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.


Why haven't we removed Mugabe yet? Is it because there's no oil in Zimbabwe?

page: 1

log in


posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 07:21 AM
Whenever a country is plunged into turmoil, the good old British army is usually there to sort things out whether the UK's people like it or not. At the moment, we are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan without huge success. Our troops are demoralised and many are quitting. It looks as though Iran is next on the menu.

However, there is one part of the world that is extremely corrupt and in genuine desperate need of outside help.. I'm talking about Africa, Zimbabwe in particular. If Robert Mugabe and his regime is forced out of power and his followers taken care of, order could be restored in Zimbabwe. I know it is probably just a matter fo time before this happens but why is it taking so long? This would just be a start to restoring order in Africa and improving the lives of millions

Is Africa too much for the 'western' world to take on or are there other reasons, is the middle east more valuable therefore worth fighting for? Surely human rights are more important than oil? The continent is rich in natural resources anyway but most of them have been exploited in the past.

I know that not ALL of Africa would benefit from our help as there are a lot of tribes, religion and superstition added to the previous colonisations and the slave trade etc. But Zimbabwe is a country that really needs sorting out and we have the power to do it... why aren't we? The economy across all of 'modern' Africa needs improving and with help from the rest of the world, there is no reason why this couldn't be achieved.

posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 07:23 AM
I imagine the world would prefer it if some other rival leadership managed to get rid of him, thus ensuring all those government weapons are in allied hands.

Otherwise, we'd be putting our boots into another meat-grinder.

posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 07:28 AM
I suppose the difficulty is that we (mainly Britain and France) are the reason that Africa is the way it is today. We introduced borders that weren't recognised by the African people and segregated and isolated various groups of people. On the one hand, we could be interfering again and just upsetting more people. On the other hand, it is our chance to fix the mess that we made all those years ago.

posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 07:29 AM
Aside from the fact that there is no monetary or stategic benefit from the British going in, most of the African nations would object to the former Colonial power 'sticking their nose in' I reckon.

Very rarely does the west do things like this for humanitarian reasons, even if that is what they want you to believe.


posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 07:30 AM
The UK's basially bankrupt it has no money to remove Mugabe and facilitate rebuilding and security operations within the country.

The question people should be asking is why the Southern African leaders sit back and let it happen.

African leaders have more power and influence over the region than any other country can boast. Yet make little to no statements or gestures on the situation and then backpeddle once they have made these statements. Why do african leaders sit back and let these crimes against humanity happen.

There's only so much the west can do, it shouldn't be the west's responsibilty to comdemn such atrocities it should be every humans and every countries responsibility.

Iran won't happen who in the army is going to fight Iran?? There's no one left unless the impose a national draft.

posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 07:54 AM
Well it's not really in the interest of the Western world to help the African people.

People who lack the basic things to survive have very different needs then Western world people that don't have these problems. These very poor people only think about food and shelter.

In theory if you would give all the poor African people a house and food, they would soon want more luxury like a car, tv and a nice big fridge.

This would cause all kinds of nasty problems. You can see it to some degree in China. The poor people are migrating to the city's for a better life. Those that succeed start to consume more and subsequently China is a serious threat to the environment and their fuel comsumption will probably spiral out of control.

So my opinion is that certain Western powers do not want Zimbabwe and Africa for that matter to become more stable and thus wealthier.

new topics

top topics

log in