AAinEqGuinea:
Braveheart Mugabe sleeps with his eyes open

President Mugabe Made a Plea For African Americans and Africans to Come Together And It’s More Relevant Today Than Ever [VIDEO]

Warrior!

At least less than 1% will never be able to own over 60% of the lands in Zim, even when he's long dead and gone. Great legacy and something South Africans wished they could do, but can't. Sometimes, you just have to make sacrifices.

They said the same thing about Chairman Mao and his methods in China back then...but Chinese folks are now enjoying the sacrifices they made under him. Without those sacrifices, China wouldn't be what it's today.

Shymm3x:


Err, it's okay for the UK to renegade on the Lancaster House agreement, but not alright for Mugabe to fast-track land reforms, no? Can you see the paradox in ya submission and how hypocritical you sound?

Why should less than 1% of the population own over 60% of "prime-land" in a country that they're not even indigenous to? Would any western country ever allow that? And can you state one country on the planet where press freedom is absolute?

Also, why are Nigerians recycling dictators? Shouldn't Sahara reporters be more concerned about that than worrying about a next country that's still trying to find its feet? Most African countries are basically the same and folks need to worry about their own backyard before trying to critique others.

Forced acquisition of lands is not OK, and that was Mugabe's agenda. Yes, it is true that the minority white owns the majority of the land, but why is the government trying to right the wrong of colonialism by forcing farmers to give up their lands? Lands that, if I may point out, have provided the resources that sustain the country. When and how did the UK renegade on the LHA? It spent millions on resettlement projects. I haven't read much about it in awhile, so do enlighten me. Freedom of the press does not have to be absolute, let's not be facetious. But it can definitely be repressed beyond necessary measures. No one is advocating for absolute freedom of press. A free press can either be good or bad, but without freedom the press will never be anything but bad (not my quote, and I do not remember who said it). Staying informed on international affairs and engaging in educational discussion on NL doesn't mean that one does not "worry about his/her own backyard". There is nothing wrong with staying informed on the state of affairs in other countries, doesn't mean I love mine any less.

This man is a clown

cooljude:
seriously, you are dumb and are you sure you would get to half his age. Why insult someone who hasn't done anything to you.

go back and view d pics i just described what the pix looks like, i diint call him a monkey. you need to learn how to read.

Shymm3x:


Warrior!

At least less than 1% will never be able to own over 60% of the lands in Zim, even when he's long dead and gone. Great legacy and something South Africans wished they could do, but can't. Sometimes, you just have to make sacrifices.

They said the same thing about Chairman Mao and his methods in China back then...but Chinese folks are now enjoying the sacrifices they made under him. Without those sacrifices, China wouldn't be what it's today.

That disparity of land ownership and wealth to whites shows how much blacks are still played. I can expect this in America/Euro but never in Africa!! but ya know, whitey with their white skin and cash, on some African expedition, is all it takes to win over black man.

I was with my Cameroonian friend one day and I asked him what his thoughts were on Mugabe, lol, as he puts it, "Mugabe? that man's the fvcking devil!"... he didn't want to hear anything about how Mugabe took over farms from oligarchic whites. I'm guessing not everyone Black is a fan.

At least we found one black leader who can indiscriminately hate.

Ibsgal:


Forced acquisition of lands is not OK, and that was Mugabe's agenda. Yes, it is true that the minority white owns the majority of the land, but why is the government trying to right the wrong of colonialism by forcing farmers to give up their lands? Lands that, if I may point out, have provided the resources that sustain the country. When and how did the UK renegade on the LHA? It spent millions on resettlement projects. I haven't read much about it in awhile, so do enlighten me. Freedom of the press does not have to be absolute, let's not be facetious. But it can definitely be repressed beyond necessary measures. No one is advocating for absolute freedom of press. A free press can either be good or bad, but without freedom the press will never be anything but bad (not my quote, and I do not remember who said it). Staying informed on international affairs and engaging in educational discussion on NL doesn't mean that one does not "worry about his/her own backyard". There is nothing wrong with staying informed on the state of affairs in other countries, doesn't mean I love mine any less.

Don't wait for anyone to enlighten you. Go and read about how Blair reneged on the Lancaster House agreement in 1997, an agreement which in 1979 had committed Britain to fund annually a 'gradual' land redistribution program, and how Mugabe, under pressure from the war veterans (who afterall, had won the war of liberation) decided to order mass seizure of the lands in response to Blair's duplicity.

Here are excerpts from the letter sent by Clare Short, Blair's official, to Mugabe, cancelling British responsibility for the agreement:

[b]Clare Short informed the Zimbabwean government in 1997 that the election of a Labour government "without links to former colonial interests" meant Britain no longer had "special responsibility to meet the cost of land purchases", according to documents obtained by the Guardian..... In a letter to Zimbabwe's minister of agriculture, Kumbirai Kangai, Ms Short said: "We do not accept that Britain has a special responsibility to meet the cost of land purchase in Zimbabwe.''

"We are a new government from diverse backgrounds without links to former colonial interests. My own origins are Irish and as you know we were colonised not colonisers."

The then international development secretary's letter did offer qualified support for land reform, stating: "We do recognise the very real issues you face over land reform... we would be prepared to support a programme of land reform that was part of a poverty eradication strategy, but not on any other basis."[/b]

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2003/aug/11/freedomofinformation.zimbabwe


Shortly after this insolent letter was sent to him, unilaterally and brazenly consigning the 1979 Lancaster House Agreement to the dustbin, Robert Mugabe ordered the land seizures. The rest is history.

Ibsgal:

Forced acquisition of lands is not OK, and that was Mugabe's agenda. Yes, it is true that the minority white owns the majority of the land, but why is the government trying to right the wrong of colonialism by forcing farmers to give up their lands? Lands that, if I may point out, have provided the resources that sustain the country. When and how did the UK renegade on the LHA? It spent millions on resettlement projects. I haven't read much about it in awhile, so do enlighten me. Freedom of the press does not have to be absolute, let's not be facetious. But it can definitely be repressed beyond necessary measures. No one is advocating for absolute freedom of press. A free press can either be good or bad, but without freedom the press will never be anything but bad (not my quote, and I do not remember who said it). Staying informed on international affairs and engaging in educational discussion on NL doesn't mean that one does not "worry about his/her own backyard". There is nothing wrong with staying informed on the state of affairs in other countries, doesn't mean I love mine any less.

Blimey!

Let me digress for a bit: not to sound disrespectful or whatnot, based on the rebuttal you posited - I believe your mentality and folks with same understanding of things, are the same reason why the rest of the world has left African behind. See international-politics/global-relations is most times a zero-sum game and that's what realpolitik is about. So sometimes you just have to damn the short-term consequences and do what's best for you on long-term basis - to win. That was what China did under Chairman Mao and why China is where it's today. Ditto how Russia was able to overcome the utter destruction of Russia under Yeltsin. The same reason why South America is the next bastion, after Asia. And why everyone has left Africa behind, with no progress(ion) in sight.

You believe "forced acquisition" of lands by Mugabe isn't okay - fair enough. However, how did those he took the land from get the land in the first place? Were they given to them, or did they also acquire the lands forcefully? More so, Zimbabweans never forcefully ask for their lands back after independence - they had the Lancaster House agreement, and both parties accepted the reform. But when Tony Blair and "New Labour" assumed office in 1997, they renegaded on the agreement. And their excuse, "the election of a Labour government without links to former colonial interests meant Britain no longer had any special responsibility to meet the cost of land purchases". If you were in his shoes, with less than 1% disproportionately owning over 60% of the lands they stole from the indigenous people, yet they feel it's their ordained right to own those lands - what would you have done? Erm, if foreigners who make up less than 1% of Nigeria's population were to own over 60% of Nigerian lands, what would be ya reaction? I need honest answers from ya heart, not recycled propaganda from MSM.

No, you argued that there's no freedom of press in Zimbabwe (the threads on FP today show that isn't true based on the comments on Zimbabwean websites and the mixed opinions there), and I asked you to cite any country on this planet where freedom of press is absolute. No need to pontificate and go off the tangent of discourse.

AAinEqGuinea:


That disparity of land ownership and wealth to whites shows how much blacks are still played. I can expect this in America/Euro but never in Africa!! but ya know, whitey with their white skin and cash, on some African expedition, is all it takes to win over black man.

I was with my Cameroonian friend one day and I asked him what was his thoughts were on Mugabe, lol, as he puts it, "Mugabe? that man's the fvcking devil!"... he didn't want to hear anything about how Mugabe took over the farms from oligarchic whites. I'm guessing not everyone Black is a fan.

At least we found one black leader who can indiscriminately hate.

Lol, folks just can't look beyond their nostrils and it's always a case of pointing one finger at someone while the remaining four is pointing back at you. South Africa in which folks tout as the best democracy in Africa has been ruled by the same party and same folks since independence, and opposition is non-existent in the country. Ditto Nigeria which has been recycling the same folks who destroyed the country since 1975...the same party ruled the country from 1999-2015, and most of the folks who ruled under that party are now in the new ruling party, with a president who is also part of the bandits who have been running the country since 1975.

Then you have the puppet Biya in Cameroun. Bongo dynasty in Gabon. Eduardo dos Santos in Angola. Etc.. The whole continent is basically the same. At least Mugabe did something no one will dare try, and got away with it.

Yes, he has stayed for too long - but I'd bet my last penny that if the land reform issue never happened, he'd be a darling to western leaders. They're all the same - pot and kettle everywhere.

Sahara idiots

I recommend people supporting Mugabe's regime be relocated to Zimbabwe and enjoy the freedom/liberty he is giving the Zimbabwean people.

It's hypocritical to see people enjoying to best of freedom and human rights supporting dictatorship.

The same way some people were supporting IBB and Abacha. Today where are they hiding.

emmatok:
I recommend people supporting Mugabe's regime be relocated to Zimbabwe and enjoy the freedom/liberty he is giving the Zimbabwean people.

It's hypocritical to see people enjoying to best of freedom and human rights supporting dictatorship.

The same way some people were supporting IBB and Abacha. Today where are they hiding.

Stop thinking through your buttt.

emmatok:
I recommend people supporting Mugabe's regime be relocated to Zimbabwe and enjoy the freedom/liberty he is giving the Zimbabwean people.

It's hypocritical to see people enjoying to best of freedom and human rights supporting dictatorship.

The same way some people were supporting IBB and Abacha. Today where are they hiding.

Personally, if I were to move to Africa and choose between Zimbabwe and Nigeria - I'd rather live in Zimbabwe than live in Nigeria.

You can say whatever you want about Mugabe, but you can't deny the fact that Zimbabwe is far more beautiful than Nigeria, with better infrastructures and security. Human development index of Zimbabwe is far better than Nigeria's - 91% literacy rate for Zimbabwe compared to 61% for Nigeria. Etc.

Shymm3x:


Personally, if I were to move to Africa and choose between Zimbabwe and Nigeria - I'd rather live in Zimbabwe than live in Nigeria.

You can say whatever you want about Mugabe, but you can't deny the fact that Zimbabwe is far more beautiful than Nigeria, with better infrastructures and security. Human development index of Zimbabwe is far better than Nigeria's.

You're wrong. Nigeria is higher than Zimbabwe on the HDI:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index


Also, a good thing looking at that UN HDI list, is that all the African nations are improving annually in the HDI. That also flies in the face of your assertion that Africa is making no progress. We are.

ROSSIKE:


You're wrong. Nigeria is higher than Zimbabwe on the HDI:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index

Also, a good thing looking at that UN HDI list, is that all the African nations are improving annually in the HDI. That also flies in the face of your assertion that Africa is making no progress. We are.

That's a bogus and part of some next conspiracy to paint the country what it's not.

The two most important things about human development index (HDI) are: literacy level and life expectancy. And Zimbabwe ranks far higher than Nigeria in both. The whole GDP per capita tosh added to it is inconsequential since in as much as Nigeria has an allegedly high GDP, there's absolute poverty in the country and the average Nigerian is just as poor as the average Zimbabwean.

ROSSIKE:


Stop thinking through your buttt.

Keep your fake Afrocentrism to yourself.

ishiamu:
Sahara reporters get luck they are not in Zimbabwe foolish reporters

What make them foolish?

Shymm3x:


Personally, if I were to move to Africa and choose between Zimbabwe and Nigeria - I'd rather live in Zimbabwe than live in Nigeria.

You can say whatever you want about Mugabe, but you can't deny the fact that Zimbabwe is far more beautiful than Nigeria, with better infrastructures and security. Human development index of Zimbabwe is far better than Nigeria's - 91% literacy rate for Zimbabwe compared to 61% for Nigeria. Etc.

The only area Zimbabwe is better than Nigeria is high literacy rates.

But where are the Jobs for the little Zimbabwean population.

Zimbabwe has one of the highest inflation rates in Africa, which is a reflection of low production capacity.

Thank God I un-followed dem on fb and twitter So so unprofessional Dey shld try dis wif putin

emmatok:


The only area Zimbabwe is better than Nigeria is high literacy rates.

But where are the Jobs for the little Zimbabwean population.

Zimbabwe has one of the highest inflation rates in Africa, which is a reflection of low production capacity.

But are there jobs in Nigeria, and most African countries? So why make it a Zimbabwean thing when the whole continent is in shambles?

Don't feign ignorance - I believe you know the crippling sanctions caused the hyper-inflation in Zimbabwe, and that's also the reason why its inflation rate is still high.

When trying to move to a new country, the most important things are: peace/security (serenity) is just as important as economic factors. Can you compare the two countries based on peace/security? Economic factors are inconsequential here cos Nigeria isn't better than Zimbabwe economically for a migrant. And Zimbabwe is far more beautiful than Nigeria, with far better infrastructures and institutions.

So, allow all the "can you live in Zimbabwe" talks, and focus on the topic.

This is Harare:

Shymm3x:


That's a bogus and part of some next conspiracy to paint the country what it's not.

The two most important things about human development index (HDI) are: literacy level and life expectancy. And Zimbabwe ranks far higher than Nigeria in both. The whole GDP per capita tosh added to it is inconsequential since in as much as Nigeria has an allegedly high GDP, there's absolute poverty in the country and the average Nigerian is just as poor as the average Zimbabwean.

Oh... the HDI is now ''bogus'' because it contradicts your claim that Zimbabwe ranks higher than Nigeria? Who are you to declare what the ''two most important things '' are in the HDI? Sorry, YOU don't make the rules pal. And GDP per capita figures are not ''tosh''. The average Nigerian lives better than the average Zimbabwean. HDI and GDP figures confirm that, and you can't trash them because they do not agree with your 'Nigeria is hell on earth' fantasies. When last were you in Nigeria anyway?

Shymm3x:


But are there jobs in Nigeria, and most African countries? So why make it a Zimbabwean thing when the whole continent is in shambles?

The whole continent is not ''in shambles''. That is classic western media misrepresentation. Being a developing region does not mean you are ''in shambles''. Learn to debate like a learned person and quit the unnecessary histrionics and blanket condemnation of the continent.

ROSSIKE:


Oh... the HDI is now ''bogus'' because it contradicts your claim that Zimbabwe ranks higher than Nigeria? Who are you to declare what the ''two most important things '' are in the HDI? Sorry, YOU don't make the rules pal. And GDP per capita figures are not ''tosh''. The average Nigerian lives better than the average Zimbabwean. HDI and GDP figures confirm that, and ypu can't trash them because they do not agree with your 'Nigeria is hell on earth' fantasies. When last were you in Nigeria anyway?

Nah, HDI is measured based on: literacy rate, life expectancy, and GDP per capita - the tripod.

And the reason why I said GDP per capita is inconsequential is cos Nigeria's GDP is bogus. I don't want to get into that, but poverty in Nigeria = poverty in Zimbabwe - no difference. However, Zimbabwe tops Nigeria in the other two.

Stop living in denial - get with the honest truth.

Shymm3x:


Nah, HDI is measured based on: literacy rate, life expectancy, and GDP per capita - the tripod.

And the reason why I said GDP per capita is inconsequential is cos Nigeria's GDP is bogus. I don't want to get into that, but poverty in Nigeria = poverty in Zimbabwe - no difference. However, Zimbabwe tops Nigeria in the other two.

Stop living in denial - get with the honest truth.

You are the one making baseless claims about poverty in Nigeria cooked up in your own head, after rejecting UN statistics, which you yourself were the first to quote (wrongly of course). Stop making it seem like everyone in Nigeria is poor and suffering. That's simply not the case. There HAS been a middle class expansion over the last 10 years. FACT. When last were you in Nigeria anyway?

Infact, I love Sahara Reporters die

ROSSIKE:


The whole continent is not ''in shambles''. That is classic western media misrepresentation. Being a developing region does not mean you are ''in shambles''. Learn to debate like a learned person and quit the unnecessary histrionics and blanket condemnation of the continent.

Living in denial, are we?

We need to start telling ourselves the reality: nothing works in Africa!

We don't even have proper nations/institutions yet and it's 2015, yet no country on the continent is an intellectual property. So pray tell how the whole continent isn't in shambles? Take a look around you and see how both Asia and South America have left Africa behind. The truth is bitter but someone has to say it.

ROSSIKE:


You are the one making baseless claims about poverty in Nigeria cooked up in your own head, after rejecting UN statistics, which you yourself were the first to quote (wrongly of course). Stop making it seem like everyone in Nigeria is poor and suffering. That's simply not the case. There HAS been a middle class expansion over the last 10 years. FACT. When last were you in Nigeria anyway?

The whole middle class thing is a bubble and most of the so-called "middle class" are one sack letter or turmoil away from poverty. The structures aren't there yet for sustainability.

Yes, we can laud the fact that it's growing on paper...but stop living in a bubble.

Shymm3x:


Blimey!

Let me digress for a bit: not to sound disrespectful or whatnot, based on the rebuttal you posited - I believe your mentality and folks with same understanding of things, are the same reason why the rest of the world has left African behind. See international-politics/global-relations is most times a zero-sum game and that's what realpolitik is about. So sometimes you just have to damn the short-term consequences and do what's best for you on long-term basis - to win. That was what China did under Chairman Mao and why China is where it's today. Ditto how Russia was able to overcome the utter destruction of Russia under Yeltsin. The same reason why South America is the next bastion, after Asia. And why everyone has left Africa behind, with no progress(ion) in sight.

You believe "forced acquisition" of lands by Mugabe isn't okay - fair enough. However, how did those he took the land from get the land in the first place? Were they given to them, or did they also acquire the lands forcefully? More so, Zimbabweans never forcefully ask for their lands back after independence - they had the Lancaster House agreement, and both parties accepted the reform. But when Tony Blair and "New Labour" assumed office in 1997, they renegaded on the agreement. And their excuse, "the election of a Labour government without links to former colonial interests meant Britain no longer had any special responsibility to meet the cost of land purchases". If you were in his shoes, with less than 1% disproportionately owning over 60% of the lands they stole from the indigenous people, yet they feel it's their ordained right to own those lands - what would you have done? Erm, if foreigners who make up less than 1% of Nigeria's population were to own over 60% of Nigerian lands, what would be ya reaction? I need honest answers from ya heart, not recycled propaganda from MSM.

No, you argued that there's no freedom of press in Zimbabwe (the threads on FP today show that isn't true based on the comments on Zimbabwean websites and the mixed opinions there), and I asked you to cite any country on this planet where freedom of press is absolute. No need to pontificate and go off the tangent of discourse.

No, I didn't that argue that there is no freedom of the press in Zimbabwe, I stated that it's suppressed. Please get your facts right. No one is arguing that freedom of the press should be absolute. Do you not get the point? There are varying degrees to which freedom can be suppressed, and it is done to a greater degree in Zimbabwe than in most countries within the free world. Why do we keep dancing around the same issue?

I just read the letter by Clair Short (thanks ROSSIKE), which, admittedly, is an ill-judged letter. But despite the letter, the UK continued to support the distribution of land to help eradicate poverty in the country. Have you actually read about the population within which the land was redistributed. Mugabe is redistributing the land among his cronies, thus enabling a situation whereby the rich gets richer, and the poor gets poorer. It is clear that the lack of accountability and transparency in the management of redistribution as agreed in the Lancaster Agreement caused the British government to withhold their support. The main goal of the agreement was to distribute land to benefit the poor, and Mugabe failed miserably at that end.

To answer your question as to what I would do should the same situation arise in Nigeria, I will take the same stance. Because whether the leader takes the land by force or not, the poor will still be left out of the equation. I've stated over and over that the country was wronged, but forceful acquisition of lands and displacement of farmers are also wrong, and will not right the issue.

BTW, your first paragraph is such a cheap shot, go cook up with something better

Shymm3x:


Living in denial, are we?

We need to start telling ourselves the reality: nothing works in Africa!

We don't even have proper nations/institutions yet and it's 2015, yet no country on the continent is an intellectual property. So pray tell how the whole continent isn't in shambles? Take a look around you and see how both Asia and South America have left Africa behind. The truth is bitter but someone has to say it.

Spare me this nonsense about 'nothing works in Africa' and how Asia and co are supposedly leaving Africa behind. BOLLOCKS TO THAT. How many African nations have you personally visited to make such assertions? The average Indian is poorer than the average African. In fact most countries in Africa have a higher standard of living than India and Pakistan. The average Ghanaian or Senegalese lives a better life than the average Bangladeshi or Sri Lankan. The average Kenyan and Botswanian lives a better life than the average Nepalese or Burmese. Or Afghan. The average Gabonese or South African has much higher living standards than the average Vietnamese, Moldovan, or Uzbek. So it's not just ''oh everyone is doing better than Africans''. That's BULLSHIIT propaganda propounded by CNN, BBC, ABC et al, which YOU are promoting. And you need to STOP.

Christian Amarpour vs Mugabe

Ibsgal:


No, I didn't that argue that there is no freedom of the press in Zimbabwe, I stated that it's suppressed. Please get your facts right. No one is arguing that freedom of the press should be absolute. Do you not get the point? There are varying degrees to which freedom can be suppressed, and it is done to a greater degree in Zimbabwe than in most countries within the free world. Why do we keep dancing around the same issue?

I just read the letter by Clair Short (thanks ROSSIKE), which, admittedly, is an ill-judged letter. But despite the letter, the UK continued to support the distribution of land to help eradicate poverty in the country.

What an INSULT. GET THIS: THE BLACKS WON THE WAR OF LIBERATION IN ZIMBABWE. The Lancaster House Agreement was reached in order to prevent a massacre of the whites and mass seizure of the lands they'd stolen. Britain reneged on the agreement and instead decided to ''support eradication of poverty'' instead. That was a spit in the face of Zimbabweans. If you cannot see that, then something is definitely wrong with you upstairs.

Have you actually read about the population within which the land was redistributed. Mugabe is redistributing the land among his cronies, thus enabling a situation whereby the rich gets richer, and the poor gets poorer. It is clear that the lack of accountability and transparency in the management of redistribution as agreed in the Lancaster Agreement caused the British government to withhold their support. The main goal of the agreement was to distribute land to benefit the poor, and Mugabe failed miserably at that end.

To answer your question as to what I would do should the same situation arise in Nigeria, I will take the same stance. Because whether the leader takes the land by force or not, the poor will still be left out of the equation. I've stated over and over that the country was wronged, but forceful acquisition of lands and displacement of farmers are also wrong, and will not right the issue.

BTW, your first paragraph is such a cheap shot, go cook up with something better

You have no clue what you are talking about. The land redistribution program was an unqualified SUCCESS. It is another BBC MYTH that the land was only distributed among Mugabe's ''cronies''. STOP reading BBC reports on Zimbabwe. Their job is to twist the facts and demonize Mugabe. Ignoring their tales is the first step towards gaining a real understanding of what's going on there.

See this:

Land Reforms Bring Prosperity to Black Zimbabaweans

http://www.channel4.com/news/land-reform-brings-prosperity-to-black-zimbabweans

Ibsgal:

No, I didn't that argue that there is no freedom of the press in Zimbabwe, I stated that it's suppressed. Please get your facts right. No one is arguing that freedom of the press should be absolute. Do you not get the point? There are varying degrees to which freedom can be suppressed, and it is done to a greater degree in Zimbabwe than in most countries within the free world. Why do we keep dancing around the same issue?

What's the difference between lack of press freedom and suppression of press, in this context? It's either you're lost in semantics or you lack basic understanding of simple English words in expression. Erm, let me ignore that: how do you define "varying degrees" of suppression in this context, when I already cited a proof using the mixed reactions in comments by Zimbabweans (on Zimbabwean websites) on threads on FP today to buttress my point that they are allowed to critique the government? So what suppression are you alluding to?

I just read the letter by Clair Short (thanks ROSSIKE), which, admittedly, is an ill-judged letter. But despite the letter, the UK continued to support the distribution of land to help eradicate poverty in the country. Have you actually read about the population within which the land was redistributed. Mugabe is redistributing the land among his cronies, thus enabling a situation whereby the rich gets richer, and the poor gets poorer. It is clear that the lack of accountability and transparency in the management of redistribution as agreed in the Lancaster Agreement caused the British government to withhold their support. The main goal of the agreement was to distribute land to benefit the poor, and Mugabe failed miserably at that end.

But why did the UK renegade on an agreement it signed? And can you cite one example where the UK has helped eradicated poverty in any country on this planet? You mean the same UK that's yet to eradicate poverty in its own backyard will eradicate poverty in Zimbabwe, no? Do you some of you read what you write before posting?

To answer your question as to what I would do should the same situation arise in Nigeria, I will take the same stance. Because whether the leader takes the land by force or not, the poor will still be left out of the equation. I've stated over and over that the country was wronged, but forceful acquisition of lands and displacement of farmers are also wrong, and will not right the issue.

And what will "right the issue"? Leave them after renegading on an agreement they signed to keep over 60% of the land while the indigenous population remain in abject poverty with no sense of entitlement in their own country, no?

That means if you own a house and you rent it out to a tenant, and tenant refuses to honour the tenancy agreement - you'll concede the property to the tenant and move on, no? That's basically how you sound now.

BTW, your first paragraph is such a cheap shot, go cook up with something better

That's not a cheap shot, if I wanted to attack you, I would have been vicious about it.

ROSSIKE:


Spare me this nonsense about 'nothing works in Africa' and how Asia and co are supposedly leaving Africa behind. BOLLOCKS TO THAT. How many African nations have you personally visited to make such assertions? The average Indian is poorer than the average African. In fact most countries in Africa have a higher standard of living than India and Pakistan. The average Ghanaian or Senegalese lives a better life than the average Bangladeshi or Sri Lankan. The average Kenyan and Botswanian lives a better life than the average Nepalese or Burmese. Or Afghan. The average Gabonese or South African has much higher living standards than the average Vietnamese, Moldovan, or Uzbek. So it's not just ''oh everyone is doing better than Africans''. That's BULLSHIIT propaganda propounded by CNN, BBC, ABC et al, which YOU are promoting. And you need to STOP.

Lol, ultra-nationalism has kicked in!

All those countries you cited are intellectual properties and technologically far more advanced than any country in Africa. Don't compare India and Pakistan to any country in Africa - they're both far ahead of African countries. And leave Afghanistan out of it - that's an Arab country by classification.

Can you cite one country in Africa that's an intellectual property?