ELEPHANT-DONKEY.com

I agree with DK, the US and the UK went to Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein and end a dictatorship. Although they may have succeeded in one respect, the country is still in turmoil and now both countries are being urged to pull out by their citizens. Removing Mugabe may abolish another oppressive regime but nobody can say that it will end the violence in the country. If Iraq is anything to go by then quite the opposite could be assumed.

McCainHomeFries | 06/24/08

send a couple snipers down there and shoot the tyrant.

yngster | 06/24/08

Shooting Mugabe wouldn't solve anything, it would just throw the country into civil war. Mugabe has the support of generals and the police, so his death would simply result in another tyrant taking over from him. The world needs to either go in with a intervention and be prepared for a fight or just to back off. Everything or nothing as it were.

Miral150 | 06/24/08

I also agree with DK, invading Zimbabwe would not solve anything, British and americans already have there hands full with Iraq and Afganistan.

Terminator | 06/24/08

So you supported the Iraq War from the beginning, right, DDT?

USA Pit Bull 63 | 06/25/08

Its a shame that there are people who think that the US and UK should continue poking their noses on other people's businesses. There were and still are many countries in Africa where human rights were tatally ingnored by some African leaders, but no one saw a need for these countries to jump in. In fact they were calling on the African Union and the United Nations to intervene. This is because there are no white civilians or farmers in these countries, hence they were prepared to stand by the way side and watch. Zimbabwe is different, there is a huge white population there and there are many farmers who see Zimbabwe as their home. Even those who are taking refuge in South Africa, still hope that Britain and US can invade Zimbabwe in their favor.

DEADPRESIDENTS | 06/25/08

Mugabe may be sick and probably crazy. That does not make Morgan Tsvangirai a saint. He and his MDC are equally responsible for what is taking place there. There are groups that continue to terrorize opposing groups from both MDC and Zanu PF. They both KILL innocent people. South Africa and SADC have done all they can to secure a normal situation in that country, they cannot do any more. President Mbeki has attempted to negotiate with both, but Tsvangirai preferes negotiating through the media, disclosing all confidential information before it is agreed upon even before these elections. Mugabe has been less cooperative as well, making pronouncements that are not in line with the agreements of the negotiations. Who gets blamed for that nonsense? Thabo Mbeki, why? because he is not prepared to ridicule any of the parties he is mediating. He can't, how can he negotiate, mediate and condemn at the same time. Blair and Brown wanted him to stand on a mountain and condemn Mugabe. How can any mediator do that in his right mind. It is easy for spectators to scream and point fingers. He does not have that luxury, because he is the mediator, and over and above that if something goes wrong in that country (Zimbabwe), his country (South Africa) is the first to feel the pain as refugees cross the border to his country.

DEADPRESIDENTS | 06/25/08

Well i definitely won't say that the US or UK is responsible for fixing the situation. It would be erroneous to state that we have absolutely no fault in the matter. Zimbabwe has been a free and independent country for very long and is still struggling with the aftermaths of colonialism, which we brought over. Of course, we probably would never even consider getting involved if their weren't white people there.

Skipper04 | 06/25/08

there should be a however at the beginning of my second sentence.

Skipper04 | 06/25/08

dang and it should say it has not been a free and independent country for very long. why am i losing control of my grammar?

Skipper04 | 06/25/08

Did somebody say "grammar?" lol.. I don't think we can afford to intervene right now. Our (American) military resources are stretched thin enough as it is, our economy is going to hell in a hand basket, and we've got an election coming up. It would be lunacy -- and political suicide -- for anyone to call for intervention. Interfering with civil wars in developing countries requires patience and determination. We're just not ready for the type of commitment it would require - which would surely include keeping troops there and investing in building infrastructure. F that. We have enough problems here to deal with, and the mood is very anti-interventionist.

DonkeyDude | 06/30/08

I agree with the OP in that there is quite possibly a moral obligation to intervene in Zimbabwe but the practicalities are probably too difficult to overcome. Both the US and UK's military forces are stretched by operations in Afghanistan and Iraq; another invasion of a country is out of the question. Having said all that, what is happening in Zimbabwe is monstrous and in the context of Blair's declaration of military intervention on humanitarian grounds being justified, just standing back and watching it all happen is reprehensible.

mjb22 | 07/02/08

God that's terrible, DD. I'm just going to adopt slang in all my writings.

Skipper04 | 07/03/08