Sagamite:

Did the Evil West press not focus and attack Abacha when he was in power and was doing similar to Mugabe?

Did Abacha also take white land?

I am really struggling to see the similarities between the Zimbabwe elections and Nigerian elections apart from rigging.

It is mindboggling the way Lucabrasi and co keep indirectly supporting despotism in the name of bashing the WEST.

Kobojunkie:

Did you steal all this from my mind I had typed up a huge list of reasons exactly like those you have up there but decided against posting it last minute, cause I just don't think it would mean much or be read, in the end. LMAO!!!

Well I just try my best to make things as simple as possible by being objective, use facts and logic, and give appropraite weighting to different issues based on priority.

There is no way in hell I would be talking about the West intervention patterns (even though it is wrong) when Serbs are ar the gates of a Kosovo city ready to wipe out the population. The West intervention would be later and a minor priority.

Sagamite:

Well I just try my best to make things as simple as possible by being objective, use facts and logic, and give appropraite weighting to different issues based on priority.

There is no way in hell I would be talking about the West intervention patterns (even though it is wrong) when Serbs are ar the gates of a Kosovo city ready to wipe out the population. The West intervention would be later and a minor priority.

Here is another angle to this. The reason most of Africa even hears or knows of what is going on in Zimbabwe today is cause the West is, according to some, poking it's nose in their. It is possible that none of the African leaders would have done as much as they have so far, if the west had not called their attention to it. It is amazing how the west is always wrong even when our own brothers are being killed for having a view.

There is no way in hell I would be talking about the Gani Fawehinmi's rigidity and uncompromising nature when Abacha is perfecting his act of being President-for-Life. Gani's foibles would be later and a minor priority.

Sagamite:

Yes, a country should be left free to exhaust all political options but should not be left free to exhaust all political killings, intimidations and rigging.

What happened when Mugabe was allowed to "exhaust all democratic thuggery, intimidations and rigging options" in 2000 and 2004?

You don't think it is time to say it is enough now that it is at its worst where he is now doing his evil clear and in the open?

What happened when Mugabe was allowed to "exhaust all democratic thuggery, intimidations and rigging options" in the first round?

Did he not spend 6 weeks shamelessly rigging the results to make sure the people's choice is not announced as the winner?

So we should wait for to "exhaust all democratic thuggery, intimidations and rigging options" for the second round when he is no more even bothering to cover the fact that he would kill, intimidate and beat everybody until he wins?

common now so you really think all democratic options have been exhausted in zimbabwe??in as much as i agree with you that mugabe has done all these things,by britain interfering and america,they have firstly made everything worse than it will have been, like i said earlier there are some options which would have caused less hassles and upheavals in zimbabwe,by riling mugabe up with all the needless pressures from britain,america and the press pushing their cases down the throats of their respective citizens, they are making mugabe more stubborn,and also making him have stuffs to latch on to,also as difficult to believe as it is,he has actually gained some anti-west supporters from africa and from his country,if you check many of his past speeches he s made a massive deal of chasing the whites out and being the great african liberator,that on its own with the pressures,sanctions,media e,t,c wont help

at the end of the day,dictators are never swayed by sanctions or pressures from foreign governments,the people of that country will be the one suffering what i dont get is why they couldnt have put less pressure,antagonised him less,rather than crying more than the bereaved involving the african union right from the start and be a little more patient.

Sagamite:







Probably because Nigeria is not in a financial mess.

Probably because Nigerian press was free to report events and elections without being beaten to death or chased out.

Probably because Nigerians were not being beaten overnight in their homes to vote in a certain way. (At least the riggers waited for votes to be casted before doing their job)

Did the Western media not say unequivocally that the election was rigged?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/6580969.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/6579685.stm

Probably because Nigerian women were not being raped in front of their children and family all in the name of "political retraining".

Probably because opposition members were not being found dead left, right and centre.

Probably because the opposition was free to campaign and were not being beaten or taken to court on "Treason".

Probably because Nigeria has demonstrated democratic independence by blocking a third term of OBJ.

Probably because PDP would have won anyway.

Probably because the opposition was also rigging the elections in their own stronghold.

Probably because Nigeria did not have an incumbent that is destroying the economy but still wants to die in power.

Probably because Nigerians were not dropping dead of starvation and AIDS.

Probably because Nigeria economy was improving under the incumbent.

Did the Evil West press not focus and attack Abacha when he was in power and was doing similar to Mugabe?

Did Abacha also take white land?

I am really struggling to see the similarities between the Zimbabwe elections and Nigerian elections apart from rigging.

nigeria is not in a financial mess??have you been reading the news at all?in spite of the price of a barell of oil,did you hear it in the news nigeria was considering asking opec for financial help or involving private investors in the power thing?thats the present,right from the ibb times nigeria has been in an economic crisis which s just improving with soludo but i dont want to get into that now.

hmmm free nigeria press, well dele giwa,george mba,kune ajibade and several pressmen killed will disagree with you from their graves, off the top of my head recent press harrassment the incident of the leadership newspapers, not forgetting that free press you r on about do not have freedom of information bill in existence and 99% of these papers are owned by these same nigerian politicians so show me an editorial board that will criticise their chairman.

i guess u should go see what happened during the abiola riots and how many lives of young men were lost,university under grads,old and young right through the abacha times and thats summarising it,u r on about the new style of rigging where our own nigeria politician always wins 99% with disregard for voters feelings at least mugabe allowed a run off,ours dont

yes they did say the election was rigged but for how long,and how far did they push it,considering a good percentage of their oil is coming from us and we being considerably bigger than zim amongst other obvious reasons wonder why they gave up on us and left us to do our thing while on zim's case

not been raped??well u need to go find out what happened when the army raided the niger delta during the military regime of ibb/abacha lead by a captain(forgotten his name)

well several hundreds died during the mko abiola riots alone,niger delta and are still dieing, the fact that u dont hear is because bbc,fox and the rest didnt make it a rolling news see my point?

wow dude,the opposittion were not harrassed??not taken to court on treason charges??dont even let me start, what d u think ken saro wiwa and the 8 were charged for,whats happennign now if not harrassement of the highest order?if i go into opposition harrasement in nigeria ill take wayyy too much space and not be done,besides what opposition do we have?they v been crushed at least we know of zims opposition

they blocked the third term because atiku wanted power for himself,its simply politiciand fighting for their interests!

i can name some authentic made in nigeria mugabes if you want ibb,abacha,obj and these r just the president/head of states,lets not stard with the governors,e.t.c our own ministers do magic by drawing money out of banks on public holidays and she s still in her post or like abacha that ordered for foreign currency like a pizza or chinese take out,even idi amin didnt do half of their excesses

improving under what incubent exactly?and at what cost?16 billion dollars?u think ppl are not starving /then i think u r having a laugh

hmmn so they put pressure on abacha, how much pressure did they put on him?didnt madeline albright say abiola was in good health and yada yada while mustapha s just testified that abiola was beaten to death, didnt he lodge his loot in these same countries safely for a long time?well ill disagree with you that proper pressure was put on nigerian leaders because abiola is lying 6 feet deep,we have the worst presidential election so far and a one party state

i agree with you that zimbabwe elections and the nigerian elections are diffrent

zimbabwe voters t least count,nigerian voters dont count as long as inec plays ball

zimbabwe dont practise amala politics with prof adedibu or godfatherrism like we do

so as not to lose sight of my point after the long narrative,britain has absolutely no excuse in the face of bigger glaring cases of political instability in a country as big and vital in world economy as nigeria and they v conviniently ignored it,even with the niger delta struggle and nw shouting to the high heavens over zimbabwe

the country is facing a leadership/political crisis but its not comething they cannot sort out on their own

@davidlan
im not supporting mugabe,read through my postings, is dis agreeing with the west meddling in zimbabwe's affairs supporting mugabe?
is britain and his ally making the situation worse helping the zimbabweans?

all im saying in summary is that zims can handle their crisis internally and if need be with the african union who are capable intervening, its a sovereign state and not under the british anymore,think about it if mugabe was that useless and a dictator and bla bla to the british how come it took them till now to strip him of his knighthood?and how come it took them this long to face the problem head on?how come they r not addressing bigger problems in other parts of africa?
sagamite said because ppl are dieing but are ppl not dieing of conflics,famine in other parts of africa?i would have though priorities will be arranged on the order of importance and urgency

lucabrasi:

is britain and his ally making the situation worse helping the zimbabweans?

What do you suggest they do? Fold their arms, say nothing and then wait until Zimbabwe becomes a disaster zone so you fellows can then turn the other cheek and blame them for not acting earlier?

The did not act in Darfur . . . you are now blaming them. They did not act in Rwanda, you ended up blaming them. When will we begin to shoulder the blame for our own ineptitude rather than hiding behind the coattails of the WEST?

lucabrasi:

all im saying in summary is that zims can handle their crisis internally

You must agree they are doing a very good job at the moment. 80% unemployment, life expectancy at 37 and 500,000% inflation rate. Sure lets leave them until they start starving to death.

Nigeria in a financial mess?? What happened to the $60 billion the country had in reserves late last year??


@Lucabrasi, even consider the fact that we in Africa never get to hear or read of what is happening right next door to us until the west get's involved?? Don't you think we should focus on solving problem first before we even start considering Britain's "hypocrisy" here?? I remember Rwanda, not a lot of Nigerians know of rwanda, even to date. Many cause we did not get a lot of rwandan refugees back then. Even congo, not a lot of Nigerians know of the congo issue.

Many of us were able to hear of the horror in Ethiopia, only cause the west got involved and those of us who watched the LIVEAID concerts of '85 got even educationcan attest to the fact that our media barely covered ethiopia as much as the live AID media did.

Just wanted to add this cause I realize media in Africa SUCKS and we need to do something about it, rather than sit calling everyone else hypocrites for raising alarm where it needs to be raised while we sit back and do nothing!!

Lucabrasi, before I even respond to this I need to clarify the basis of comparison we are debating on.

Are we comparing:

a) Nigerian election in 2007 vs Current Zimbabwe elections

b) Nigerian political history vs Current Zimbabwe elections

I am a bit hit aback with the history you are bringing into current affairs.

The way this thread has progressed is funny, it was initially a joke thread and amusing at that. It then moved over to serious discussion whereby the main focus of the discussion kept on shifting from implications of the actions of one man in a country and its effects on his people to the hypocrisy of "the west".

@lucabrasi i genuinely think you might need to open another thread to start a debate on the effects of "the west" on africa etc because that arguement in this discussion seems inhumane and seems lacking in compassion for the suffering masses in Zimbabwe. You keep on speaking about allowing Zimbabwe to exhaust all democratic options, how can you make such statements in the light of the undemocratic disposition in Zimbabwe? First of all you have elections that in previous years were conducted then the results released quickly but in the first round of the current one it took about a month to release with the most contrived excuses given. Where does one begin? How can you say the people who want Mugabe are are "overwhelming" in number? Are you counting the millions who fled the country out of fear? The many that were beaten and forced to vote for Mugabe or those that were denied food unless they voted Mugabe?

And then the continuous focus on "the west" is what i think is inhumane. I think it is inhumane because you make this so called 'hypocricy' a fundamental arguement in the discussion when masses are suffering and dying as a result of the actions of one man that they have refused and said no to who continues to impose himself on them anyway. Yes masses are dying all over the place, so does that some how justify what is happening in Zimbabwe? AU? Please let us not turn this into a laughing matter . . . . .AU? LOL. The president of Nigeria has a case to answer about the legitimacy of his own elections, all over Africa there are questionable leaders and dictators who have ran their respective countries into the ground and then all of a sudden an orgy of such characters under the umbrella of "African Union" becomes a yard stick for sound reasoning?

Why can't we just see something that is bad and call it that? How does 'the west' become fundamental in this discussion?

davidylan:

What do you suggest they do? Fold their arms, say nothing and then wait until Zimbabwe becomes a disaster zone so you fellows can then turn the other cheek and blame them for not acting earlier?

well the whole point of being a sovereign state is because a nation can handle its problems,apart from the present clashes of zim immigrants and south africans,dyu know how many ppl die there?there was a stage when girls were raped right in the daytime and pls dont tell me circumstances are diffrent because death is death,i dont see the press highlighing these but then they wont seeing as the whites are comfortable in their properties side by side in same neighbourhood with the priviledged few blacks,the british installed some key ppl to head the police and other sensitive positions, go see the disaster thats blown up in their faces but of course we know that wont be reported.

all im saying is there are other places in africa that need all these attention,where situations are worse and more people are dieing,and they r not acting as they should in these places, its like leaving a dog bite to treating pimples,

they did not act in darfur because they had no vested interests,same thing in rwanda,now u r turning the whole thing on its head and putting a positive spin on it , common man!!

hmmmn, i get what you mean now,so tell me are all these conflict ridden african nations doing a better job to warrant britain and its allies not interffering?
ill use nigeria as an example yet again and say we have single digit inflatn,we have capitalisation and all the rest of it, has it translated into a better life for the average nigerian?

im saying all these are pretty bad and pathetic,sure but not enough to get involved with btw how come it took the brit govt untill now to strip him of his knighthood, just a thought

POLITE REQUEST TO SAGAMITE

Can you please tell your comrade (KJ) that NAIRALAND is an open democratic forum with people of differing opinion, so not every one has to have the same view. Could you also tell he/she/it that this debate centres around Lucabrassi’s stance that Britain should stop their know-towing and get their nose out of the trout .i.e They should BUTT OUT. THIS IS HIS BONE OF CONTENTION HERE. NOTHING MORE NOTHING LESS.

Can you also tell (KJ) that on a Britain-butt-out-of-Zimbabwe debate, saying they don‘t care if any Britain is butting in, and asking the question why is the focus on Britain, means that either they do not grasp the topic of the debate or that they are just deliberately on this thread to divert attention and change the topic to HOW DARE YOU TALK ABOUT THE WEST WHEN NIGERIA IS F’UCKED UP. Either way, it is not smart. Feelings should be left at the door.

Sagamite:

. . . There is no way in hell I would be talking about the West intervention patterns (even though it is wrong) . . .

Lastly, can you remind KJ that the debate is about Western intervention and interference, which you too, have admitted is wrong, and that

THIS DEBATE IS NOT ABOUT;

Whether Nigeria and Nigerians sucks;

Whether Mugabe is right or wrong;

Whether the WEST is nosey for getting involved in N.Korea’s affair;

Whether Tsvangirai should be voted in or not;

Blaming the WEST for African’s economy;

Supporting genocide or despotism or not;

Caring about the Zimbabweans or not;

Whether the intervention from the WEST favours the Zimbabweans;

Possible solutions to the Zimbabwean’s issue;

Mugabe is a tyrant; etc

It is not by force to join every debate, whomever cannot stick to the issue being discussed can take a hike. The last time I checked, The admin had not suspended creation of new thread so tell them to feel free to go and open a thread if they feel the itch to talk about those issues they are hell-bent on bringing into this debate.

Tell them we all come from a place where it is rude to stare, it is rude to point and it is rude to sniggering[i]ly[/i] walk up to people's face, antagonise them and call them a liar on the basis that they have the first hand information on what someone is saying. If they are not sure they could actually re-quote the offending post, and give the writer a chance to break it down gently in the hope that it would permeate through their thick skull.

lucabrasi:

well the whole point of being a sovereign state is because a nation can handle its problems,apart from the present clashes of zim immigrants and south africans,dyu know how many people die there?there was a stage when girls were raped right in the daytime and please don't tell me circumstances are diffrent because death is death,i don't see the press highlighing these but then they wont seeing as the whites are comfortable in their properties side by side in same neighbourhood with the priviledged few blacks,the british installed some key people to head the police and other sensitive positions, go see the disaster thats blown up in their faces but of course we know that wont be reported.

all im saying is there are other places in africa that need all these attention,where situations are worse and more people are dieing,and they r not acting as they should in these places, its like leaving a dog bite to treating pimples,

they did not act in darfur because they had no vested interests,same thing in rwanda,now you're turning the whole thing on its head and putting a positive spin on it , common man!!

hmmmn, i get what you mean now,so tell me are all these conflict ridden african nations doing a better job to warrant britain and its allies not interffering?
ill use nigeria as an example yet again and say we have single digit inflatn,we have capitalisation and all the rest of it, has it translated into a better life for the average nigerian?

im saying all these are pretty bad and pathetic,sure but not enough to get involved with between how come it took the brit govt untill now to strip him of his knighthood, just a thought

The idea you put forth earlier that Nigeria is in worse situation then Zimbabwe makes me wonder if you have ever really done some work on reading up on actual issues in your own country.

Why you you consider the situation in Nigeria, which pales in comparison to what is going on in Zimbabwe today, to be worse, completely escapes me?? What other country in africa has an inflation rate higher than that in Zimbabwe?? Sure there are suffering people all over africa, but have you actually verified that the west is not already involved in so many of those, before spewing all this in here?? Could you please name these places that have worse situations, that you know of, that the west is not already involved in, to an extent?  I would like to know what countries you are have been referring to here and how you came to the conclusion that Zimbabwe should sort of be last on their list and not getting as much attention from them as it current is and have been.

I am not even a Zimbabwean but I know what is happening down there is clear sign that we continue to be plagued by the same set of problems. To think that even to the year 2008, we continue to deal with these, makes me wonder if we do not really deserve this as we have people who continue to get side-tracked by the mundane, to actually focus on solving the problems and making sure we can move forward in that continent.

@ Skyblue

Psst _{speaking in hushed tones} but Lucabrassi is not the culprit hell-bent on diverting this thread into what it is not 

Welcome on board, could you do the honours of passing on the above message in post 94 please? Yes? NO?

Perhaps we could club together and demand a revolution to have a rants section on Nairaland and in the politics forum, we have been lobbying for one in the travel section for a while now to no avail.

Busy_body:

Lastly, can you remind KJ that the debate is about Western intervention and interference,

That alone destroys whatever shred of credibility your argument still hangs unto.

The issue is about despotism, 500,000% inflation rate, 80% unemployment, life expectancy of 37 yrs.
The issue is about the fact that this same WEST are the ones who will be forced to airlift emergency food supplies to a starving people.
The issue is about a dictator only too willing to use the instrument of state to crush the opposition and stifle freedom of expression.
The issue is about Africa's penchant to turn a blind eye to the rapacious actions of their "leaders" only to blame the WEST.

But for the WEST 90% of Africans wont know what is happening in Zimbabwe. Blaming the WEST is the trump card of those unwilling to confront the truth . . . it is time to remove our heads from the sands of denial, shouting loudly does not make your point right.

@ lucabrasi

If the West doesn't do something, its because they have no 'vested' interests, when they do, its because of the 'vested' interests right?

Is it white Zimbabweans that are getting chased and beaten up for not voting for Mugabe or getting their testicles crushed? Is it white Zimbabweans/British people being raped by militias and made to serve drunk 'war veterans' all in the name of supporting Mugabe? Or being denied food aid if they do not support a particular party?

You show a very limited understanding of the issues my friend; A close friend of mine, virtually my brother, tells me regularly of how these white Zimbabweans have moved across the border into Zambia, investing their money and resources and making the economy boom. Do you really think these white folk are suffering where they are now? They are being welcomed in Zambia and other places, making a fortune and living well. The crap and problems in Zimbabwe affect the poor blacks, not any white people or 'vested interests'.

You say the situation is worse? Yes it is - in Darfur, where Africans are supposed to take the lead but are slacking, failing to send in troops; in Somalia, where the war and other problems. But you miss a HUGE point:

Just a few years ago (less than 10 actually) Zimbabwe was the food basket of Southern Africa, supporting neighbouring countries and helping feed Africa, now they are a basket case (no pun intended) losing workers, investment and becoming a food aid recipient. Now if one of the erstwhile stable nations is allowed to depreciate so precipitously with NO action, can't you see how it can affect the stability of other countries around? Nip this in the bud and you prevent large scale famine, hunger and poverty like you have in the horn of African and other places. Save this once prosperous state and prevent trouble and instability spreading to other states.

@kobojunkie
u asked the question remember, well the 60 billion is lodged in america helping their economy while the nigerian economy is in chaos,

i totally agree with you on the problems needing a solution,ill explain myself by using this  analogy, its like a bull in a china shop,dialogue rather than antagonising mugabe will go a long way in solving the crisis,mugabe is like a drowning man grasping at straws, if britain and the rest had exercised a little patience and not gone all out,even working underground things will have been sorted by now.

remember nigeria and the abiola time?america and the rest were involved in choosing a leader but they made covert moves,thats the waya foreign nation even if they r super powers act in situations concerning a sovereign nation,by now mugabe would have had no "western powers inteffering " excuse to latch on to and he would have had considerably less supporters, the truth is that in their anger at mugabe driving the white settlers out(which u will discover a lot of black ppl are secretly happy about)they couldnt wait to show their anger and to make sure he goes out as soon as possible

havnt you wondered why south africa and the rest have not been really pro active in all these crisis?they took the displaced zims in but not acting as forcefully as britain wanted, it took mandela now that he s in london to be honoured by the british and its government to now make a speech, im not saying its not a nice gesture but dont you see that has hypocrisy all over it?

i totally agree that the western media highlighted the stuffs going on in other parts of africa,but in the process we have discovered that the western powers only intervened only when they have vested interests, look at al jazeera, the mid east  discovered the media s a powerful weapon america and britain e.t.c were using and we saw al jazeera  reporting its own news,their own way and with the truth of the mid east,muslim e.t.c position, look at the way they exploded ,

i agree that somethn should be done about mugabe and he should be kicked out but not in the way britain are going about it

lucabrasi:

well the whole point of being a sovereign state is because a nation can handle its problems

Hitler's Germany was a sovereign nation too.

lucabrasi:

all im saying is there are other places in africa that need all these attention,where situations are worse and more people are dieing,and they r not acting as they should in these places, its like leaving a dog bite to treating pimples,

The WEST is under no obligations to go running to help Africa if she wont help herself. The lesson America learnt in Somalia in 1991 is the reason Africa will have to be practically imploding before America will ever choose to put its forces on African soil again. . . .

lucabrasi:

they did not act in darfur because they had no vested interests,same thing in rwanda,now you're turning the whole thing on its head and putting a positive spin on it , common man!!

This is shameless pandering to unsubstantiated propaganda. The WEST acted in Bosnia, how much oil do they have?

Sagamite:

Lucabrasi, before I even respond to this I need to clarify the basis of comparison we are debating on.

Are we comparing:

a) Nigerian election in 2007 vs Current Zimbabwe elections

b) Nigerian political history vs Current Zimbabwe elections

I am a bit hit aback with the history you are bringing into current affairs.

i really dont know what you r on about,if you go through both mine and busy body's post, what we have been doing essentially is defending,you gys have been on the attack and im only responding to what you gys put to me,besides when u r discussing african politics, we can do comparisons because we all have the same problem which is leadership so one size fits almost all the major problems

South Africa is not acting because Mbeki is Mugabe's pal and is too chicken shit to stand up to the man. Why not tell him the truth instead of pandering to his nonsense. Who else has not been proactive? even erstwhile Mugabe's supporters - Zambia, Botswana, Malawi, Tanzania and Angola have ALL come out to condemn the nonsense he is engaged in. . . what more 'proactiveness' do you need??

How is Britain 'intervening' in Zimbabwe?? People keep making silly excuses like sanctions, there are NO sanctions on Zimbabwe - except on the travel of Mugabe's government officials, no economic and no financial sanctions. Are they responsible for the mess the country is in now? Are they the cause of the rampant inflation? NO. The truth is, if things were still good in Zimbabwe, no one would have beef with Mugabe, but he has RUINED all his previous good work, has become a power drunk, senile and egregious tyrant who is bent on taking the country down to the grave with him.

If the dude has ruined the country and all you can say is 'its the West's fault' then you are not even beginning to grasp the problem. How much longer will we continue to excuse our problems as the fault of the West?

Now forget the foreign reserves thing NOW, is it the mere 60billion that is supporting the US economy? What of China's 1682 billion reserves?? How come their own economy is not in tatters with that quantum of money outside? Keep making excuses

@skyblue
pls go through my posts before coming to your conclusions, now that britain has intervened,have ppl stopped dieing or are you saying that if they intervene people will definitely stop dieing?

pls ill say it again iraq comes to mind
ethiopia and the head of police and other ppl employed and on britain's pay roll comes to mind

read busy body's reply to you and in addittion pla lets stop this american style blackmail of "if you r not for me then u r definitely against me"and be totally objective

lucabrasi:

@skyblue
please go through my posts before coming to your conclusions, now that britain has intervened,have people stopped dieing or are you saying that if they intervene people will definitely stop dieing?

Shld i bring a dictionary to explain the meaning of "intervene" for you?
How has Britain "intervened"? By doing the same thing that Yar Adua, Mandela, condoleeza Rice, Angela Merkel and co have done which is to speak out against a pernicious dictatorship?

lucabrasi:

@kobojunkie
u asked the question remember, well the 60 billion is lodged in america helping their economy while the nigerian economy is in chaos,

Please expound on this. And provide some references please.

lucabrasi:


i totally agree with you on the problems needing a solution,ill explain myself by using this  analogy, its like a bull in a china shop, dialogue rather than antagonising mugabe will go a long way in solving the crisis,mugabe is like a drowning man grasping at straws, if britain and the rest had exercised a little patience and not gone all out,even working underground things will have been sorted by now.

sigh!

lucabrasi:


remember nigeria and the abiola time?america and the rest were involved in choosing a leader but they made covert moves,thats the waya foreign nation even if they r super powers act in situations concerning a sovereign nation,by now mugabe would have had no "western powers inteffering " excuse to latch on to and he would have had considerably less supporters, the truth is that in their anger at mugabe driving the white settlers out(which u will discover a lot of black people are secretly happy about)they couldnt wait to show their anger and to make sure he goes out as soon as possible

Do you have any proof/ actual government document supporting the above??

lucabrasi:

havnt you wondered why south africa and the rest have not been really pro active in all these crisis?they took the displaced zims in but not acting as forcefully as britain wanted, it took mandela now that he s in london to be honoured by the british and its government to now make a speech, im not saying its not a nice gesture but don't you see that has hypocrisy all over it?

I think you should actually visit South Africa before you make the claim above. South Africans never really took them in according to what I discovered on my visit to the place and if you go there, you will find the streets littered with Zimbabwean people( begging, prostitution, all sorts of low end jobs to get some food) . Did you miss the chaos in the same South Africa from some weeks ago?? And do you mind check out the South African police “Scorpion” site? Might amaze you how they fight to send back illegal immigrants, especially Zimbabweans back across the borders.

lucabrasi:


i totally agree that the western media highlighted the stuffs going on in other parts of africa,but in the process we have discovered that the western powers only intervened only when they have vested interests, look at al jazeera, the mid east  discovered the media s a powerful weapon america and britain e.t.c were using and we saw al jazeera  reporting its own news,their own way and with the truth of the mid east,muslim e.t.c position, look at the way they exploded ,

Al Jazeera will definitely explode in the middle east cause it is their one station that competes with the likes of CNN, BBC etc. Does that explosion then translate into Al Jazeera’s version being the only true version lol

lucabrasi:


i agree that somethn should be done about mugabe and he should be kicked out but not in the way britain are going about it

@lucabrasi i don't think you understood my post. You keep on speaking of britains intervention as if it is the fundamental issue and i just simply don't get it. So are you saying that it is because of britain's intervention that Zimbabweans want Mugabe out? Zimbabweans are not allowed to choose who they want and you say it is because the "democratic options" have not been "exhasuted"? So does the fact that iraq have problems justify the situation in Zimbabwe? If you want to improve at something do you compare yourself with lower standards in order to improve? Why make "the west" and whatever it chooses to do or not do or its so called hypocricy or its stance the fundamental issue when people are dying? So people are still dying in Zimbabwe, does that then make everything justified? What exactly is your stand because as far as i can see it does not connect with this discussion. Please don't take offence, just clarify if you feel you need to do that. How on earth does "the west" becomes fundamental in this affair and other african ones?
Is Mugabe a dictator who keeps on imposing himself on his people? Do the people want him? Do the will of the people count in Zimbabwe? So how on earth does iraq or Nigeria or 'the west'  become a fundamental issue?

Blatant:

You guys have very similar points of views:

* Mugabe has mismanaged Zimbabwe
* Mugabe is no longer a desirable leader for Zim

However, disagreements arise because some don't like the nosey and bossy nature of Britain's interference (I feel that way too, and I am British) while others don't seem to like that some say Britain is being nosey.

Essentially, the disagreement is about Britain's involvement in Zimbabwe. I think that's what the difference here is about.

Thank you. Thank you very plenty. God bless you. ^{Watch out for people saying do I expect God to bless you from all the way up there, start to crawl out of the wood-works pretty soon.}

Okay down to serious business, you are looking for trouble. You better desist and retreat and let sleeping dogs lie.

Before you know it, she (KJ) would disqualify your reasons, say you are pointless and that your point is invalid like she’s told me, Lucabrassi and countles
s others. Before you can say Jack Robinson, she would label you a Mugabe supporter and supporter of despotism too. Also watch out for the phrase serious disconnection and the tripe story about the burning house too. ^{I am so good at premonitions now, I could make a killing out of it, if I take it up as a full-time vocation, don't you reckon B.}

Sky Blue:

@lucabrasi i don't think you understood my post. You keep on speaking of britains intervention as if it is the fundamental issue and i just simply don't get it. So are you saying that it is because of britain's intervention that Zimbabweans want Mugabe out? Zimbabweans are not allowed to choose who they want and you say it is because the "democratic options" have not been "exhasuted"? So does the fact that iraq have problems justify the situation in Zimbabwe? [size=14pt]If you want to improve at something do you compare yourself with lower standards in order to improve? [/size] Why make "the west" and whatever it chooses to do or not do or its so called hypocricy or its stance the fundamental issue when people are dying? So people are still dying in Zimbabwe, does that then make everything justified? What exactly is your stand because as far as i can see it does not connect with this discussion. Please don't take offence, just clarify if you feel you need to do that. How on earth does "the west" becomes fundamental in this affair and other african ones?
Is Mugabe a dictator who keeps on imposing himself on his people? Do the people want him? Do the will of the people count in Zimbabwe? So how on earth does iraq or Nigeria or 'the west'  become a fundamental issue?

Many do it. That is the leading cause of backwardness, Africa-wide.  It 'a almost a law written in stone for too many in Africa; a rule to be applied whenever asked of Africa or measuring progress.

Can someone pls answer me this burning question - how is Britain interfering with Zimbabwe?

debosky:

@ lucabrasi

If the West doesn't do something, its because they have no 'vested' interests, when they do, its because of the 'vested' interests right?

Is it white Zimbabweans that are getting chased and beaten up for not voting for Mugabe or getting their testicles crushed? Is it white Zimbabweans/British people being raped by militias and made to serve drunk 'war veterans' all in the name of supporting Mugabe? Or being denied food aid if they do not support a particular party?

You show a very limited understanding of the issues my friend; A close friend of mine, virtually my brother, tells me regularly of how these white Zimbabweans have moved across the border into Zambia, investing their money and resources and making the economy boom. Do you really think these white folk are suffering where they are now? They are being welcomed in Zambia and other places, making a fortune and living well. The crap and problems in Zimbabwe affect the poor blacks, not any white people or 'vested interests'.

You say the situation is worse? Yes it is - in Darfur, where Africans are supposed to take the lead but are slacking, failing to send in troops; in Somalia, where the war and other problems. But you miss a HUGE point:

Just a few years ago (less than 10 actually) Zimbabwe was the food basket of Southern Africa, supporting neighbouring countries and helping feed Africa, now they are a basket case (no pun intended) losing workers, investment and becoming a food aid recipient. Now if one of the erstwhile stable nations is allowed to depreciate so precipitously with NO action, can't you see how it can affect the stability of other countries around? Nip this in the bud and you prevent large scale famine, hunger and poverty like you have in the horn of African and other places. Save this once prosperous state and prevent trouble and instability spreading to other states.

first of all nobody is justifying what mugabe is doing or will do,neither is anyone saying britain is responsible for the killings and that.
im not showing any limited understanding because at no point did i dispute either the conflicts in zimbabwe,the killings.torture e.t.c
the positive impacts of the white settlers r not the debate here,but all im saying is that mugabe got in britain's bad book not because of his brutal dictatorship but becausehe drove the white settlers out.
they r not suffering as such but they have not only been driven out of thousands of hectares which has been in generations,but now they have to start over again, like i said im neither judging the positives of that or otherwise, thats left to the zims
ok so in other words,are you saying it is perfectly justified for britain to do what it must no matter what?because thats what it seems to me,yes its worse in darfur but dont you think their 100% media attention includn the leadershp focus should be on these places instead

davidylan:

Shld i bring a dictionary to explain the meaning of "intervene" for you?
How has Britain "intervened"? By doing the same thing that Yar Adua, Mandela, condoleeza Rice, Angela Merkel and co have done which is to speak out against a pernicious dictatorship?

hmmm,here we go with the verbal barbs, was wondering when it ll start
intervene,meddle whatever you want to call it,doesnt matter ok?
yar adua's nta is not on zimbabwe 24/7,neither is the national focus on zimbabwe 24/7 the nigerian executive and legislative arms commented on it and spoke out against it in strong terms which they should,i dont see any mp besides britains advocating for millitary intervention, btw there r a lot of dictatorship in africa even now

@davidylan, well britain does have a very messy past with the southern africa region. From the way apartheid was handled to the way people like tatcher's son got involved with instigating coups to the whole Zimbabwean issue whereby the british government were initially supposed to pay for the land or something along that line but didn't do it (hence serving as what seems a precursor for Mugabe throwing out the white farmers). Basically to say the least, it is a messy situation.
However this should not be seen as a reason to excuse the actions of dictators and anti people leaders and this continues to be far from the fundamental problem in the region. Africa's problem in this day and age is not what the west does or does not do but is what Africa itself does or does not do.
Mugabe has kept on using these anti western sentiments as a platform for his candidacy intead of dicussing the issues (can you imagine?) He won't discuss how he plans to deal with the inflation problem but will take time out to "stick it" to 'the west'. The west is not the fundamental problem so let us not make it the case. At thesame time people should understand why a minority can be easily bought by these sentiments, but that should be left in the past and the present and future should be the focus. Let us not justify evil and wrong doing.

Kobojunkie:

Please expound on this. And provide some references please.

its common knowledge that our foreign reserves r lodged in america,i wasnt blaming america for using it to stabilise their economy cause its all our fault

Kobojunkie:




Do you have any proof/ actual government document supporting the above??I think you should actually visit South Africa before you make the claim above. South Africans never really took them in according to what I discovered on my visit to the place and if you go there, you will find the streets littered with Zimbabwean people( begging, prostitution, all sorts of low end jobs to get some food) . Did you miss the chaos in the same South Africa from some weeks ago?? And do you mind check out the South African police “Scorpion” site? Might amaze you how they fight to send back illegal immigrants, especially Zimbabweans back across the borders.

i dont have a government document because we dont have a freedom of information bill passed into law yet, funny zimbabwe has lol
i didnt miss the chaos in the news and while acknowledging that  south africa sends zims back to their country,the fact remains that a lot of zimbabweans are being officially camped there in spite of south africa's economy,which is quite commendable considering their own citizens are suffering as well which  is the spark that ignited the whole crisis

Kobojunkie:






Al Jazeera will definitely explode in the middle east cause it is their one station that competes with the likes of CNN, BBC etc. Does that explosion then translate into Al Jazeera’s version being the only true version lol

it isnt the only true version,but at least theres no western spin to it,they can report what their people feel and in their own words,they can report even if the united states and others do not agree with it.
remember condoleeza rice made remarks about them in connection to aiding terrorists?
its not their only destination,the arabic version  is mainly heard in mid east but the english version is world wide and competing with the likes of cnn and co in just a couple of years, wouldnt u say the growth has been remarkable?shows a lot of american,british,african and the rest are listening to their version of events, just using them to illustrate my point not digressing