Meltingpot
Living in our pools we soon forget about the sea
Sadly, I have to agree.
British military action against Zimbabwe?
- Thread starter sonny61
- Start date
Sadly, I have to agree.
travellerlife
Well-Known Member
Considering the animosity between Nkomo and Mugabe, I doubt they would even have considered cooperation. But your idea is plausible. He was popular, agreed, but with tribalism raising its head, he had scant support amongst the Matabele people. My money would have been on a civil war, along tribal lines, with possible intervention by South Africa if it got to hot or South Africa providing support to one of the protagonists, much like RENAMO in Mocambique or UNITA in Angola.
The land issue is a burning question, and one which South Africa is also coming to grips with now. I would agree that if it was done earlier, it may have been achieved with less blood shed and terror, but would the existing farmers have given the land up any easier ? Would the farms not, as has happened now, just have been divided up and replaced with subsistence farmers, leading to the same downward spiral. Don't know the answer to those questions.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
It's been a while since I read about it, but Mugabe & Nkomo did co-operate on a range of issues in the run up to independence. They may well have hated each other, but both recognised how to win, adn that doing so would give them (supposedly) a better chance of a long-term victory over there rivals. It is quite plausible that after independence there would have been another war between Matabeleland and the rest of the country, tho not guaranteed by any means.
Had land been redistributed much much earlier it would have been taken over by the people who had been doing the actual farming for decades, people who would have known how to work the land rather better than those being given land now, whose farming knowledge seems to amount to knowing how to bury bodies.
Had land been redistributed much much earlier it would have been taken over by the people who had been doing the actual farming for decades, people who would have known how to work the land rather better than those being given land now, whose farming knowledge seems to amount to knowing how to bury bodies.
What Britain should be doing is building a UN coalition against Mugabe, and then persuading Africa nations to send in a UN peacef keeping force, preferrably under a SA leadership.
If the UN could use the African UN troops to encircle Zimbabwe and then UN humanitarian resources to build camps near the borders, food and supplies could be sent over under guard and slowly UN troops move in and hold the land.
You may then see the population start supporting African Union troops under UN colours, and possibly have the oppotunity for surgical strikes against Mugabes military if he refuses to surrender power.
We are still talking about a country of some 12 million people, so the relief effort would have to be huge. Any use of Nato troops would be counter productive in my opinion.
Just a thought, but a UK military intervention is a no, no, however trying to build a UN coaltion would be a good aim. I think we have far less leverage now though to stand up to things like this, since Bliar and Iraq.
If the UN could use the African UN troops to encircle Zimbabwe and then UN humanitarian resources to build camps near the borders, food and supplies could be sent over under guard and slowly UN troops move in and hold the land.
You may then see the population start supporting African Union troops under UN colours, and possibly have the oppotunity for surgical strikes against Mugabes military if he refuses to surrender power.
We are still talking about a country of some 12 million people, so the relief effort would have to be huge. Any use of Nato troops would be counter productive in my opinion.
Just a thought, but a UK military intervention is a no, no, however trying to build a UN coaltion would be a good aim. I think we have far less leverage now though to stand up to things like this, since Bliar and Iraq.
rekil
to menny cranks
Zimbabwe is landlocked so what neighbouring country should be occupied and used as jump off point. All of them for the sheer fuckoffness I say.
Brainaddict
slight system overdrive
God yes, those terrible Belgians! No wonder Africans got annoyed!
You really are beyond redemption.
frogwoman
Let them eat newts
Most of Mugabe's propaganda revolves around the idea of a massive conspiracy against him by Britain anyway.
Invade Zimbabwe and the population will rally around Uncle Bob (they have more than enough reason to rise against him - genocide, sky high rates of inflation, ethnic/political cleansing, etc... but are kept down by fear and "respect" so what the fuck makes you think war with the old colonial master will make that situation any different), more of our soldiers will die, and the possibility - actually, the near certainty - of civil war in Zimbabwe with the conflict infecting other countries.
borders in african countries - even in SA - are largely artificial creations anyway ... what makes you think that the resulting conflict won't infect anywhere else? the invasion of zimbabwe will mean the mass exodus of thousands of people from the country, even more so than what's happening already, which as we have seen in south africa already means the possibility of violence in that country, as well as others - the knock on effects of the Rwanda genocide are still being felt today, what makes you think that it won't destabilise the whole fucking region??
Invade Zimbabwe and the population will rally around Uncle Bob (they have more than enough reason to rise against him - genocide, sky high rates of inflation, ethnic/political cleansing, etc... but are kept down by fear and "respect" so what the fuck makes you think war with the old colonial master will make that situation any different), more of our soldiers will die, and the possibility - actually, the near certainty - of civil war in Zimbabwe with the conflict infecting other countries.
borders in african countries - even in SA - are largely artificial creations anyway ... what makes you think that the resulting conflict won't infect anywhere else? the invasion of zimbabwe will mean the mass exodus of thousands of people from the country, even more so than what's happening already, which as we have seen in south africa already means the possibility of violence in that country, as well as others - the knock on effects of the Rwanda genocide are still being felt today, what makes you think that it won't destabilise the whole fucking region??
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
That's a moronic comparison. Chavez or even Castro are like Stalin and Mugabe?
The UK is the very last country in the whole world that should be invading Zimbabwe. They set up a racist, exploitative imperial outpost in Rhodesia, stealing the land and putting the people whose land had been stolen to work for their own enrichment. The people there are quite correct to say never again.
The question is though, what the fuck is to be done about Zimbabwe. So Britain shouldn't get involved, but the world seems to be sitting back and doing fuck all about the situation. Instead I guess the people of Zimbabwe will be left to a slow miserable death complete with famine and ethnic cleansing. Oh what a wonderful world we live in 
.
.The question is though, what the fuck is to be done about Zimbabwe. So Britain shouldn't get involved, but the world seems to be sitting back and doing fuck all about the situation. Instead I guess the people of Zimbabwe will be left to a slow miserable death complete with famine and ethnic cleansing. Oh what a wonderful world we live in
I think it has to be an African solution, and South Africa as the major regional role has to take the lead. As someone said earlier cholera doesnt respect borders and they may find their hand forced sooner rather than later.
They all hail from the same poisoned womb of Marxism though don't they?
If there was any effective alternative then please share it. For all the faults of the Smith regime and its undoubted racism the Zim economy was in a far better state then than under Mugabe. I woudn't want to see that racist regime return but something must be done and I don't think the African nations can be trusted to do it.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
What is to be done by Britain about Zimbabwe? Nothing.
First, Britain has to establish a place for itself in the world that does not rely upon exploitative relations with others. This would involve a wholesale renewal of foreign policy whose net result may well be that Britain becomes poorer.
The invalid assumption behind 'we must do something' is that 'we' are not part of the problem. First stop being part of the problem. Then you can start looking to play an active role in the problem's solution.
First, Britain has to establish a place for itself in the world that does not rely upon exploitative relations with others. This would involve a wholesale renewal of foreign policy whose net result may well be that Britain becomes poorer.
The invalid assumption behind 'we must do something' is that 'we' are not part of the problem. First stop being part of the problem. Then you can start looking to play an active role in the problem's solution.
If people are made safe and are fed and the economy improves under a UK / SA / whatever interim government then Mugabe's propaganda will be seen for what it is - foul propaganda.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Your last statement is nothing short of racist crap.
As for Rhodesia, I wasn't talking about Smith. I was talking about the sainted Cecil Rhodes himself.
Mugabes propaganda feed into a very real dislike of Britain and Imperialism which is entirely justified.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
It's not though. The UK came to the region, stole the land and set up a racist administration that excluded the majority from power. The distribution of land ownership that exists now is a direct result of this. Any sensible solution in Zim has to address land reform. This is not propaganda. The people of Zim are not as stupid as you seem to think.
frogwoman
Let them eat newts
Bollocks.
Yes, that's all great 'n all, but of course that really isn't going to stop people in the next month/year from starving to death in Zimbabwe whilst people pontificate and chin stroke over the colonial regime. I can't see how currently we are part of the problem. In the past yes, but now, not really no.
I wouldn't support British military action, because of the history and because of the current stance of our foreign policy i.e. Iraq. However I don't think that means we should ignore the situation, it's great to wax lyrical over "us being part of the problem" but I get the impression the Zimbabwians would rather have food water and medicine then hear a Marxist critique or SWP inspired debate over the topic, which is frankly what you can expect from the "Left" in this country.
I think Britain should be going down the UN route, even if it is persuading the UN to ship more aid to the region and rallying African nations to take a tough stance against Mugabe.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
I can give you a very simple and effective alternative to the British Empire:
The British could have left the rest of the world the fuck alone.
Brainaddict
slight system overdrive
The combination of these two ^^^
On this one I genuinely think the best thing Britain can do is shut the fuck up. You might find that unsatisfying, but if you want some outlet for your humanitarian urges why not turn your attention to correcting some of the fuck-ups by Western governments/agencies in DRC, Somalia, Sudan...
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
It's not the Zimbabwe military that any military interventionists would have to worry about, though, it's the paramilitaries that Mugabe and his cronies have continued to feed and arm that would cause problems, people who'll fight because they stand to lose livelihood (and perhaps their lives) if Mugabe is removed.
We know from the history of Zimbabwe and Southern Rhodesia that irregular warfare could tie up any invasion/intervention force for years without achieving anything.
If there's military intervention it needs to come from neighbouring states, and it needs to be large enough and well managed enough to "swamp" the areas where the Mugabe regime's paramilitaries are, to button them up into a defined area and then draw the trap closed around them.
There's no way Britain could muster a force anywhere near large enough to pull this off, and that's what an operation like this would need; sheer manpower.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Did you read the first part of my post. This is far from pontification. I propose that the very best the British could do to contribute towards a better world, including in Zimbabwe, would be to end its exploitative economic relations with the poor world. Simple fair open markets would be a great start. Only then can the UK go to its former colonies and truly say that they have changed, that they aren't intent on fucking them up all over again.
In terms of what the UK can do, you're looking at the wrong problem that needs to be sorted out.
frogwoman
Let them eat newts
This.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
We don't, not even if our infantry establishment was a couple of regiments larger.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
And they thought Nkomo would be able to keep him in check.
Brainaddict
slight system overdrive
Yeah, but sod these manpower issues. Even if we had an army twice the size of the Chinese army, all as well equipped as the US army, it would still be a fucking terrible idea.
Similar threads
