Posted on 04/05/2008 12:35:25 PM PDT by moderatewolverine
If you want to understand this week's events in Zimbabwe, a little history might be helpful. For it demonstrates how the responsibility for what has happened in that country over the past two decades lies firmly with Robert Mugabe and the decisions he has made.
The past terrible few years raise questions about how President Mugabe came to power. Was the Lancaster House agreement - which brought an end to the civil war in Zimbabwe and allowed for the victory of Mugabe - a mistake? I am convinced that it was not.
When I became Margaret Thatcher's Foreign Secretary in 1979 the Rhodesia/Zimbabwe problem was near the top of my in-tray. It had bedevilled successive governments ever since Ian Smith unilaterally declared independence in 1965 and set up a white-minority government. It had soured Commonwealth relations and damaged our relationship with some of our closest allies. The election of 1979, under a constitution that gave disproportionate power to the whites, which brought Bishop Abel Muzorewa to power was not recognised as legitimate by any other country, except South Africa, because Joshua Nkomo and Mugabe, the main rebel opposition leaders, were not allowed to take part.
(Excerpt) Read more at timesonline.co.uk ...
How can he look at Zimbabwe today and say, “I’d do the same thing again?”
Some people are not capable of admitting their mistakes.
What do you mean “we”, kemo sabe?
“Yes you did, Brett, yes you did” - Jules in Pulp Fiction
Because to a commie individuals just don't matter.
Putting into power a man who's socialist and racists ideals turned a world class spa into an actual cesspool.
Furthermore if anyone takes the time to compare Mugabe with Obama you will see that these two black leaders basically have the same ideas as to how a country must be run.
I'm not sure that a majority of Democrats truly see Obama and his Black Liberation Theology for what it truly is for America.
Racists as this statement might seem to the do-gooders but the correlation between the voters for Mugabe and those inner circle supporters of Obama seem eerily similar.
The truth sometimes hurts but for Americas sake I hope enough voters use common sense not to elect Obama to run our country.
Just the lowly opinion of a red state wannabe.
Isn’t Carrington the British official an American diplomat, unaware he was overheard or perhaps being recorded, called “a duplicitous bastard”?
The more I think about it, I am pretty sure it was Alexander Haig who called Lord Carrington “a duplicitous bastard”.
“We had to destroy the country to save it”
This nut job tries to whitewash so to speak the stupidity of taking Africa's wealthiest country and turning it into one of Africa's poorest countries.Think of it as correcting the mistake that Cecil Rhodes made in the first place.
Think of it as correcting the mistake that Cecil Rhodes made in the first place
Comment:
Cecil Rhodes
So are you saying that the people of Rhodesia (Bechuanaland) were exceedingly happy existing with their 17th century lifestyle?
Therefore, to make up for Cecil Rhodes helping colonize Bechuanaland, Robert Mugabe has returned the former Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) back to 17th century status.
Are not the sins of Cecil Rhodes the same kinds of justification Jessie Jackson, John Conyers, Reverend Wright, Al Sharpton, Louis Farrakhan and other racist's baiter's and enabler's use for making current day Whitey's pay reparations.
There could be great amounts of truth to what many common sense commentators are saying as to the real reason why feel good air headed Liberals overlook Barracks Hussein Obama’s major short comings and are supporting him for president.
That real reason being feel good air headed Liberals believe a vote for Obama will mitigate them of the sins of our fore fathers.
Just the lowly opinion of a red state wannabe.
What’s the “we” crap?
Politics is often the choice between bad alternatives. But in this case it is extremely difficult to imagine a worse one than the one this turned out to be. If the Smith government may be accused of racism, what of Mugabe's? Under one of the two the economy was reasonably healthy and the country a food exporter. Under the other, disaster and disater respectively.
The truth of the matter is that neighboring countries and their European sympathizers fanned a revolution based on the latest racist and anci-colonial theories, won it, and are watching as the citizens on whose behalf it was nominally fought pay a dear price for their stupidity and ideological folly.
OH, I thought this was a thread about Pelosi, Dean, or Murtha. Or Feinstein, or Spitzer, or Clinton, or Boxer.
Sorry.
So are you saying that the people of Rhodesia (Bechuanaland) were exceedingly happy existing with their 17th century lifestyle?Yawn... you are a whiny commie aren't you?Therefore, to make up for Cecil Rhodes helping colonize Bechuanaland, Robert Mugabe has returned the former Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) back to 17th century status.
Frankly I don't care they can live as they want. If they want to live in squalor good for them. However, that doesn't take away from the fact that whites should never have been there in the first place. Rhodesia, from Rhodes to Smith was a white tyranny that came from slaughtering and enslaving the locals. They were "nicer" than king leopold but that's not saying much.
They gave them good fair government, good free education and security.
Many of the private farms provided schools and medical clinics for thier workers.
Far from killing them, the Europeans stopped the killing. Of course if the Africans tried to kill the Whites, the Whites did defend themselves.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.