General Chat

Yes, I too - who have spent a lot of time in Africa and can even speak some of the native languages as opposed to going there on holiday - can safely say that the African tribes or peoples were getting along quite nicely until the European arrived and imposed 'civilisation' in the form of religion etc on the continent.

Africa has little to thank Europe for - the Germans drove the Herero people into the desert and poisoned the water holes. Tens of thousands were killed by this genocide. The Zulus didnt behave so atrociously.

Then of course, the British turned up and decided that they would take on the Zulus. Martini Henrys versus assegais. And the Zulus werre still able to put up a pretty good show.......

No, I think that the African peoples can hold the moral high ground.

Its no different to the outrages that took place in Europe. The inquisition, assorted wars (esp the two world wars in the last 100 years), religious persecution, genocide, you name it. And we have developed, have we not.....?

Why could Africans not do the same? They were historically no worse and no better than Europeans. The only difference ican see is that the civilised Europenas used better technology to kill each other.

I thought we could have helped Burma after the disaster.The generals didn't want help for their people,bas**rds,but they only have a small army,trained only for combat.What could they have done to stop us,they were too busy fiddling about trying to look effective and cover up the mess from the outside world.

Merlin,with as much too you.Ask the Herero about the Germans.Did the Zulu nation ship their slavesabroad as cargo,several layers deep with no sanitation,to produce luxury goods for their consumption?

Sharron,All due respect to you but that system that was operating Quite well.Perhaps you should ask the Tribes that were destroyed by the Zulu Nations what they think?,They were regarded as "Their Cattle" to do with as they wished,( Even to selling them into Slavery to the Moors Etc ) and any that were left after they had finished with them,( Women and Children )They washed their Asagis in their blood,and that my friend is only part of the History of Africa,The rest is even worse.**M**.

I see that South Africa has finally begun to condemn Mugabe, likewise the SADC.

It is Africas problem and Africa can solve it. The west has no role to play directly and it would be extreme arrogance (again) to think that we have any right to intervene in any military shape at all.

I ask again - why pick Zimbabwe? It is hypocritical to say that we should intervene because of human rights abuses, torture, etc.

I dont see any calls to invade Tibet, Burma, Kazahkstan, Iran, China, USA, whatever. More people arae being killed and tortured in all of these countries than in Zimbabwe.

The oil argument is specious. I don't believe Iraq was for oil....but never mind. Suppose it was....how can that be used to justify starting another conflict? Two wrongs don't make a right.

It has only been the breadbasket of Africa since we made it so.We imposed an imperfectly formed capitalism on a continent that was doing quite well with systems that had evolved over centuries.
Maybe Africa is returning to the way it was and should be.
Seems like tribalism is not doing too badly here too,look at the way they are slaughtering each other.

Tribalism is still working today,just look at how they are slaughtering each other now,not just in Zimbabwe,but in other African Countries,As to Dvelopment,Who Knows?The way they have turned the Breadbasket of Africa into a Virtual Wasteland, it makes you wonder.**M**.

Tribalism was the way that Africa worked and had been working for centuries.Left to itself Africa would have evolved,just as Europe has evolved.
Maybe,if Europe had put more effort into getting itself straight and less into dragging other continents into it's own,far from perfect,ways,we would have a very different and,maybe,better world.Who knows?

I actually "Agree" with Eldrick,What he stated is basicly true. The main thing in "Africa" as a Whole,Is "Tribalism" it always has been and always will be,Whatever Tribe is in power tries to get rid of the others anyway they can.Regarding sending out our Grt.Grt.Grandfathers and Uncles to gather the Riches of those Nations.I doubt if anyone on here did that,and the sins of the Fathers Etc.Should not be gifted on the Sons(or Daughters)as is so often muted in the Press etc Usually by people who have never been there,except on Holiday.**M**.

Well,think of the bl**dy mess the USA would make!

Why did we send our great-great-grandfathers and uncles out there in the first place,interfering in their society?
So that we could enjoy the products of their countries.

Mugabe does not act alone,he is the figurehead.When he left the country recently he left his enforcers securely in place.Taking him out would just leave a space for a younger leader to fill.
Vile as heis,at least we know what we are dealing with while Mugabe is in power.

we have a lot to answer for that it clear - I fear something is about to happen in Zimbabwe though - I wonder why nothing was done when Mugabe left the country the other week - an ideal time I would have thought for an uprising - whichever way it goes, bloodshed on an unprecedented scale is on the cards I fear

Basically, yes.

The alternative is bloodshed on an unprecedented scale. If the west tried to act militarily after the farce of Iraq, then the entire African continent would unite against the former colonial powers. That is why Mbeki and many of the other african leaders, who remember their alliances against the colonisers, are sitting back and doing nothing.

There are worse human rights abuses going on in many other places. Why pick on Zimbabwe in particular?

Looking at the history of all the African countries is interesting. Why are the borders so straight apart from where following a natural feature....? Because Africa was divided up in the race for colonies by the European powers of the Victorian era. The borders were set by the military. Those days still fester in the minds of Africans, and any interference by the west will result in absolute horror.

Well,sending in the troops was not the answer in Iraq was it?
As I said on another thread about Zimbabwe,you have to remember that they indeed,most of Africa,are approaching democracy from a different angle from us.We were,for so long,interfering oppressors and Mugabe helped many countries in their struggle for independance.He was something of a hero in many African countries,they cannot turn him into a bogey man and any intervention by us would be perceived as arrogance and hypocricy if it was on the issue of human rights.

What I find very frightening is the holding that Nicholas Hoogstraten has in the country.He has a large share of the Zimbabwe National Bank and owns a lot of land there.With his arrogance I wouldn't mind betting he is waiting his time to virtually buy the country.Then we would know what trouble was!

So what is answer? does the rest of the world look on whilst Mugabwe's thugs brutalise their own people! because he didnt win an election!
Dx

And if they send in other African troops,
the cure would be worse than the disease!

Why don't we send troops to Burma?They would be much more effective there.

What would troops do in Zimbabwe?When would be the most effective time to go in?

Probably most important,what effect would it have on the rest of Africa?

They should act its human rights issue!
Dx

Nope, it's because its Africa and any intervention by Europe will unite the entire African continent under the cry of COLONIALISM.

Any military interference would be totally disastrous and lead to far greater bloodshed that there is now.

It's a fact of life.