Robert Mugabe

[James Dahl]

It's pretty ironic how Mugabe is portrayed as this great anti-imperialist icon when he basically signed his country over to the IMF in the 1980s.

[RebelLion]

Here's a great article about zimbabewe

"This would mean also addressing why and how they are targeting Zimbabwe. More often critics of ZANU-PF and Mugabe reduce U.S.-British positions to mere words or rhetorical condemnations when imperialism is never so passive. Not only did the U.S. State Department admit on April 5, 2007 that it was engaged in efforts for regime change in Zimbabwe, such efforts were written into the text of the hypocritical Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act of 2001.

This policy includes pervasive economic sanctions --war without guns-- designed to strangle the people into submission. No matter what one's position on ZANU-PF and/or Mugabe may be, a position against imperialism's immoral assault on Zimbabwe should be a matter of principle, being that the stakes are too high"

http://www.ips-dc.org/articles/353

[Padishah]

[RebelLion]

Padishah

Somali maa tahay?

Are you denying that british settlers massacred and killed africans and stole their land in zimbabewe?

[Shirib]

James is makin sense.

Padishah is saying the land belonged to the whites and they should get it all back

[RebelLion]

This padishah guy, some white professor did a number on him. He thinks free trade and the free economy will solve everything.

[Goljano Lion]

A considerable oil reserve has been found in Zimbabwe and it was announced today .Goerge bush and Gordon Brown announcing their decision to invade said...we have always supported the people of Zimbabwe in their struggle for democracy, its time this dictator..Robert Mugabe be removed and the oil discovery has nothing to do with this and is purely coincidental

[Padishah]

Padishah
Are you denying that british settlers massacred and killed africans and stole their land in zimbabewe?

I'm not denying anything. In fact, I'm opposed to British settlers massacring Africans and taking their land. Look:

If the land was acquired by fraudulent or violent means, then most assuredly return it to the rightful owner or his heirs. If not, then it is both immoral and stupid to forcibly take what rightfully belongs to someone else because of some abstract notion of skin colour based land proportionality.

Your contention was that the farmers land was stolen property. I merely require you to back up your claim, although I don't believe that you have information that the Zimbabwean Judiciary didn't have. Rather simple, really.

Padishah is saying the land belonged to the whites and they should get it all back

The land belongs to whoever the land belongs to, regardless of race. What I'm opposed to are politicians, especially slimy bastards like Mugabe, deciding to appropriate private property to satisfy their political goals. Rather simple.

This padishah guy, some white professor did a number on him. He thinks free trade and the free economy will solve everything.

You only have to look at Singapore, Hong Kong, and South Korea to see how private property and free trade can drastically improve the lives of people in formerly third world countries. You only have to look at Latin America to see how corrosive Socialism is, and the former USSR to see how horrifying Communism is. I don't need a white professor to point out something clearly seen with one's own eyes.

[RebelLion]

Padishah

But land was taken forcible and many africans were massacred, what do you think happened? You think colonialism was good for africa?

" profligate Ian Smith, who seized the government in 1965 and unilaterally declared the then Southern Rhodesia independent, when he refused to apologize for the atrocities he committed while he held office. In fact, he even boasted that he had no regrets about the estimated 30,000 Zimbabweans killed during his rule. Said Smith, "the more we killed, the happier we were.""

Why should the offspring of neocolonialists be rewarded and given land that was stolen by their forefather, why should they be allowed to inherit land that is not theirs?

[Padishah]

Ian Smith was a repellant little man. So was Mugabe. Between them, thirty thousand Zimbabwean civilians died, mostly by Mugabe's camp. Still, how does this have any bearing on whether these farms were stolen, or legitimate?

Oh, and source your quotes.

[RebelLion]

Padishah

Socialism is only taking root in Latin America right now, what exactly has the right wing dictatorship and the free economy that was common place in latin america before the 1990's done for the region?

Look at Venezuala under chavez today, he's system of twenty first century socialism and he's nationalization of gas and other industries is helping venezuala become a one of the best countries in latin america. Compared to he's right wing predecessors who were only interested making themselves wealthy.

Even Cuba has a better health care system than some 1st world countries, socialist programs and nationalization of industries is necessary for any country in this word.

What exactly has privatization and free economy done for third world countries in african and latin america?

[Padishah]

Socialism is only taking root in Latin America right now, what exactly has the right wing dictatorship and the free economy that was common place in latin america before the 1990's done for the region?

Boy are you under some wacky assumptions. Socialism (and its requisite Statism) is almost synonymous with Latin American countries. Latin American governments have delighted in regulating, confiscating, nationalising or taxing businesses into the ground in order to create State companies, or to support their favourite corporations on Corporate Welfare using tax funds. Both methods show the problems arise where the government decides to interfere in the economy when it has no right to do so.

Look at Venezuala under chavez today, he's system of twenty first century socialism and he's nationalization of gas and other industries is helping venezuala become a one of the best countries in latin america. Compared to he's right wing predecessors who were only interested making themselves wealthy.

Indeed, look at Venezuela today. It is indeed becoming one of the better countries in Latin America precisely because other countries subsidise its existence by buying its ridiculously high priced oil. Without oil at $50 dollars a barrel or above, Venezuela would be a disgusting third world wreck of government ineptness. You're also right about the right wing Statists who like taxing poor people in order to give money to rich corporations, which is also wrong.

Even Cuba has a better health care system than some 1st world countries, socialist programs and nationalization of industries is necessary for any country in this word.

The idea that socialist programs and nationalization being necessary is just the same stupidity that keeps African countries dank and poverty ridden. Why is it that you cannot take the example of Singapore, or Hong Kong, or South Korea, or Germany after WWII, all countries that let the free market go and watched as they improved materially like wildfire. None of these companies felt the need to nationalise industries, or turn into full blown Socialist countries for their current prosperity.

What exactly has privatization and free economy done for third world countries in african and latin america?

No African or Latin American country has every tried to privatise their economies, lower their taxes to sane levels and eliminate corruption from their administrations. NONE! Therein is the problem! Listening to Keynesian nonsense from the IMF only goes so far.

[The_Emperior5]

Robert Mugabe waa rageedi. Cadaanka ha ooyaan and take their puppet Tsvangirai with them.

Viva Mugabe

waka caqliga xurufulaha


ma ninka waxba beerrii karreyn ingrees carre uu macalin farmer ku ah na dhulka ka aryey isna wax ba beerii mayo dadkii na gaajoo bay uu dhinteen lacagtii dalka na lacag caruurto ku ciyaartay bay noqdeen

Somalida konfuurta baan xasuusta uuun ana wax ba xukumii mayoo ciidii na ii xukumi mayssoo

walahi bantugu meello baddan bay iska shabahan

[RebelLion]

"Boy are you under some wacky assumptions. Socialism (and its requisite Statism) is almost synonymous with Latin American countries. Latin American governments have delighted in regulating, confiscating, nationalising or taxing businesses into the ground in order to create State companies, or to support their favourite corporations on Corporate Welfare using tax funds. Both methods show the problems arise where the government decides to interfere in the economy when it has no right to do so."

No, Latin america is also synonymous with repressive right wing dictatorship supported by American government covertly or overtly. What have those right wing dictators done for latin american development? Nothing other than torture people and steal countries wealth.

Socialist governments of the past in latin america have failed because america/western powers have been undermining many of those socialist governments either through sanctions, supporting rebel or military action.

Chile's pinochet is one of those right-wing dictators.

But Here are some examples of that:

"1969 Dominican Republic, The CIA overthrows the democratically elected Juan Bosch in a military coup. The CIA installs a repressive, right-wing junta

"Nicaragua, the Marxist Sandinistas take over government, and they are initially popular because of their commitment to land and anti-poverty reform. Samoza had a murderous and hated personal army called the National Guard. Remnants of the Guard will become the Contras, who fight a CIA-backed guerilla war against the Sandinista government throughout the 1980s."

http://www.geocities.com/ciameddling/


"Indeed, look at Venezuela today. It is indeed becoming one of the better countries in Latin America precisely because other countries subsidise its existence by buying its ridiculously high priced oil. Without oil at $50 dollars a barrel or above, Venezuela would be a disgusting third world wreck of government ineptness. You're also right about the right wing Statists who like taxing poor people in order to give money to rich corporations, which is also wrong."


Venezuela under chavez is the political system that' african countries need emulate .Just like venezuala, african countries are usually blessed with natural resources, but the profits from those natural resources do not go to the people and western countries exploit our resources. It's necessary to nationalize key industries while encouraging free enterprise and business.A mixed economy that puts people first is what we need. Neither complete socialism or free economy and complete privatization will work.


"The idea that socialist programs and nationalization being necessary is just the same stupidity that keeps African countries dank and poverty ridden. Why is it that you cannot take the example of Singapore, or Hong Kong, or South Korea, or Germany after WWII, all countries that let the free market go and watched as they improved materially like wildfire. None of these companies felt the need to nationalise industries, or turn into full blown Socialist countries for their current prosperity.

No African or Latin American country has every tried to privatise their economies, lower their taxes to sane levels and eliminate corruption from their administrations. NONE! Therein is the problem! Listening to Keynesian nonsense from the IMF only goes so far."


So you really think that's all that's needed? Very naive. You are forgetting important factors that keep africa and latin america underdeveloped today:

1)Debt repayment has seriously hurt african and lating american economies, if countries are paying millions and millions on paying back loans with interest accruing, that will always hamper the domestic economy.

2) Unfair trade, although western countries want to promote free trade, they restrict african countries from making any profits from agriculture and other resources. African/latin american countries cannot compete if the west countries continoue to subsidize their industries.

For example " Mozambique produces the cheapest sugar in the world, between $75 and $100 a ton, to Europe's $395 a ton. On the surface, Mozambique farmers and sugar producers should reap enormous profits from their labor. But this is not the case because the European Union through its Common Agricultural policy (CAP) subsidizes its sugar producers to the tune of $675 million a year. The net effect is that Mozambique cannot sell its surplus sugar in any market in Europe, while Europe's surplus is dumped onto African countries' markets, thereby impoverishing Mozambique."http://www.usafricaonline.com/asagwarag8.africa.html

Western countries basically call the shots, they control the price of manufactured goods, agriculture and other industries. The whole impor/export relationship between poor countries and the western countries is a form of exploitation, where only when group always benefits and the other(poorer countries) are always exploited.

Finaly, yes african corruption is a major problem, but who do you finances and encourages that corruption? Indeed look at a country like nigeria rife with corruption and look the number of multinational companies doing business in nigeria.

[Shirib]

Padishah,

I don't understand ur logic. If a white guy comes sticks a stick on the ground and says it is his, then he owns the land. Yea right.

James,

The IMF and World Bank was more or less pressured on Robert Mugabe.

Zimbabweans are fully capable of building their country but since some white farmers were kicked out the west decided to shut the market on Zimbabwe as punishment for kicking their boys out.

According to a 1995 World Bank report, after independence, "Zimbabwe gave priority to human resource investments and support for smallholder agriculture," and as a result, "smallholder agriculture expanded rapidly during the first half of the 1980s and social indicators improved quickly." From 1980 to 1990 infant mortality decreased from 86 to 49 per 1000 live births, under five mortality was reduced from 128 to 58 per 1000 live births, and immunisation increased from 25% to 80% of the population. Also, "child malnutrition fell from 22% to 12% and life expectancy increased from 56 to 64. By 1990, Zimbabwe had a lower infant mortality rate, higher adult literacy and higher school enrollment rate than average for developing countries."[44]

In 1991, the government of Zimbabwe, short on hard currency and under international pressure, embarked on an austerity program. The World Bank's 1995 report explained that such reforms were required because Zimbabwe was unable to absorb into its labour market the many graduates from its impressive education system and that it needed to attract additional foreign investments. The reforms, however, undermined the livelihoods of Zimbabwe's poor majority; the report noted "large segments of the population, including most smallholder farmers and small scale enterprises, find themselves in a vulnerable position with limited capacity to respond to evolving market opportunities. This is due to their limited access to natural, technical and financial resources, to the contraction of many public services for smallholder agriculture, and to their still nascent links with larger scale enterprises."

Moreover, these people were forced to live on marginal lands as Zimbabwe's best lands were reserved for mainly white landlords growing cash crops for export, a sector of the economy favoured by the IMF's plan. For the poor on the communal lands, "existing levels of production in these areas are now threatened by the environmental fragility of the natural resource base and the unsustainability of existing farming practices."[44] The International Monetary Fund later suspended aid, saying reforms were "not on track."