Do you agree with the British prime minister Gordon Brown's boycotte of the EU summit in protest of president Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe being allow to attend the summit? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7135087.stm

Do you agree with the British prime minister Gordon Brown's boycotte of the EU summit in protest of president Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe being allow to attend the summit? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7135087.stm

yep!

Mugabe needs to be assasinated.

Mugabe needs to be assasinated.
I disagree with that. Had Mr Mugabe not mess with the white people farms, he would not be bad as the British are makeing him out to be. They belive that zimbabwe should be kept as they left it when they colonize it. 2% of the total population owns 60% of all the land in the country.

I disagree with that. Had Mr Mugabe not mess with the white people farms, he would not be bad as the British are makeing him out to be. They belive that zimbabwe should be kept as they left it when they colonize it. 2% of the total population owns 60% of all the land in the country.

What about Mugabe turning Zimbabwe from the "Bread Basket" of the South to a beggar nation in a few short years? The Blacks have the land but don't seem able to farm it profitably.

I'll bet the international community, and the British in particular, are sorry they forced Ian Smith out! Zimbabwe went "from the frying pan into the fire."

I disagree with that. Had Mr Mugabe not mess with the white people farms, he would not be bad as the British are makeing him out to be. They belive that zimbabwe should be kept as they left it when they colonize it. 2% of the total population owns 60% of all the land in the country.
Well. No one knew then, well at least, people know now, that deleting the market makers in your country, regardless of the color, is detrimental.

Some parts of Europe had an "ok" transition from monarchial rule, the monopolistic market makers, because the poeple that stepped into place, were the same old elitist people, who the monarch's had put in place to run the country while they had wine and good cheese.

With the French case, those same elite nobels helped to fund the Revolution and they gained. With the British case, the monarch's power was slowly taken away by the elites, through the same process. Just that in the case of the British, they already had established, due to their geography, the understanding of export and trade through being forced to use their navy to travel. Free trade via the sea, gave them more foreign goods at least and, that bolstered their ecomomy which gave the nobles in the parliament, extra leverage to bargian with, with the peasants, who were always a stones throw away from the revolution the French had. Also, the British nobels who were in parliament, were the land owners and basically town mayors- who ran their district affairs as opposed to the French, who were just businessmen with interests. This was built on the French culture, which was always more cold and uncaring than that of the British. With that, the French economy has never gained the status of the UK economy since that because, of their bloody end to monopolies from the monarchs and, British superiority of the sea which increased their foreign trade.

I say all of that, to say this, and to relate it to what Ping did NOT do to the landed white businessmen when he said bend or break- and that is not shatter the entire system, even though we had a few bad apples who saw color as a symbol of superiority and that entitled them a right to be hogs.

Mugabe, even though he may have been just in his cause, ruptured his economy. And growth, could not have happened with after that rupture, effectively, if at all- because he extracted most of the knowleageble and experienced market makers, from participating in the economy. If they are gone, then, quite frankly, who do you have to run the economy? A bunch of uneducated black farmers? You see the evidence and you decide for yourself.



What about Mugabe turning Zimbabwe from the "Bread Basket" of the South to a beggar nation in a few short years? The Blacks have the land but don't seem able to farm it profitably.

I would say that the country, itself, has not found a way past the Mugabe policy. With this, along with his violent opporession of people who oppose his political will, Mugabe is not with the new times- Zimbabwe can be much better, if he allows some free market principles.

Also, I don't think you are looking at all of the facts, in regards to this situation CG. Read the response to nature boy above. And then, ask yourself, will Mugabe allow the former white businessmen to do business with him as much as they, perhaps, may not want to do business with him themselves?

I would not want to do business with a person, who has the power to revoke my business or privilege at whim. Especially if I am a racist hog, who can't move past his color in anyways. So CG, I think it is quite more complex than just saying "the blacks have not found a way to farm it profitably"....

In addition to that, I am not sure if you know what the Doha Round of the WTO is, and, what are it's issues. But, the round has been stalled with agriculture- as it has always been. Developing countries like Zimbabwe, need market access for their goods. They can't sell their goods to rich consumers, like us in the Bahamas, if the US and the EU subsidizes their agricultural production as they have been doing. The subsidization is not to hurt developing economies, allthough I think it makes it more of an incentive for a racist few. However, it is more to do with the trade war on agriculture that is between the US and the EU, which has intensified since the Kennedy Round in the WTO...when the US forced reductions to EU grain and wheat, or, face serious consequences.

So, while it may have been a bit of a read, I think understanding a few added concepts to this situation, would give more context to the debate moving forward CG.
:)

Well. No one knew then, well at least, people know now, that deleting the market makers in your country, regardless of the color, is detrimental.Yes they did. He did it because he wanted to be deemed the black saviour of his country. "Get all the white people out" was the philosophy.

Mugabe, even though he may have been just in his cause, Incorrect


Zimbabwe can be much better, if he allows some free market principles. Agreed

Also, I don't think you are looking at all of the facts, in regards to this situation CG. Read the response to nature boy above. And then, ask yourself, will Mugabe allow the former white businessmen to do business with him as much as they, perhaps, may not want to do business with him themselves?
Most likely not.

I would not want to do business with a person, who has the power to revoke my business or privilege at whim. Especially if I am a racist hog, who can't move past his color in anyways. So CG, I think it is quite more complex than just saying "the blacks have not found a way to farm it profitably"....
Well, they have not. That is obvious. I am not saying it can't be done but the government over there did not give them the help and expertises needed. Owning a farm is one thing running it another, and running it at a profit something else again. And the bigger the farm the bigger the headaches.

In addition to that, I am not sure if you know what the Doha Round of the WTO is, and, what are it's issues. But, the round has been stalled with agriculture- as it has always been. Developing countries like Zimbabwe, need market access for their goods. They can't sell their goods to rich consumers, like us in the Bahamas, if the US and the EU subsidizes their agricultural production as they have been doing. The subsidization is not to hurt developing economies, allthough I think it makes it more of an incentive for a racist few. However, it is more to do with the trade war on agriculture that is between the US and the EU, which has intensified since the Kennedy Round in the WTO...when the US forced reductions to EU grain and wheat, or, face serious consequences.
When Zimbabwe was Rhodesia, it traded with other African nations and became rich. There is more that enough of a market in Africa alone (in food) to be profitable. But if they are now growing so little that can't feed themselves, how can they export to anyone?

The problem is not the land and who owns it or even market forces. The problem is Mugabe.

I disagree with that. Had Mr Mugabe not mess with the white people farms, he would not be bad as the British are makeing him out to be. They belive that zimbabwe should be kept as they left it when they colonize it. 2% of the total population owns 60% of all the land in the country.

Nonsense! First of all, he isn't being made out to be anything-- he really is a racist thug whose ham handed policies have devestated the country. The preferance is/was to see the country remain as an agricultural gem of Africa, but now the world sees rampant inflation, human rights stifled, and mass starvation all inflicting far more blacks than whites.

The collapse of Zimbabwes agriculture section must have a major negative impact on nieghbouring countries that need food, yet they continue to avoid shunning mugabe if not rebuking him. Talk about 'shooting yourself in the foot'!

Do you agree with the British prime minister Gordon Brown's boycotte of the EU summit in protest of president Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe being allow to attend the summit? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7135087.stm


No.
Mugabe has become a scapegoat for all Western countries to pick on and blame.
Any accomplishment of that government is attacked by every Western country. I used to be anti-Mugabe.....but I now think there is something really fishy about how much he is attacked by Western media.
You never see much good stories about Zimbabwe, even though Mugabe has dramatically increased the education system and built a huge number of schools (I think the most in Africa or something like that).
ZImbabwe has a complicated history....and Britian has a big stake in the modern country. I think the British government wants it to fail as a state. Don't forget Zimbabwe had to fight for independence after years of British colonization and brutal oppression.
Once Mugabe took over, Britain and other Western states wanted him to fail from the get go so as to stop other African states from re-distributing wealth in Africa, which Western countries control.
Like I said, I used to be bigtime anti-Mugabe.....but it is clear that the majority of Western Media companies (a close knit group owned by a couple bigtime billionares) are clearly agaisnt Mugabe and have undertaken a one sided crusade against him.
I do believe he is a bad leader and has done terrible things....but compared to what Britain and other European nations did when they colonized, enslaved, and bruttally ruled Africa, I think the real criminals are the Europeans.

I disagree with that. Had Mr Mugabe not mess with the white people farms, he would not be bad as the British are makeing him out to be. They belive that zimbabwe should be kept as they left it when they colonize it. 2% of the total population owns 60% of all the land in the country.


I agree with you natureboy. Once Mugabe started talking about redistributing land and once he went ahead and did it......all the Western powers decided to take him down.
Can't have those Africans reclaiming the land the rightfully belongs to them.
It's bad to say, but I think there's a lot of racial factors involved....white European countries don't want to see Black Africans reclaim and take back control of land in Africa.

I dont agree or disagree with any of the above, just posting what I found in reference to this. Also, its moreso to point out that Britain is not alone with that view, other countries are also saying the same thing.


Isn't it funny how much western influenced media is against Mugabe?

I dunno who said it first, but follow the money.
Who is funding these massive movements against Mugabe?
Who will benefit from Mugabe, his party, and his parties policies being destroyed?
Why are European nations clearly anti-Mugabe?

I dunno the answers to these questions either, and I'm still not sure what to make of the whole situation.

Mugabe has become a scapegoat for all Western countries to pick on and blame.
He has sure messed the place up enough to be picked on.
Any accomplishment of that government is attacked by every Western country. I used to be anti-Mugabe.....but I now think there is something really fishy about how much he is attacked by Western media.
Fishy? It is a story, a good story of failure. If no one reported on it you would accuse the press of ignoring Africa.
You never see much good stories about Zimbabwe, even though Mugabe has dramatically increased the education system and built a huge number of schools (I think the most in Africa or something like that).
Reminds me what people used to say about Hitler. "At least he made the trains run on time!"
ZImbabwe has a complicated history....
Not really.
and Britian has a big stake in the modern country. I think the British government wants it to fail as a state.
Why? Britain cant turn the clock back. It would be in their best interest to have the country, and their investments stable.
Don't forget Zimbabwe had to fight for independence after years of British colonization and brutal oppression.
...and now he is the brutal oppressor.
Once Mugabe took over, Britain and other Western states wanted him to fail from the get go so as to stop other African states from re-distributing wealth in Africa, which Western countries control.
Africa ultimately controls it, but they don't know how.
Like I said, I used to be bigtime anti-Mugabe.....but it is clear that the majority of Western Media companies (a close knit group owned by a couple bigtime billionares) are clearly agaisnt Mugabe and have undertaken a one sided crusade against him.
Many African oppose him as well.
I do believe he is a bad leader and has done terrible things....
But he has built a school or two - so that gives him a free pass?
but compared to what Britain and other European nations did when they colonized, enslaved, and bruttally ruled Africa, I think its clear who should be the real ones on trial at the Hague.
Brutalizing other people, as bad as that is, is one thing. Brutalizing your own is another.

Isn't it funny how much western influenced media is against Mugabe?
Not at all. He is a brut!
I dunno who said it first, but follow the money.
Who is funding these massive movements against Mugabe?
It is hardly massive but many people want to see him out - not the least ex-pat Zimbabweans, Black and White that had to flee for their lives.
Who will benefit from Mugabe, his party, and his parties policies being destroyed?
The people? South Africa is not to happy with him as I hear. Messes up the whole southern region.
Why are European nations clearly anti-Mugabe?
I am not sure they are. Most could care less.
I dunno the answers to these questions either, and I'm still not sure what to make of the whole situation.
Go visit!