savanaha:

So the British implemented into their law to strip people of their lands and livelihood but then it wrong and uncalled for, after Mugabee asked them to give back some of their lands and they said no so he took it. I guess everyone has their opion but I think he was right in that and I stand by that.
Do you think it is right that the white farmers made sure they destroyed all the machines for farm work before they left?
While I agree that Mugabee is infected  with the power hungry virus most African leaders have, the Western world also have an influence in what is going on in Zim. How dare a black man stick it back to the white lords?

I don't think you understand what I posted at all. Please let us not make this a race debate and focus on the most important issues here. Regardless of how or whom took the lands, Mugabe still needed to follow the law in his bid to return the land to the people, not execute JAGUDA justice, which is what he did and infact is what we do around africa today. He is president for a reason and regardless of what sentiments or emotions were attached, he ought to have done it in such a way that his people not only got back what was theres but that he could stand up and say it was legally handled. It was not and hence the reason why it is the way it is today.
You ask me of the machines which the farmers destroyed and I ask you this, do you have proof that those machines did not belong to the farmers themselves?? I mean if the government comes to take my house by force and I burn my car, am I wrong to burn it, if it is my own property and what the government is really after is the house??

Uche2nna:

Does the problem lie in taking away the lands from the white man or does it lie in the fact that those lands are lying fallow

I don't have a problem with Mugabe taking away the lands (especially if those lands were acquired in suspicious situations). My wahala is that he did not have a plan on what to do after taking away those lands. Most times, I see very good decisions taken but the problem is that these decisions are taken in the heat of the moment with little or no regards to the consequences.

If Mugabe cared for his people (as much as he says) he would have started preparing them for this take-over 15 , 20 years ago. The indigenes would have been learning what it takes to run a mechanised farm so that when the onus falls on them to do that, it would not be that hard a transition.

Me thinks he is using sentiments and emotions to score cheap political points from the zimbabweans. It has back fired and backfired badly!!!!!

Exactly

If you make that excuse for Zimbabwe then why don't we become unbiased and make thesame arguement for Nigeria? Thinking closer to home can you now make such an arguement? Is it the west that is pillaging all the money in the country?

Nigeria is not under any sanction. so cased closed

What sanctions are You talking about?   I might be wrong but are the sanctions economic? Cos I thought the sanctions were majorly travel sanctions?

there are economic sanction against Zim. But this is kept closed  by 'legal' clauses and dress as sanction targeting mugaba but its rather to squeeze the country dry till they revolf. Executive orders:13391/13288

Mr Lamb said: "Had these services been provided by an EU-based company, there would have been a clear breach, but Barclays managed to avoid the sanctions regime.
"Surely it is scandalous that a British company - via a local subsidiary - is providing financial support and sustenance to this brutal regime and to key figures within it?"
There were also allegations during the debate that Barclays, together with two other banks, "had lent the Mugabe regime £110 million by purchasing treasury bills and government bonds".
Mr Lamb also claimed that Barclays had "arranged finance facilities worth £110 million to Zimbabwean companies involved in tobacco, mining, sugar, manufacturing and horticulture".

Daily Telegraph, 30 April 2008

Kobojunkie:

I don't think you understand what I posted at all. Please let us not make this a race debate and focus on the most important issues here. Regardless of how or whom took the lands, Mugabe still needed to follow the law in his bid to return the land to the people, not execute JAGUDA justice, which is what he did and infact is what we do around africa today. He is president for a reason and regardless of what sentiments or emotions were attached, he ought to have done it in such a way that his people not only got back what was theres but that he could stand up and say it was legally handled. It was not and hence the reason why it is the way it is today.

Not interested in making it a race issue ( 'white farmers' is not makiing it a race issue) . Like I said earlier the British made it law to take away lands from the indigens of Zim when they were in power so Mugabe made it an unofficial law to take back the lands. He had started asking for the white farmers to give back some lands to the native Zims it was taken from since the 1980s. Seeing as the the white farmers where not willing to peacefully give back SOME of the lands the British stole he took it by force

You ask me of the machines which the farmers destroyed and I ask you this, do you have proof that those machines did not belong to the farmers themselves?? I mean if the government comes to take my house by force and I burn my car, am I wrong to burn it, if it is my own property and what the government is really after is the house??

Yes the machines belonged to the farmers just like the lands belonged to native Zims so it ends up being tit for tat and though you think the government should not have acted on sentiments another might tell you individuals should not act on cruelty.

@landis, is the whole world sanctioning Zimbabwe? So lifting the sanctions are the answers to the whole problem? Once it is done everything falls into place? Mugabe automatically stops becoming a dictator and power hungry and corrupt?

savanaha:

Not interested in making it a race issue ( 'white farmers' is not makiing it a race issue) . Like I said earlier the British made it law to take away lands from the indigens of Zim when they were in power so Mugabe made it an unofficial law to take back the lands. He had started asking for the white farmers to give back some lands to the native Zims it was taken from since the 1980s. Seeing as the the white farmers where not willing to peacefully give back SOME of the lands the British stole he took it by force

Yes the machines belonged to the farmers just like the lands belonged to native Zims so it ends up being tit for tat and though you think the government should not have acted on sentiments another might tell you individuals should not act on cruelty.

About the tractors, if you already judged it tit for tat, why did you ask me of it ??

Anyways, Mugabe is NOT ALLOWED to make any unofficial laws. He is president of a country and has to stick to the law regardless of what emotional state he may be in. The British had british laws for when they were in rule. Mugabe made laws when he took over, why did he not follow them when he FORCEFULLY took back the land?? Why did he not go by the laws that he made himself to govern the people?? Why did he resort to JAGUDA tactics?? If we go by what we think alone then we continue to do exactly what we have been doing, exactly what brought Zimbabwe to where it is today. If we however start considering doing things by law, you will understand that what he did was illegal and in the real world, you can not do injustice in the name of law and get away without serious consequences. If he had followed his own laws, he would have hit blocks that demanded he use an alternative so at the end of the day his people do not suffer from the move he was to make. He did not and today we have inflation rates this high. Problem is over the last couple of months, more farmers have lost their farms to JAGUDA justice and today production is even lower.

African leaders should learn how to step down gracefully and peacefully while the going is good.

No country needs a sit tight ruler who will stay there for donkey years.

tpia:

African leaders should learn how to step down gracefully and peacefully while the going is good.

No country needs a sit tight ruler who will stay there for donkey years.

Thats the problem with Africa today. Nobody wants to vacate power willingly. Pray, tell me why Mugabe is still hanging on to power? Maybe Africa needs to put a retirement age for its presidents.