Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Southack

In pre 1900s Zimbabwe would of been ripped apart by civil war or invaded by a neighbor by now. I don’t understand todays world. How does a failed nation, stay nation for this long?


9 posted on 09/19/2007 2:59:15 AM PDT by neb52
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]


To: neb52

Socialists would be embarassed to admit that Mugabe is worse, much worse in *every* sense, than the “racist” Rhodesian regime which they championed to be replaced by native rule.

In the meantime, Socialists coerced Western governments into threatening anyone who tried a military intervention in “Zimbabwe,” even though that is the inevitable outcome.

To paper over their glaring mistake, Socialists will next beg South Africa to invade and annex Zimbabwe...then they will demand that the West give South Africa vast amounts of rebuilding aid for Zim.

It will be yet another example of Socialists being anti-war until they need one (i.e. to occupy and annex Zimbabwe into SA). Kosovo 1999 being another.

It will make for a great campaign 2008 question for Hillary, though.

“Senator Clinton, would you support a South African invasion of Zimbabwe?”


11 posted on 09/19/2007 6:08:50 AM PDT by Southack (Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

To: neb52
In pre 1900s Zimbabwe would of been ripped apart by civil war or invaded by a neighbor by now. I don’t understand todays world. How does a failed nation, stay nation for this long?

Because no one else wants the place.

24 posted on 09/24/2007 12:20:41 PM PDT by Max in Utah (O Wise and Most Excellent Rulers of America: WHERE-IS-OUR-FENCE?!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson