It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Should Zambabwe be invaded?

page: 1

log in


posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 05:30 PM
There is a big problem in Zambabwe.White farmers are being kicked off their land(although i believe some of the land belongs rightfully to many natives,kicking them off is not the way to solve it,especially when inexperience people are put into place),People are being moved out of their homes and over a million people of suffering from poverty.Too mak things worse,over 2thirds of the nation are unemployed.

Its clear that the gvernment in Zambabwe is corrupt,and im afriad to say so are many of the ther african countries.Being partly african myself,it hurts to see this going on.Not to mention the "Aid problem"(not AIDS,although it is an important problem).Billions have been pumped into african countries,and i wonder to myself,are all that money getting through to the people,or are most getting through to the corrupt.I read many books on nations and iv found an interest fact.Some african countries are so poowr,that $1000US would feed a family for a year.Thats probably 3-4 people.Thats $250 per person.The american dollar is valuable because some nations have a GNP rate below $1000.More that 60billion dollars has been sent in aid to african nations over the past 20years,and yet,i dont see much of an improved result.

It is a fact,wealthy nations offer african nations millions in aid a year,the african governments agree and say to give the money through to them,and they will give everysingle cent to its poor.The way i see it,only a fraction goes to the poor,and the rest goes into their military for pointless wars.I am sick and tired of seeing people complain how little wealthy nations are doing,i think they do do enough.Although i do believe that there is still a major imbalance between global military spending and global aid spending.In reality,the corrupt african governments are partly to blame for africas poverty(along with colonialism and global ignorance),and if we do not confront them,we will never go any further than step one.

I believe action should be taken.And to start,i believe the Magube`s Zambabwean government should be more confronted.As a South African,i do not like the idea of a major problem happening at ur doorstep in neighbouring Zambabwe.We have the power,we have the ability,I believe it is time for the South african government and the EU,united nations to take over and do something.We are seeing a national crime being commited just like Rawanda.

It sounds extreme,and yes military action does not sound any wiser,And i believe that most of the time,money should be spent taliing it over,but in some cases,it is the only way.If we leave this arising problem,many pf the innocent will either die or be unfairly treated.What are many or your opinions.

posted on Jun, 29 2005 @ 12:43 PM
I'd like to see concerted action from the world (led by the African nations) to remove Mugabe.

I sympathise with and support the move towards distributing land back to the native people of Zimbabwe but that doesn't mean I support Mugabe's blatent favouring of his own tribal power-base.

I'm sorry to say that I think the last thing that is needed is for a bunch of western white countries to come marching in as if to reneact the old colonialism.
(Which is how come 'we' - meaning especially the UK - have done so little to date)

It's a horrible mess but I hope Africa produces an African answer.

posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 11:51 AM
What's in Zimbabwe that we would want? OIl, gas, uranium, tritium, other natural resources? No.

posted on Aug, 25 2005 @ 03:28 PM
The Zimbabwean issue is very serious and is definately something that needs to be, in some way, addressed.

Devastating crimes were and still are being comitted against white farmers in the form of their violent removal from their homes. I'm sure most of you are (or at least should be) aware of this situation. (A question on the side; how much information does one recieve of this situation in the US, or anywhere outside of Africa?)

Recently Mugabe's Zanu PF has begun evicting members of the MDC (the opposition political party whom are not a white party) from their homes; a pogrom. He went and demolished entire communities where opposition support was most prominent. So now it is not only about removing europeans from their 'unrightfully' owned land, but is simply a fascist police state.

Should Zimbabwe be invaded? I think that if Western countries, such a the UK, were to do this, Mugabes campaign would only be encouraged and would serve as great propaganda material in spreading his cause. This may also spread anti-western sentiment throught not only Zim, but the rest of Africa. Mugabe has absolutely no respect for any Western powers and would only be amused at any attempts at negotiation.

Therefore some kind of help must be sought from other African countries, the most influential of which would most probably be South Africa. South Africa is probably the most powerful African state and is nevertheless a neighbour of Zimbabwe and is therefore on of it's active trading parters. The South African government could imply various economic preasures to assist some kind of negotiations with Mugabe. But as with any act of sanctions, one would only be starving the already famished people of Zimbabwe who largely have nothing to do with their Tyranic government. Some kind of military infiltration may therefore have some beneficial results.

However, the problem we are faced with is that the South African President, Thabo Mbeki is in fact a passive supporter of Mugabe and has on many occasions met with the man and impressed his sympathy and support of Mugabe's -skewed and evil- philosophy.

I think that probably an assasination would be the best solution, as almost the entire situation is being brought about one mans severe (and very effective) leadership, just like Hitler or Stalin. The Zanu PF would fall like a pack of cards if he were removed and the DMC would be able to walk into power, as they do hold the countries majority vote, and things would, hopefully, be able to begin to sort themselves out.

posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 10:04 AM
Realistically, if South Africa wasn't invaded during the apratheid government, then zimbabwae can't be invaded for land redistribution.

posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 01:42 PM
In response to Nygdan.

One cannot say that Zimbabwe should not be invaded over the issue of land redistribution because of Apartheid.

If an invasion of Zimbabwe were to be carried out as a result of land redistribution, who would be doing the invading? It would be somebody who wants to protect the people who are losing their land. The people being removed from their farms are white people whom, mostly, originated from England. So if anyone would want to protect these people it would be the British Government or factions of South African society, as many Britons migrated from South Africa to Zimbabwe. So here we have two possible invading forces; SA and Britain, although it would be the British Government under most pressure here.

Starting with England then, why can't she invade Zimbabwe because of Apartheid? During Apartheid, the British (along with the Dutch settlers) were the ones comitting those particular crimes against the native population. So she could not have been a 'policeing' figure in that situation (policing which may have come in the form of, say, an invasion). Furthermore, Apartheid, and Britains involvement in it, had nothing to do with Zimbabwe. So there is no reason as to why she cannot now invade Zim because of Apartheid.

The other possible invading force would therefore be a South African one. Now if we argue that (keeping in mind that the SA government is a black government) it cannot invade Zimbabwe because of Apartheid, it would be as good as saying that they would allow those white Zimbabweans to be persecuted and killed because white people were doing likewise to them a short while back. Not only is there no link between those white Zimbabweans and Apartheid, but it goes completely contrary to South Africa's policies against agression upon people due to their race or skin-colour.

Therefore one cannot say that Zimbabwe should not be invaded due to Apartheid.

posted on Sep, 18 2005 @ 02:20 PM

Originally posted by Frosty
What's in Zimbabwe that we would want? OIl, gas, uranium, tritium, other natural resources? No.

Nobody is going to invade Zimbabwe, there's just nothing to profit by doing that.

If the people in Zimbabwe aren't happy with their government, they should revolt.

posted on Sep, 18 2005 @ 03:10 PM
There is no solution for this problem. It definately isn't getting Africans to fight other Africans for a population that's about 1% white, and these white people are still living off the fruits of death and colonialism? What comes around goes around that's the law of God, Nature, and Science.

"No one can profit from pain unless they're white."
Chris Rock

new topics

top topics


log in