Bush: Zimbabwe's Mugabe is a "Discredited Dictator"

www.reuters.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Haha...I found this slightly amusing. Dubya referring to someone else as a 'discredited dictator'. Although truthful, it's the ultimate case of throwing stones in a glass house, coming from the Pinnochio Decider.

www.reuters.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

"A discredited dictator" as opposed to what? Seems a bit like the oft-used MSM news "brutal murder"-- as opposed, of course, to a gentle murder.

I'm sure the irony will escape some-- Bush saying a "discredited" dictator presides over food shortages, staggering inflation and harsh repression-- again, as opposed to gentle repression.

reply to post by DimensionalDetective

---

It is rather humorous and sad at the same time.

Bush had no problem invading a buddy of his in Iraq. He seems very adamant about defiling other countries' problems, but has a tough time facing those in his own country.

Fuhrer Bush, as I'm sure he calls himself behind closed doors, needs to clean the skeletons out of his own closet before he says anything about anyone else.

What a hypocrite

Talk about calling the kettle black...

[edit on 2/14/2008 by biggie smalls]

As much as I hate armed intervention, I almost have to wonder if its necessary in a case like this. Should Mugabe be forcibly overthrown by an external force? Should external anti-Mugabe governments provide arms to anti-Mugabe rebels?

duh!!!!!! he finally noticed?????? must be hunting for republican votes.

chromatico,

Africa is already in turmoil due to imperial intervention (China, Russia, Europe, US). We do not need to invade any more countries for the sake of helping them unless the people cry out for help.

The problem with invasions is that we never really know who the 'enemy' is. There's always a perceived threat, and in a place like Africa/Middle East, you can never be sure who you are fighting for.

IF we leave the rest of the world alone with our policies and interventions, maybe the world will work itself out (and I include all countries who do the invading under the 'we' China included).

reply to post by biggie smalls

---

As one who opposes the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan I would tend to agree but its hard to look at the monumental suffering of Zimbaweans (which is starting to cause problems for neighboring countries) and take notice of the fact that the government there is not very strong and be ok with just standing by. Is there ANYTHING they can be done?

IMO it's a disgrace that the world continues to give mugabe any kind of validation.

The man is a monster, but what can we do about it?

Sanctions don't affect him one little bit - they just serve to hurt the population.

Then again, that never stopped shrub before.

reply to post by budski

---

Mugabe knows 99.9% of his people and the whole rest of the world hate him intensly but he couldn't care less as long as he can continue to loot his fellow citizens to live in the lap of luxury. Armed intervention may only make the situation worse but it sure as hell is tempting at a time like this...

It was even more tempting when he was practicing his own version of ethnic cleansing against white farmers - where were all the liberal hand-wringers then?

This man really is an abomination.

I completely agree with your statement. However, the governments have better things to worry about like how they are going to make their next buck.

The Zimbabweans are suffering, as are the Sudanese, as are the Ethiopians, Kenyans, West Africans as a whole...

To stop one atrocity means we have to stop them all, which I'm all for.

reply to post by biggie smalls

---

One would love to do that but realistically you can't solve all the world's problems in one fell swoop. Nevertheless, even by the standards of other dysfunctional governments, Zimbabwe really, really takes the cake.

It is always funny listening to people argue the point of war. While it may be true that many have noble intentions, it is seldom the outcome. We hear, “Stop the terrorism.” They mean, secure oil. South Africa had sanctions placed against it during Apartheid, but do prey tell where America got all the Nuclear fuel during the cold war, when South Africa was the only non-USSR country producing at the time? Russia? And while the perceived ideas for any war, seem noble, did it not place the winners in a position to accrue greater wealth? Even WW2. Do we really believe that the US, or even Great Britain went to war, for purely noble reasons?
I cannot see how any military intervention will help Zimbabwe. Maybe the best course is to educate the people of Zimbabwe, so they become aware of the situation they are in, and the choices which they as a country can make. The truth is, most Zimbabweans do not even know that Mugabe is the cause of all their troubles. I have spoken to many Zimbabweans, who up until their emigration was under the strong impression that all their troubles were as a direct result of white imperial rule. I
For those who feel that war is the only option, and that education is not the answer, consider this, South Africa had the most peaceful transition from oppressive government to Democracy. Without a single outbreak of violence! How was this achieved? Well, President Nelson Mandela once gave a talk at my school, and he summed it up something like this. To change the world, you need not destroy it. You need not kill for it. You need not raise a single arm to it. Changeing the world is easy. It all begins with changing one man’s view of it. And in that change of view, the world itself can and will change.