Why doesn't the United States UK Invade Zimbabwe?

[capt_buzzard]

And get rid of this terrorist Robert Mugabe? He has already killed thousands of his own people and left 300,000 more homeless.

[john8pies]

Lack of oil there? Seriously, Capt., I was saying the same thing today to the old lady I take out - there is the same justification for removing a dictator in Zimbawbwe as in Iraq, or is Bush just scared of the "racist" accusations?

[capt_buzzard]

john8pies wrote: Lack of oil there? Seriously, Capt., I was saying the same thing today to the old lady I take out - there is the same justification for removing a dictator in Zimbawbwe as in Iraq, or is Bush just scared of the "racist" accusations?
You gave a good answer Oil. There is none.

[vilssss]

Because the U.S. is the only country in the world who can do anything to stop violence cropping up in different parts of the world. It has to do that job in terms of importance.

To understand this. I recently went to the hospital emergency room because of an aching back and a throbbing headache that seems to escalate, and would not go away one night. So after I checked in and told the nurse what my symptoms were. I sat in the emergency room for what seems to be an eternity. I saw patient after patient come in and were admitted before had a chance. So after a few hours, I finally walked up to the nurse to voice my concern. The reply was; "their cases were more life threatening then yours sir, we take the most serious cases first before those of a lesser seriousness. I saw their point, but at the same time, my pain was not any less painful, I was not any less important then those admitted before me. But I had to respect the operating mindset at the emergency room. I eventually got my chance to be seen by the doctor and the rest was history.

At best, the U.S. responses to crises in the world operates in much the same way. Zimbabwe isn't any less important then Iraq, but Iraq will trump Zimbabwe everytime in terms of seriouseness due to it's oil natural resources. Zimbabwe will eventually get it's turn just like I eventually did with the doctor, but it might be a long wait.

Iraqi oil if it stopped producing today will put a vast amount of economies in the world in chaos. If Saddam were to be left alone to reek havoc in that regine, that would include Saudi Arabia and Kuait. A stoppage in oil production by Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait will end life as we know it today. It's not just because oil is in Iraq. The U.S. must do what is best in terms of importance and life threatening in it's efforts to respond to crises around the world.

Here is another point of view. Asia (this includes China, India, Singapore, Taiwan, etc..) at the moment has a real proplem regarding energy. Asia is not rich in oil energy resourses so it depends solely on oil from the Persian Gulf to keep it's economy going. In the next twenty years, Asia will need to just about tripple its dependency in the Persian Gulf, and anywhere else they can get oil energy. Now, If the United States were to choose Zimbabwe over Iraq for it's priority to respond to crises. We will be talking about how utterly stupid the United States and it's leaders are, rather then complaining endlessly about why Zimbabwe and other like countries around the world don't get the attention of the United States.

Mugabe is a horrible man no doubt, and his turn will come, but I think Kim Jong-Il will see the doctor first before Mugabe.

[Clint]

I don’t think it’s oil at all. I think it is that Zimbabwe isn’t likely to support actions against anyone else right now. What is happening there is terrible but it is staying there. The top priority has to be placed on those who are likely to go outside their borders or support those who go outside their borders to do harm.

[pink princess]

i do think its hypocritical of them to go into iraq but not zimbabwe.....

however if they do.... wheres it stop? whos to say who can be leader of a country and who is an evil dictator...... it could lead to places far more dangerous then we are in now.......



i dont understand why the zimbawe people cant get rid of him??

[Philadelphia Eagle]

pink princess wrote: i do think its hypocritical of them to go into iraq but not zimbabwe.....

however if they do.... wheres it stop? whos to say who can be leader of a country and who is an evil dictator...... it could lead to places far more dangerous then we are in now.......



i dont understand why the zimbawe people cant get rid of him??


To answer your first question - the reason that we (or you) don't go in and take out Mugabe is that he does not represent a threat to either of our countries whereas Saddam did. By misusing his revenues from oil, Saddam was able to obtain both the expertise and the materials required to construct a nuclear device.

On the other hand, Zimbabwe is destitute and Mugabe is a threat only to his own people.

Why can't his own people get rid of him? Well- you probably haven't ever been unfortunate enough to experience life in a dictatorship.

Dictators usually rule by instilling fear into the general population and ruthlessly crush any attempt to disagree with their doctrine or mount any opposition. The fate of those who step out of line is well documented.

[pink princess]

i understand all of that PE and i get the reasons for why attack Iraq but not Zimbabwe, its all about personal interest...... and like you say Mugabe doesnt threaten us...



how long has he been in power? (mugabe that is)

[Lon]

capt_buzzard wrote: You gave a good answer Oil. There is none.
Also, there is no Israel in close proximity, to protect.

[Raven]

vilssss wrote: Because the U.S. is the only country in the world who can do anything to stop violence cropping up in different parts of the world. It has to do that job in terms of importance.

To understand this. I recently went to the hospital emergency room because of an aching back and a throbbing headache that seems to escalate, and would not go away one night. So after I checked in and told the nurse what my symptoms were. I sat in the emergency room for what seems to be an eternity. I saw patient after patient come in and were admitted before had a chance. So after a few hours, I finally walked up to the nurse to voice my concern. The reply was; "their cases were more life threatening then yours sir, we take the most serious cases first before those of a lesser seriousness. I saw their point, but at the same time, my pain was not any less painful, I was not any less important then those admitted before me. But I had to respect the operating mindset at the emergency room. I eventually got my chance to be seen by the doctor and the rest was history.

At best, the U.S. responses to crises in the world operates in much the same way. Zimbabwe isn't any less important then Iraq, but Iraq will trump Zimbabwe everytime in terms of seriouseness due to it's oil natural resources. Zimbabwe will eventually get it's turn just like I eventually did with the doctor, but it might be a long wait.

Iraqi oil if it stopped producing today will put a vast amount of economies in the world in chaos. If Saddam were to be left alone to reek havoc in that regine, that would include Saudi Arabia and Kuait. A stoppage in oil production by Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait will end life as we know it today. It's not just because oil is in Iraq. The U.S. must do what is best in terms of importance and life threatening in it's efforts to respond to crises around the world.

Here is another point of view. Asia (this includes China, India, Singapore, Taiwan, etc..) at the moment has a real proplem regarding energy. Asia is not rich in oil energy resourses so it depends solely on oil from the Persian Gulf to keep it's economy going. In the next twenty years, Asia will need to just about tripple its dependency in the Persian Gulf, and anywhere else they can get oil energy. Now, If the United States were to choose Zimbabwe over Iraq for it's priority to respond to crises. We will be talking about how utterly stupid the United States and it's leaders are, rather then complaining endlessly about why Zimbabwe and other like countries around the world don't get the attention of the United States.

Mugabe is a horrible man no doubt, and his turn will come, but I think Kim Jong-Il will see the doctor first before Mugabe.
Good answer! Wonder what the rest of the world would say, if their precious oil was dried up.

Probably something like, "Why didnt the US step in?"

[minks]

Sounds like Rawanda all over again. Far to low on the food chain at the moment to look after. Pity.

[Philadelphia Eagle]

pink princess wrote: i understand all of that PE and i get the reasons for why attack Iraq but not Zimbabwe, its all about personal interest...... and like you say Mugabe doesnt threaten us...



how long has he been in power? (mugabe that is)


I'm not sure how long Mugabe has been in power - at least 10 years I guess.

He and Zimbabwe don't feature in the US media at all. It's not something which has any interest here and ,of course, there are many 'Zimbabwes' in the world unfortunately.

I guess why it's of greater interest in Britain is that it was one of your African possessions in the past so you would have more connection with it than we would.

I wonder if asked the question would the average Zimbabwean prefer that Britain were still in charge there?

[gmc]

posted by vilsss

Because the U.S. is the only country in the world who can do anything to stop violence cropping up in different parts of the world. It has to do that job in terms of importance.


For goodness sake get off this idea that america needs to set right the problems of the world-all it does is make things worse you are hardly qualified to act as judge jury and executioner. No one is asking you to be the world's policemen, in any case the only time the US has ever taken action is when their own interests are at stake.

Why should anyone get involved in Zimbabwe it's up to the people there to sort themselves out. More to the point why are african nations being so slow to condemn him? South Africa in particvular have said nothing in condemnation and this is rioght on their doorstep. If African nations do nothing then europeans should keep out of it.

True it is a former colony and we have a lot to answer for and there is much to crirticise about the way Africa has been treated by the West as a whole and the former colonial powers in particular, but now this is african against african with no one to blame but themselves. This is not some side show in the cold war from the sixties with military coups organised by one side or the other. It's tribal warfare in all it's horror with modern weapons.

Let's assume other nations get involved when do they pull out? Who gets to keep control? If any nation should do anything it is South Africa-they have the troops and the experience to deal with this and arguably with the end of apartheid in a peaceful manner they have the moral authority. Former colonial powers getting involved will make things worse. Thanks to unilateral actions by the US and the UK the UN now can do nothing but sit by and watch having been totally emasculated.

If you want to act as world policemen you need world courts but the US has refused to sign up to that idea so you are policemen with no legitimacy-it would not be seen as a police action but US Imperialism, more to the point you would get bogged down in never ending military action.

It's the same in Senagal, Liberia, Nigeria, Congo, Ethiopia, Seirra Leone at some point their people have to learn to take control themselves.

posted by philadelphia eagle

Dictators usually rule by instilling fear into the general population and ruthlessly crush any attempt to disagree with their doctrine or mount any opposition. The fate of those who step out of line is well documented.


In modern times dictators get control by first winning elections and then gradually taking control bit by bit-stifling opposition at first then picking on a suitable victim group and getting the support of the more violent of their countrymen until they have a stake in keeping him in power until everyone who does speak out is no longer around and those left are terrified to argue and do what they are told and nobody sees it coming. The only ones who can actually stop it and ultimately sort it out are the people of the country concerned. In some ways outside interference can only prolong the agony.

[anastrophe]

gmc wrote:

For goodness sake get off this idea that america needs to set right the problems of the world-all it does is make things worse you are hardly qualified to act as judge jury and executioner. No one is asking you to be the world's policemen, in any case the only time the US has ever taken action is when their own interests are at stake.refresh my memory - which of our interests were at stake in world war II? was there a lot of oil in germany?

[telaquapacky]

Philadelphia Eagle wrote: I guess why it's of greater interest in Britain is that it was one of your African possessions in the past so you would have more connection with it than we would.

I wonder if asked the question would the average Zimbabwean prefer that Britain were still in charge there?I lived in Malawi for some years, and visited Zimbabwe frequently. Loved the place. Much like my native California. Even the police were polite to me.

I saw that Britain is the greatest benefactor of Sub-Sahara East Africa, where some of her "posessions" used to be. They still have a lot of purely humanitarian interest in Africa. I have a lot of respect for the UK in it's dealings with Africa. I doubt, though that Tony will get W to help much. W is a "Compassionate Conservative," which I understand means, "I feel your pain, but I don't intend to do anything about it."

A lot of Zimbabweans I spoke to feel Zimbabwe should be under black leadership, but they do remember fondly what conditions were like when it was Southern Rhodesia. Black African leadership has the problem of kleptocracy and autocracy. Their culture is tribal and fatalistic, having the tendency to tolerate terrible leaders. Black Africans who have better than average brains and gumption, and who have the opportunity to become educated and gain a better status in life often do what you or I would- emigrate to the US or UK.

The last time I was in Harare (probably 9 years ago), I ran into a friend who was a military attache. His unit was training Zimbabwean Army soldiers (I guess that's America's contribution, eh?).

[Philadelphia Eagle]

On the contrary, GMC, everyone is asking us to be the world's policeman.

We are the only country in the world with the requirements to do the job - be they military, financial or political.

We don't ask for thanks but, of course it's nice when we are, and we are thanked often by grateful nations.

Many countries have cause to thank the United States, including yours.

[Philadelphia Eagle]

telaquapacky wrote: I lived in Malawi for some years, and visited Zimbabwe frequently. Loved the place. Much like my native California. Even the police were polite to me.

I saw that Britain is the greatest benefactor of Sub-Sahara East Africa, where some of her "posessions" used to be. They still have a lot of purely humanitarian interest in Africa. I have a lot of respect for the UK in it's dealings with Africa. I doubt, though that Tony will get W to help much. W is a "Compassionate Conservative," which I understand means, "I feel your pain, but I don't intend to do anything about it."

A lot of Zimbabweans I spoke to feel Zimbabwe should be under black leadership, but they do remember fondly what conditions were like when it was Southern Rhodesia. Black African leadership has the problem of kleptocracy and autocracy. Their culture is tribal and fatalistic, having the tendency to tolerate terrible leaders. Black Africans who have better than average brains and gumption, and who have the opportunity to become educated and gain a better status in life often do what you or I would- emigrate to the US or UK.

The last time I was in Harare (probably 9 years ago), I ran into a friend who was a military attache. His unit was training Zimbabwean Army soldiers (I guess that's America's contribution, eh?).


I agree with much of what you say.

I too have lived in Africa but in West Africa rather than Malawi and Zimbabwe although I have visited both.

Malawi always struck me as a well run country and Hastings Banda kept a tight grip on things earlier.

I hope that Zimbabwe can overcome its current difficulties and achieve its undoubted potential.

It's difficult to see how that can come about, in my view, while Mugabe remains in power.

[vilssss]

For goodness sake get off this idea that america needs to set right the problems of the world-all it does is make things worse you are hardly qualified to act as judge jury and executioner. No one is asking you to be the world's policemen, in any case the only time the US has ever taken action is when their own interests are at stake.


GMC,

I second what anastrophe says.

It's idiots like you who make us Americans furious enough to the point of wanting to call our representatives to put an end to asisting the world in regards to peaceful flow of energy, flow of finance, flow of people, flow of technology, flow of economy, security, etc, and all the things we enjoy and never think twice as to why and how it is possible we enjoy these things. Dispite what some of our countrymen might say about the war in Iraq. The majority of the Americans understand what Bush and his administration is doing in the Persian Gulf. They are looking out for not only our interests as citizens of the the United States, but also people like you who hate us without understanding the larger picture.

[anastrophe]

vilssss wrote: GMC,



I second what anastrophe says.



It's idiots like you who make us Americans furious enough to the point of wanting to call our representatives to put an end to asisting the world in regards to peaceful flow of energy, flow of finance, flow of people, flow of technology, flow of economy, security, etc, and all the things we enjoy and never think twice as to why and how it is possible we enjoy these things. Dispite what some of our countrymen might say about the war in Iraq. The majority of the Americans understand what Bush and his administration is doing in the Persian Gulf. They are looking out for not only our interests as citizens of the the United States, but also people like you who hate us without understanding the larger picture.
with regrets, i have to disagree with you here.



i'm not convinced that the bush administration's motives for the persian gulf were altogether....altruistic. i do believe that *they* believed that there were WMD's (and that led them down the road of confirmation bias). and i do believe they felt that saddam hussein was a threat to the region (not much of a stretch there, he had demonstrated before that he was not exactly a stabilizing influence in the gulf....think scud missiles directed to israel during the first persian gulf war, etc). contrary to many of the great thinkers here on FG, there is evidence that hussein provided shelter for terrorists, and his funding the families of palestinian young men who 'martyred' themselves to take out jews isn't a secret. as well, he had thumbed his nose at - what was it, seventeen consecutive UN resolutions calling on him to cease his hostile behaviors.



all that said, it's not like the middle east has been a, uh, forgive the odd turn of phrase, pacific region with the lone madman hussein making things uncomfortable. syria to the west is an unapologetic harbor for terrorists, egypt was the source of several of the 9/11 'martyrs', and saudi arabia has pretty much gotten a free pass on darn near anything the want to do (including being the source of most of the remaining 9/11 'martyrs'). iran, as we know, isn't a field of daisies, and the former soviet republics bordering the middle east have their own longtime problems that have leaked over from the middle east.



hussein made himself a pretty fat target, just by being an arsehole in general and thumbing his nose at the UN (the jets that patrolled the no-fly zones on the north and south of iraq endured anti-aircraft fire for pretty much the duration of the 1990's since the first gulf war until the second).



i would much rather have seen the massive resources that were committed to iraq held in abeyance, and if anything committed to afghanistan in order to capture the lightning rod for jihad, osama bin laden. why he was not pursued to capture is a curious/puzzling question. i wonder whether he's being kept in an 'open prison' of the remote regions of pakistan/afghanistan, so that he won't have an opportunity to become a martyr for jihad, which could make matters worse, not better. but i dunno, i'm just speculating.



the middle east is synonymous with oil. this may come as a surprise to some of the vaunted intellects here, particularly in light of some of my recent comments to the contrary, but i do believe iraq was about oil - but not in the way those intellects think it was. they believe that iraq was about oil because bush the texas oilman wanted to help line the pockets of all his buddy-buddies, along with them the evil cheney-haliburtons et al - that the desire for oil in the middle east is for greed.



i have a different perception of it. a common bumpersticker around these parts - and a common chant when the protesters are out and about - is "NO BLOOD FOR OIL".



i couldn't agree more. like it or not, the western world, and that includes the US, canada, europe, mind you - is reliant upon petroleum. if all the petroleum producing nations shut off the spigot one day.....well, in short order there would be more blood flowing in those western nations than one can possibly imagine. it's easy to trivialize our reliance on oil. it is not easy to dismiss the consequences if it were no longer available, at all. in the united states - and likely most other industrialized nations, famine would follow within a few weeks. that's not hyperbole. here in california, the central valley is considered by many to be 'the breadbasket of america'. more crops are grown there in greater variety and quantity than in most places on earth. without petroleum, there'd be no way to transport that bounty to those who consume it. and, just by example, i live about 100 miles from the nearest edge of the central valley. with a dry gastank, it would mean, basically, walking to the central valley to try and pillage food from the farms there. for most of the rest of the nation, the food producing regions are orders of magnitude further away.



i've managed to digress pretty well here.



there is a mandate, frankly, that 'we' must protect 'our' oil. one can toss about notions of how the oil is actually not ours. well, interestingly, while some folks talk out of one side of their mouth about how we're all one global village, that borders are philosophical concepts that do more harm than good, apparently out of the other side of their mouth they're good old basic capitalists, who believe that, rather than 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need', the arabs 'own' the oil because they happen to live on top of it, and the rest of us damn well better pay for it. (of course, don't even think of mentioning how little the arab states commit to actual humanitarian efforts around the globe - the money they earn they lavish on themselves, and their people, and if a tsunami kills tens of thousands on the other side of the indian ocean, let the americans help them, we're too busy getting our toilets gold-plated).



hey, i digressed even more. i think it's this damned cola i'm drinking. yep. it's not caffeine free. damnit!

[anastrophe]

oh, and with regards to GMC and how the US has never done anything that wasn't in our own interest....he and i have argued on that to the point of comic relief. i was doing little more than prodding him with a familiar theme, as he prods us.

[gmc]

posted by anastrophe

refresh my memory - which of our interests were at stake in world war II? was there a lot of oil in germany?


Let's see now WW2 started Sept 1939, US declared war Dec 1942, whatever it was it wasn't altruism, thogh due credit to all the americans that joined up beforehand.

posted by anastrophe

oh, and with regards to GMC and how the US has never done anything that wasn't in our own interest....he and i have argued on that to the point of comic relief. i was doing little more than prodding him with a familiar theme, as he prods us.


Good fun though-although there is no fun winding up americans as it's far too easy. You should take note of the way europeans squabble nowadays you don't see the frog eaters taking insults so personally

posted by philadelphia eagle

On the contrary, GMC, everyone is asking us to be the world's policeman.

We are the only country in the world with the requirements to do the job - be they military, financial or political.

We don't ask for thanks but, of course it's nice when we are, and we are thanked often by grateful nations.

Many countries have cause to thank the United States, including yours


But you can't do it on your own and you need to stop kidding yourself that you can or that people want you to-do you have ambotions to be a world empire?

Where do you stop getting involved? who determines what is a democratic government-too often in the past regimes have been supported simply because it was in the west's interests-as with Saddam Hussein, in Vietnam you got involved because you thought the govt elected was too left wing instead of letting the region sort out their own post colonial problems. what is happening now is the result of theat kind of thing- you need to leave people alone to sort out their own mess. If you get involved in Zimbabwe-or any european nation does it would be a nightmare, it has to be africans themselves that do it.

posted by vilssss

It's idiots like you who make us Americans furious enough to the point of wanting to call our representatives to put an end to asisting the world in regards to peaceful flow of energy, flow of finance, flow of people, flow of technology, flow of economy, security, etc, and all the things we enjoy and never think twice as to why and how it is possible we enjoy these things. Dispite what some of our countrymen might say about the war in Iraq. The majority of the Americans understand what Bush and his administration is doing in the Persian Gulf. They are looking out for not only our interests as citizens of the the United States, but also people like you who hate us without understanding the larger picture.


It's idiots like you who assume that because someone does not share your world view they must by definition be idiots that make me wish you would. Pre-emptive warfare, regime change an increasing paranoia ands belief that everybody hates you-there is not a lot to admire about America at the moment-at least so far as foreign policy is concerned. What is really depressing is the way we got suckered in to it as well. We have a fairly major crisis in our own democracy to sort out. Despite what some of my countrymen say about the war in Iraq an increasing number are fed up having their opinions ignored and don't like being lied to by TB and his cronies.

[anastrophe]

gmc wrote: posted by anastrophe





Let's see now WW2 started Sept 1939, US declared war Dec 1942, whatever it was it wasn't altruism, thogh due credit to all the americans that joined up beforehand.






riiigggghhhht. that's why the US sent britain guns and butter without which you'd not have been able to defend yourselves in the interval before we joined.

[gmc]

posted by anastrophe

riiigggghhhht. that's why the US sent britain guns and butter without which you'd not have been able to defend yourselves in the interval before we joined.


Hardly altruisic you got a very good price, the lend lease act was the only way roosevelt could offer help to the UK against a very hostile congress and populaton that didn't want to get involved in a european war. Not to mention all the technological advances in radar and sonar which we gave to you as part of the deal without which your introduction to warfare would have been an awful lot harder the war in the pacific in particular would have been a lot harder without British innovation and technological expertise especially in radar which the Japanese only had in very rudimentary form.

This is way off topic, joking aside without the United nations what are you seriously suggesting as an alternative? American hegemony? I think it's fairly safe to say the UN is ineffectual and perhaps always was but at least it was a forum for discussion and consensus, if it now falls apart what gets put in its place. Used to be the great pwowers decided the fate of smaller countries but the days of empire are long gone. Zimbabwe, sudan how many foreign wars do you want to get involved in?

[capt_buzzard]

I was one that wanted the UN peace keeping force in Northern Ireland, rather than the British security forces back in 1969 when all the trouble started. The Republic of Ireland is a member of the UN and having another UN member,be it the USA or others there would have being better as regards to the IRA's position against the British Forces in Ireland.

[gmc]

posted by capn buzzard

I was one that wanted the UN peace keeping force in Northern Ireland, rather than the British security forces back in 1969 when all the trouble started. The Republic of Ireland is a member of the UN and having another UN member,be it the USA or others there would have being better as regards to the IRA's position against the British Forces in Ireland.


I was one of those who thought the bastards should be sorted out-you can't give in to terrosists-but then later on came to appreciate it was a bit more complex than that. Ultimately the NI people have to sort things out for themselves, it's a moot point that an ouside force can impose a solution or would have worked in Northern Ireland, or wheteranything would. Ban religon in schools and mix the kids up. You have to teach hate to children.

[mattythewelshman]

The way i see it America will withdraw from Afghanistan and Iraq eventually and Britain will probably remain. In Afghanistan the US has allready decided to pull out a large number of troops possibley there planning to withdraw there. But i dont think Zimbabwe will get invaded by the US though the Uk might take militiary action there. The uk has been behind a coup along with S.Africa there it resulted in a ex-british sas officer been sent to prison there where he will eventually die due to the conditions hell have to live in. The only problem though for Britain is Zimbabwe is it is a land locked nation so it would have to depend on S.Africa and Nigeria to perhaps let the uk use there countries as a staging ground for an invasion and the uk doesnt have perticually great relations with them either. But if it happens it will probably at least 2 years since British forces are heavily over stretched we have troops in Iraq, Afghanistan, Germaney, Falklands, Gibralter, Kosovo and a few other places also theres plans to send British troops to Darfur as part of another peace keeping force. But it will most probably that Uk will move in on Zimbabwe esspecially since HMs Goverment seems to be getting more involved with Africa recently and the fact Zimbabwe is on the news virtually every week.

[gmc]

posted by mattywelshman

The way i see it America will withdraw from Afghanistan and Iraq eventually and Britain will probably remain. In Afghanistan the US has allready decided to pull out a large number of troops possibley there planning to withdraw there. But i dont think Zimbabwe will get invaded by the US though the Uk might take militiary action there. The uk has been behind a coup along with S.Africa there it resulted in a ex-british sas officer been sent to prison there where he will eventually die due to the conditions hell have to live in. The only problem though for Britain is Zimbabwe is it is a land locked nation so it would have to depend on S.Africa and Nigeria to perhaps let the uk use there countries as a staging ground for an invasion and the uk doesnt have perticually great relations with them either. But if it happens it will probably at least 2 years since British forces are heavily over stretched we have troops in Iraq, Afghanistan, Germaney, Falklands, Gibralter, Kosovo and a few other places also theres plans to send British troops to Darfur as part of another peace keeping force. But it will most probably that Uk will move in on Zimbabwe esspecially since HMs Goverment seems to be getting more involved with Africa recently and the fact Zimbabwe is on the news virtually every week.


What planet are you on. If the UK was going to take military action they would have done when smith declared UDI and we still had illusions of being a great power. There is zero chance of British troops going back in to Zimbabwe. No african nation is going to tolerate former colonial nations getting involved beyond a token peace keeping force. Nor are they likely to remain in Iraq-you can't ostensibly go to war to free Iraq and then stay as an occupying force-even tony's cronies will have trouble with that one. The iraqui's will not be free till the coalition forces withdraw completely otherwise it makes a lie of the whole thing.

[capt_buzzard]

anastrophe wrote: riiigggghhhht. that's why the US sent britain guns and butter without which you'd not have been able to defend yourselves in the interval before we joined.The only reason the US got involved in the war was because of Pearl Habour. I have often wondered about that? Who set it up? The truth is out there.

[Philadelphia Eagle]

mattythewelshman wrote: The way i see it America will withdraw from Afghanistan and Iraq eventually and Britain will probably remain. In Afghanistan the US has allready decided to pull out a large number of troops possibley there planning to withdraw there. But i dont think Zimbabwe will get invaded by the US though the Uk might take militiary action there. The uk has been behind a coup along with S.Africa there it resulted in a ex-british sas officer been sent to prison there where he will eventually die due to the conditions hell have to live in. The only problem though for Britain is Zimbabwe is it is a land locked nation so it would have to depend on S.Africa and Nigeria to perhaps let the uk use there countries as a staging ground for an invasion and the uk doesnt have perticually great relations with them either. But if it happens it will probably at least 2 years since British forces are heavily over stretched we have troops in Iraq, Afghanistan, Germaney, Falklands, Gibralter, Kosovo and a few other places also theres plans to send British troops to Darfur as part of another peace keeping force. But it will most probably that Uk will move in on Zimbabwe esspecially since HMs Goverment seems to be getting more involved with Africa recently and the fact Zimbabwe is on the news virtually every week.


Do they teach spelling and grammer in Wales?

[capt_buzzard]

Philadelphia Eagle wrote: Do they teach spelling and grammer in Wales?They speak Welsh

[Philadelphia Eagle]

capt_buzzard wrote: They speak Welsh


That explains it.

[capt_buzzard]

It will take only the SAS to knock out that international terrorist in Zimbabwe.

[mattythewelshman]

I never said they where going to stay there but i meant they will remain for along time as a peace keeping force. Didnt the brits go into Sierra Leone (ex-African Colony) not long ago. Thats how they opperate. The Brits wont stay there forever. I didnt mean we where going to keep the nations for good Britain wont be able to opperate that kind of system for a while yet we still havnt completely recovered from ww2 yet. Nah i just type to fast never get in the grammer habbit. :wah: I dont speak that much Welsh myself

[capt_buzzard]

mattythewelshman wrote: I never said they where going to stay there but i meant they will remain for along time as a peace keeping force. Didnt the brits go into Sierra Leone (ex-African Colony) not long ago. Thats how they opperate. The Brits wont stay there forever. I didnt mean we where going to keep the nations for good Britain wont be able to opperate that kind of system for a while yet we still havnt completely recovered from ww2 yet. Nah i just type to fast never get in the grammer habbit. :wah: I dont speak that much Welsh myselfNor do I speak much Irish Gaelic:D