Letter to the Editor
What of Mugabe?
Published Monday, June 30, 2008
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Mixx
Reddit
Stumble It!June 26, 2008
To the editor:
On her visit to the University of Alaska Fairbanks this spring, Sen. Lisa Murkowski defended our invasion of Iraq in the face of despondence and grief because we brought democracy to an oppressed people and “toppled a murderous dictator.”
So does this suggest that we will be rushing to free people from Robert Mugabe’s increasingly oppressive campaign against democracy, the rule of law and basic human decency?
While I’m not advocating military intervention in Zimbabwe yet — sovereignty is the pillar of international law, sometimes tragically — I do suggest that U.S. political pressure and unilateral condemnation of grotesque crimes would be appropriate.
In the same week that American oil majors rejoice in their new agreement on Iraqi petroleum exports, it is sad to note the tepid stance America continues to take on human rights in Zimbabwe (or in Myanmar, or in Sudan … ). What is America’s real commitment to global democracy?
Community Discussion
Newsminer.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full user's agreement.
Murderous dictator. Sham democracy. Why haven't we invaded ourselves yet?
We have. You lost.
As mentioned before, get someone else, that will be tough on these global democracy issues! We are in a tought spot with UN as Americans!
They tried to take our guns but failed. One thing we have is Freedom for the people, use it.
When practiced by most nations Military Interventionism is totally flawed.
Militarism is a bull in a "china closet" [or museum of antiquities]
There is Never Victory in War.
History is much-much-much more complex than is portrayed on television.
America in practice has no commitment to Global Democracy...
...just profiteering and piracy.
The opposite of Progress is Congress and it is found in WARshington District of Criminals...
...hopefully someday all great nations will decentralize and we can let Disney Productions make the capitol into a theme-park to scare the kids with about how life was like in the bad-old-days.
http://www.beyondplutocracy.com/
----
http://ni4d.us/
----
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/
----
War never solved anything.
Well, except for achieving American independence, it never solved anything.
Okay, except for that and ending slavery.
Um, and putting a stop to the Nazi threat. But aside from that...
What were we talking about again?
Com'on, human rights issues will always take a back burner to OIL! It sounds terrible but it's true. Wars work just fine until politicians started running (ruining) things. Let military forces annihilate anything in the way then secure the country and offer basic support until "friendly" forces can be trained and established in the area and surrounding countries. I sleep good at night!
zimbabwe doesn't pose much of a threat to world security. neither does sudan or myanmar (burma). sadam did pose a threat to world security, iran does too. so while mugabe is abhorrent, he winds up on the back burner along with the civil war between the tutsi and hutu and the like because we can't be the worlds policeman for a variety of reasons.
So let me get this right...
Everyone hates Bush and our government because they keep sticking our nose in other countries business and now someone wants us to go stick our nose somewhere else nobody wants it to be and thinks it's our responsibility?
I echo your original question, what OF Mugabe? As in so what. I didn't want to go to Afghanistan and I didn't want to go to Iraq either, why should we go there too? You disagree with our being where we are, yet you advocate going somewhere else. Will you being donning a uniform, grabbing a weapon, and joining us on this trip?
Maybe President Obama will invade Zimbabwe and topple Mugabe. Well first, he'd have to have tea with him and talk things over, but then...
"War never solved anything.
Well, except for achieving American independence, it never solved anything.
Okay, except for that and ending slavery.
Um, and putting a stop to the Nazi threat."
Sure, but the point is that war produces losers on all sides. Look at how many millions upon millions of people were killed during the wars you mentioned. Some of them were evil, yes, but many were in the wrong place at the wrong time. I think the days of carpet bombing and mass invasion has long past, and is archaic. Diplomacy and surgical precision are needed to confront threats.
In my humble libertarian opinion, it seems that many who are proponents of invasions and wars are the types who side with nazis on racial issues and who secretly would love to own slaves. Freedom to white christians is their mantra (oh, and of course freedom to the oil molecules). So Mugabe and Zimbabwe do not count.
The UN should get some guts and hire private military firms under a UN contract to oust Magabe and his cronies and to establish security.
MEL1776---
I wouldn't count on that. And if they did, it would turn out to be the most corrupt operation since "Oil for Food" in Iran, or the UN child molesters already in Africa. The only thing that the UN could do that would be good for the world's people is to disband.
I meant Iraq.
The UN should handle Africa's problem with our support. We can not afford to be Team America the World Police.
Since we are already involved in two wars and quite possibly will invade Iran before the war criminal that is our president leaves office, we already have enough on our plate.
wow people, have you been to Africa (not in a dream EVER), HMMMMM might want to read what happened in Rwanda, and last year in Kenya regarding war and the HUGE loss of life, and gee thanks Mr. Clinton for doing nothing........gotta love democrats.....
Thank you all for your comments. I only want to note that I am NOT endorsing military intervention - that's how I start the third paragraph. I do leave it open ended, however, mainly to raise the question: if we're willing to send our people to war (and ACMan...I did not want you to go to Iraq, nor Afghanistan, and I don't want you to go to Zimbabwe!), then for what reasons? Here is a pressing humanitarian reason, another a perceived threat to global security (though that threat has largely been debunked polarmark). I am not so naive as to think that oil, or politics, trump more prosaic justifications like, well, saving human lives. But the paradox (Murkowski's quote) was worth noting, and you've all addressed it yourselves now. Thanks.
Africa is a hopeless money-burner.
I think we should let them solve their own problems, or in the alternative, let organizations like one I read about somewhere where a guy is building schools, and teaching agriculture, and good stuff through private donations.
Hate to say it, but Africa seemed to do better when it was colonized.
But that's wrong, so let'em figure it out.
As far as the UN goes, I completely agree with glacierles' last post.
Post a comment
Commenting requires registration.