Hullfox Posted 23 June 2008 Posted 23 June 2008 Despite the setback in round one, I think that Mugabe seems to have seized the initiative at the right time. His arguments appear to be very persuasive.
Asha Posted 23 June 2008 Posted 23 June 2008 Despite the setback in round one, I think that Mugabe seems to have seized the initiative at the right time.His arguments appear to be very persuasive. Plus the fact he's got his people killing any opposition. And the fact that this fighting has led to the opposition wanting to withdraw.
Nationwider Posted 23 June 2008 Posted 23 June 2008 Before I have an opinion, is there any crude oil at stake here?
Hullfox Posted 23 June 2008 Author Posted 23 June 2008 Plus the fact he's got his people killing any opposition.And the fact that this fighting has led to the opposition wanting to withdraw. Don't believe everything that the BBC tell you.
Darkzzz_ Posted 23 June 2008 Posted 23 June 2008 Send Gordon over, him versus Mugabe, Mugabe would own him!! On a serious note though, the people in that country i feel so sorry for, they vote they get killed, they speak up they get killed, they demonstrate they get killed, they dont vote they get killed!! fook that.... Maybe Brown will revert to these tactics, we will all be getting lashes off big fat Johnny two jags!! Riots in the streets of britain as new labour rig british elections!!
CKB Posted 24 June 2008 Posted 24 June 2008 Before I have an opinion, is there any crude oil at stake here? If there's is expect America to get involved anytime soon!
ozleicester Posted 24 June 2008 Posted 24 June 2008 Why oh why does this topic not contain a poll, or at least a sweepstake On a more serious note, perhaps if we start a rumour that the country is full of oil, then just possibly someone might actually give a damn and go and help these poor suffering people.
Monk Posted 24 June 2008 Posted 24 June 2008 It won't be the United 'League of' Nations that wins, thats for sure. They should put up a large fence at the border so Ban Ki-moon and all is cronies can sit on it. Whats the point in having global human rights policies if you don't enforce them.
Tabou Posted 24 June 2008 Posted 24 June 2008 Why oh why does this topic not contain a poll, or at least a sweepstake On a more serious note, perhaps if we start a rumour that the country is full of oil, then just possibly someone might actually give a damn and go and help these poor suffering people. My points exactley. Zimbabwe are in a far worse position now (and for the last 10 years) than Iraq ever was. Unfortunately, the UN, USA, Nato, UK, anyone else, won't do anything about it as there is no benefit to doing so. They have no oil, which means they have no help . Shocking, really.
Master Fox Posted 24 June 2008 Posted 24 June 2008 I strongly believe NATO military action is required now. Mugabe has brought a once prosperous country to its knees. The man is psychotic lunatic and needs to be removed from power preventing him inflicting more misery on Zimbabwe.
Hullfox Posted 24 June 2008 Author Posted 24 June 2008 I strongly believe NATO military action is required now. Mandaric has brought a once prosperous club to its knees. The man is psychotic lunatic and needs to be removed from power preventing him inflicting more misery on Leicester. Harsh but understandable.
Tabou Posted 24 June 2008 Posted 24 June 2008 I strongly believe NATO military action is required now. Mugabe has brought a once prosperous country to its knees. The man is psychotic lunatic and needs to be removed from power preventing him inflicting more misery on Zimbabwe. I don't see how the National Arse Tickler Organisation is going stop this warlord, do you?
Monk Posted 24 June 2008 Posted 24 June 2008 Yes but the unfortunate reality is it has to get a fair bit worse before Nato will wipe the cobwebs off their weapons...
hairy Posted 24 June 2008 Posted 24 June 2008 NATO wont do anything. They deal with issues in Europe not Africa. Its the UN or the African Nations who will have to do something.
OriginalRobboFOX Posted 24 June 2008 Posted 24 June 2008 NATO wont do anything. They deal with issues in Europe not Africa. Its the UN or the African Nations who will have to do something. But wont. Theres no hope in either the US or Britain steppin in neither, we seem to have learned some lessons from the way we've handled Iraq x 2 and Afghanistan... Its a shame really cos someone should have stood up to Mugabe back in around 2002 or whenever it was he took all the farms and land from the white settlers... But hang on, maybe if we boycott a cricket match Mugabe will back down... hmmmm..
Monk Posted 24 June 2008 Posted 24 June 2008 Hmm britain going in would be a bad idea - It would be seen by most of Africa as a return to colonialisation. Zimbabwe also has a relatively sizeable armed force. I'd probably agree with Hairy that if Mugabe is to be dealt with he should be dealt with by Africans. Yes we have a duty to help, but the long term effects of British troops in Zimbabwe could lead to long standing resentment.
Trav Le Bleu Posted 24 June 2008 Posted 24 June 2008 Mugabe by a landslide. Literally (as we speak earth-movers, bulldozers and mole-machines have been seen moving in the direction of the Dutch embassey!) PS, Mugabe backwards is 'E ba' gum!
Dr The Singh Posted 24 June 2008 Posted 24 June 2008 Mugabe by a landslide.Literally (as we speak earth-movers, bulldozers and mole-machines have been seen moving in the direction of the Dutch embassey!) PS, Mugabe backwards is 'E ba' gum! Democracy at it's best!!!
l444ry Posted 24 June 2008 Posted 24 June 2008 Mugabe hires Dwain Chambers for election run-off Robert Mugabe has engaged the services of drug addled athlete Dwain Chambers to compete in the forthcoming election run-off. The Zimbabwe constitution also dictates that Mugabe can select the runner for the opposition and he has decided upon Stephen Hawking. Mr Mugabe said 'Zanu PF will defeat the opposition fairly in this contest. It is a shame that Mr Hawking will not be able to use any mechanical aids, however we look forward to seeing him writhe about on the starting line while Mr Chambers shoots steroids at the finish line.' Boris Johnson commented 'Zimbabwe? Aren't they all cannibals out there?'
Head Honcho Posted 24 June 2008 Posted 24 June 2008 Hmm britain going in would be a bad idea - It would be seen by most of Africa as a return to colonialisation. Zimbabwe also has a relatively sizeable armed force. I'd probably agree with Hairy that if Mugabe is to be dealt with he should be dealt with by Africans. Yes we have a duty to help, but the long term effects of British troops in Zimbabwe could lead to long standing resentment. Would a return to colonialism be a bad thing? They've shown they can't run the country by themselves why not give it back to us and we'll send in Gordon Brown to show them how it's done
filbertway Posted 24 June 2008 Posted 24 June 2008 Iss there a market for this on betfair? DB11's convinced me.
Jordan Posted 26 June 2008 Posted 26 June 2008 "Get Behind the Fist" is the best political campaign slogan since the Marijuana Reform Party's 1998 candidate for Governor of New York declared, "It's time to cut the crap and make New York New Amsterdam again."
ozleicester Posted 26 June 2008 Posted 26 June 2008 phew..its fixed The removal of Mugabe's knighthood will certainly solve any problems....wont it?
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.