Kobojunkie:

The Problem here is you keep saying the same thing only in different words and think it means something different each time. What side is Mugabe on?

i honestly dont understand that sentence because anyone that has read my first take on this will know my stance, i dont want to go over it yet again so as not to begin rambling

Kobojunkie:

What side is Mugabe on? The side that feels it is right to deny the people their right to have their say, cause of his own private ambitions and fears. What you have been doing yourself is using your private ambitions and fears as reason why the people should be denied their right to have Tsangviri as their next president. Do you understand this now?
I do care about the future of the Zimbabwean people that is why I am so open to leaving it to the people. They know what is best for them, don’t you think??

what side mugabe is on doesnt count in any of this because it should be clear to you by now that both myself and busy body are in no shape or form supporting mugabe,and i dont see anyone else supporting mugabe,so theres really nothing to understand as you put it,if the decisions s been left to the people,surely we wont be having this debate at all because then the western equation/interests wont have come in at all,all they would have been is an umpire ,just over seeing and advising but not getting directly involved,im glad we r both agreed that the future of the zimbabwean ppl should be left in their hands,however,the west dont think so, they think the affairs of zimbabwe should be tele guided by them with a man of their choice in the saddle

Kobojunkie:



Please try to stay on topic.
I don’t care whose interest it is, the fact is the people have spoken. They know of the west and I am sure they know of Tsangvira’s supposed connections to the west. But the most important in all this is they voted for him. So again, What point do you think you can make by telling us that because of some people’s deluded ideas of the west, the People of Zimbabwe should not be allowed to speak or choose freely? Even with all the supposed fears and gloom and doom outlooks, if the west is what the people want, why deny them that?? What justification do you think there is to deny these people their right to choose?

i wont comment on the assertion that the people have chosen tsv so ill hold my counsel to myself,so anyone that sees beyond the overly caring attitude fo the west is suddenly deluded?
thats the whole point,they should be allowed to choose freely without anyone breathing down their necks!!!!"
who says the west is what the people want?certainly not the zimbabweans, ill  refer back to abiola and june 12 when everybody was saying all sorts  that nigerians want america to invade nigeria and install abiola  and all sorts being bandied about,
there is absolutely no justification for denying the people their rights to choose,but i think that should be directed at america and britain on one hand and mugabe on the other(just so ill reiterate again that im not in support of mugabe)

Kobojunkie:




What the frell has this debate to do with how worse off Nigeria is or is not? If we follow that angle then I ask you who the heck you think you are to believe you know what is best for Zimbabwe then??  
There was an election. The people voted and they voted for Tsanvgira over Mugabe. Are you now saying that even with Venezuela and the other election officers down there, the US and the west managed to rig the election in favour of Tsangviri? What has Mugabe being the choice of the west to do with Tsangvirie being the people’s choice? Why continue with this seriously disconnected logic??

i mentioned nigeria in my first comment,and only did because its quite ironic that most of the ppl huffing and puffing,posting caricatures and what not are nigerians,and mentioned that their country is many times worse than zimbabwe and its leaders,fair enough im the last person to stand up and say i know whats best for zimbabwe,but so also are you,so also sre the united states,britain and other outside influences, when a country even western change their tone from helping out a sovereign country to "demanding"then i get uncomfortable with that,and when the rpint and electronic media in a country leave their domestic problems and make the problems of a particular african country their main topic i start getting very uncomfortable, because to me i was around when iraq and the w.m.d saga started,

tsv and his being the right or wrong candidate is first another topic in its entirety and another thread and i only mentioned that as an aside,replies to my first comment made it an issue all i said after making my point in connection with the post is that tsv is that besides my main point tsv is a western sponsored,groomed stooge which is not onli bad but dangerous for their kind of democracy(not in the exact words of course)
the connection both mugabe and tsv have if u were askn me is that one is a former employee gone rouge(mugabe)and the other is the new applicant of western interests ltd

Kobojunkie:


Your own posts continue to betray you though.  You are spewing the same anti-west rhetoric, as Mugabe has continued to himself, as reason for why the Zimbabweans should not be give back their power to choose a leader and you come back to tell me you are not in support of Mugabe? Are you sure? So we should now blame media companies as well for this? Is Al Jazeera in on the whole too as it does seem to broadcast the same stories on how bad things are in Zimbabwe and how Mugabe has been pushing his power down the throats of the people. So fortune 500 media houses who main jobs are to sell the public the news the people want are now controlling Zimbabwe?? Are you ok?? I mean do you read your own posts to understand how loopy these things come off?? What has Media to do with how a president chooses to run his country or not?? What had media to do with people being denied their choice?

well then if by my thoughts i believe the west is out for mainly personal interests and not for the love of zimbabwe then yes you r right
and if by my thoughts i believe the wests by their actions and undue inteference and the method they go about it always complicate issues and make a mess without waiting around to clean it up then you r right,all mugabe is doing is latching on to a western mistake as one of the reasons to stay on to power,either u believe or not he has supporters who otherwise wouldnt have been on his side just because of the west and their media meddling in the affairs of a sovereign state, they shold be allowed to choose their leaders and make their mistakes like others and yes the media should be blamed because they have always played an active part in the western agendas, we all know the part they v played in past conflics so i dont even need to go into it,we dont need to listen to aljazeera to know mugabe is a dictator and bad for the people neither do we need them to know that the economy is in shambles but ill reiterate yet again and if u want to go into it we can that,the media have played very active parts of continually shoving it down our throats just to justify government continued intervention(cant say thats new anyway cause its not the first time,so we know better)
i think you should read this and u ll discover u r the one mixing issues up,for further clarifications read busy body's last comment before this,the media are just a willing tool being used to push an agenda through,hope that makes it a bit clearer.

Kobojunkie:



The Situation in Zimbabwe today has nothing to do with your personal insecurities when it comes to the West. There are millions of Africans who are not as terrified of the west as you are. So I am sorry to tell you that this is all a matter of perception and nothing more.

Zimbabweans are suffering in the millions. I happen to have been down in South Africa when the first batch of refugees started flooding in to South Africa. These people are living as beggars, and working in really appalling conditions. They feel helpless. Many of them went back to their country; we are talking thousands, to cast their vote. Zimbabweans have thrown their lot in with Tsangvirae, please respect their choice regardless of your personal fears. Is this too much to ask of people?

well first off i as an individual am not insecure about the west or i wouldnt be spending a part of my life in the west,believe in western education and experience,and yes im one of these who are not terriffied of the west thats why i tell it like i see it without sugar coating the pill,its not all perception because there are instances to support these "perceptions"as you put it,its not the first time but i guess u know that already so i wont keep on banging about it.

i agree with you wholeheartedly about the condition of the zimbabweans,and i agree an overwelhming number of them want mugabe out and another leader in,all im saying is that as a sovereign state,they should be respected to handle their business,you might not believe this but if the west had left them to do this mugabe will have been out because the au will have intervened,its an uncomfortable truth that,many african countries dont trust the west and are always wary when they signify interests in thir issues not to talk of this instance when its obvious that they r looking out for their selfish interests,we know zimbabwe needs a change we all agree
we know that tsv deserves his chance because we believe in a democracy and voice of the majority of citizens thats not in question
but i think the western duo of america and britain especially should butt out n let them handle their thing,because the interests of the zimbabweans come first and not thiers

Sagamite:

Oh, OK, lucabrasi, now I get your point.

Basically:
- You acknowledge the people voted for and want Tsvangarai to be their next leader
- But because Tsvangarai is supported by or is a major choice of the West (Evil people)
- And people like you have a gut feeling that this support by the West might change in the future
- Then the people's wish should be denied to them or prevented from coming to fruitation? Am I right?
- So we should all back off Mugabe? Am I right?
- We should confront the West instead? Am I right?

in addittion after we have disregarded the last two points, pls read busy bodies reply ,also the blackmail that somehow those who do not agree 100% with the way america and britain are going about it is totally wrong and wont work

Busy_body:

FOOD FOR THOUGHT- It is a free country, so please let this not stop anyone from having their own right, mind, opinion and belief

. I, alongside Lucabrasi, have the right to ask and are asking why stop at Zimbabwe, if the ridiculous reasons being trumpeted by the WEST is regime change, fraudulent election malpractices, expropriating white farmland and human rights violations? If that is the current and standard and effective multilateral mechanism that is the precursor to sanctioning a country because it had violated international peace and security, why isn’t half the world the subject of similar “smart sanctions” - a US jargon?

Why stop at Zimbabwe?

Why not China, or Libya – the two countries currently doing roaring trade with the US and EU among others, though there is no democracy, or basic human rights observance?

Why not Uganda where President Yoweri Museveni, who introduced the "Movement" system ^{where there is no multiparty politics,} when he seized power after a five-year guerrilla struggle in 1986, and gets away with the arguement that that it is an alternate form of democracy.

Why not Ethiopia where its leader, Meles Zenawi of the Ethiopian People's Revolutionary Democratic Front, where elections are rigged, students detained indefinitely, where torture is rife, etc? What happened to the people who believed their votes for the Coalition for Unity and Democratic Party and its leader, Hailu Shawel, were not accounted for at the polls.

Why not Pakistan where the current President, General Pervez MUSHARRAF, came to power through a coup?

Why not Egypt where the general consensus is that presidential elections are predetermined?

Why not the Middle Eastern countries where women are not allowed to vote, and people do not have freedom of speech, where there is torture, etc?

Why not half the world then since they are all equally guilty of one ill or the other? Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.

The UK recently called for more economic sanction, Doesn't more mean in addition to? ^{I think I better zip it before some disgruntled element starts pontificating on the basis of my premonition.}

nice one busy body,i couldnt have put it as good as you have, also to add that,nigerian critics should look inwards to their country,and blackmailing us cause we disagree with the way the west r handling the whole issue wont shut us up

lucabrasi:

in addittion after we have disregarded the last two points, please read busy bodies reply ,also the blackmail that somehow those who do not agree 100% with the way america and britain are going about it is totally wrong and wont work

OK.

After disregarding the last two points, I believe I can safely come to the conclusion that you are saying that:

1) Even if the people vote for Tsvangarai in this election, he should not be allowed to take up the role as president as he is already a "confirmed" western stooge?

2) Hence the election result should not be the soul decider of who becomes president, other factors should feed into it as long as it does not allow Tsvangarai (the western stooge) take over?

3) Only someone that is not approved by the West should be allowed to rule Zimbabwe?

4) And even if Mugabe should kill and torture people to try and rig the elections, you would prefer the west not to get involved as you do not trust them and it is an internal issue that should not be their business?

I think to an extent Busy Body and Lucabrasi are being economical with the truth to push across their conspiracy theories.

Busy_body:

They are lobbying Southern African Region to consider further sanctions if Tsvangirai does not win

Tsvangirai already won a rigged election. The fact that it took months to release the results of the general elections is an indication Mugabe lost by a much wider margin and the ZANU party were simply looking to exploit the less tha 50% votes won loophole.

Tsvangirai was going to win the runoff . . . i'm sure you know the amount of intimidation, government-controlled media blackout of the opposition, hundreds of MDC supporters killed, constant bans on opposition rallies, that Mr. Tendai Biti of the MDC is being held on trumped up charges, that Tsvangirai himself has been subject to arrest TWICE in the last few weeks . . .

THESE ARE THE REASONS FOR THE SANCTIONS!

Busy_body:

Blair categorically and unashamedly stated in the House of Parliament, that the British government were working with the (MDC) to effect regime change, just like they did to Kenya.

Because THAT IS WHAT THE ZIMBABWEAN PEOPLE HAVE CLEARLY DECLARED AT THE POLLS!

davidylan:

Tsvangirai already won a rigged election. The fact that it took months to release the results of the general elections is an indication Mugabe lost by a much wider margin and the ZANU party were simply looking to exploit the less tha 50% votes won loophole.

off-topic

from the above statement, it means there was really an election in zimbabwe. this means they have done what nigeria could not do in 40yrs (ahaa we did it once on june 12, 93'. . . just once in 40yrs . . and it was annulled)

well, advice for mugabe . . . instead of harrasing opponents, just rig elections like PDP, i'm sure africans will prefer ''apparent stability under stolen mandate to gross social instability)

@Lucabrasi, see, even Sagamite who decide to take the short approach still arrives at the same conclusion that I did. You are essentially DICTATING that the people are not ready for west even if the west is what they want and so they ought to be denied their votes. This being what Mugabe is doing. I don't understand how you don't see that
this is essentially what you keep saying all this while.


@PS. No where did I say being anti-west means you are the only deluded one here. We all have our delusions but we ought to learn to separate those from reality to actually see what is eating us and better solve issues. And one other thing, the results released by the ZANU-PF of the "free and fair" election held, states that Tsangviri won. If you don't believe me, at least ask the ZANU-PF. They announced it.


In this case, you continue to wrap the fate of Zimbabweans with your delusions, something Mugabe himself is currently doing right now. He has even gone ahead to kill his own people to make sure that they do not get their freedom to vote the way they want to again. Don't you see what you are doing yourself??


By the way, @Busy_Body failed to make any point different from yours. It is clear that even he does not see what you are saying in my opinion. Running around the main issue does not help in making a point here.

davidylan:

I think to an extent Busy Body and Lucabrasi are being economical with the truth to push across their conspiracy theories.

Hmmn, you are entitled to your own conspiracy theory opinion too. Some men go through a forest and see no firewood.

davidylan:

Tsvangirai already won a rigged election. The fact that it took months to release the results of the general elections is an indication Mugabe lost by a much wider margin and the ZANU party were simply looking to exploit the less tha 50% votes won loophole.

I wholly agree with the above BUT as long as their is a loophole law that stipulates that the election has to be won by a certain margin for there to be no recount, no one has broken the law yet, every one is trying to stick to the law or is their a problem with this too?

davidylan:

THESE ARE THE REASONS FOR THE SANCTIONS!

US alongside UK, New Zealand and Australia started their sanctions in 2001, this election took place in 2008.  

davidylan:

Because THAT IS WHAT THE ZIMBABWEAN PEOPLE HAVE CLEARLY DECLARED AT THE POLLS!

Yes they want a regime change but not at the expense of the "more" sanctions that Britain is proposing as if Zimbabwe is still a colony.

It is not for Britain and its stupid parliament to prescribe international law for Zimbabwe but only through a UN resolution. Zimbabwe no longer wants former English settlers to control its land and mining resources and is within its right unless the UN says otherwise.

Holier-than-thou Britain should quit telling Zimbabwe of human rights abuse, rule of law, good governance, etc, as if it is the world body and as if Zimbabwe is a province of Britain. US/Britain and the west should therefore stop imposing illegal sanctions against Zimbabwe. '

This issue is just gonna go down the same route as Iraq, if Mugabe refuses to step down. They failed to change the course in Iraq and resorted to military action in direct disregard of the UN resolution. Who is suffering now? Saddam or the Iraqi citizens. Who is gonna suffer come end of June when Mugabe still refuses to step down? ^{Premonition again}. Mugabe or the Zims? Who is suffering now with the sanction in place to refuse international credit etc to the country? Mugabe or the Zims?

What does sanctions solve? What does millitary action solve? What does war solve?

What we need ^{(if people feel the itch for a debate)} is a sober, introspective debate on ALL the reasons behind Zimbabwe’s economic crisis, and none should be beyond consideration.

Kobojunkie:

. . . By the way, @Busy_Body failed to make any point different from yours. It is clear that even he does not see what you are saying.

If I don't see what he is saying, how comes my point is not different to his? ^{My head hurts}

Kobojunkie:

. . . By the way, @Busy_Body failed to make any point different from yours. It is clear that even he does not see what you are saying.

Psst, nothing do my eyesight, na your own make u go check out for colour blindness. I be shefemale. The (f) beside the username is a different colour and indicates either one is of one sex or the other or show nowt. How did I know this? ^Premonition.

Sagamite:

OK.

After disregarding the last two points, I believe I can safely come to the conclusion that you are saying that:

1) Even if the people vote for Tsvangarai in this election, he should not be allowed to take up the role as president as he is already a "confirmed" western stooge?

2) Hence the election result should not be the soul decider of who becomes president, other factors should feed into it as long as it does not allow Tsvangarai (the western stooge) take over?

3) Only someone that is not approved by the West should be allowed to rule Zimbabwe?

4) And even if Mugabe should kill and torture people to try and rig the elections, you would prefer the west not to get involved as you do not trust them and it is an internal issue that should not be their business?

seems you came to all that warped conclusions all by yourself,in between mine and busybody's surmissions pls go through whichever you want of the two and u ll get what im on about,im having a slight head ache repeating myself and my fingers hurt from typing

@kobojunkie
sagamite is jumping to his own warped conclusions as usual based on his own understanding of my stance,to shorten everythn ill beg to borrow from busy bodie's reply
Yes they want a regime change but not at the expense of the "more" sanctions that Britain is proposing as if Zimbabwe is still a colony.

It is not for Britain and its stupid parliament to prescribe international law for Zimbabwe but only through a UN resolution. Zimbabwe no longer wants former English settlers to control its land and mining resources and is within its right unless the UN says otherwise.

Holier-than-thou Britain should quit telling Zimbabwe of human rights abuse, rule of law, good governance, etc, as if it is the world body and as if Zimbabwe is a province of Britain. US/Britain and the west should therefore stop imposing illegal sanctions against Zimbabwe. '

This issue is just going to go down the same route as Iraq, if Mugabe refuses to step down. They failed to change the course in Iraq and resorted to military action in direct disregard of the UN resolution. Who is suffering now? Saddam or the Iraqi citizens. Who is going to suffer come end of June when Mugabe still refuses to step down? Premonition again. Mugabe or the Zims? Who is suffering now with the sanction in place to refuse international credit etc to the country? Mugabe or the Zims?

What does sanctions solve? What does millitary action solve? What does war solve?

in addittion america too should chill out and let the zims handle its own affairs,slave trade is over and they should go clear their mess up in iraq and afhgs.

if you were reffering to me on that,im not saying they didnt win but what im saying is that western influences should have waited till all democratic options have been fully exhausted before calling on the au and then if the au have no way of handling it and then invites them,thats when they with the backing of a un resolution should interfere,zimbabwe is not that far yet
there was an election,even though the election results wasnt announced on time,unllike our country it was announced and mugabe acknowledged that the opposittion won and a run off was called for a couple of moths after,not a year not postponed indefinitely,not step aside style like ours yet the west were not satisfied and they continued to pressurise and blackmail all the african leaders into toeing their line,with the western press who never see anything good in africa anyway makes zimbabwe their daily headlines,i started to become alarmed when daily mail of all newspapers in uk started to virtually use zimbabwe as their screen saver!

yes there r fights and all that in zimbabwe but its not on the level of kenya,political opponents clash,same happened in other african nations and i dont see the britain and her trusted ally saying anything then,the biggest fraud was in nigeria and i didnt see the media sound bites even when we nigerians were calling for it,they ignored us now they suddenly discovered their conscience in zims case,where exactly is the delusions im wrapping zim s case really,im on about a clear and present danger and which will get worse with the way britain and her twin s handling it,is it so much to ask for them to back up untill all democratic options have been exhausted,why r they crying louder than the bereaved

Busy_body:

If I don't see what he is saying, how comes my point is not different to his? ^{My head hurts}

But you are not making any point. He says A, you come in and interprete what he says as X and then you claim your point is Z. How is that same as making a point?? Sagamite broke it down to bits and still you continue the same disconnected approach to debating this. The debate is really simple. At the end of the day, either you agree that the people have their choice or you don't. So far, you both don't feel the people should have their way and even my kid sister is wondering why you two do not see what that in essence means. It is rocket science here. It is simple. Either the people get respect they deserve or not. Period.

Busy_body:

Psst, nothing do my eyesight, na your own make u go check out for colour blindness. I be shefemale. The (f) beside the username is a different colour and indicates either one is of one sex or the other or show nowt. How did I know this? ^Premonition.

I am not really one who focuses on gender when chatting. Sorry if I continue to refer to you as a he. I tend to just accept you could be a full he/(s)he, all the same to me. lol

Anywho, I think I am done with this merry-go-round at this point.

@busy body
did you see the question time on bbc,honestly this british ppl should just back up off zimbabwe one of the panelists even suggested millitary invasion and another said they south africa should cut off the lights and what not , a liberal democrat shadow mp was even bold enough to say because mugabe said only GOD can remove him then he should be helped to hasten his wish with thunderous applause

Wetin na? If I talk say you dey look for my trouble, you go talk say na some debating tripe you dey do? Na jeje I siddon o? No make me vex plus you o. Why are you constantly yapping on like a demented persistent annoying terrier that wouldn‘t let go of one‘s leg.

Kobojunkie:

But you are not making any point.

How dare you  Hmmn, will pass on this as I don’t attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

Kobojunkie:

He says A, you come in and interprete what he says as X and then you claim your point is Z. How is that same as making a point??

You can talk, with your aimless, pointless, depressing and mind-numbing arguments/points/debates with no goal, substance or direction. Why do you think your own old-school, pepper-soup joint politics is the gold standard?

Is your problem that you can't see or you can't read? What did I interprete wrongly? Bloody hell, Lucabrassi’s point that you keep bleating on about was only about 3 lines long. Where did he say in that post that he supported Mugabe? Gosh, why are narrow-minded people so thick-headed?

Kobojunkie:

Sagamite broke it down to bits

Okay if you think surrounding yourselves with narrow-minded people makes you a smart-ar’se.

Kobojunkie:

and still you continue the same disconnected approach to debating this. T

Debating what exactly? That Lucabrassi said Mugabe is/isn’t a tyrant? Is it a crime on Nairaland to have a different view to the one you subscribe to? 

Kobojunkie:

The debate is really simple. At the end of the day, either you agree that the people have their choice or you don't. So far, you both don't feel the people should have their way and even my kid sister is wondering why you two do not see what that in essence means. It is rocket science here. It is simple. Either the people get respect they deserve or not. Period.

O se ko agidi b’ori bi fan ibo. Shuo, ^{why you get stubborn stronghead like ibo fan so}.

Ha ha, na wetin, we take eye talk, we take nose talk, we take ears talk, we take yansh sef talk, wetin, I don tire men.

Now I know that you are not only colour-blind, you have lost your 20-20 faculty for real. Was this post lost on you too? Gosh it was even in bold.

Busy_body:

What we need ^{(if people feel the itch for a debate)} is a sober, introspective debate on ALL the reasons behind Zimbabwe’s economic crisis, and none should be beyond consideration.

Don’t blame you, so it really does not surprise me.

Kobojunkie:

Anywho, I think I am done with this merry-go-round at this point.

Gooooooooooooood idea and please remove the blinkers from your eyes, you are the only one that sees the merry-go-round hence need to come off before you fall down. You are the only one that keeps on going on and on and on like a broken record about having first hand information to what you felt Lucabrassi’s post should mean, even when he kept telling you otherwise, sheesh.

Kobojunkie:

The debate is really simple. At the end of the day, either you agree that the people have their choice or you don't. So far, you both don't feel the people should have their way and even my kid sister is wondering why you two do not see what that in essence means. It is rocket science here. It is simple. Either the people get respect they deserve or not. Period.

Two factions are having a stimulating debate, neither side wants to relent for the other, no one held a gun to anyone’s head, so how did I debar people from having their ways? What is the essence of your post ^{see below} if you don’t know the meaning? Do you see how ludicrous and flawed your logic is to assert that I stifled people from expressing themselves and having their way? People have called you and ^{with good reason} an hyprocrite, wishy-washy, of double standard, lacking in conviction, ambivalence, clueless, add to that ^{from me}judgemental and lacking in clarity and master confusionist and oversensitive to that too.

^{Shakes head} .[b]NOTHING IS AS TERRIBLE TO SEE AS IGNORANCE IN ACTION.

Kobojunkie:

Disregard for peoples opinion?? [b]I believe everyone has a right to an opinion and in a forum that allows for debating of ideas; we are all entitled to our opinion but free to debate as we choose. I have my own opinions; so does everyone else on this planet. I don’t force mine on anyone but I freely speak of mine. People can choose to read or not read. At the end, it is not for me to decide how another chooses to read my posts. It is a free world.
I don’t impose my view on anyone and I do not expect anyone to impose his on me. There are 1000’s of opinions on here, whose should I choose?? Whose should I ignore?? That decision is up to me. I believe the same applies to each person on here. If anyone feels intimidated by me, in any way or uncomfortable with my views, I cannot choose to change just so that person can be more comfortable. I would rather the person learns to respect my right to be different and have views as different as they may come. I accord the same to others as I am here to debate and I do so freely.
Why in the world would I try to enforce my opinion?? Worse on other human beings who have their own OPINIONS and deserve the same respect for having such as I would like to get for mine?? Isn't that the main problem with the world??
I believe in freewill, either people act freely or they are forced. I would rather see more people get the point, than have my opinion forced on others.[/b]

OH BOY!!!, Now come the personal attacks instead of focusing on making a clear point for once, JEEZZZZ !!! QWell, it was nice while I lasted but I think I will accept you as you are. Thanks

lucabrasi:

@busy body
did you see the question time on bbc,honestly this british people should just back up off zimbabwe one of the panelists even suggested millitary invasion and another said they south africa should cut off the lights and what not , a liberal democrat shadow mp was even bold enough to say because mugabe said only GOD can remove him then he should be helped to hasten his wish with thunderous applause

Busy_body:

They are lobbying Southern African Region to consider further sanctions if Tsvangirai does not win, they are on the throat of Mozambique and South Africa to impose economic blockage on vital import, they are rooting for complete trade embargoes and ban on purchase of goods, they are imploring the South African Government to switch off electricity to the country, they require China ^{(the mitigating reason they are scared of going in)} to give them a day-to-day running commentary on the country.
Blair categorically and unashamedly stated in the House of Parliament, that the British government were working with the (MDC) to effect regime change, just like they did to Kenya.

And when you try to have a reasoned debate with people forcing you to have a debate when all you want to do is crack a joke and have a laugh, they jump on your throat, tell you, you are not right, that you don’t make sense, that you should quote this and that, and then they come up with preposterous claims that you are trying to force your choice on others, which in other words means that they are right and are the one who only makes sense. They think their own pepper-soup joint politics is the gold standard of the political arena. ‘Anyway, I don’t usually worry too much about what people think, because they seldom do.

Kobojunkie:

OH BOY!!!, Now come the personal attacks instead of focusing on making a clear point for once, JEEZZZZ !!! QWell, it was nice while I lasted but I think I will accept you as you are. Thanks

Whatever, do you think you are the only one who can diss people on the sly? You crossed the line by constantly harping on about my sense of reasoning and constantly questioning my integrity to my face. What happened to your "live and let live" mantra, re everyone has a right to their opinion. Is that only applicable when it comes to you and your cohorts? Goading people is your forte innit?

I don't do insults, just occasional constructive criticism, check my signature. ^{What you choose to see is what you get}.

FYI, like it or lump it, you have no choice than to accept me as I am. I am human as you like to say, and I have my weakness limits too, so on a last note to you on this thread BYE.

lucabrasi:

seems you came to all that warped conclusions all by yourself,in between mine and busybody's surmissions please go through whichever you want of the two and u ll get what im on about,im having a slight head ache repeating myself and my fingers hurt from typing

It is because I knew your fingers would be hurting from all the long typing that I decided to see if I can summarise for you.

You can see I am keeping it short and structured by putting it as question points where you can say yes or no because I really don't want you to hurt your fingers.

You can at least answer just 4 questions with yes or no. And if it is no, a sentence or two with a correction would limit the hurt of your fingers which I believe no one here wants.

Your previous post has been long, open-ended, non-commital, non-conclusive and disjointed, so this is essentially why I was looking for ways to shorten the debate by narrowing and channelling the points.

Please help usssssssssss, to help yoooouu. Show me the answers.

lucabrasi:

@kobojunkie
sagamite is jumping to his own warped conclusions as usual based on his own understanding of my stance,to shorten everythn ill beg to borrow from busy bodie's reply
Yes they want a regime change but not at the expense of the "more" sanctions that Britain is proposing as if Zimbabwe is still a colony.

Sorry.

I take it you work for Zimbabwe Electoral Commission and have surveyed the people to find this out?

lucabrasi:

What does sanctions solve? What does millitary action solve? What does war solve?

Any alternative recommendations?

You could make yourself a world legend here.

Anything you say about this might be the next UN framework/blueprint.

lucabrasi:

if you were reffering to me on that,im not saying they didnt win but what im saying is that western influences should have waited till all democratic options have been fully exhausted before calling on the au and then if the au have no way of handling it and then invites them,thats when they with the backing of a un resolution should interfere,zimbabwe is not that far yet

Damn!!!

Finally!

A statement that is closed-ended, commital and conclusive.

Well done, son.

lucabrasi:

there was an election,even though the election results wasnt announced on time,unllike our country it was announced and mugabe acknowledged that the opposittion won and a run off was called for a couple of moths after,not a year not postponed indefinitely,not step aside style like ours yet the west were not satisfied and they continued to pressurise and blackmail all the african leaders into toeing their line,with the western press who never see anything good in africa anyway makes zimbabwe their daily headlines,i started to become alarmed when daily mail of all newspapers in uk started to virtually use zimbabwe as their screen saver!

You mean after he adjusted it to make sure there is a need for a second round which he planned to beat the populace to "correct" their vote?

You mean the results he withheld well beyond the constitutional deadline for timescales to release it?

What the f*ck is wrong with the West? Why do they keep reporting these and embarassing our continent? We don't want to wash our dirty linen in public?

Evil white people that always plan (even gather community by community) to destroy the blackman.

@ Lucabrasi

Please sheath your sword and let it be. This is not a lecture room whereby you have to be plumelled into accepting everything your professor tells you. There is no point dealing with some disgruntled element with mind-numbing and depressing opinion, whereby every opinion has to go either their way or the high way. 

I have told people where to look if they need more information about Britain and its "more sanction" stance.

^{We are no longer in the dark ages whereby people have to be spoon-fed information. The world wide web is not only there as a chat mechanism.}

The open-minded see the truth in different things: the narrow-minded see only the differences.

You guys have very similar points of views:

* Mugabe has mismanaged Zimbabwe
* Mugabe is no longer a desirable leader for Zim

However, disagreements arise because some don't like the nosey and bossy nature of Britain's interference (I feel that way too, and I am British) while others don't seem to like that some say Britain is being nosey.

Essentially, the disagreement is about Britain's involvement in Zimbabwe. I think that's what the difference here is about.

Blatant:

You guys have very similar points of views:

* Mugabe has mismanaged Zimbabwe
* Mugabe is no longer a desirable leader for Zim

However, disagreements arise because some don't like the nosey and bossy nature of Britain's interference (I feel that way too, and I am British) while others don't seem to like that some say Britain is being nosey.

Essentially, the disagreement is about Britain's involvement in Zimbabwe. I think that's what the difference here is about.

But that is not even close to the point @Blatant. I don't care if any other country is nosey, for all I care, Britain has always been involved with Zimbabwe from the start. The country has citizens who are also Zimbabweans. Citizens who by the way are being affected in some way by what is going on down there to date.  I mean I could stand up here and say the West is being nosey when it comes to Darfur as well or even North Korea Or even America (with Mexico demanding that the UN force the US to grant it's citizens legal status and all, not to forget spare it's citizens from the death penalty in america. It freaking exists every where you go. So why make it the issue when it is not. ROFLMAO!!

Does that really relate in any way to the real problem in the area?? It's like Noseyness exists but what is the main problem Why continue to bring in the nosey parties when the discussion is about the real problem and  continue using the fact that there are nosey parties involved to demand the people not be given their way and then in another sentence say the people should have there way

Like I said before. This is watching people argue A and then jump to X and then say K is the point in the end. Serious disconnection here. I don't get it. How does my house being on fire have anything to do with my nosey neighbour who keeps talking about how my house has been on fire and how it is time for intervention and what not?? Should I then continue to let my family burn cause I have issues with my nosey neighbour even as my house burns? 

Sure valid for anyone to choose to think that way for self but when you want to debate it or tell someone of it, understand that the disjointed nature of debates will be pointed out to you by others, if it's not apparent to you in the first. I mean either help me connect the dots better so I can actually see what you see in your mind's eye with this or accept it will ever be disconnected and hence invalid to me. ROFLMAO!! 

Anywho, Forum is not hot this morning. Where are the interesting topics on this wonderful friday morning?

I dont see anyone who has said Mugabe is not bad or who has said Zimbabwe is not burning.

It's the hypocrisy of Britain that riles some people up. Do you know that Zimbabwe has the the main news item on BBC for the past few weeks? Compare that with the happenings in other parts of Africa and you'll understand why some people will see the hypocrisy, especially if they live in the UK.

Why did other crisis situations not get half of this coverage?

Blatant:

I don't see anyone who has said Mugabe is not bad or who has said Zimbabwe is not burning.

It is one thing to say Mugabe is bad in one statement and in the next statement say the people's will do not need to be upheld. Do you see how those two statements somehow conflict?

Blatant:

It's the hypocrisy of Britain that riles some people up. Do you know that Zimbabwe has the the main news item on BBC for the past few weeks?

Are the BBC and CNN now Governments? Do they speak for all people or governments now?? Is Al Jazeera in on it too??

Blatant:

Compare that with the happenings in other parts of Africa and you'll understand why some people will see the hypocrisy, especially if they live in the UK.

Using that reasonining, I would also label America's interest in Darfur today as being hypocritical when I compare the flooding of american media  with news from Darfur with  what has been happening in Uganda for a long time. Does that help as well?? We have celebrities going over to Darfur and we do not have half enough of them going over to countries like Niger or Uganda. Does that then mean this is all hypocrisy?? Can we for once be objective??

Blatant:

Why did other crisis situations not get half of this coverage?

Again,  is CNN/BBC/Al Jazeer/NBC and the rest now Government?? Does their covering or not covering issues mean that they speak for all of the west now?? You do know that the Iraq and Afghanistan wars are still on but guess what?? They barely get coverage on those these days. Does that mean Government is still not in Iraq?? Does that mean people don't want to know what is going on down there?? Can we please be objective here in our dealings??

Kobojunkie:

It is one thing to say Mugabe is bad in one statement and in the next statement say the people's will do not need to be upheld. Do you see how those two statements somehow conflict?

Are the BBC and CNN now Governments? Do they speak for all people or governments now?? Is Al Jazeera in on it too??

Using that reasonining, I would also label America's interest in Darfur today as being hypocritical when I compare the flooding of american media with news from Darfur with what has been happening in Uganda for a long time. Does that help as well?? We have celebrities going over to Darfur and we do not have half enough of them going over to countries like Niger or Uganda. Does that then mean this is all hypocrisy?? Can we for once be objective??

Again, is CNN/BBC/Al Jazeer/NBC and the rest now Government?? Does their covering or not covering issues mean that they speak for all of the west now?? You do know that the Iraq and Afghanistan wars are still on but guess what?? They barely get coverage on those these days. Does that mean Government is still not in Iraq?? Does that mean people don't want to know what is going on down there?? Can we please be objective here in our dealings??

I still dont see anyone who said the will of the people should be overridden

BBC will not blatantly be on Zimbabwe's case if the authorities are also not on the case.

You can label America's interest in Darfur whichever way you deem fit but it is obvious to anyone in the UK that the intense interest in Zimbabwe is because of the white farmers who were booted off the land

Blatant:

I still don't see anyone who said the will of the people should be overridden

I will only repeat my initial statement here and this time. I would appreciate it if you would give a more direct answer.

If I say, Mugabe is wrong in deciding no one but God can remove him from office and in the next statement, I say the person the people voted for is too much of a Western stooge for the people and so should not be allowed to take office, even though he is the people's choice and was voted in by the people. Are these two statements compatible?

2) Do they inform you well of where I stand or would I not have to inject my own ideas into the above to come to a plain conclusion on where you stand??

Blatant:

You can label America's interest in Darfur whichever way you deem fit[b] but it is obvious to anyone in the UK that the intense interest in Zimbabwe is because of the white farmers who were booted off the land[/b]

So why is this hypocritical, if I may ask?? You yourself mention that there were Zimbabwean white farmers in it that link the UK with Zimbabwe. Is Britain barred from being involved in the cause even when it is apparent that there is a british link here with the presence of White British/Zimbabwean Citizens in Zimbabwe? Also an agreement between britain and Zimbabwe that has been broken over the years and it is hypocritical for Britain to be miffed? Anywho, I am not even for the british but it seems too much focus on the british here and less on the people whose pictures actually started this thread.

Blatant:

BBC will not blatantly be on Zimbabwe's case if the authorities are also not on the case.

Ok. Let us say you are right here. So how do we explain CNN and Al Jazeera then?? How do we explain NBC's involvement?? Hypocrisy as well??

DIRECT QUESTIONS. Just Brief answers please.

1)  And How does it affect the current situation in Zimbabwe in anyway??

2) I mean did Mugabe kill 1000 people since the last election because of Britain??

3) Did Britain force his hand?? Is Britain's  supposed "hypocrisy" the reason why Zimbabweans voting to have a candidate that is assumed by some to be a western stooge, is not to be honored??

4) Is the current situation in Zimbabwe( The election fiasco) a handiwork of the british community?

** Can't we all focus on real issues that affect Africa instead of constantly looking for ways to inject to WEST in as cause for all doom??

It appears you are not happy to hear the west being mentioned.

If Britain was not huffing and puffing so much, I'll not be saying it's hypocrisy. . . especially when they are lying about the reason for the focus. Ok, I have seen a post implying that the people's wish be overriden. However, that is not what I believe most posters would wish.

The HYPOCRISY is in the fect that they do not ever say that their interest is because of the white displaced farmers, rather they claim that it is because of suffering Zimbabweans. If it is in the interest of suffering people, where were they when OBJ's regime razed Odi?

The situation is foistered upon Zimbabwe as a result of bad leadership, no one has disputed that fact. However, for you to say that no one should mention any other thing in relation to it especially the involvement of the west is nothing but an attempt to always be close-minded about things and not wanting to look at the issue in totality.

I live in the UK and it irks me to see the hypocrisy of Britain in this. That does not mean I am a Mugabe fan. it just means that I despise the hypocritical attitude. I also despise Mugabe's nonsense and inhumanity towards his own people.

Sagamite:

Sorry.

I take it you work for Zimbabwe Electoral Commission and have surveyed the people to find this out?

there u go again,ill assume you are up to date and have been following the zimbabwe pol crisis because then you will know that the mugabe man agreed to a re run and in a couple of months,now going on about how fair he is or not fair is not for britain to determine UNTILL ALL DEMOCRATIC OPTIONS HAVE BEEN EXHAUSTED.PHEW!!!!!

Sagamite:





Any alternative recommendations?

You could make yourself a world legend here.

Anything you say about this might be the next UN framework/blueprint.

Damn!!!

Finally!

A statement that is closed-ended, commital and conclusive.

Well done, son.

ill ignore the alternative reccommendatn n that remarks and just move on to the un framework , and all i want  to ask you  is does it make sense to allow a SOVEREIGN STATE exhaust all democratic options first before foreign intervention or not?
glad you got the gist of what i bn saying since,so we can move on from there thank GOD.

Sagamite:





You mean after he adjusted it to make sure there is a need for a second round which he planned to beat the populace to "correct" their vote?

You mean the results he withheld well beyond the constitutional deadline for timescales to release it?

hmmnn, now why am i going on about that , erm,
could it be because another former british colony namely nigeria s presently going through same thing and they didnt bat an eyelid, not forgetting that nigeria's had security,economic implications for the whole world but no,nobody  gave notice not even these loveli "FAIR" AND CHARITABLE BRITISH AND AMERICQN PRINT AND ELECTRONIC MEDIA,AND THATS JUST NIGERIA AMONGST OTHER AFRICAN COUNTRIES
now tell me why zimbabwe is soo diffrent to nigeria and all these other african countries,especially an african country where instability would have affected and is affecting them more economically than zimbabwe i.e nigeria
[quote author=Sagamite link=topic=145018.





What the f*ck is wrong with the West? Why do they keep reporting these and embarassing our continent? We don't want to wash our dirty linen in public?

Evil white people that always plan (even gather community by community) to destroy the blackman.
[quote][/quote]
honestly i have been asking myself that same question for like ages now,what the fck is wrong with them?
why the european rebate to continually put afican farmers under their yoke while they have more than enough to eat,to the extent that obesity is now almost an epidemic wtf!!!

whats with their divide and rule,why installing stooges in african countries,why taking advantage of their natural resources, wtf!!!

whats so special in zimbabwe that top shadow mps in britain and even opposing political parties even those who voted against the iraq war are advocating the cutting of power going into zimbabwe by south africa,and some even advocating millitary intervention wtf!!!

why cant they attend to the humongous mess they v made in iraq,afgs,e.t.c instead of creating more mess wtf!!!

people in britain will understand how serious they v taken zimbabwe if a newspaper like the daily mail who doesnt give a fck about anything labour,minorities or outside u.k ,the sun newspapers,bbc,channel4 e.t.c have suddenly put zimbabwe on the same hight alert as iraq
so i share your views on what the fck is wrong with the west dues to  a few of the legions of reasons i v on there

@busybody
there was no sword out in the first place,all we r tryna do is state the obvious and also to say that we dont do blind and rigid loyalty,we v been bitten once and we r now twice or thrice or uncountable times shy, and we r been vilified and demonised as mugabe's family member.

@blantant
thank you very much for seeing through every issue,now you r getting to the real crux of the matter at hand

Blatant:

It appears you are not happy to hear the west being mentioned.

Please don’t assume to know how happy or sad I am about the west. From my vantage point, I see a people consumed with their dislike of the west that every single issue has to be linked in one way or another to the west for them to feel peace with it, while the cries of the actual victims continue to go unheard. I liken what is happening here and on most threads on here to watching Simpson blame Flanders for everything bad that happens to him and all his stupid mistakes.  I liken it to having to listen to a black American friend I used to have here, who seem to blame everyone else for her miserable choices in life. The man is always out to get her!! Talk about serious bias. ROFLMAO!!

Blatant:

If Britain was not huffing and puffing so much, I'll not be saying it's hypocrisy. . . especially when they are lying about the reason for the focus.

So, again, what if Britain is being hypocritical here?? How does that affect or change the events of the past couple of months?? What does that have to do with what is ACTUALLY happening in Zimbabwe as we speak??

Blatant:

Ok, I have seen a post implying that the people's wish be overriden. However, that is not what I believe most posters would wish.

From your own mouth So you do admit that was implied? But then again you are saying it was not implied?? Did you read the person’s mind or something?? How does this work??

Blatant:

The HYPOCRISY is in the fect that they do not ever say that their interest is because of the white displaced farmers, rather they claim that it is because of suffering Zimbabweans. If it is in the interest of suffering people, where were they when OBJ's regime razed Odi?

1) So Britain is being hypocritical, according to you. How does this change or affect what is going on in Zimbabwe as we speak??
2) When OBJ razed Odi, did Nigeria have any agreements with the British and their people?? I mean where thousands of British citizens, most of whom were also Zimbabwean citizens, literally chased out of Nigeria, and had all their land and property taken away from them illegally?? How does this work?

Blatant:

The situation is foistered upon Zimbabwe as a result of bad leadership, no one has disputed that fact. However, for you to say that no one should mention any other thing in relation to it especially the involvement of the west is nothing but an attempt to always be close-minded about things and not wanting to look at the issue in totality.

But, no one has proof that the situation in Zimbabwe today has anything to do with the current “hypocrisy” of the west?? Your own words point to the fact that it is a result of bad leadership, on the part of the west?? Are the Zimbabweans right now blaming the west for their leader deciding they should support him or die?? I can accept that I am close-minded but arguing all over the chart is not reason for claiming the one who points out that fact is the close-minded party. All I see is a bunch of people who are not willing to focus on the cares of the people but are too caught up in their issues with the west to do care what the people are saying.

Blatant:

I live in the UK and it irks me to see the hypocrisy of Britain in this. That does not mean I am a Mugabe fan. it just means that I despise the hypocritical attitude. I also despise Mugabe's nonsense and inhumanity towards his own people.

I have friends and family in the UK who do not feed me this whole “West = Hypocrisy” propaganda. Does that mean they are also close-minded?? I even know of a few Zimbabweans in the UK who have been urging the UK government to act for years now. There are groups in the UK that have been pushing that the UK government does something. Are they close-minded??
I am not saying you are a Mugabe fan, but try to focus on the topic and leave your bias at the door more often. Is that too much to ask??
In this case, you have made it clear that the west is only yapping on the side but the problems in Zimbabwe has been as a result of bad leadership, so why the frell has the west being brought in over and over?? What good does it do the average Zimbabwean living in fear of its own leaders today?? What has it to do with the people being denied their right to choose whom they want?? What has it to do with the record inflation rate in the country today?
Another point I think we should consider is this. These people have lived most of their lives with the west. The west is not new to them. Many of those who are over 28 can remember what life was like before Mugabe and can better tell us what they feel about the west. Even after Mugabe took office, they continued to live with the west; with the many land agreements and having to depend on white farmers for their food and their economy. So I think it should be one of the many things we have to consider here before we run to demonize the west claiming it is for the sake of Zimbabwe.  The man labeled as western –stooge has been known to Zimbabweans for years and in the majority they voted to have him as their leader. Does that not in some way point to the fact that Zimbabweans do not really share this fear of the west as you do??

So , fine, the west is being hypocritical but what has that to do with the very situation in Zimbabwe, even as we speak?? If the average Zimbabwean is not in any way being affected by this so called hypocritical action of the west, why are we trying SO HARD to inject the west into this? Why not ignore the west and its “BICKERING” and focus on the real issues??

Even worse, how many african countries seem to be concerned or actually doing anything about the situation down there?? Millions are starving as we speak. Mandela only partially opened his mouth to speak out against the situation some days ago but still no active push from the AU.

lucabrasi:

there u go again,ill assume you are up to date and have been following the zimbabwe pol crisis because then you will know that the mugabe man agreed to a re run and in a couple of months,now going on about how fair he is or not fair is not for britain to determine UNTILL ALL DEMOCRATIC OPTIONS HAVE BEEN EXHAUSTED.PHEW!!!!!

Yes, a country should be left free to exhaust all political options but should not be left free to exhaust all political killings, intimidations and rigging.

What happened when Mugabe was allowed to "exhaust all democratic thuggery, intimidations and rigging options" in 2000 and 2004?

You don't think it is time to say it is enough now that it is at its worst where he is now doing his evil clear and in the open?

What happened when Mugabe was allowed to "exhaust all democratic thuggery, intimidations and rigging options" in the first round?

Did he not spend 6 weeks shamelessly rigging the results to make sure the people's choice is not announced as the winner?

So we should wait for to "exhaust all democratic thuggery, intimidations and rigging options" for the second round when he is no more even bothering to cover the fact that he would kill, intimidate and beat everybody until he wins?

Are those democratic options?

lucabrasi:

glad you got the gist of what i bn saying since,so we can move on from there thank GOD.hmmnn, now why am i going on about that , erm,
could it be because another former british colony namely nigeria s presently going through same thing and they didnt bat an eyelid, not forgetting that nigeria's had security,economic implications for the whole world but no,nobody  gave notice not even these loveli "FAIR" AND CHARITABLE BRITISH AND AMERICQN PRINT AND ELECTRONIC MEDIA,AND THATS JUST NIGERIA AMONGST OTHER AFRICAN COUNTRIES
now tell me why zimbabwe is soo diffrent to nigeria and all these other african countries,especially an african country where instability would have affected and is affecting them more economically than zimbabwe i.e nigeria

Probably because Nigeria is not in a financial mess.

Probably because Nigerian press was free to report events and elections without being beaten to death or chased out.

Probably because Nigerians were not being beaten overnight in their homes to vote in a certain way. (At least the riggers waited for votes to be casted before doing their job)

Did the Western media not say unequivocally that the election was rigged?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/6580969.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/6579685.stm

Probably because Nigerian women were not being raped in front of their children and family all in the name of "political retraining".

Probably because opposition members were not being found dead left, right and centre.

Probably because the opposition was free to campaign and were not being beaten or taken to court on "Treason".

Probably because Nigeria has demonstrated democratic independence by blocking a third term of OBJ.

Probably because PDP would have won anyway.

Probably because the opposition was also rigging the elections in their own stronghold.

Probably because Nigeria did not have an incumbent that is destroying the economy but still wants to die in power.

Probably because Nigerians were not dropping dead of starvation and AIDS.

Probably because Nigeria economy was improving under the incumbent.

Did the Evil West press not focus and attack Abacha when he was in power and was doing similar to Mugabe?

Did Abacha also take white land?

I am really struggling to see the similarities between the Zimbabwe elections and Nigerian elections apart from rigging.

Did you steal all this from my mind  I had typed up a huge list of reasons exactly like those you have up there but decided against posting it last minute, cause I just don't think it would mean much or be read, in the end. LMAO!!!


This seems more like all about the need to kick it against the west and none about reality of situation in Africa.