets most of its electricity from them, and they could pull the plug on Mugabe tomorrow if they wanted to.
2007-11-06 03:38:15
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
when is France going to do anything about it? wether is a Commonwealth country or not the whole international community should do something
2007-11-06 02:57:53
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
if we were able to do so, which we are not,what benefit do you honestly think we could bring to that country, help has, been given and then shortly after we see the same situation it is a never ending problem that should be resolved by their internal governments not keep relying on outside help/interference
2007-11-06 23:44:23
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
About the same time BJ Clinton helped in Rwanda. Never. Both are a useless pair of tiits.
2007-11-06 02:58:01
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋