"A discredited dictator" as opposed to what? Seems a bit like the oft-used MSM news "brutal murder"-- as opposed, of course, to a gentle murder.

I'm sure the irony will escape some-- Bush saying a "discredited" dictator presides over food shortages, staggering inflation and harsh repression-- again, as opposed to gentle repression.

As much as I hate armed intervention, I almost have to wonder if its necessary in a case like this. Should Mugabe be forcibly overthrown by an external force? Should external anti-Mugabe governments provide arms to anti-Mugabe rebels?

duh!!!!!! he finally noticed?????? must be hunting for republican votes.

chromatico,

Africa is already in turmoil due to imperial intervention (China, Russia, Europe, US). We do not need to invade any more countries for the sake of helping them unless the people cry out for help.

The problem with invasions is that we never really know who the 'enemy' is. There's always a perceived threat, and in a place like Africa/Middle East, you can never be sure who you are fighting for.

IF we leave the rest of the world alone with our policies and interventions, maybe the world will work itself out (and I include all countries who do the invading under the 'we' China included).

IMO it's a disgrace that the world continues to give mugabe any kind of validation.

The man is a monster, but what can we do about it?

Sanctions don't affect him one little bit - they just serve to hurt the population.

Then again, that never stopped shrub before.

It was even more tempting when he was practicing his own version of ethnic cleansing against white farmers - where were all the liberal hand-wringers then?

This man really is an abomination.

I completely agree with your statement. However, the governments have better things to worry about like how they are going to make their next buck.

The Zimbabweans are suffering, as are the Sudanese, as are the Ethiopians, Kenyans, West Africans as a whole...

To stop one atrocity means we have to stop them all, which I'm all for.

It is always funny listening to people argue the point of war. While it may be true that many have noble intentions, it is seldom the outcome. We hear, “Stop the terrorism.” They mean, secure oil. South Africa had sanctions placed against it during Apartheid, but do prey tell where America got all the Nuclear fuel during the cold war, when South Africa was the only non-USSR country producing at the time? Russia? And while the perceived ideas for any war, seem noble, did it not place the winners in a position to accrue greater wealth? Even WW2. Do we really believe that the US, or even Great Britain went to war, for purely noble reasons?
I cannot see how any military intervention will help Zimbabwe. Maybe the best course is to educate the people of Zimbabwe, so they become aware of the situation they are in, and the choices which they as a country can make. The truth is, most Zimbabweans do not even know that Mugabe is the cause of all their troubles. I have spoken to many Zimbabweans, who up until their emigration was under the strong impression that all their troubles were as a direct result of white imperial rule. I
For those who feel that war is the only option, and that education is not the answer, consider this, South Africa had the most peaceful transition from oppressive government to Democracy. Without a single outbreak of violence! How was this achieved? Well, President Nelson Mandela once gave a talk at my school, and he summed it up something like this. To change the world, you need not destroy it. You need not kill for it. You need not raise a single arm to it. Changeing the world is easy. It all begins with changing one man’s view of it. And in that change of view, the world itself can and will change.