http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7380445.stm

In other words nothing has been decided

Why someone just doesn't assasinate Mugabe I don't know. Will solve all their problems.

Been sayig that for years

When we handed the country over years ago wan't it us that actually installed him as leader?

No he put himself in charge

No surprises there then, after counting the votes for all the dead people he included (including the vote from one of his biggest political enemies according to ITV) in the voting it was bound to be a scandalous result.

He'll now probably threaten those who voted against him and be elected again....why noone does anything about this I don't know!

Like me and GW.


Mwaaaahahahahaaaaa!








Right.
:getcoat:

Someone as in who? Western governments? They really follow the US's lead, but there is, to my knowledge, a lack of oil there, so the US aren't going to get involved, plus, they have already bitten off far more than they can chew by waging war on Iraq :coffee:

(Talking slightly tongue and cheek really, but it's quite frustrating the world is basically ignoring the situation there - talking about it, but not actually saying "enough is enough" and doing something about it)

mugabe has trampled on democracy and through bigotry led incompetence led his nation to ruin and starvation

does the west particularly care? will they do anything? no and no

hopefully a peaceful resolution is found and zimbabwe's hardships can end as soon as possible.

they don't have any oil !

Morgan Tsvangirai is considering pulling out of the presidental race. FFS.

His supporters are being murdered and tortured. Why should he stand?

It's astonishing that the international community are standing by and watching this happen.

As someone alluded to above, if only they had oil America would be right in there.

That's exactly my point. The FFS was more about him being driven to have to consider doing that...as in...when is Mugabe ever going to be usurped?

No, really it wouldnt

Some other pscycho would just step up

Yep President Flavs ;)

They probably would if there wasn't so much media attention focused on him.

hhmm.. lets see, Zimbabwe.. no oil, no gas. No thanks, Mugabe can keep the country. :coffee:

inflation has reached enormous levels, so has starvation and poverty amongst what was famously known as the bread basket of Africa.

then there is the political repression which again is so bad that a mugabe victory won't be taken seriously

still, he is 80 or so, he won't have that long left

Spot on. That's what also really annoys me about people who try and justify Iraq by mentioning Saddam. Mugabe is just as bad.


I'd like to hear the response of Bush/Blair to this.

He stood for election and was elected democratically. He then made it a one-party state which meant that he would then automatically be re-elected every time. Any sign of a person being in a position to challenge and the person was removed. Not that Blair did that in the Labour Party. ;)

:sarcy:

what about Gordon Brown then?

back on topic

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7466875.stm

if it wasn't for the suffering he is causing this would make me laugh

what is needed is for south africa to say or do something, the neighbouring countries of zimbabwe are being and will continue to be affected by the troubles there

The oppression shown in the country is something that, if the international community actually decided to tackle through force, would have a lot more backing than the war in Iraq.

It such a desperate situation in Zimbabwe, and, as a nation, we are powerless to stop it, due to the ineptitude and corruption of our own leaders..

Following in the footsteps of your big mate Blair. Blair was the politician who took the process of taking out any challengers to a new level. I will never forgive him for the way Mo Mowlem was treated. That was utterly contemptible.

maybe the UN security council could pass resolutions for 10 years and then ignore every violation of them :whistle:

Maybe your mates Bush and Blair could also take note of resolutions outstanding for much longer than 10 years on top of violations of international law and deal with Israel. Oh, I forgot - no oil there either. ;)

first off Mr Blair is not "my mate" - never met the bloke ;) seriously though he has made numerous policies I don't agree with but yes when he was in charge I was more likely to vote Labour than I am now, doesn't make me a blindly loyal follower.

second Mr Brown is widely seen as someone looking for his time in power to arrive and yet was Blair's no.2 (in all but name) for 13 years, a solid example of him not firing or distancing of all possible opponents.

again Mr Bush is not my mate, a lot less that I agree with him on politically than Blair.

secondly I said UN Security Council resolutions - there haven't been any UN general resolutions (which are considered less serious than security council ones) against Israel as far as I know mainly because the US (wrongly) vetoes them.

Israel's actions are immoral but that does not validate ignoring the wrongs of another country (I'm not sayng we should take military action because we have proven as a country we have no will for military action any more)

Brown was never a threat to Blair as he was never going to be anything to excite interest. The position of labour in the polls now is a clear sign of how uninspiring Brown is, and the complete absence of anyone who could stand as an alternative, with the exception of up-coming Miliband, but he is a recent addition. Blair has left the labour party in a position where it is almost bound to lose the next election. Cameron is high in the polls so the tories are now unlikely to remove someone who looks set to win them an election. This means that Blair has not left us with a legacy of Brown but a legacy of Cameron, a prospect which leaves me with dread as to what is going to happen to the country.

OK - but your support for Bush and Blair on Iraq appears to always be based on accepting their assertion that they were removing Sadam Hussein in order to bring democracy and freedom to the Iraqi freedom, and to remove the WMD which they knew full welll did not exists. You ignore the true reason which was oil and only oil. Also Bush and Blair are not bastions of democracy - they ignore it's results when it does not go their way, support numerous countries (e.g. Saudi Arabia) where it does not exist and gerrimander their own electoral base to cheat the electorate to get their will. You might not have met Blair, but you seem to go along with his pitch despite evidence showing the opposite.

back to iraq again I see

has there been any evidence that blair (or bush) willingly decieved the public with false information in the run up to the war?

I don't think the evidence they used was accurate but there is a huge difference between lying to get a war on to get some oil (as some claim) and going to war in the belief that the evidence they had was correct (which, after the fact, it was proven not to be).

Yes - it has been shown how the notes from the intelligence services were deliberately fiddled, that the cabinet were deliberately given incorrect information and that other evidence was withheld. In other words, Blair deliberately not only deceived the British people, he also deliberately deceived parliament and even his own cabinet, showing that he is not a person to be trusted. Mind you, when he considers people like Peter Mandleson to be among his close special friends, alarm bells should ring loudly anyway.

if that can be proven then yes I am against the war

need evidence first though, any links?

Not handy - check on the BBC, Guardian, Independent, Times - any one of those should have articles showing the Blair deception. There are similar ones to show the White House doing the same things.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7467990.stm

It's time actual action was taken

Ok

:goodpost:

:haha:

The general Western ignorance on this matter has been staggering. Do we really believe that by removing one man from the top that things will change? The old fool hasn't been running Zimbabwe for years, as is always the case when these old tyrants crawl into old age.

For any real change to happen fellow African countries are going to have to move into the country and reinstall a government, redistribute land, sort out the army/police...a huge commitment and one I'm not sure they will want to take on.

All they have to do is look at the shambles in Iraq to make and the decision is made for them. And the West going in to do the same? That's laughable.

mugabe can only be influenced by mbeke (who is not publically doing anything at all to challenge zanu pf's actions) as South Africa provides a large amount of energy to Zimbabwe as well as being influential in the region.

the good news is mbeke's successor has made public statements that make it clear he will oppose mugabe.

this article is really disturbing (only read the first line but that is all I want or need to)

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/worl...icle4232386.ece