Zimbabwe

[tobeloy]

Why isnt anyone doing anything about it, Uk & US were quick enough to jump into war in Iraq an Afghanistan but hasnt Mugabe killed more than Bin Laden or is it that this country hasnt any oil?? Sanctions wont punish Mugabe as if the people try to protest they are supressed and tortured and the opposition well dont stand a chance, Idi Amin the 2nd comes to mind.

[supergran]

Ive said this for years about Mugabe and wondered why our goverment didn't do anything about it , you are absolutely right in my opinion , greed is the answer , no oil Im afraid.

[supergran]

Your right Legend, I wasn't thinking that far back . You see its greed , there was something in it at the time that made Africa important.

[kyra16]

i agree w you all
our pres doesn't invade unless we get somethin out of it
no oil? not our problem ... thats my pres for you! sad isn't it

[cambus]

I would love to see Mugabe toppled, but many African countries, see him as a hero, who has stood up to the West and Britain in particular.
There are many despots in the world, who I would like to see the back of, but a change of Government, brought about by external forces, however noble the cause may be, is not going to work, in todays political climate.
The UN can intervene, but has no mandate to do so and as ever, it will be too little, to late.

[Booldawg]

Are the UK/US expected to fight EVERYONES conflict for them? Where was the oil in Bosnia? The problem with Iraq started when Saddam Hussein decided to annexe Kuwait, a British princilpality - if he hadnt decided to that then Gulf War 1 would never have kicked off, everything else has since stemmed from that conflict. The ideology of Muslim extremists is more of a threat to UK/US than anything Mugabwe is doing. Its called prioritising.

[jno]

up to a point, Booldawg: Kuwait was about oil too, remember. Kuwait has oil, Saddam and Bush the First both wanted it. As for Afghanistan, though, they were behind an attack on the USA (because they sponsored al-Qaida) on 9/11, so that was why the USA took action there.

[Reverandfunk]

Because there is nothing to gain

[Loosehead]

I think history has taught us all that regime change has to come from within, look at the current examples. cambus is correct. Do you not think that the people would like to go back to the Rhodesia days? I mean they wern't running the show but they had health, education, infrastructure, they wern't starving with a gazzillion % infaltion. But hey the Brits where running the country, can't have that, let's install a despot to systematically destroy the place, genius.

Eventually when mugabe's own men are sick of it, when their families and lives are effected they'll overthrow him. I'd like nothing more than to remove the guy but I think we'd just be getting ourselves into another hole.

[MrBen5]

Hmmm, there are a lot of peacekeeping troops in africa.
The problem is a lot of african people see him as an idol. Also, most of the african states are controlled by gorillas and it would take many years to create a new infastructure. As its not as civilised as Iraq and Iran its a lot more planning is needed. I think you will see in the next few months, if not early 2008 intervention by the US and UK.
This guy is a madman but you cant really compare him to Sadamm.
I dont think oil has anything to do with it...

[anotheoldgit]

In answer to all the anti-British, anti-American posts to this question.

The simple reason is because the African Union lead by ultra wealthy South Africa, do not want us to get involved.

We can plough as much money and other aid, year after year into Africa , that's OK thank you very much. But when it comes to military intervention to try and sort out Africa's corrupt despots, then that is another matter.

After all the years of harping on about the so called downsides of colonial rule, and the horrible slave trade, It is about time Africa's people brushed themselves down and tried to catch up with the rest of the world. Other nations have done it, why not Africa?