Surely you can find the difference?
Goodbye Zimbabwe?
- Thread starter playkid12
- Start date
Surely you can find the difference?
Animator!
School Cricketer
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2007
- Online Cricket Games Owned
-
Saddam possibly possesed a threat to the Western world yes. But does that make leaving Mugabe alone a good decision, no way.
Mugabe is going to go down alongside Hitler, Pol Pot and Stalin for being one of the biggest Mass murderers of his own people in History.
Mugabe is going to go down alongside Hitler, Pol Pot and Stalin for being one of the biggest Mass murderers of his own people in History.
smssia0112
Chairman of Selectors
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2005
No, the difference is that America has resources to gain out of controlling Iraq. Zimbabwe is not so.
King Pietersen
ICC Board Member
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2006
- Location
- Manchester
angryangy
ICC Chairman
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2004
Additionally, by having a strong presence in the middle east, the US create a distraction for their enemies far away from home soil. Also, it would be ridiculous to say "Saddam is dead" and then leave in the middle of civil war, if they wanted to simply kill him, they could have done it covertly without invasion. They have to support the new government and infrastructure that they have invested so much in.
In the grand scheme of things, Mugabe's regime affects only about 12 million people. There are 27 million in Iraq and the theoretical threat of terrorist or sovereign nuclear attack threatens more still.
And with that, let's return to the topic.
This country can not survive. By evicting landowners, they have incapacitated their ability to feed and employ themselves. The supposed intent was to rationalise the power of the white few, but by creating a void where there was wealth, the power and money is left with an even smaller section. While the average life expectancy is below 40, you can expect that these powerful few are maintaining quality of life if only by being beyond the reach of the AIDS epidemic, which although in decline worldwide, is raging on in southern Africa, with almost a quarter of Zimbabweans infected. Of course, after an economic collapse, their money will be worthless. It will be interesting to see how many supporters Mugabe will have when he can't even pay them.
I also recommend watching this presentation on the myths of the third world.
http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/92
In the grand scheme of things, Mugabe's regime affects only about 12 million people. There are 27 million in Iraq and the theoretical threat of terrorist or sovereign nuclear attack threatens more still.
And with that, let's return to the topic.
This country can not survive. By evicting landowners, they have incapacitated their ability to feed and employ themselves. The supposed intent was to rationalise the power of the white few, but by creating a void where there was wealth, the power and money is left with an even smaller section. While the average life expectancy is below 40, you can expect that these powerful few are maintaining quality of life if only by being beyond the reach of the AIDS epidemic, which although in decline worldwide, is raging on in southern Africa, with almost a quarter of Zimbabweans infected. Of course, after an economic collapse, their money will be worthless. It will be interesting to see how many supporters Mugabe will have when he can't even pay them.
I also recommend watching this presentation on the myths of the third world.
http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/92
The Americans are still in Iraq because they need to stabilize the country since if they leave, the whole place will erupt into a civil war - shiites vs sunnis, etc. They want to make sure that Iraq doesn't become an enemy and a haven for terrorism once they leave so they want the right people in charge and make it stable. And of course, oil.
As far as Zimbabwe's concerned, North Korea's case isn't any better. And why are you only pointing fingers at America. It's not like the rest of the world is doing anything...why does the rest of the world not care?
