Zimbabwe- another case for 2A

but they are better off than when they were called Rhodesia and run by the 'white minority' aren't they?

Burma, Tibet and Zimbabwe have something in common: they are glaring failures of nonviolence to achieve political goals. Against an armed opponent who is willing to use violence, one has a stark choice: fight or die.

The likelihood of an opposition in Tibet and China taking up arms is minuscule; however it might not be too late in Burma, Darfur and Zimbabwe. The opposition in these nations must consider organizing efforts in the West to pay for arms to fight for their freedom because nonviolence has failed dismally.

The ostrichs will never realize this fact until they take their heads out of the sand or their axs. Too bad so many people will have to suffer because they aren't armed.

but they are better off than when they were called Rhodesia and run by the 'white minority' aren't they?

Click to expand...

The farmers I knew there sure aren't.

Rhodesia was a net exporter of food. Now Mugabestan has its hand held out for food help after the dictator and his "war veterans" trashed the place.

get the facts straight

alsagr:you are right! the american and british activist made the whites give control to black comunists in Rhodes and south africa.now their starving because they dont know how to run a farm and the whites are not allowed to.
this is what the american socialists want in this country.they figured how to get control,control the schools and in 30 ys they have made this country what it is.

What happened with the farms was partly financial. The big farms were run by guys who knew how to manage the farms and had good credit with foreign banks to get loans and such to operate. When the farms were taken away from them and given to Mugabe's cronies, they had no credit and so no cash to keep the farms going and didn't know a thing about running them anyway. So the farms either failed or simply went unused.

At least, that was what I read a while back. Apparently Mugabe and his cronies are so inept that they can't figure out how to get those farms and operations running again.

Rebecca Peters must be delighted with the peaceful non-violent process there.

so when a lowly pheasant gets a gun for protection what happens when a gang shows up 100 deep and demands that he pay them for the privilege of owning one... then they come back a week later and take the gun by force...

this happens all the time in africa... and the people there are 100% disarmed by fear

The dirty little secret here is that government is afraid of civilians with guns. This is why we must have them.

Mechag94:-

What happened with the farms was partly financial. The big farms were run by guys who knew how to manage the farms and had good credit with foreign banks to get loans and such to operate. When the farms were taken away from them and given to Mugabe's cronies, they had no credit and so no cash to keep the farms going and didn't know a thing about running them anyway. So the farms either failed or simply went unused.

At least, that was what I read a while back. Apparently Mugabe and his cronies are so inept that they can't figure out how to get those farms and operations running again

Click to expand...

Now please don't take what follows as a racist, ex white minority South African comment, but I have to disagree with your statement.

The traditional african economy is based on subsistence and bartering. It never has been, nor will be for producing wealth.

When the productive farms were taken away from the whites that knew how to productively farm them and given back to Mugabe's war cronies, they went back and squatted like in times yonder - going back to subsistence farming, where the women till the land -just enough for the family to survive on from one season to the next - while the young boys tend to the cattle and goats - and the men sit around and smoke and drink all day long. AND THEN DROUGHT came.

That is the reality of 3rd world rural Africa. Not lack of credit, or loans, but lack of incentive to produce more than for subsistence and make a profit. It is not a lack of knowledge or money. It is a lack of incentive.

And the same situation is now developing in South Africa as well. That lovely country has degenerated from a developing nation, back to 3rd world economy.

PERIOD!!

"My excellent colleagues have forgotten these bitter lessons of history. The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed; where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once."

Judge Kozinski

Rhodesia and South Africa are a perfect examples of people butting into business they know nothing about.

Now both countries are crime riddled hell holes.

Mugabe gave the seized farms to his cronies.

Not to Zimbabweans (non whites) who would actually farm them

LegalAlien,

I've stopped giving a damn about what happens to zim (a month after elections and no results to release - obviously mcrobber has lost otherwise it would have been anounced immediately).

All criminals that lived in zim bebore 2000 have already moved to South Africa (whats there to steal) and a large number of their population is here illegally, so I think the place should just implode and get it all over with. Maybe if there is absolutely nothing left mugabe will leave.

It seams that just under half of the voters voted for this crazy clown, so I assume that almost half of the population want him there. Another reason I don't feel so sorry for them.

I find Zimbabwe interesting because we can watch the progress & demise of a nation, between its tyrranical dictator and the people who won't actually do anything about him. It's a case study in real-time; history is interesting, but current events (repeating history) give one insights into factors (like a sense of timing over several years) which do not translate well into recorded history.

My dad is a journalist. He interviewed Mugabe back before he came to power. He described him as a force of nature. He had this aura about him;you just knew he was going to do something big. He told me once that he just couldn't connect the man he met then to the loony he sees on TV today.

In contrast, one of my cousins was a Rhodesian SAS officer. He led a mission to kill Mugabe in Angola. Unfortunately, intelligence got his location wrong.

there was a scheme funded by the UK government re land reform. but that folded when Mugabe used it to give farms to his crony's

Good discussion subject, but political discussion is better done at APS.