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

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

www.timesonline.co.uk

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

(visit the link for the full news article)

Personally I feel we are starting to have no other option apart from go in and physically remove him from power. A job for the SAS maybe?

Do you feel this is the right course of action to take?

www.timesonline.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

Mugabe is a monster, I can't believe they have ignored him for so long.

It's a pretty messed up country, that's for sure. The thugs in power won't give up that power eaisly, that much is evident. I don't think sanctions will get them to change their minds either, so the choices are pretty bleak.

As usual, the UN will do too little, too late. Too bad, it would probably be a textbook case for intervention, as it looks as if it's going to get pretty bloody, with one side with most of the firepower.

I think there is a case for intervention, but politically it could be a poisoned chalice.

The trick would be to remove mugabe and the head people in zanu pf and then allow elections, which would be overseen by a peacekeeping force.

The country could be back on it's feet pretty quickly, given the right leadership, BUT the democratic process which mugabe has corrupted must be seen to be fully transparent, in order to allay fears (by other african nations) of colonialism and/or imperialism.

I don't think it should be invaded, u.s. never does anything unless it's for their own benefit.

reply to post by Thirst


Don't even imagine such a thing. The US have no vital assets to secure in the area, not even WMDs to take care of. come on...Even if they wanted, they are stretching their forces too far if they start a 3rd war. IRAN is next

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.

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
I don't think it should be invaded, u.s. never does anything unless it's for their own benefit.

Of course not, why would it be otherwise?

Honestly, I could care less about what is happening in Africa, from aids to murderous psychos. I wouldn't support military action anywhere for anything unless it is in response to aggression aimed only at America (since I'm American).

If people really cared all that much, they would organize to raise funds to pay some private military to do it, but they don't really care. Most people mention it so they appear more caring than they really are.

Distance makes violence so much more tolerable.

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.

Why only pick on Zimbabwe? Why not Sudan? Uganda?

The whole continent is a mess. I would support a invasion of one of those countries before I ever support the invasion of Iraq, who couldn't have spit on the U.S. if they wanted to. At least something good might come of our meddling affairs.

Maybe. Maybe not.

reply to post by ModernAcademia


They are talking about the U.K. doing it, not the U.S.

Just FYI.

Why only pick on Zimbabwe? Why not Sudan? Uganda?

The Sudanese regime is also propped up by the Chinese, so it's the same situation.

reply to post by Cthulwho


So only pick a fight if you can win, then? Just let all the atrocities go because it's the Chinese? I don't know, the whole thing just stinks.

reply to post by Cthulwho



C'mon now, you aren't going to stick up for Robert Mugabe's downright thug like stealing of the election and intimidation of the opposition party are you? Have your supporters kill an opponents wife and beat up any rallies of the opposition.

He (Mugabe) is the epitome of a Despot. en.wikipedia.org...

If someone wants to take him out along with his party, I won't shed a tear.

We would need to get the African Union and South Africa on board with it to give it a Non Western / Imperialist move though.

So only pick a fight if you can win, then? Just let all the atrocities go because it's the Chinese? I don't know, the whole thing just stinks.

C'mon now, you aren't going to stick up for Robert Mugabe's downright thug like stealing of the election and intimidation of the opposition party are you? Have your supporters kill an opponents wife and beat up any rallies of the opposition.

He (Mugabe) is the epitome of a Despot. en.wikipedia.org...

If someone wants to take him out along with his party, I won't shed a tear.

We would need to get the African Union and South Africa on board with it to give it a Non Western / Imperialist move though.

I think you guys have missed the point of my posts. I'm not saying that we should let the atrocities go because of China, and I'm definetly not sticking up for Robert Mugabe.

It's a lot more complex than just invading Zimbabwe. China, which has economic and political interests in both Zimbabwe and Sudan, is turning into an economic and military superpower. This means that Western countries can't just ignore them. It's the same situation as in North Korea, if China didn't exist, the US would have toppled the regime a long time ago (Korea wouldn't have actually split in the first place).

There's also the problem of South Africa which refuses to acknowledge the seriousness of the situation, mainly because they still see Mugabe as a champion of black rights.

Actually, I do understand, a tiny bit. I'm no expert on Africa for sure but I do know a thing or two. It's just frustrating to see all this crap go on over there and the international community is doing much of nothing to stop the slaughter and forced relocation of millions. I just finished reading What is the What a few days ago and maybe because the book is fresh in my mind I'm coming off a little harsh. I'm just a little tired of greedy/power hungry/idiotic leaders who start this stuff and/or keep it going for decades - like our War on Terror which is supposed to go on for another hundred years if McCain has his way. Oh goody, more war. Just what we need.

It's just a screwed up situation with no easy solution.

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 .

reply to post by Gun Totin Gerbil


So they kick out the evil white farmers (WOOHOO...YAAAAAAYYYY! etc), hand the land over to cronies of Mugabe and others ill equipped or inexperienced to manage the land and then............ starve!
The breadbasket of Africa turned into another welfare state ruled by tribal slaughter, but at least they are governing themselves.

Originally posted by budski
I think there is a case for intervention, but politically it could be a poisoned chalice.

The trick would be to remove mugabe and the head people in zanu pf and then allow elections, which would be overseen by a peacekeeping force.

The country could be back on it's feet pretty quickly, given the right leadership, BUT the democratic process which mugabe has corrupted must be seen to be fully transparent, in order to allay fears (by other african nations) of colonialism and/or imperialism.

Mugabe has been left alone because he is black in charge of a largely black country