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: 3
5
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 12:02 PM
link   
British put this thug in power.
The country declared itself independent (Rhodesia) without getting permission from the Crown.
They (Rhodesians) screwed themselves by giving into the fools in London.
We should force all the people in England who overthrew Rhodesia to go live in their creation.
Once they had to deal with living in this wretched country, we will see if something gets done.




posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by blueorder
 


The UK does have less than 10K troops in Iraq, but thats not my point.

My point is that it takes that amount of troops to barely keep hold on Iraq, and the British armed forces total is 195k - and thats all services and all personnel, not just frontline troops.

See where I'm coming from now?



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 01:17 PM
link   
I agree that their should be a military intervention, but by African forces.
Western troops have no place invading an African country.



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

Originally posted by jmdewey60
British put this thug in power.
The country declared itself independent (Rhodesia) without getting permission from the Crown.
They (Rhodesians) screwed themselves by giving into the fools in London.
We should force all the people in England who overthrew Rhodesia to go live in their creation.
Once they had to deal with living in this wretched country, we will see if something gets done.


what do u mean?
link for those facts plz



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


Ian Smith declared UDI, not Mugabe.
Prime Minister Wilson refused to invade and support White minority rule. After the bush war, we backed new elections and Mugabe won (even though he rigged the vote). We did not "put" Mugabe in power. Just recognised the result and Mugabe as the new leader of Rhodesia.

Rhodesia was then remained Zimbabwe.

[edit on 24-6-2008 by infinite]



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 02:37 PM
link   
Zimbabwe is part of the Common Wealth of Nations.
It's the job of our Armed Forces to Protect the Citizens of the Commonwealth.
We should never have gone into Iraq. WE should have been fixing the problems in Zimbabwe.



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 03:35 PM
link   
The UK should propose a Commonwealth force to go in and keep watch over the elections, making sure that no more raping, looting and maiming takes place in the name of ZanuPF. British Imperialism? what possible benefits are there to the UK intervening?

If the Commonwealth of Nations can use one voice and one fist we would get heard.

As for credibility in Africa, look at the list of African Nations. Click on Africa

Something needs to be done. Bickering over who does it is not acceptable.

Britain has been putting immense pressure on Zimbabwe's neighbours to intervene, for Africa to solve it's own problems but NOTHING is happening.

And, the African Union is a joke, the only thing that they are good at is turning a blind eye to the problems that the continent is facing.



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 03:53 PM
link   
Why, exactly, hasn't the Pope & the Church put the screws to this guy? He clearly considers himself to be Catholic and even defied travel sanctions to attend JPII's funeral. Hell, he tried desperately to meet Bennedict last month at the food summit in Rome. Why is it that the Church is so quick to vocally disparage the United States when we conduct a millitary exercise or pass any law the Church finds troubling, yet they allow this peckerwood to run roughshod over an entire nation, proclaiming himself to be a proud Catholic, and do & say nothing? Jesus can't be pleased by this inaction, not pleased at all...



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Cthulwho
 



Well I am glad you don't support him. Trade between China and Zimbabwe is realatively nothing compared to the trade the West does with China. They won't be sending in troops to defend Mugabe. The worst they will do will be block UN Security Council action, like that is even necessary. Plus Zimbabwe under Mugabe can hardly be a ideal picture of the type of country China will wan't to associate with.

Like I said, I will not shed a tear when Mugabe and his party of thugs is finally overthrown. If China is willing to back such a country, then they will be showing their true colors.



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Thirst
 


yes, england should intervene to prevent the carnage of blacks murdering blacks-----zimbabwe/rhodesia was part of the british empire and without britain's help they oviously cannot govern themselves without bloodshed.



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by TheLoony
 


The U.S. is prepping its citzens to care... or perhaps its asking the "African Americans" Who are they? Do they care etc... why are we so racist perhaps... Its time to go in and help and prove that we are truely united? I have no idea whats about to happen but since its all over TV they are planning something FoSho



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Odium
 


Do you hear reinstating the U.S. Draft? Mass amounts of population control.

Then once we are done... China the sleeping Dragon Attacks.



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by yahn goodey
 


I kinda agree but im not so sure its about blacks on blacks, its about greed and money. Its a pure example that no matter how human we are people still find something stupid to argue about. Stellar will be chiming in shortly lol.



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

Originally posted by Thirst

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?


The first contingency plan is to deploy British forces as part of a peacekeeping effort. The second is a plan to evacuate British citizens if the government orders it to be done, much like what happened in the Middle East when Israel and Hezbollah clashed in 2006.

Are there plans to invade? I'd say almost certainly yes, but the MoD certainly won't acknowledge they exist given their political sensitivity.



posted on Jun, 25 2008 @ 01:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Ste2652
 


What I'm more concerned about is the fact that an invasion is a pretty drastic measure, which would mean that there must be some pretty drastic justifications for such an event.

What does the MoD know that we don't?

I live down the drag in South Africa and can truly say that the whole Zim situation is causing quite a bit of distress and worry in the whole region.
There has been talk of it turning very ugly very soon, the emotions are boiling under the surface, waiting to spill over.

If England can do something, they had better do it soon.

As was mentioned before, Zim can not be left to run itself, it is clearly a disaster, African dictators need to be taught a lesson, for the sake of their fellow Africans.



posted on Jun, 25 2008 @ 03:27 AM
link   
reply to post by illigitimati
 


Sadly, I'd say President Mbeki is the major block against the UK doing something.

If he said tomorrow that it was clear the Mugabe regime was now illegitimate and pledged to take action then Mugabe and his thugs would be gone in a couple of weeks (since there are many other African nations who dislike Mugabe and would support his removal).



posted on Jun, 25 2008 @ 03:40 AM
link   
The conquered mourns, the conqueror is undone.

Why does everyone think Britain owes these people something? They wanted their independance, and we let them have it. You made your own bed Zimbabwe, now lie in it.

If we had never turned up, they'd still be living in mud huts (hell, most probably are) and killing each other with spears instead of guns.

I have no idea why Africa behaves like a child with a gun, but that's how they want to be obviously, so I say let them stew. If the "African Union" won't help fellow Africans, why should we?

If Africa is not ready for civilization, then I say let them descend back to a more primitive state of existence that they are capable of sustaining.



posted on Jun, 25 2008 @ 03:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by neformore

The UK does have less than 10K troops in Iraq, but thats not my point.

My point is that it takes that amount of troops to barely keep hold on Iraq, and the British armed forces total is 195k - and thats all services and all personnel, not just frontline troops.

See where I'm coming from now?



I'll be honest, no.


Iraq is an infinitely harder place to "control" than Zimbabwe, a vastly different proposition

Zimbabwe would be relatively easily to deal with if the political will was there.


Personally im not sure British lives are worth wasting over people who wanted nothing to do with bad old whitey anyway



posted on Jun, 25 2008 @ 04:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Ste2652
 


Ste2652, you have hit the nail on the head, that one single individual holds the key.

The problem is he is rather chummy with Mugabe and has so far decided to turn a blind eye to the crisis and downplay any negative events.
He maintains all is well and will probably continue to do so.

But Mbeki will be gone next year, Zuma will step up and he is not going to be as compliant, in fact he is one of the few ANC bigwigs to openly and vehemently critiscise the Zim scenario.



posted on Jun, 25 2008 @ 04:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by blueorder
Personally im not sure British lives are worth wasting over people who wanted nothing to do with bad old whitey anyway


Honestly, can you blame them?

who would want to be invaded by imperalistic colonists?



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join