It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Paddy Ashdown: Military intervention in Zimbabwe 'would be justified'

page: 2
5
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 06:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cthulwho
The Mugabe regime is propped up by the Chinese. This means that the UN can't do anything because China is a permanent member of the security council and would veto any moves to help Zimbabwe.

So any intervention would have to be unilateral, like the US invasion of Iraq. The heads of the Zimbabwean military want to keep their grip on power and don't want to be tried for war crimes. So, they would most likely fight to the death.

Also, there are reports of Chinese special forces stationed in Zimbabwe, so any invading force would most likely come up against them.


I think you overestimate things, an invasion would be relatively easy to manage (certainly in comparison to Iraq)- the regime is badly organised and poorly structured




posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 06:29 AM
link   
These plans were first created under Blair, when the first wave of white Zimbabweans were tortured, raped and burned alive (at the last election). But, he was advised against invading due to no support in Africa.

This is the key here; Britain would need African Union troops as well. Going in on our own would create a blood bath; the old imperial guard marching through a former colony might not get the best welcome party. But it is obvious troops might be used. The Catholic Church and Trade Union in Zimbabwe publically called for Britain to invade their country and remove Mugabe last year.

For those who are thinking "Oh dear, British imperialism" clearly have no understanding of the situation of Zimbabwe. When I was at secondary school (high school to you Americans), a young boy was in our class called Charles. We called him "Chewy". Anyways, it was hard as a 15 year old watching someone breakdown when he described watching his house being burned down by Zanu-PF supporters. He and his family had to flee their country and come to Britain.

Think about the dozen of people who have been killed and effected by Mugabe. Go to South Africa and tell the thousands of illegal Zimbabwean immigrants* that Uncle Bobby is a nice man and they should returned to Zimbabwe


*some of these illegal immigrants had to feel South Africa after being attacked in anti-immigrantion riots. Some members should think about the people for once.



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 06:45 AM
link   
It's absolutely clear that the UK can't go in alone. Whilst it may be able to do so militarily, it is a dangerous idea politically; backing from the African Union would be required, and ideally the UN too.

UK intervention in Africa nowadays is benign - look at Sierra Leone. In the late 1999s a brutal civil war was under way with the rebels (RUF) going around burning villages and cutting off people's arms if they didn't support them. They were also heavily involved in illegal diamond smuggling.

UK intervention under a UN mandate ended the bloodshed and sowed the seeds for a democratic Sierra Leone with a relatively stable government. Yes, Sierra Leone still has many problems but it's a darn sight better than what it was.

A similar situation could unfold in Zimbabwe, but it's essential that the democratic process is re-legitimised so that when people vote they know it counts, it's anonymous and they can vote for who they please.

I believe the time for the international community to do something is now, working very closely with other African states.



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 06:51 AM
link   
Ok.

Perspective check.

Britain does not have the military capability to be able to invade Zimbabwe by itself.

Any action taken would need to be multinational, undertaken under the guise of the African Union following a request to the UN, via an approved mandate from the security council,

Should that occur British forces might be invoved.

The action in Iraq and Afghanistan is stressing the UK financially and has put huge strain on the UK armed forces. One or both of those theatres would need to be closed in order to deploy a major British Force.



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 06:54 AM
link   
First we need to see the proof... Undeniable proof of whatever it is they are going to remove him for. Then we will need to analyze it, take it to the Security Council, talk to and coddle him and then tell him he is a bad man. Then we need to talk some more.

Oh and one more thing... If there are no weapons of mass destruction then we can't go no matter what. Leave these poor people alone. They are better off now than if some mean big mean evil government like the US or UK goes in and helps them.



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gun Totin Gerbil
The last people that should be sending troops to zimbabwe are the british. You ever wondered why they are upset at mugabe ? He had the audacity to reclaim the lands for his people that was stolen from them by cecil rhodes , the cecil rhodes that got his doctor to get King Lobengula on morphine so he would let the british have it whilst spaced out as he wouldnt otherwise let them have it , after which he killed himself. so the english took vast swaths of land and the indigenous population huddled together in tight little ghettos with no land to farm . And now the british are all sore about it . But they always were a nasty little emperialist nation at heart anyway , as you can see with their foul alliance with the usa in raping arab nations these days .


Yep, that's me, I'm out there raping arabs. You #ing idiot.

EDIT: Sorry about one line post, and the swear, I'm happy to accept whatever punishment is due, Mods, cos this response was necessary.

[edit on 24/6/2008 by rexpop]



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 09:12 AM
link   
reply to post by neformore
 


I would have to disagree with you there neformore, Britain could easily invade Zim successfully.

The Zimbabwean army would be a mere annoyance. Their equipment is horribly outdated and barely maintained, there is barely enough diesel/petrol in the country to keep their war machine running for longer then a few days.

There is barely any food in the country, hungry soldiers don't make great fighters.

I agree that on the surface it would not be a great PR campaign for the UK, but down on the ground the populace of Zim would welcome the intervention with open arms.

The only true Mugabe supporters are the ones in his inner circle who are still able to maintain a semblance of a normal life. The rest of his "supporters" are terrorised/threatened/blackmailed and strong-armed into voting for him.

To think of it, you could probably send in a few Boy Scout troops to do the job.



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 09:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Gun Totin Gerbil
 


Seeings you have a picture of that child murderer Che Guevara as your avatar (shot hungry children dead for taking food during the Cuban revolution), I do not think you are in the position to be sitting and smiling on the moral high ground. Do you?



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Perplexed
First we need to see the proof... Undeniable proof of whatever it is they are going to remove him for. Then we will need to analyze it, take it to the Security Council, talk to and coddle him and then tell him he is a bad man. Then we need to talk some more.

Oh and one more thing... If there are no weapons of mass destruction then we can't go no matter what. Leave these poor people alone. They are better off now than if some mean big mean evil government like the US or UK goes in and helps them.



Perplexed, your ignorance is staggering, you clearly have NO idea what you are talking about.

Proof? A quick google search will provide TONS. Read any major news site for all the proof you might ever need.

Time for analysis is over, there is a genocide underway, and as in the case of Rwanda, the realities and brutalities of which will only surface after the dust has settled and all the libbies will cry that they should have done something.

Better off? Are you insane? The day to day realities of living in Zim would make Hell seem like a pleasent place, quick do a google search and be amazed at the levels of depravation and desperation.

The smell of a British tank is a whole lot more appetising then the smell of Mugabe's relentless boot!



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gun Totin Gerbil
The last people that should be sending troops to zimbabwe are the british. You ever wondered why they are upset at mugabe ? He had the audacity to reclaim the lands for his people that was stolen from them by cecil rhodes , the cecil rhodes that got his doctor to get King Lobengula on morphine so he would let the british have it whilst spaced out as he wouldnt otherwise let them have it , after which he killed himself. so the english took vast swaths of land and the indigenous population huddled together in tight little ghettos with no land to farm . And now the british are all sore about it . But they always were a nasty little emperialist nation at heart anyway , as you can see with their foul alliance with the usa in raping arab nations these days .


So much crazy, where to start.

Firstly, the Che avatar, the mudering filth that he is.

Secondly your revisionist waffling about Britan and Rhodesia- let me refresh you, white Rhodesians went for UDI because BRITAIN was pushing for black emancipation you blethering idiot! The British political will to maintain the empire had disappeared by the 1960s.


As for "raping" Arab nations- really, tell me, give me a cost of the British expense in military action in Iraq juxtaposed against material gain? Sounds like some sort of perverse self raping to use your analogy


World politics reduced to the level of infantile pro Che ramblings- che, the filth that he was



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by illigitimati
I would have to disagree with you there neformore, Britain could easily invade Zim successfully.


Zimbabwe is slightly smaller than Iraq. Theres approximately 160,000 troops in Iraq at the moment.

The total personnel of ALL the UK fulltime armed forces in 2006 was 195,000.

The UK has not got the logistics to move a large force into a landlocked country (and can only land about 800 troops at a time from the sea without comissioning ships under merchant service)

So you see, its not going to happen.



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 09:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Gun Totin Gerbil
 


Thats the way Gerbil, throw out all the usual sloganeering and "liberation speak" and tales of colonialism while the people of Zim suffer under the hands of an evil despot.

I'm sure the people who are resorting to eating rats care about what happened decades ago!

At least the people of Zim had food and work to wake up to every morning, now its hunger, beatings and intimidation the face.



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 09:49 AM
link   
reply to post by neformore
 


A large force would not be required. 800 troops could easily do the job.

The Zim army would not be able to put up much of a fight for an extended amount of time.



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by blueorder
As for "raping" Arab nations- really, tell me, give me a cost of the British expense in military action in Iraq juxtaposed against material gain? Sounds like some sort of perverse self raping to use your analogy


You do realize that sometimes, it is necessary to engage in intervention if its to Open new markets for exploitation, or to protect existing markets from falling into the hands of public ownership (Gulf War 1, anyone?).


At least, that is what some believe.


[edit on 24-6-2008 by InSpiteOf]



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by neformore

Zimbabwe is slightly smaller than Iraq. Theres approximately 160,000 troops in Iraq at the moment.

The total personnel of ALL the UK fulltime armed forces in 2006 was 195,000.





the UK has less than 10,000 troops in Iraq?!



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by InSpiteOf

You do realize that sometimes, it is necessary to engage in intervention if its to Open new markets for exploitation, or to protect existing markets from falling into the hands of public ownership (Gulf War 1, anyone?).




sounds very airy fairy to me.

Specifically, tell me the net financial gain to Britain from removinG Saddam (taking into account the billions spent)



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 09:59 AM
link   
reply to post by blueorder
 


Im not saying there is a direct gain for Britain. But rather a need to engage in international intervention to protect the overall capital accumulation process. While the Iraq war has cost Britain's public coffers much, the pay back has all been to private accounts.



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by infinite
For those who are thinking "Oh dear, British imperialism" clearly have no understanding of the situation of Zimbabwe. When I was at secondary school (high school to you Americans), a young boy was in our class called Charles. We called him "Chewy". Anyways, it was hard as a 15 year old watching someone breakdown when he described watching his house being burned down by Zanu-PF supporters. He and his family had to flee their country and come to Britain.


bad analogy my friend

u could just as well find ppl breaking down like chewy because of british imperalism or american interventionism

america will only oppress, then the IMF/World Bank will get involved, perhaps UK, all corrupt nations/organinazions, or UN peacekeeper that have a nasty tendency to rape.



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by InSpiteOf

Im not saying there is a direct gain for Britain. But rather a need to engage in international intervention to protect the overall capital accumulation process. While the Iraq war has cost Britain's public coffers much, the pay back has all been to private accounts.


I just don't see how the overall "capital accumulation process" from intervention is "protected"



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 10:53 AM
link   

The Times has learnt that the Ministry of Defence already has two contingency plans, one involving the deployment of troops into Zimbabwe.


Notice it says the MoD have TWO contingency plans. What could the second one be considering the first is probably the deployment of a special force into the area?



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join