Lets invade Zimbabwe

ttooddddyy

PNG FTW,
Joined
Nov 29, 2001
Posts
8,335
When the shit is over in Iraq (when we pull out, and leave a civil war) why not move into Zimbabwe to remove Robert Mugabe, who is as evil a dictator as Suddam if not more so. Trouble is there is no oil thier to fund it.
 

Lagduf

2>X
20 Year Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2002
Posts
51,606
ttooddddyy said:
When the shit is over in Iraq (when we pull out, and leave a civil war) why not move into Zimbabwe to remove Robert Mugabe, who is as evil a dictator as Suddam if not more so. Trouble is there is no oil thier to fund it.

We'll just have to take over the whole of Africa. Theres bound to be WMDs and Oil there.

Somewhere.
 

Spoonman

Enemy Chaser
Joined
Jan 14, 2004
Posts
1,168
Uh if they weren't so aids-struck you could use their blood for something...(?)
 

ttooddddyy

PNG FTW,
Joined
Nov 29, 2001
Posts
8,335
Lagduf said:
We'll just have to take over the whole of Africa. Theres bound to be WMDs and Oil there.

Somewhere.

Theres lots of oil in Africa, especially Nigeria.
Not so much in Zim.
What I was getting at in a sarcastic way, applogies for that (as you know) is the duplicity.
If we are after terrorists, and dictators- lets get the worst first.
Suddam is a puppy compared to Robert Mugabe, but Suddam had oil.
 

Lagduf

2>X
20 Year Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2002
Posts
51,606
ttooddddyy said:
Theres lots of oil in Africa, especially Nigeria.
Not so much in Zim.
What I was getting at in a sarcastic way, applogies for that (as you know) is the duplicity.
If we are after terrorists, and dictators- lets get the worst first.
Suddam is a puppy compared to Robert Mugabe, but Suddam had oil.

The sad part really is that much of the world could frankly give a damn about Africa.
 

ttooddddyy

PNG FTW,
Joined
Nov 29, 2001
Posts
8,335
Lagduf said:
The sad part really is that much of the world could frankly give a damn about Africa.

I beg to disagree, all African nations have lots to offer in terms of, potential development, tourism, trade and possible industy. Many of the countries are considered 3rd world and need help from the "west"
some other African counties seem to do OK, not neccesseraly talking about SA.
BTW I am in Papua New Guinea (abbreviate PNG) not Equitorial Guinea in Africa, PNG is in the South Pacific, we share the same land mass as the Island of Irian Jaya (West Papua) Indonesia, north of Australia.
 

ttooddddyy

PNG FTW,
Joined
Nov 29, 2001
Posts
8,335
The trouble is that in a lot of developing countries, there is a lot of graft and corruption. With Mugabe, he has not only stolen the national funds, but tortured and murdered anyone who tries to touch him.
The guy is a common criminal = on a worst scale compared to Suddan.
When we "finish the job" in Iraq, lets move on to Zim.
BTW I spent some time in Harare
 

galfordo

Analinguist of the Year
15 Year Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2003
Posts
18,418
This guy doesn't have the financial backing to be a threat. Also, I'm not sure that he has the kind of animosity toward the US that people like Saddam or Bin Laden have. That's the difference. I'd love to see his ass get smashed, but that's the excuse they'd give.
 

ttooddddyy

PNG FTW,
Joined
Nov 29, 2001
Posts
8,335
galfordo said:
This guy doesn't have the financial backing to be a threat. Also, I'm not sure that he has the kind of animosity toward the US that people like Saddam or Bin Laden have. That's the difference. I'd love to see his ass get smashed, but that's the excuse they'd give.

The animosity is against the UK, Mugabe is a very racist individual, he remembers the colonial days of Rhodesia, the man has an axe to grind, I some times come accross this sentement in PNG, (btw I do not see colour, I have a black PNG wife who is a wonderfull woman )
 

galfordo

Analinguist of the Year
15 Year Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2003
Posts
18,418
ttooddddyy said:
I do not see colour, I have a black PNG wife who is a wonderfull woman

Me neither .... I have a black office mate whom I wish was my wife :drool_2: :drool_2: . Man she's hot - and that cute little voice .... but I digress :D.
 

galfordo

Analinguist of the Year
15 Year Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2003
Posts
18,418
ttooddddyy said:
Well good luck on the date ;)

Heh, thanks man. Unfortunately, I think she's a little out of my league in the looks department - but that doesn't mean I can't try! I'm a glutton for punishment :D.
 

xRealNinjuzx

Astra Superstar
Joined
Dec 28, 2003
Posts
657
Ok everyone, here is your history lesson for the day.

In 1897 and 1898, Britain used assassination, intrigue, and threats to carve out a piece of Iraq and rule it through the Sheikh of Kuwait. In 1920, after World War I, Britain, France, and the U.S. seized the rights to 95% of the oil in Iraq. By 1932, Britain had expanded Kuwait from a small village on the Gulf into a colony occupying the entire coastline of the Persian Gulf from Arabia to Iran, completely shutting off Iraq from access to the Gulf. For the next half a century, British intelligence murdered almost every Iraqi leader and king, because they called for the return of Kuwait. By 1958 the U.S. was an equal partner with Britain in the coups and assassinations. Together they backed a coup against King Faisal II (who had himself been installed by the British). He was killed and replaced with Abdel Karim Qassim. But he too called for the return of Kuwait, so CIA chief Allen Dulles ordered his assassination. After the job was botched a couple of times, the CIA gave the assignment to one of its promising young assassins Saddam Hussein. With the help of a CIA airlift, he succeeded. By 1968, Saddam Hussein was in complete control and, under CIA direction, killing trade unionists, radicals, and Communists.

In 1977, US National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski met with Saddam Hussein, the Emir of Kuwait, and a Saudi representative, and proposed that Iraq invade Iran, seizing the Khuzestan oil fields. In 1982, US FBI chief William Webster met with the Emir of Kuwait and plotted the seizure of Iraqi oil fields and the slant-drilling with which Kuwait and western oil companies stole $14 billion worth of Iraqi oil.

Two months later, on July 20, 1990, General Schwarzkopf conducted training exercises simulating exactly the contingency of an Iraqi attack on Kuwait. Five days later, April Glaspie gave Saddam the green light to invade Kuwait. A week later, he did. Almost immediately, the U.S. deployed as many troops and twice as much materiel as was moved for the Normandy invasion. Do you think this was done without advance planning?

This was the war they wanted, the war they planned for, the war they instigated, the war they salivated over. This was the war that would demonstrate the capabilities of the smart bombs made by our weapons manufacturers. It was better than a hundred trade shows. This was the war that would prove that George Bush was not a wimp. This was the war that would make billions for the oil company owned by the president’s son, George Bush, Jr., who had exclusive rights to offshore oil in the Gulf.

Saddam was suckered into our trap. And he fell for it. He crossed the undefended border of Kuwait, and in response our government dropped 300 to 400 million pounds of high explosives on Iraq. This onslaught destroyed tens of thousands of buildings and essentially every bridge, power plant, and industrial facility in the country. It killed a quarter of a million Iraqis, including at least 100,000 civilians, of which half were children. Now here we are eight years later, and the shocking death toll from the Gulf War has been dwarfed by that from our continuing war against Iraq. Not only have we failed to rebuild what we destroyed; we have imposed economic sanctions which have prevented the Iraqis and everyone else from doing so.

In the eight years since the end of Desert Storm, one and a half million Iraqis have died as a direct result of US/UN sanctions. It is now estimated that among those who have lost their lives are three quarters of a million children under the age of five! And the dying goes on. A million Iraqi children are seriously malnourished, and 150 to 200 are dying every day.

Among the ordnance we used on Iraq were some 500 tons of depleted uranium bombs and artillery shells. The radioactive dust covering the southern part of Iraq has caused birth defects and cancer rates to soar. As if that weren’t enough, we periodically continue to drop bombs and cruise missiles on that devastated nation.

-Kris
 

galfordo

Analinguist of the Year
15 Year Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2003
Posts
18,418
xRealNinjuzx said:
Saddam was suckered into our trap. And he fell for it.
-Kris

Saddam the victim .... now I've heard it all.

May I inquire about the source of this history? Seems a little slanted to me.
 

DevilRedeemed

teh
20 Year Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2002
Posts
13,633
galfordo said:
Saddam the victim .... now I've heard it all.

May I inquire about the source of this history? Seems a little slanted to me.


slanted? look who's talking! your slant is the equivalent of a brick wall. I know you're a repugnicant but I'm begining to think GW has a secret account here.
if not you should work in politics. your conviction blinds you to the point you can come up with any excuse for any action on the spot as long as it holds up the party line. you¡re cool, but seriously, you should try a bit harder sometimes.
 

galfordo

Analinguist of the Year
15 Year Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2003
Posts
18,418
DevilRedeemed said:
slanted? look who's talking! your slant is the equivalent of a brick wall. I know you're a repugnicant but I'm begining to think GW has a secret account here.
if not you should work in politics. your conviction blinds you to the point you can come up with any excuse for any action on the spot as long as it holds up the party line. you¡re cool, but seriously, you should try a bit harder sometimes.

Maybe you could point to something in particular? I think you're slanted, you think I'm slanted, so what? Still, to suggest that Saddam was somehow a victim of the the US is a bit of a stretch, no matter which part of the political spectrum you lay on.
 

aria

Former Moderator
Joined
Dec 4, 1977
Posts
39,546
Mugabe?

He's safe: his country contains no oil and an insignificant number of white people.

Bush already proved his Africa policy with Liberia -and while harsh, Zimbabwe isn't even close to as bad as that was when we decided to not intervene.
 

Howdoin

, Le BLING-BLING!,
Joined
Jul 31, 2002
Posts
1,689
galfordo said:
Maybe you could point to something in particular? I think you're slanted, you think I'm slanted, so what? Still, to suggest that Saddam was somehow a victim of the the US is a bit of a stretch, no matter which part of the political spectrum you lay on.

Here are some infos Galfordo. And be honest with yourself we all know that Goverments (not only the US) all have a few bad things to hide, it just appears that in the 70's and 80's the US priority was to outdo the USSR at ANY cost, even if it meant to support dictators and terrorists.


Washington, D.C., 25 February 2003 - The National Security Archive at George Washington University today published on the Web a series of declassified U.S. documents detailing the U.S. embrace of Saddam Hussein in the early 1980's, including the renewal of diplomatic relations that had been suspended since 1967. The documents show that during this period of renewed U.S. support for Saddam, he had invaded his neighbor (Iran), had long-range nuclear aspirations that would "probably" include "an eventual nuclear weapon capability," harbored known terrorists in Baghdad, abused the human rights of his citizens, and possessed and used chemical weapons on Iranians and his own people. The U.S. response was to renew ties, to provide intelligence and aid to ensure Iraq would not be defeated by Iran, and to send a high-level presidential envoy named Donald Rumsfeld to shake hands with Saddam (20 December 1983).

The declassified documents posted today include the briefing materials and diplomatic reporting on two Rumsfeld trips to Baghdad, reports on Iraqi chemical weapons use concurrent with the Reagan administration's decision to support Iraq, and decision directives signed by President Reagan that reveal the specific U.S. priorities for the region: preserving access to oil, expanding U.S. ability to project military power in the region, and protecting local allies from internal and external threats. The documents include:

* A U.S. cable recording the December 20, 1983 conversation between Donald Rumsfeld and Saddam Hussein. Although Rumsfeld said during a September 21, 2002 CNN interview, "In that visit, I cautioned him about the use of chemical weapons, as a matter of fact, and discussed a host of other things," the document indicates there was no mention of chemical weapons. Rumsfeld did raise the issue in his subsequent meeting with Iraqi official Tariq Aziz.

* National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 114 of November 26, 1983, "U.S. Policy toward the Iran-Iraq War," delineating U.S. priorities: the ability to project military force in the Persian Gulf and to protect oil supplies, without reference to chemical weapons or human rights concerns.

* National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 139 of April 5, 1984, "Measures to Improve U.S. Posture and Readiness to Respond to Developments in the Iran-Iraq War," focusing again on increased access for U.S. military forces in the Persian Gulf and enhanced intelligence-gathering capabilities. The directive calls for "unambiguous" condemnation of chemical weapons use, without naming Iraq, but places "equal stress" on protecting Iraq from Iran's "ruthless and inhumane tactics." The directive orders preparation of "a plan of action designed to avert an Iraqi collapse."

* U.S. and Iraqi consultations about Iran's 1984 draft resolution seeking United Nations Security Council condemnation of Iraq's chemical weapons use. Iraq conveyed several requests to the U.S. about the resolution, including its preference for a lower-level response and one that did not name any country in connection with chemical warfare; the final result complied with Iraq's requests.

* The 1984 public U.S. condemnation of chemical weapons use in the Iran-Iraq war, which said, referring to the Ayatollah Khomeini's refusal to agree to end hostilities until Saddam Hussein was ejected from power, "The United States finds the present Iranian regime's intransigent refusal to deviate from its avowed objective of eliminating the legitimate government of neighboring Iraq to be inconsistent with the accepted norms of behavior among nations and the moral and religious basis which it claims."
 

galfordo

Analinguist of the Year
15 Year Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2003
Posts
18,418
Howdoin said:
Here are some infos Galfordo. And be honest with yourself we all know that Goverments (not only the US) all have a few bad things to hide, it just appears that in the 70's and 80's the US priority was to outdo the USSR at ANY cost, even if it meant to support dictators and terrorists."

I'm in agreement with you here, but I still do no believe that our behaviour in the 70's/80's is any excuse for Saddam's behavior over the past 30 years.
 
Top