Possible coup in Zimbabwe

dowie · 17 Nov 2017 at 02:35

there was a plan to invade at the start of the millennium when they started invading farms etc.. if the killings of white farmers started ramping up then we may have had to send in troops to evacuate the rest of them with British citizenship... obviously the former colonial power sending in troops could easily have caused a **** storm on international condemnation

allegedly Tony Blair also suggested an invasion with the aim of regime change to be carried out with the support of Thabo Mbeki/South Africa - perhaps conditions for most of the population would be better today had the happened... then again that's not saying too much, conditions were better for the population back under minority white rule, while simultaneously facing international sanctions and fighting a counterinsurgency

Hotwired · 17 Nov 2017 at 03:33

Maybe but that's only an argument possible by looking back.

Would have held no water with anyone at the time.

Dis86 · 17 Nov 2017 at 09:41

dowie said:
there was a plan to invade at the start of the millennium when they started invading farms etc.. if the killings of white farmers started ramping up then we may have had to send in troops to evacuate the rest of them with British citizenship... obviously the former colonial power sending in troops could easily have caused a **** storm on international condemnation

allegedly Tony Blair also suggested an invasion with the aim of regime change to be carried out with the support of Thabo Mbeki/South Africa - perhaps conditions for most of the population would be better today had the happened... then again that's not saying too much, conditions were better for the population back under minority white rule, while simultaneously facing international sanctions and fighting a counterinsurgency

We have a family friend who ran a farm out there. It had been in her family for something like 80 years. She (a 60 year old woman) was beaten to a pulp, some of her (black native) workers were killed. The lands and buildings, which included a small school for workers children, taken off her. A farm which employed over 120 people is now sitting fallow. Things like that happened throughout the country. They cut their own noses off to spite their face just to try and get back at the white man. That's the white man who was providing jobs, housing, education and food for their people.

ubersonic · 18 Nov 2017 at 11:42

dowie said:
"essentially the same thing that happened with Thatcher and the Tories back in the early nineties"

LOL yeah OK, because they had the army take over the streets back in the 90s... what on earth are you smoking, the military has taken over this is not the same as the rest of the govt voting the leader out

Yes it is.

The government is still in power, the elected party is still in government, the only difference is the leader of the party in government is changing. The government had to use the army in Zimbabwe because they knew Mugabe wouldn't go quietly if told, I'm fairly sure if Thatcher had refused then she would have been removed by the authorities (police not army but that's the difference between the first/third world).

dowie said:
of course it is a coup, one dictator is being replaced by another...

Leader of elected party and service leader of the country being replaced by a new one, just like with Thatcher/Major.

dowie said:
maybe they'll have some elections in due course if the new dictator does want to rebuild links with the international community

There may be new elections but as has been discussed it's not required just like it isn't in this country.

Nasher · 18 Nov 2017 at 11:59

He is no more the elected leader than Kim is of North Korea. Vote for him or be beat up and shot....

dowie · 18 Nov 2017 at 14:01

ubersonic said:
Yes it is.

The government is still in power, the elected party is still in government, the only difference is the leader of the party in government is changing. The government had to use the army in Zimbabwe because they knew Mugabe wouldn't go quietly if told, I'm fairly sure if Thatcher had refused then she would have been removed by the authorities (police not army but that's the difference between the first/third world).

Leader of elected party and service leader of the country being replaced by a new one, just like with Thatcher/Major.

There may be new elections but as has been discussed it's not required just like it isn't in this country.

the ruling party has now moved to vote him out - however this happened AFTER the military took over and removed certain elements... you're living on another planet if you think this is comparable to removing Thatcher - objectively it is not the same situation... the military (or police if you like) did not remove Thatcher and then later had the Conservatives vote

the only weak comparison here is that the leader of the country changed - you're really clutching at straws if that is the basis for stating these things are similar

ubersonic · 18 Nov 2017 at 14:23

dowie said:
you're living on another planet if you think this is comparable to removing Thatcher

Read the thread.

Myself and others were comparing the process of the elected party in government moving to replace it's leader due to them being seen to no longer serve the interests of the party/government, in that instance the situations with Mugabe and Thatcher are most definitely compatible due to being essentially the same.

The fact that Thatcher went willingly as per protocol whereas Mugabe refused necessitating the government involving the military is the major difference, as has been mentioned/discussed.

dowie · 18 Nov 2017 at 14:26

ubersonic said:
Read the thread.

Myself and others were comparing the process of the elected party in government moving to replace it's leader due to them being seen to no longer serve the interests of the party/government, in that instance the situations with Mugabe and Thatcher are most definitely compatible due to being essentially the same.

The fact that Thatcher went willingly as per protocol whereas Mugabe refused necessitating the government involving the military is the major difference, as has been mentioned/discussed.

I've read the thread thanks, you're making no sense at all with this comparison between a military take over in the third world and Thatcher being removed! It just isn't very comparable at all...

Nasher · 18 Nov 2017 at 20:03

Zimbabwe isn't really a 3rd world country. It's just not moved on since Mugabe took over.

Uther · 18 Nov 2017 at 20:07

Nasher said:
Zimbabwe isn't really a 3rd world country. It's just not moved on since Mugabe took over.

Moved on? It went backwards at a great rate of knots. Nobody wants to admit it was more successful when Smith ran it, that would probably be considered racist eh!

Outcast · 18 Nov 2017 at 20:18

dowie · 18 Nov 2017 at 21:17

Nasher said:
Zimbabwe isn't really a 3rd world country. It's just not moved on since Mugabe took over.

It's among the bottom 30 poorest countries in the world, I think that qualifies it as third world - otherwise we've got very few "third world" countries...

Uther said:
Moved on? It went backwards at a great rate of knots. Nobody wants to admit it was more successful when Smith ran it, that would probably be considered racist eh!

yeah, but true though

Vern1961 · 19 Nov 2017 at 04:01

So I'm guessing whoever takes over from Mugabe, the "white" farmers won't be getting their land back nor will "Zim" return to being the bread-basket of Africa...?

Chris Wilson · 19 Nov 2017 at 05:32

Vern1961 said:
So I'm guessing whoever takes over from Mugabe, the "white" farmers won't be getting their land back nor will "Zim" return to being the bread-basket of Africa...?

Hah, not unless someone can resurrect Ian Smith, self rule for most of Africa has not exactly been a dazzling success, has it? Except maybe for Mercedes 600 Pullman sales, Lear Jet salesmen, mercenaries and others that benefit from endemic corruption and violence.

Hotwired · 19 Nov 2017 at 05:52

Vern1961 said:
So I'm guessing whoever takes over from Mugabe, the "white" farmers won't be getting their land back nor will "Zim" return to being the bread-basket of Africa...?

Too vague.

Farming involves putting a lot of work and money in then getting a return over time.

What kind of incentive would have to be created to encourage competent farmers (of any racial background) with money, to invest their future in Zimbabwes soil.

Losing land wasn't even the worst risk before, being brutally killed along with your family with the blessing of the state was more concerning.

Nasher · 19 Nov 2017 at 10:44

Most of the productive types moved out of Zimbabwe a long time ago (or driven out due to race politics). They have nothing to sell to the world.

Even if things improve now it will take decades to turn it around.

Monkeynut · 19 Nov 2017 at 11:02

The only way these farms will realistically start producing large volumes of food again is if the Chinese buy it and "Big Chinese Agriculture Absurd Scale Co." move in with big John Deeres and turn it back into the breadbasket of Africa. But they'd be farming for Chinese consumers as opposed to Zimbabweans...

englishpremier · 19 Nov 2017 at 11:44

Chris Wilson said:
Hah, not unless someone can resurrect Ian Smith, self rule for most of Africa has not exactly been a dazzling success, has it? Except maybe for Mercedes 600 Pullman sales, Lear Jet salesmen, mercenaries and others that benefit from endemic corruption and violence.

You've got to wonder what the future hold for Africa. Even south Africa is a mess. Self rule does seem to work. I can't see a point when any of these countries reach the sage that 1st world countries are at now. Even with Chinese involvement Africa seems doomed to be stuck in 'histroy'

Some of them would do well to call back their former colonial rulers. Of course all would happen is we spend 50 years sorting the country out, only be be told to jog on, and then for self rule to drag the country back down.

Chris Wilson · 19 Nov 2017 at 12:17

englishpremier said:
You've got to wonder what the future hold for Africa. Even south Africa is a mess. Self rule does seem to work. I can't see a point when any of these countries reach the sage that 1st world countries are at now. Even with Chinese involvement Africa seems doomed to be stuck in 'histroy'

Some of them would do well to call back their former colonial rulers. Of course all would happen is we spend 50 years sorting the country out, only be be told to jog on, and then for self rule to drag the country back down.

I think (hope....) a not has been forgotten. ("self rule DOES seem to work"???)

ubersonic · 19 Nov 2017 at 12:23

dowie said:
I've read the thread thanks, you're making no sense at all with this comparison between a military take over in the third world and Thatcher being removed! It just isn't very comparable at all...

That's because I didn't make one, like I previously explained to you. Nobody else had trouble understanding it.