Mugabe: 'With or without Tsvangirai'

dong20

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Posts
6,058
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
183
Location
The grey country
Sexuality
No Response
If the West was really caring for the Zimbabwean people they would lift all trade sanctions against the country, recall all debts - something which would in the short term dramatically increase the economic prosperity of the country and the living standards.

People might, but Western Governments don't care about Zimbabwe, why would they?

Given this country's past - do you really believe that would cause that to happen - it rarely, if ever has before. Sanctions are a blunt instrument behind which Western Nations can hide, in the guise of 'doing something'.

Sadly, what's needed in today's Zimbabwe is something rather ... sharper.
 

lipollo

1st Like
Joined
Mar 11, 2007
Posts
77
Media
0
Likes
1
Points
153
Location
Sydney, Australia
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
Dong I am 100% certain it would because you seem to be thinking along free market business confidence lines.

If Mugabe's government was allowed to direct itself I am 100% sure he would do so in a manner which would appease his people - being economic development and growth with no outside intervention - something I agree with personally.
 

dong20

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Posts
6,058
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
183
Location
The grey country
Sexuality
No Response
Dong I am 100% certain it would because you seem to be thinking along free market business confidence lines.

Nope. You're not even close.

If Mugabe's government was allowed to direct itself I am 100% sure he would do so in a manner which would appease his people - being economic development and growth with no outside intervention - something I agree with personally.

If you truly believe that, you clearly no nothing of his history, or perhaps the post colonial history of Sub Saharan Africa in general.

Do you truly believe Mugabe brought Zimbabwe to this point because of 'trade sanctions' and western meddling - and that left to his own devices he would appease his people?

Here's a plan, go to Zim, take a trip to say ... Matabeleland. Ask around about how Bob has 'appeased' his people before - and see how far you get before someone finds you in ditch.

You are 100% wrong.
 

lipollo

1st Like
Joined
Mar 11, 2007
Posts
77
Media
0
Likes
1
Points
153
Location
Sydney, Australia
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
When Mugabe took the land of the Whites and gave it to the blacks. Everyone cheered for him. The problem was in the shifting of economic capital to the black people....they were inexperienced in how to operate farming machinery etc and this served as the catalyst for Zimbabwes economic troubles.
 

dong20

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Posts
6,058
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
183
Location
The grey country
Sexuality
No Response
When Mugabe took the land of the Whites and gave it to the blacks. Everyone cheered for him. The problem was in the shifting of economic capital to the black people....they were inexperienced in how to operate farming machinery etc and this served as the catalyst for Zimbabwes economic troubles.

Really, is that so? I'm pleased to know it was so simple a problem and he was so 'universally' popular. It wasn't the case of course, nor was his motivation in any meaningful way altruistic - sorry to burst your bubble.

Do you know anything of the history of Zimbabwe, or the region in general? I don't have the time for a history lesson, so I suggest you do some research and come back when you do.

Here's some tips for starters - Google up; Matebeleland (Operation Gukurahundi), Lancaster House, Joshua Nkomo, Zapu, 5th Brigade, the 2005 ersatz famine and perhaps try to find some online extracts from 'Dinner with Mugabe' by Heidi Holland.

I did make some previous comments here in response to another poster - which you may, or may not find useful. Then, perhaps we can have an informed discussion. You seem intelligent but seem to have a charmed view of Mugabe's regime.
 
Last edited:

D_Tintagel_Demondong

Sexy Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2005
Posts
3,928
Media
0
Likes
74
Points
193
And let's not forget his open armed approach to the gay community:rolleyes::eek:

"Degrades human dignity. It's unnatural and there is no question ever of allowing these people to behave worse than dogs and pigs. If dogs and pigs do not do it, why must human beings? We have our own culture, and we must re-dedicate ourselves to our traditional values that make us human beings... What we are being persuaded to accept is sub-animal behavior and we will never allow it here. If you see people parading themselves as lesbians and gays, arrest them and hand them over to the police!"

Or this gem....

"But if they have come as individuals to enhance their moral entity as human beings, and to cure them from their diseased way of life, then they have come to the right place," President Mugabe added. "This is the church, this is the organization that can purge them."

How ironic, since homosexuals represent only a small fraction of those with HIV in Zimbabwe. Young heterosexual adults and women are the most likely to become infected. Infants (mother-child transmission), migrant laborers, prostitutes, military men and police (uniformed services), and discordant couples are particularly at risk. 1/5 of Zimbabweans have HIV, and more than half of them are heterosexual women.

Wartrac, with all due respect, I don't think Mugabe's homophobia is at all important in light of all the other gross acts against humanity he perpetrates against his own people. His tyranny is not a gay issue.

Actually, it's indicative of his incompetence. His people are, quite literally, dying from this disease and he's taken no measures to stop it because he believes that it's a blight that will cull homosexuals. If he truly cared for his people then he'd deal with this issue, no?

Mugabe throws the baby out with the bathwater by breaking up profitable farms and cooperatives and, by any means to gain control in other ways, then plunging the country into recession and they've got propaganda handed to them on a plate.

The land redistribution program was designed to reward loyal Mugabe deputies since the beginning of the process. It's a total farce. I have a good friend whose parents are colonial "Zimbo's" (whites who chose to live there after the independence). Claims by the Mugabe government that whites own half the land are ridiculous. Claims that whites owned "70% of the best arable land" are false. They owned "70% of the best developed arable land" because they invested their own money into those farms.
 

dong20

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Posts
6,058
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
183
Location
The grey country
Sexuality
No Response
...
Actually, it's indicative of his incompetence. His people are, quite literally, dying from this disease and he's taken no measures to stop it because he believes that it's a blight that will cull homosexuals. If he truly cared for his people then he'd deal with this issue, no?

Ironically, Mugabe's policy toward Homosexuality isn't too far out of line with many African nations - where it's still illegal in about half (oddly, primarily male homosexuality only) and only three (I think) have any anti discrimination legislation. But, as we both know, Bob doesn't care about his people.

The land redistribution program was designed to reward loyal Mugabe deputies since the beginning of the process. It's a total farce. I have a good friend whose parents are colonial "Zimbo's" (whites who chose to live there after the independence). Claims by the Mugabe government that whites own half the land are ridiculous. Claims that whites owned "70% of the best arable land" are false.

Yes, but the nature of land holdings by whites is (in part) what seriously disadvantaged blacks in this context. Many whites knew this but didn't care. There had had been ample opportunity to mitigate the worst of the imbalance but most didn't - though what difference it may have made is uncertain. This same situation was (in part) has ignited Kenya past and present.

They owned "70% of the best developed arable land" because they invested their own money into those farms.

Except that for a great many (but by no means all - and this isn't directed at your friend's parents - I don't know their circumstances), it wasn't their money. Many saw an opportunity to get rich quick, live the colonial lifestyle with little perceived risk. Before you say but ... I agree, many multi generational white Zimbabweans lost everything and this is a tragedy.

This is a terrible generalisation (sorry), but for the 'most' part I have little sympathy with white commercial farmers who set up shop post independence, (and carried on as if there was no underlying problem) certainly those who did so after the mid to late 1990s. They knew what they were getting into - if they didn't know (or care); caveat emptor.
 
Last edited:

D_Tintagel_Demondong

Sexy Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2005
Posts
3,928
Media
0
Likes
74
Points
193
Except that for a great many (but by no means all - and this isn't directed at your friend's parents - I don't know their circumstances), it wasn't their money. Many saw an opportunity to get rich quick, live the colonial lifestyle with little perceived risk. Before you say but ... I agree, many multi generational white Zimbabweans lost everything and this is a tragedy.
His family lived there for generations. I assume they bought the farm long ago, and I assume that it was with their money since they were never colonial aristocracy. They treated their employees well, and this is probably why they weren't driven off the farm. They still have a working farm, but they'll be retiring soon and both of their sons live in LA, so that will be the end of the business.

This is a terrible generalisation (sorry), but for the 'most' part I have little sympathy with white commercial farmers who set up shop post independence, (and carried on as if there was no underlying problem) certainly those who did so after the mid to late 1990s. They knew what they were getting into - if they didn't know (or care); caveat emptor.

I also have little sympathy with the white farmers who thought they could take advantage of the situation--and are now paying the price. The problem is that the rich farmers who give government kickbacks are able to keep their land. "Bob" doesn't care about the black/white affair. He only cares about money and keeping his power.
 

dong20

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Posts
6,058
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
183
Location
The grey country
Sexuality
No Response
His family lived there for generations. I assume they bought the farm long ago, and I assume that it was with their money since they were never colonial aristocracy. They treated their employees well, and this is probably why they weren't driven off the farm. They still have a working farm, but they'll be retiring soon and both of their sons live in LA, so that will be the end of the business.

I hope so. It's a shame when short term political expediency undermines the lives of not only those it touches but, as with Zimbabwe, the entire nation.

The co-operation factor was sadly lacking in many white land owners (and many black land owners too), it's part of the reason the land grab as as aggressive as it was. But only part of the reason.


I also have little sympathy with the white farmers who thought they could take advantage of the situation--and are now paying the price. The problem is that the rich farmers who give government kickbacks are able to keep their land. "Bob" doesn't care about the black/white affair. He only cares about money and keeping his power.

Kickbacks are a quintessential defining characteristic of many, if not most African Political regimes - as they were here in the west. I suppose they still are, perhaps more on a politco-corporate level, these days.

I notice you also expressed some doubts about the true depth of Mugabe's [personal] racism? I tried to explain to another poster earlier that the primary motivation behind Bob's 'land grab' was political rather than racial, it certainly wasn't altruistic, as he (indirectly) appeared to imply. I find it incredible that anyone would think it was.
 

Mastur

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 21, 2008
Posts
733
Media
421
Likes
2,675
Points
498
Location
Johannesburg, South Africa
Verification
View
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
Rec3000, I agree, but as Dong20 said, Mugabe doesn't care about his people. Full stop. They are currently dying of cholera too (absolutely nothing to do with homosexuals).

To Mugabe it's a power thing clear and simple.

(And it's always easy to blame one's own inadequacies on the past. With Mugabe it's "Colonialism" as it is "Apartheid" for South Africa.)
 

D_Tintagel_Demondong

Sexy Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2005
Posts
3,928
Media
0
Likes
74
Points
193
I notice you also expressed some doubts about the true depth of Mugabe's [personal] racism? I tried to explain to another poster earlier that the primary motivation behind Bob's 'land grab' was political rather than racial, it certainly wasn't altruistic, as he (indirectly) appeared to imply. I find it incredible that anyone would think it was.

Considering his past--including Smith not allowing him out of prison to attend his son's funeral--I can understand the hatred that Mugabe might have for Whites. His actions, however, are ambiguous. He has killed black political rivals, he exploited his Shona tribe to seize power, he has kept blacks ignorant and impoverished in order to stay in power.

When Mugabe's reign ends, I think that black Zimbabwe will eventually realize what a grave mistake they made. They still buy into his promise of salvation from white land owners. That's his trump card that he can always use during political turmoil--even though there are less than 50,000 whites in Zimbabwe now (I think it's much less) and they own very little farmland. Without these whites, he'd be powerless.