I heard this today and I decided that Mugabe has taken top spot on my list of depraved despots in need of elimination.

"Under a proposed new law, the Non-Governmental Organisations Bill, charity will become a crime, with aid workers facing jail terms. "

That's right, folks; NGO's currently feeding the starving people of Zimbabwe are to leave, desist or be subject to being arrested and jailed for up to a year.

Mugabe's government, who has already banned foreign reporters, wants to control every cent in aid that enters the country. All the better to divert it, I suspect. The Zimbabwe goverment also suggests that the aid agencies are providing information about the state of the nation to the outside world, and that can't be allowed.

"ROCHELLE MUTTON: (reporter) David Coltart is Shadow Minister for Justice in the Zimbabwe Parliament. He says the NGO Bill is designed to use food as a political weapon and hush up severely embarrassing reports about the Mugabe Government's human rights abuses."

....

"ROCHELLE MUTTON: What happens to the children who were on those feeding programs, now?

KERRY KAY: (An aid worker, I think) Only God knows. Really, I think it's horrendous."
----------------

So, if Iraq is about regime change now, for the good of humanity and all, I vote that the tanks of the International Force of Indignation should start rolling toward Bulawayo any old day, now.

There is no oil in Zimbabwe nor is there a lot of drugs grown there. And the Zimbabwens in the US did give a lot to either party last election. So no US led regime change there.

Look at Somolia. The last time we went into a country to feed the people, things didn't turn out so well. Plus we're already in two wars at the moment, we are (hopefuly) not stupid enough to enter a third.

I heartily agree that we shouldn't be too quick to hop into a another hot spot with our hearts full of good intentions. Besides, Iran is the odds on favorite for that nomination, and not without good reason.

As I've tried to argue before; if we want to do our bit to stop tyranny in the world, the first step is to stop funding and propping up tyrants. Only then is it worth even beginning to debate the controversial tactic of invasion.

That good reason being, one would have to assume, 'He looked at me funny.'. Or, rather, 'he looked at my Middle-Eastern foothold and puppet-state funny.'

I think Syria is a more liekly target. Easier, softer, a much more managable target. Iran would be a hard cookie to crack, so it's going to have to wait ,much as the neo-cons loathe it.

Since the Mossad would have us believe that the Iranians purchased three ex-soviet nuclear warheads a few years back, and the Ukranians are currently trying one of their officers for selling half a dozen medium range nuclear capable missiles each to Iran and China; it might be riskier to attack Iran than the scum in the White House would admit. Especially for the Israelies.

I agree that it would be mind-bogglingly silly, not to mention logistically almost impossible for the US to invade another country, in the middle-east (even with a 'well, while we're here...' mentality) or in Africa or anywhere else.

Still, there seems to be a lot of sabre-rattling, insinuation, innuendo and not-so-oblique threat coming from the White House.

If Iranians did take the 'nod and a wink' that Dubbyah gave them in the state of the union address seriously and rise up - does anyone have an opinion on what the US could realistically do to back them up? How long would it take to provide what kind of assistance to Iranian rebels? Or would it all be too far and too hard and turn into another debacle like that in Iraq at the end of Desert Storm, where the Americans incited revolution, then walked away?

Anyway, the situation in the Middle East only pertains to the appalling catastrophe in Zimbabwe because of the neo-con's claim-neauveau that regime change is the Noble Cause that they were fighting for in Iraq.
Not oil, nononono! WMD's are suddenly beside the point - tyrannical regimes who torture and massacre their own people are the Evil that must be expunged, apparrently.

If those who are suddenly so full of the desire to be the world police in such matters are fair-dinkum, then Mugabe's behaviour must have them incensed! What he is doing is easily bad enough to put him way up on the hit-list, so come on guys, where's the international forces? Where's the open threats? Where's the UN resolutions? Where's the 'who cares about UN resolutions - we're going in anyway'-ness of a couple of years ago?

Mugabe's decided to criminalise all aid work. Not just Americans, not just government aid - all of everything. If I, as a tourist, (were I to have a dark-enough death-wish to go there) to share my sandwich with a starving aids-orphan, I would be committing a crime. There is going to be a famine of biblical proportions and no media or independant observers to cover it.

And for all the rhetoric from Washington about evil dictators and how they should be eliminated, this does not raise even a quiver from the righteous-o-meter.

Which points out that the shambles in the middle-east is just about Republican politics, after all.

Anyone shocked?

Thought not.

Omnot; have you seen Hotel Rwanda yet? In one scene, an American is explaining to the hotel manager just why the world (specifically, the US) won't lift a finger; and it comes down to one line: "You're not even n****rs; you're Africans." Politically incorrect as it may be, it's the most accurate summary of US attitudes towards sub-Saharan Africa you're ever going to hear; even our `Afro-American' community looks down on Africans with a fine contempt.

Are the Republicans in power murderous hypocrites? Yes. Would things be any different under another government? Almost certainly not; because in this instance the GOP reflects the attitudes of the nation as a whole. We just don't care about Africa, and won't risk a single American life there for mere humanitarian reasons; especially not after the `blackhawk down' fiasco.

I ain't even heard of it. If it weren't for your ensuing remarks, I'd be imagining I'd look for it in travel bochures. :-)



I'm aware of the awful selective blindness that the West (closest I can name it) has when it comes to horrible things happening in Africa. I don't believe that it is fair or right - which is why I hold it as one of the measures by which I gague the genuineness of of sentiment of those who justify warlike actions on humanitarian grounds.

Right-wing types who claim that their self-serving wars are really being waged for humanitarian reasons are transparently full of excrement (is that possible?) when they refuse to acknowledge that there are situations elsewhere in the world that warrant at least as much attention, on humanitarian grounds, as the ones they have (so generously) involved themselves in.

Which reminds me, I really must rent Farenheit 911. I haven't seen it yet...

Actually, you'd find it. The movie is named after a hotel where people sheltered during the murder spree against the Tutsis. The central character is the hotel manager; who decided to offer them this shelter. Now; what effect this publicity is having on the actual hotel, I wouldn't dare guess; but it's a pretty good film, so it's probably not hurting.

Besides, its one of the five Oscar nominations for Best Picture.

Ah! So it's a new film.

*google, google*

Not due for release here until late February.

No, I certainly haven't seen it yet. :-)

Actually, that character is a Canadian. ;-) I assume the character is based on the actual commander of the UN peacekeepers in Rwanda at the time of the genocide; he recently wrote a book entitled [url=http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0786714875/qid=1107785230/sr=2-1/ref=pd_ka_b_2_1/002-3884506-2303235]
"Shake Hands with the Devil"[/url], and from a radio interview I heard him on, that character is pretty accurate.

Nope, drdave, it doesn't have a best picture nomination. It's got best actor (Don Cheadle), Best Actress (Sophie Okonedo), and an original screenplay writing nomination.

It's an extremly informatiive film. It's not R-rated, either. I suspect that was done so that this film can be used for educational purposes in the future. It's excellent, and rings very true. It will be shown to schoolchildren in history classes that even touch on violence in africa.

EDIT: to Big-O: lol, so maybe it won't get as much showing as "Glory" (the movie about the all-black Union side civil war unit that no American History class mentioned before the movie was made, but nearly all US American History classes now include a showing of the movie). I predict, however, that it will become popular show Hotel Rwanda anyway. And to Bongo Bill; no, american middle and high school history curriculums usually cover American History, and a little bit of "world" history which is really European History. Often no African history at all, and if there is any sprinkled into the world history class, it is never modern aftrican history.

They have history classes that touch on Africa? Sub-Saharan Africa?