http://www.sabcnews.com/portal/site/SABCNews/menuitem.5c4f8fe7ee929f602ea12ea1674daeb9/?vgnextoid=e101ed3a0ccdf110VgnVCM10000077d4ea9bRCRD&vgnextfmt=default&channelPath=home

So it's happened and a sad day it is.

Susan Tsvangirai's death is by no means an accident as broadcast by the media. That is according to the Zimbabweans. Personally I believe that this so called accident was indeed initiated by ZANU-PF or associates of theirs. It's stupid to believe that a man like Mugabe will just lie down and let someone else rule the country that he's been governing for almost 30 years. He's a bugger and we all know it.

The few Zimbabweans that I live with have told me shocking tales of their lives in Zim and how their parents currently live... and they are white. I can't even begin to comprehend how the black nationals are surviving. As a joke the one neighbour of mine brought back stacks of Zim dollars and was offering us wads of it...

The people are now using American dollars. Yes illegally but their currency is so worthless that one can understand why they do this.

But of course you all know the Zimbabwean situation. It's all old news really but in thinking on it, I have begun to form a question in my mind... Why did no one invade Zimbabwe? How could the rest of the world sit back and watch a nation sink slowly into ruin whilst on the other side of the world big America invades the Middle East and justifies it as a war on terror... The bloody nerve!

Anyway... this is slightly removed from the original link posted but it has followed my train of thought... so before it derails...

what say you?

Well, you have a pretty good conspiracy theory, but you need to get some more facts other than a few Zimbabweans' opinion.


As a rule of thumb, the more white people are, the more tragic and more likely Western nations will do something about it.

The Holocaust: ".!!! They're killing whitish people. Give the survivors their own nation".

The Rwanda Genocide: "Eh, we'll look into it...after tea"

There are more facts... but isn't the point of a conspiracy theory that there aren't enough facts?

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art ... gD96P2REO0

anyway there's more...

The fact that the driver of the truck that hit them was a Zimbabwean does increase suspicion... added to that, it is unclear weather or not he or his companions were arrested. Don't forget. The police belong to Mugabe.

Also... there were and are still many white people involved. what about when the farms were forcefully taken and farmers and their families brutalised and quite often killed. I rate that it's got nothing to do with race... it's whatever the Western nations can gain from saving, or in this case letting a country fall into ruin.

Not too long ago China expressed an interest in Zim and offered to rehabilitate the country's economy but on the condition that all resources extracted will belong to them.

Reasons why no-one will interfere with the genocide going on in Zimbabwe?

Zimbabwe has no oil

Zimabawe does not occupy a strategic geopgraphical position that could threaten the west

Zimbabwe still has the public approbation, in the most part, of the African nations

Zimabawe has no other natural resources that the west could plunder and make use of.

It's up to the African nations to get involved with this. Yes, it's appalling what's going on in Zimbabwe, but we've all witnessed how badly things go when nations half-way across the world get involved with conflicts that have nothing to do with them.

As a second best, the Commonwealth ought to take greater action.

Sadly I can't see the paper tiger that is the UN getting involved, surely China or Russia will have some stake in Zimbabwe's current situation and would stall any attempts to change things.

*

Africa has very rarely managed to solve its own problems and truth be told many other African leaders still look up to Mugabe... he was like the Che' Guevara of Africa



Mugabe: "Brown, you keep your England and I'll keep my Zimbabwe."



I couldn't agree more.



The situation in Zim is not genocide... for the moment at least. And there are good resources. Just not oil.
They have masses of coal, precious metals and Diamonds. Still I understand that these aren't highly sought after commodities any more

My thoughs exactly, the only reason why the US attacked afganistan is they controle most of the worlds oil recources.



Don't forget that also not long ago it was a Chinesse Container ship that was halted off the Durban coast as it was carrying illigal weapons bound for Zimbabwe. The only Natural thing the Chinnese could get out of Zimbabwe are, Trained killers, and a whole lot of tobbaco( if a wholoe lot more money was spent in getting all the farms up and running).

Those white farmers have either
1) Accepted that their land is no longer theirs, but pays the 'Owner" a certain ammount of money to let him carry on running the farm and so they don't lose anything, but gain a money sucking paracite..
2) Fled.
3) Get Goverment substides of Grain and Diesel fuel. Do nothing with it for a whole year and keep it in storage. Then sell it back to the Goverment the next year, who in turn just substidises it back to the farmer, who is makeing 100% profit on the whole deal.

No, no, there were other reasons. Namely that they were housing the guy suspected of organising the September 11 attacks. Iraq on the other hand was mainly about oil.




Well I can't see any foray into Zimbabwe by a European or American nation going awfully well without the support of all neighbouring countries. There's just nothing to do unless US/EU want to get bogged down in another Vietnam-war.

Tis also true... one has to admit though, for all the wars they've started, America has balls. African leaders just sit there with one finger up their arses and their tongues up western leaders' arses, mumbling 'we need aid please'... a perfect example of that would be our wonderful ex-president Mbeki. When he was in office he was a dead loss and all his 'talks' with Mugabe where nothing but a waste of time and money. But now that he is no longer in power or in the ANC he publicly condemns the Zimbabwean president's actions and policies and you know why... because that's COPE's favourable opinion. Spineless! as are many.

If we were actually serious about finding Osama, we'd be in Pakistan, not Afghanistan. But that was never actually the point, was it?

I feel like a mixture of Ted Rall and Michael Moore. Ick.

Iraq wasn't about oil, it was unfinished business by members of the government, currently in power at the time and in power during the first Gulf War.


America's never started a war, they've always been forced into war by another.

So was it just about oil in your eyes? I'm willing to put my hand up and say the destabilising nature of having a radical religious government that houses terrorist would have been another reason.



Why didn't the administration just say that then? Rather than trying to tar Saddam with nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. Why not just say that the UN response to Iraq after the first Gulf War was not hurting him, but rather the people of the country and that simply removing him would leave a better country.

I don't think anyone's really claiming that Afghanistan was about oil. In my opinion the purpose of that conflict was to find the entity responsible for the terrorist attack and then punish them. In a heavy handed sort of way that doesn't take into account that the state wasn't fully at fault, but rather that there was a training camp within that territory that wasn't shut down. Also, the intelligence suggested that Osama bin Laden fled Afghanistan for Pakistan and hung out there.

Since when do politicians tell the truth?

From the days after 9/11, Bush had focus on Iraq. Equating Iraq with the terrorist was a sure fire way to congressional support for the war as well as support from the population. So UN mandate to remove Saddam, or Saddam being responsible for the 9/11 attacks on US soil, which would motivate America to fight? The weak, socialist UN (many Republicans believe the UN is a powerless socialist entity) or the people that attacked America?

It's pretty obvious Bush wasn't interested in Osama or AQ. He had to send troops to Afghanistan, but once they seemed to sweep the Taliban and AQ aside, then the focus became Saddam. I think it was in 2002 was the last time Bush has mentioned Osama Bin Ladin publicly.

Correct me if I am wrong, but the US has also never one a war on its own? And those that they have been in and "Won", they have been horribly late.



Those talks had nothing to do with Zim, they were meerly family gatherings as Roberts wife is mbekis sister. Most of the South African and African politics is family orientated. Mbeki is a Xhosa, and so is most of the ANC, that is why the tried to get rid of Zuma who is a Zulu

A few points:

- The Spanish/American War of 1898, the Anglo-American War of 1812(-15) are two examples where your primary victor was the United States in which the conditions you set forth were met (war against another state without significant allies and in which US was principal actor - we can I suppose delve into semantics, but for the sake of this thread, here's just two.

- I think SADC pressure has been growing and Mbeki was found to be a soft enough broker towards that process - it is certainly true that from a diplomatic/political standpoint it is difficult to directly assail Mugabe and most actions appear more lateral than direct. That said - to whom abroad might Mugabe welcome in? Family politics plays a role, but it is not the only item.

- To Beuk(s): Pakistan as sanctuary for OBL initially was inaccurate by what we read (a different thread to discuss media source analysis). So the "point" is fluid and not a fixed item to be cited ex post facto. That said, I think the strategic implications of actions on the ground by a foriegn force in Pakistan (a nuclear power) are grave. But here again, we can branch this off onto a different thread about the War in Afghanistan.

More resource realpolitik later on.