Zimbabwe - Your Thoughts

Remove all ads!

I read the previous posts -- whoever started it -- it was YOU who seemed to put a preference on HOW they do indeed die. Take responsibility when you write your words.

Uh... you just did and have been repeatedly.

At least you have the sense to say "TO MY KNOWLEDGE". How in world do you know what the hell's been going on over there. All you hear are about the Americans, because they are the largest presence. Please don't even begin to say that soldiers from other countries are lilly white and it's just the Americans that have issues. You have no such knowledge. And YOU were the one who brought the American/Polish comparison into this thread -- in how they die -- with your poking fingers at the Iraq situation.

How dare you. You HAVE insulted me and every other American here by that rude rhetoric.... [snip]

[Warning pending. -Tal]

[ November 27, 2005, 23:06: Message edited by: Taluntain ]

 

You are repeating the same points over and over again and I'm not going to repeat myself or get involved in a flame war. Your pointing at me is unfair and you know it, and I just wonder if you saw #20 last time you checked the rules, anyway. If you have something constructive to say, I will gladly participate but for now the matter is closed for me.

 

I'm responding to what you wrote. I've asked for moderator intervention, however, given [snip]. Oh....and Rule #20 right back at you, since you're pointing it out to ME.

Done here.

[ November 27, 2005, 23:11: Message edited by: Taluntain ]

 

I thought this was a thread about Zimbabwe. If that's what it still is, then I agree (again) with Rotku, in that my feelings are a bit divided as to where you draw the line about other countries interfering in each other's business. I think what is happening is bad, but I'm not sure what we should be doing about it, if anything.

 

Yeah. I'm not a fan of considering an oppressive dictator the country's own business, but the ill effects of intervention could easily exceed the good effects. In war, people are going to die and interventions are as good as the intervents. We would have to watch the intervention forces really closely or choose units that have a reputation for dealing with civilians and prisoners well. Definitely no civilian contractors, mercenaries or anyone who doesn't answer to the normal chain of command or can't be held responsible as easily as a soldier on military orders. Next, we would need some good planning and carefully prepared equipment, not to mention extremely careful missile aiming, so as to eliminate civilian casualties. A clear set of rules to say what's allowed and what isn't wouldn't hurt, but we already have the Geneva and Hague conventions, so we only really need to enforce them. I would really like to see Mugabe removed but if the intervention weren't to be handled the UN but by individual countries, I would be very skeptical, given the recent examples. So, in short, we need a Security Council resolution.

 

A peacekeeping UN mission would be good, but unfortunately the UN is rather limited in the kind of missions it can send - and they usually have to be called in by the official authorities, at least a "fairly official" one. Humanitarian interventions against a current government's policies aren't exactly what the UN charter is most clearly supportive of. But should a serious case be made, the UNSC could authorize armed forces to be sent there.
Actually, in this case I would support the AU (African Union) sending a significant amount of the forces, the majority if possible. I think this would be much less controversial, and might actually be more effective. However, the significant problem would be that they are not likely to want to fund the operation, for obvious reasons. I will have to check this up more extensively.