|
12 Dec 08 - 05:26 PM (#2513827) Subject: BS: UK caused cholera, says Zimbabwe From: Rasener http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7780728.stm Mugabe has gone mad. Hitler springs to mind |
|
12 Dec 08 - 06:24 PM (#2513876) Subject: RE: BS: UK caused cholera, says Zimbabwe From: Rapparee I'm certain that the UK has nothing better to do than to invade Zimbabwe. Another "leader" blaming others for his own failure. |
|
12 Dec 08 - 06:31 PM (#2513883) Subject: RE: BS: UK caused cholera, says Zimbabwe From: Bonzo3legs Northern and Southern Rhodesia it saya on my stamps! |
|
12 Dec 08 - 07:04 PM (#2513911) Subject: RE: BS: UK caused cholera, says Zimbabwe From: Leadfingers A ZanuPF man was given control of the company responsible for clean water and there is now live sewage in the supply - UK did that ?? we could laugh , if it wasnt costing innocent lives . If E Ba Gum wasnt an ex Bush Warrior against White Imperialism , he would have been out years ago ! |
|
12 Dec 08 - 09:09 PM (#2513979) Subject: RE: BS: UK caused cholera, says Zimbabwe From: Rapparee Well, I think it's just TERRIBLE that Queen Liz has nothing else to do! She should take up tatting or something instead of germ warfare! "I say, Phillip, I'm bored. What if we plant cholera in Rhodes...that place in Africa?" "Good idea, Lizzy. We'll put the boys right on it." |
|
13 Dec 08 - 03:44 AM (#2514109) Subject: RE: BS: UK caused cholera, says Zimbabwe From: Gurney LIVE sewage, Leadfingers? The mind boggles. Whilst it is boggling, has anyone any idea why the UK would want to interfere with the situation in Zimbabwe? They only have to wait awhile and then they can re-colonise. Bit of cleaning up, and then it could be a going concern again! Anyway, the epidemic is over, according to Mugabe this morning. The twat is in total denial. Isn't it good to live in a democratic country! |
|
13 Dec 08 - 03:45 AM (#2514110) Subject: RE: BS: UK caused cholera, says Zimbabwe From: akenaton I hold no brief for Mr Mugabe, but the use of economic or trading sanctions against a failed state leads to charges of "economic terrorism", as happened in Saddam's Iraq, when many children died through lack of medical supplies, It can be argued that the cholera outbreak comes into that catagory. Don't take what you read in the paper or on the internet too literally...try to read between the lines.....Ake |
|
13 Dec 08 - 05:45 AM (#2514157) Subject: RE: BS: UK caused cholera, says Zimbabwe From: Teribus The only person who could have been accused of "economic terrorism2, or indeed any form of terrorism in Iraq Akenaton was Saddam himself. Let's see now shall we, while all those children were dying, or supposedly dying (I take it that you are talking about the "projected" estimates that somebody arrived at?), Saddam managed to build 17 Presidential Palaces (That UNSCOM could not inspect), all luxuriously appointed and some the size of small towns. Now if Saddam had any thoughts, feelings, or a conscience about the children of Iraq don't you think that he'd have settled for a couple of Palaces and distributed the cash elsewhere for medicine for example?? Oh yes the sanctions must have stopped him doing that, right? But those sanctions were so tight that Saddam with the help of his neighbours and trading partners smuggled out enough oil to provide $2 billion a year in secret revenues and managed to smuggle in 384 rocket motors (Found by UNMOVIC). Now if Saddam had any thoughts, feelings, or a conscience about the children of Iraq don't you think that he'd have scrubbed round the rocket motors and spent that money on medicine for example?? Millions upon millions have been thrown at Mugabe's Zimbabwe in terms of aid, all that has happened to it is that it has gone into the bank accounts of Mugabe and his henchmen, no "economic terrorism" there Akenaton just the greed of a self confessed follower of Marx. Zimbabwe has been independent for 30 years now, it has been totally destroyed by Mugabe, nobody elses fault at all. Exactly at what point down the road to ruin do you expect him to face up to his responsibilities?? - Oh yes, how silly of me, the man's supposed to be a socialist - so the answer to my question is therefore never - its always somebody elses fault. |
|
13 Dec 08 - 06:39 AM (#2514182) Subject: RE: BS: UK caused cholera, says Zimbabwe From: alanabit Mugabe is a "socialist" in the same way that Hitler was a "Christian". I guess if Mugabe called himself a baker, we would all have to assume that all bakers were egocentric tyrants. |
|
13 Dec 08 - 07:45 AM (#2514199) Subject: RE: BS: UK caused cholera, says Zimbabwe From: Teribus Well alanabit "Marxist Socialist" was the label he put on the brand of his political beliefs and those of his political Party and had all the trendy-lefties throughout the world salivating over him as he progressed to power. Ian Smith and Joshua Nkomo, of course recognised him for exactly what he was, a power hungry bandit. In saying that the man is a Marxist and a Socialist all I am doing is quoting the fact file of the man himself, if you wish to convince anybody that he is other than that - Have a go at convincing him. But one thing he has done of course is to ensure equality, he has reduced the people of Zimbabwe to world lows in terms of destitution, disease, despair and hopelessness - none of which of course applies to his fellow Marxist Socialist elite in ZANUPF - kinda reminds me of Harold Wilson & Co, and the similarities between Mugabe and Gordon of Cartoon are too frightening to go into. To see what he has done to what was once one of the most productive countries in Africa beggars description. The contagion emanating from the borders of Zimbabwe isn't cholera, its far worse - South Africa will be next, unless of course the bunch of complete and utter clowns who run the place start taking stock and act pdq. Strange how silent St. Mandela is on all of this, still one can't expect one valiant "freedom fighter" to criticise another can we? Solidarity and all that crap, Eh brother? |
|
13 Dec 08 - 08:47 AM (#2514232) Subject: RE: BS: UK caused cholera, says Zimbabwe From: alanabit Teribus, I don't expect you to change your mind. I like Robert Mugabe nearly as much as you do. Unlike you, I do not regard words like "socialist" as terms of abuse. Peter Sutcliffe thought he was acting on "Voices from God" when he murdered thirteen women. That Mugabe suffers from the illusion that he is a socialist makes him no different from a long line of mad tyrants. |
|
13 Dec 08 - 09:45 AM (#2514253) Subject: RE: BS: UK caused cholera, says Zimbabwe From: Rasener He is bonkers and dangerous |
|
13 Dec 08 - 10:23 AM (#2514263) Subject: RE: BS: UK caused cholera, says Zimbabwe From: Rapparee One shot, one kill. |
|
13 Dec 08 - 05:35 PM (#2514551) Subject: RE: BS: UK caused cholera, says Zimbabwe From: Teribus Wouldn't do the slightest bit of good Rap. |
|
14 Dec 08 - 10:46 AM (#2514932) Subject: RE: BS: UK caused cholera, says Zimbabwe From: Uncle_DaveO The thread name is wrong. It would be true to say, UK caused cholera, says Mugabe Mugabe is not Zimbabwe, despite his illusion that he is. Dave Oesterreich |
|
14 Dec 08 - 02:10 PM (#2515081) Subject: RE: BS: UK caused cholera, says Zimbabwe From: Richard Bridge I like to think that we learned more at Porton Down than that. If we had planted cholera, I'm sure the death toll would be higher. |
|
14 Dec 08 - 08:33 PM (#2515385) Subject: RE: BS: UK caused cholera, says Zimbabwe From: Charley Noble Very sad, and it will get worse before it gets better. Charley Noble |
|
15 Dec 08 - 06:47 AM (#2515612) Subject: RE: BS: UK caused cholera, says Zimbabwe From: kendall How do assholes like this get to be so old? As far as Saddam goes, I wonder what would have happened if we had stayed out of Iraq's business in the first place? He was our tyrant when the Reagan administration supplied him with the gas that he used to retaliate against the Kurds who were trying to do him in. |
|
15 Dec 08 - 08:26 AM (#2515686) Subject: RE: BS: UK caused cholera, says Zimbabwe From: Teribus "He was our tyrant when the Reagan administration supplied him with the gas that he used to retaliate against the Kurds who were trying to do him in." - kendall One can only assume that kendall is referring here to what was known as "The al-Anfal Campaign" the genocidal campaign against Kurds ordered by Saddam Hussein and conducted by Ali Hassan al-Majid. "Anfal, officially conducted between February 23 and September 6, 1988, would have eight stages altogether, seven of them targeting areas controlled by the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan. The Kurdish Democratic Party-controlled areas in the northwest of Iraqi Kurdistan, which the regime regarded as a lesser threat, were the target of the Final Anfal operation in late August and early September, 1988. Thousands of civilians were killed during chemical and conventional bombardments stretching from the spring of 1987 through the fall of 1988. The attacks were part of a long-standing campaign that destroyed almost every Kurdish village in vast areas of northern Iraq -- along with a centuries-old way of life -- and displaced at least a million of the country's estimated 3.5 million Kurdish population. Independent sources estimate 100,000 to more than 150,000 deaths and as many as 100,000 widows and an even greater number of orphans. Amnesty International collected the names of more than 17,000 people who had "disappeared" during 1988. The campaign has been characterized as genocidal in nature, notably by a court in The Hague. It is also characterized as gendercidal, because "battle-age" men were the primary targets, according to Human Rights Watch/Middle East. According to the Iraqi prosecutors, as many as 180,000 people were killed." Those are the bare bones facts of it as summarized by Wikipedia. Now unfortunately for kendall, but noticeable to anyone who has studied the events of the Iran/Iraq War, the time line is wrong for what he contends happened to be true, or indeed possible. Perhaps kendall can tell us all exactly where the US got the gas it supplied Saddam with in order to gas all those people. I mean it must have been awfully difficult for the US to do this, not having any chemical weapons in their inventory, and if you do not have the means of delivery, what use is the weaponised version of the gas? US/NATO did not need chemical weapons; their counter to threatened use of such weapons by Soviet or Warsaw Pact countries was to go immediately to tactical nuclear. The US had no formal contacts with Iraq from June 1967 until November 1988, so perhaps kendall can explain how the negotiations were conducted to arrange for the shipment and transfer of all these non-existent munitions. |
|
15 Dec 08 - 10:15 AM (#2515767) Subject: RE: BS: UK caused cholera, says Zimbabwe From: alanabit This link (with extensive bibliography) would suggest that the USA and the UK were not entirely blameless. Here it would appear that the US does not emerge with a great deal of credit. |
|
15 Dec 08 - 10:17 AM (#2515770) Subject: RE: BS: UK caused cholera, says Zimbabwe From: Teribus Appologies last paragraph should read - "The US had no formal contacts with Iraq from June 1967 until November 1984, so perhaps kendall can explain how the negotiations were conducted to arrange for the shipment and transfer of all these non-existent munitions." |
|
15 Dec 08 - 11:16 AM (#2515831) Subject: RE: BS: UK caused cholera, says Zimbabwe From: Teribus Alanabit, First link from the web-site of the "Iran Chamber Society", hardly impartial, but none-the-less I had a good laugh at it. I especially liked the way they described the role of Donald Rumsfeld and his promise of US aid and materials - have a read of the minutes of the meeting between Saddam Hussein and Rumsfeld - no mention of arms or aid. Second link - here I take it that you are drawing our attention to the outpourings of Mr Sarkis Soghanalian, not really very damning are they, and judging by what the man said about the upcoming Gulf War of 1991, his predictions fell way short of the mark, and he clearly demonstrated that he knew nothing of the Iraqi Army of the time, or of Saddam's relationship with the Iraqi Army at the time. From 1973 until 2002 according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute 88% of all weapons supplied to Iraq came from Russia, China, Czechosolvakia and France, not wishing to stress a point alanabit, but US military hardware would be of no use to them, they wouldn't be familiar with the equipment, the weapons would require different ammunition, in short, the idea that the US supplied Iraq with weapons is ridiculous. US policy, in tune with most of the world buying oil from the region, in the 1980s favored a stalemate in the Iran-Iraq war. But the US role in ensuring that outcome was very small as compared to the roles played by the USSR, France, China, and other countries in making sure Saddam's regime was not overrun. What intelligence and other assistance the US provided to prevent Iranian victory pales in comparison to the roles played by several other countries. By the bye alanabit, I'm surprised your Iran Chamber site didn't detail the masses of military hardware that the US made damn sure got to Iran in the early years of the war to make sure Saddam did not win it. Those US mudcatters of an age would know it as the Iran-Contras scandal, the US arms were for Iran letting "Peanut" Carters hostages go. The Iranians could use US hardware alanabit because in the Shah's time the Iranians bought rather a lot of it, but I'll say it again just for emphasis US military hardware would have been of f''k-all use to the Iraqis. |
|
15 Dec 08 - 02:00 PM (#2516031) Subject: RE: BS: UK caused cholera, says Zimbabwe From: alanabit So I am to be surprised that the Americans sold arms to both sides? |
|
15 Dec 08 - 05:44 PM (#2516232) Subject: RE: BS: UK caused cholera, says Zimbabwe From: Teribus Alanabit, just to put it into perspective for you: From 1973 until 2002 according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute of all weapons supplied to Iraq in that period the USA provided 0.46% of them. Now you tell me who should be accused of providing Iraq with the capability of being an "aggressor nation" and a military power, the USA who provided 0.46% or the Group Russia, China and France who supplied 82% of the total. |
|
16 Dec 08 - 10:34 AM (#2516824) Subject: RE: BS: UK caused cholera, says Zimbabwe From: alanabit All of them, of course, Teribus. It is just that when I went looking for evidence of US sales, I was spoilt for choice. No doubt you are right that there were plenty of other snouts in that trough. |
|
16 Dec 08 - 11:22 AM (#2516878) Subject: RE: BS: UK caused cholera, says Zimbabwe From: Teribus Hey Rapaire, hope you've got your alibi ready: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/zimbabwe/3793119/Zimbabwe-air-force-chief-survives-assassination- |
|
16 Dec 08 - 06:29 PM (#2517275) Subject: RE: BS: UK caused cholera, says Zimbabwe From: vectis The world seems to be forgetting that Mugabe is in his mid 80s. There is a high probability that he has some form of dementia and is no longer wholly responsible for his actions. Mugabe was once a hero but lost the plot over the years but really - how many of us would be happy with our Grandfather (however loved) in charge of a country? The bigger villains today are the ones who work hard to keep him in power for their own reasons, which are probably driven by the usual motive of greed. He needs to be retired, with extreme prejudice if necessary, as soon as possible. |
|
16 Dec 08 - 06:41 PM (#2517293) Subject: RE: BS: UK caused cholera, says Zimbabwe From: GUEST,lox I don't normally go round quoting Norman Tebbit, but my curiosity was piqued and my sense of humour tickled by his speculation that Mugabe was displaying symptoms of the advanced stages of syphillis ... ... Private eye later referred to the article, pointing out the irony in Tebbit accusing anyone else of frothing at the mouth, but nonetheless it seemed as good an explanation as any of the other informed comments here. |
|
17 Dec 08 - 11:26 AM (#2517870) Subject: RE: BS: UK caused cholera, says Zimbabwe From: Teribus Mugabe has his main use to ZANU-PF in exactly the same way as Hindenberg was useful as Chancellor to the Nazi's. His "history" affords his party a certain amount of respectability. For years nobody would criticise the great "freedom fighter" and censure from other African Leaders was unthinkable. Now with disease spreading over the borders and the country running out of almost everything cracks are beginning to appear. It has reached the stage now that killing Mugabe as Rapaire suggests would be counter-productive, he'd be regarded as a martyr, after all if they can dream up the story that the UK caused the cholera outbreak, how much easier would it be for them to concoct the story that Mugabe was assassinated by the British. Plenty in Africa and plenty on this forum would swallow it. "No-one will ever rule in Zimbabwe except ZANU-PF" - That's what Bob said wasn't it. When Mugabe steps down, gets shot, or dies peacefully in the traces, my guess is that Shiri, the Chief of the Zimbabwe Air Force will take over and it will be business as usual. |