10 Comments »

1. Maybe the PM would like to outline the differences between the political situation in Zimbabwe and the political situation in Iraq before we invaded. (not including the massive oil reserves)

   We have a responsibility to the people of this country, they are our ex-colony, and we appointed Mugabe. We have betrayed them.

   Comment by Frank Wallis — 29 Apr 2004 on 5:52 pm | Link

2. Maybe the PM would like to outline the differences between the political situation in Zimbabwe and the political situation in Iraq before we invaded. (not including the massive oil reserves)

   We have a responsibility to the people of this country, they are our ex-colony, and we appointed Mugabe. We have betrayed them.

   Comment by Frank Wallis — 29 Apr 2004 on 5:52 pm | Link

3. Mugabe won the 1980 election. We would have preferred Canaan Banana’s UANC to win but the Zimbabweans did not vote for them. Are you actually supporting an invasion of Zimbabwe?

   Comment by David Boothroyd — 29 Apr 2004 on 11:34 pm | Link

4. Why not? After all, we invaded Iraq for "humanitarian" reasons. Mugabe is and has been responsible for numerous human rights abuses. The same twisted logic which TB and GB used to invade Iraq therefore must also apply to Zimbabwe, surely? Otherwise that’s just outright hypocricy.

   Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 30 Apr 2004 on 3:55 am | Link

5. Why not combine the two? Get Mugabe to agree to let control of the country ride on the test series – Zimbabwe win – he stays, England win, he goes. Then the ECB can fulfill their contractual obligations, and negate the ethical issue (unless they lose).

   Comment by Lodjer — 30 Apr 2004 on 10:08 am | Link

6. I’m not sure the ‘same logic’ does apply. Zimbabwe has never developed WMD and is not a threat to neighbouring countries. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t invade – perhaps there should be a provision in international law to allow action to remove despotic governments. In previous years we often accepted ‘friendly dictatorships’ as being preferable to Communism, but this tolerance is no longer present.

   But weren’t you against the liberation of Iraq? Does this argument in favour of liberation of Zimbabwe mean you have changed your mind?

   Comment by David Boothroyd — 30 Apr 2004 on 11:18 am | Link

7. Iraq did not have any WMDs and was not a threat to neighbouring countries – until the US/UK forces invaded and occupied it. I am strongly in favour of liberating Iraq and the sooner it happens the better.

   Although the situation in Zimbabwe does has some similarities to Iraq, I think a more sensible analogy is to apartheit South Africa. Successive Government’s supported sanctions against South Africa and a ban on sporting involvement (despite some wavering by Thatcher) so why won’t the current Government do the same for Zimbabwe?

   Comment by Uncarved Block — 30 Apr 2004 on 12:52 pm | Link

8. Not me, David – I wasn’t against the liberation of Iraq. I was all for it – PROVIDING we had the backing of the International community via a second UN resolution. The fact that I will never believe Tony Blair did not outright lie about Iraqi intelligence, WMD etc, or that Alistair Campbell’s diversion via Kelly, Hutton et al was not a deliberate strategy to protect Tony is a moot point. My problem was only ever with the way we (the UK & US) disingeniously exaggerated the intelligence about Iraqs military & NBC threat in order to give us a reason to invade.

   I don’t want to re-open that particular can of worms; suffice to say that my point about extending the same logic to Zimbabwe was aptly explained by yourself, if unintentionally. If we now accept that Iraq had little in the way of remaining WMD capability, then the only remaining straw of justification for the invasion was for humanitarian reasons, to remove Saddam and his murderous regime.

   (Knowing that they were going against the wishes of the International community anyway, I’m surprised that no-one has had the balls to come out and admit that regime change WAS the original idea; that Saddam was a mad dog and should have been shot out of hand a long time ago); then at least if our government had been more open, more honest (and I see no reason why they should hav lied about it), accusations of duplicity against Tony would certainly have been reduced).

   But I digest. If humanitarian grounds is the only possible remaining justification (isn’t the US just doing a GREAT job on that front?), then surely the same helping hand should be extended to the citizens of ALL countries who suffer under their putative leaders. Especially, one would have thought, a former colony. Of course, I accept that it would be physically and logistically impossible to remove every dodgy regime; in that case, perhaps we should think very very carefully about where we interfere, and whose side we bat for so readily – or we open ourselves to justifiable worldwide condemnation – as has happened with Iraq.

   Anyway, nice idea Lodger – amusing way to sort out a few problems if you think about it. How about Sharon v. Arafat at darts? Dubya v. Saddam jelly wrestling for Iraq?

   Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 30 Apr 2004 on 12:56 pm | Link

9. Could also bring about about a massive turn in fortune for us if we were relying on our cricket team to do the business. Mind you, they are probably better at coping with extreme conditions than the military – such problems as "sand" and "fog".

   Comment by Lodjer — 30 Apr 2004 on 4:29 pm | Link

10. I can’t imagine that giving Sharon and Arafat pointy throwing objects is going to lead to anything other than tears before bedtime.

    Comment by Lodjer — 30 Apr 2004 on 4:33 pm | Link

---

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Post a public comment

Name (required)
E-mail (required)
(You must give an email address, but it will not be displayed to the public.)
Website
(You may give your website, and it will be displayed to the public.)

Comments:

This is not a way of contacting the Prime Minister. If you would like to contact the Prime Minister, go to the 10 Downing Street official site.

Privacy note: Shortly after posting, your name and comment will be displayed on the site. This means that people searching for your name on the Internet will be able to find and read your comment.