Countries interfering with other countries

Paul Watson

Where is the line drawn in what one country can say and do about the practices of another countries government within it's own borders? i.e. This thread is not about one country causing trouble in another country, this is about a countries government causing trouble internally and what you think the responsibilities, if any, of other countries are. In 11 days Zimbabwe will hold national elections. For those who don't know Zimbabwe is in a bad way with all thanks to it's current leader of 22 years, Robert Mugabe. Personally, I think the man should be assasinated, and it should have been done three years ago when he started going senile. The national community is calling for free and fair elections, though as most of us know Mugabe is being anything but free and fair. Sanctions do not even slow him down. His latest act has been to accuse the leader of the oposition with high treason. Most open minded people realise that even if it is true it has been done merely to try and stop the oposition from winning the elections. That is probably the nicest thing Mugabe has done over the last year. Other acts include terrorising oposition supporters, assaulting election officials, clamping down on the media (by arresting them or fireboming their offices.) Now Mugabe is complaining that the world, who is finally getting it's act together and opposing him, should leave Africa to itself and let it run itself as it sees fit. He is complaining about interference and "a colonial threat." So the question is: How much right does another country have in voicing and actioning their oposition to another countries leaders tactics? Where do we draw the line? At what point do we stop trying to be nice and start trying to oust the government? Just interested to hear your HOs :) regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass Cape Town, South Africa "The greatest thing you will ever learn is to love, and be loved in return" - Moulin Rouge Sonork ID: 100.9903 Stormfront

Michael P Butler

Paul Watson wrote: So the question is: How much right does another country have in voicing and actioning their oposition to another countries leaders tactics? Where do we draw the line? At what point do we stop trying to be nice and start trying to oust the government? When he stops buying his arms from us. When he starts to threaten our oil supplies. Michael :-)

Paul Watson

Michael P Butler wrote: When he stops buying his arms from us. When he starts to threaten our oil supplies. So as soon as another country threatens to stop selling you a vital commodity you feel it is ok to interfere with that other country? Isn't that country just excersing it's right to free trade? Sure I do realise they are being very underhanded about it, using their oil card to manipulate other countries. Just remember one of the reasons Japan attacked America was to ensure their supply of natural resources, mainly oil. So is that justified? And IMHO instead of getting all petulant and nasty about it, the countries affected should find alternate oil supplies or alternate energy types. Self dependance, hard to do, but might as well move towards it. (yes I noticed the cynic tags, but still curious to know what people think about this) regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass Cape Town, South Africa "The greatest thing you will ever learn is to love, and be loved in return" - Moulin Rouge Sonork ID: 100.9903 Stormfront

Chris Losinger

i agree, 100%. but unfortunately, the larger the group of people, the more likely they are to act, as a group, like a 3 year old. see anything written by William Golding (Lord of the Files, Ox Bow Incident, etc) for illustrations of this. -c

Smaller Animals Software, Inc. You're the icing - on the cake - on the table - at my wake. Modest Mouse

Paul Watson

Chris Losinger wrote: but unfortunately, the larger the group of people, the more likely they are to act, as a group, like a 3 year old. I just hate seeing, especially in Zim's case, a core group of individuals who hold such power over their populace. Most of even Mugabes supporters cannot stand the man and are just using his name to rob the country blind. The rest are too scared to oppose him. Those who do are beaten or killed. IMHO that is just cause for other countries to intervene. And yes, mob mentality certainly is a powerful and idiotic force. :mad: regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass Cape Town, South Africa "The greatest thing you will ever learn is to love, and be loved in return" - Moulin Rouge Sonork ID: 100.9903 Stormfront

Roger Allen

Paul Watson wrote: His latest act has been to accuse the leader of the oposition with high treason. Most open minded people realise that even if it is true it has been done merely to try and stop the oposition from winning the elections I saw a news report on this last night. It looked like the guy was guilty of just being stupid whilst being filmed by a hidden camara. X| As for RM, I think the problem Zimbabwe has is that there is no maximum term a given leader can be in power for. I think he just got too used to the power and the status and doesn't want to give it up for anything. If there was something in the countries constitution (a bit like the USA - max 2 terms) to stop the same leader always being in power, this would open the country up for far fairer elections and also much more accountable govournment (as the same people cannot cover their asses after leaving power). I think such a system should also be applied to the UK myself. Max 8 years for any leader. After that, I think burn-out and complacency tends to set in. Roger Allen Sonork 100.10016 If I'm not breathing, I'm either dead or holding my breath. A fool jabbers, while a wise man listens. But is he so wise to listen to the fool?

Todd C Wilson

Nothing will be done until the USA gubberment needs to stage another distraction to keep the voting public on their side. So until Mugabe is continually branded a Big Problem that Must Be Handled, nothing is gonna happen.

Visual Studio Favorites - www.nopcode.com/visualfav - improve your development!

Mike Epprecht

The strategic importance of a country is directly proportional to the interference that it can expect. If the USA was really interested, they would have already sent the Marines to Zim. They rather chase some goats in a cold mountain looking for an Arab that has long ago evaded them, than protect their supply ot Tabacco and Bananas. It is perfectly OK for a member of the G8 to try and overthrow a government (US vs AF). Cheers Mike Johannesburg, South Africa

Paul Watson

Roger Allen wrote: If there was something in the countries constitution (a bit like the USA - max 2 terms) to stop the same leader always being in power, this would open the country up for far fairer elections and also much more accountable govournment Unfortuantley in Zim's case that is a bit naive. Rober Mugabe has already changed the constitution of the country once, without a proper vast majority vote result. He started out a good leader but lately, last 5 or so'ish years, has gone off the rails. No constitutional agreement about max-term will stop RM, he will either change it or simply ignore it. Having it in place from the very begining may have helped, but then again if a man can go so off the rails he must have had the tendencies from the very begining. Also I do not know whether the oposition leader is any better (are any of them?) but all Zim needs right now is for RM to go. Once he is gone things will have hit their rock bottom and Zim can start the slow road to recovery. regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass Cape Town, South Africa "The greatest thing you will ever learn is to love, and be loved in return" - Moulin Rouge Sonork ID: 100.9903 Stormfront

Ozgur

hi, >"Where is the line drawn in what one country can say and do >about the practices of another countries government within >it's own borders" I think that most of the western countries feel themselves as they have the right to do something about the practices of another countries government especially in Africa because they have drawn the border lines of the African countries during the colonial sharing of africa between them. and what most of the western countries especially england minding about is not the attacks aginst human rights and demokracy in Zimbabwe.They are worried because Mugambe is getting the lands from English farmers -which were occupied by England during colonialism time -back as they belong to Zimbabwe not to England. It is not honest to be against Mugambe in Zimbabwe but to support other Mugambes in other countries for Profit. All of the citizens of the world have right to say something about intternall practices in other countries as long as they are protecting the universal human rights. with greetings from Germany Özgür "No one can be perfectly free till all are free; no one can be perfectly happy till all are happy."

Simon Capewell

Roger Allen wrote: I think such a system should also be applied to the UK myself. Max 8 years for any leader. After that, I think burn-out and complacency tends to set in. I'd agree with that. Look at Thatcher in her third term. Up until that point she'd helped drag the country out of a slump. I'd also say it's the only way we'll get rid of Blair in the forseeable future - the problem being that he knows he's guaranteed at least one more term to do what the hell he likes.

Lost User

Özgür wrote: All of the citizens of the world have right to say something about intternall practices in other countries as long as they are protecting the universal human rights. Right on. I couldn't agree more. When innocent, peace loving peoples' rights and lives are being trampled on, the World at large should have an obligation to intervene. Josh Knox that-guy.net
"Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way, when you criticize them, you're a mile away, and you have their shoes." - author unknown

Nemanja Trifunovic

Paul Watson wrote: So the question is: How much right does another country have in voicing and actioning their oposition to another countries leaders tactics? That depends on how much power "another country" has. There is no "right" and "wrong" in politics. It's just "we can do it" or "we can not do it". I vote pro drink :beer: