Meanwhile, back in the socialist paradise of Gun Control

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Sep 4, 2005
Messages
3,213
Location
Amerikan Twilight Zone
We covered a thread earlier on Zimbabwe, Mugabe, and his gun control.

Well, here are the results when a populace is disarmed:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/africa/article2148357.ece

A group of nursing mothers were ordered to put down their babies by Zimbabwean police before being beaten for hours.

The six women were among 160 people rounded up at the offices of the National Constitutional Assembly (NCA), an organisation dedicated to constitutional reform, after activists tried to hold a demonstration.

They were taken to Harare central police station and told to leave their babies in the corner of a hall and join other adults lying on their stomachs.

For the next four or five hours, witnesses say, the infants screamed as police lashed their mothers and the other adults continuously with metre-long, heavy rubber sticks.
....
The NCA holds “guerrilla” demonstrations in the face of police brutality so often that they are scarcely reported on. Almost every week young activists wander into the city centre in ones and twos and, at a given signal, sprint through the streets holding banners demanding a new constitution, dispersing and regrouping with the riot police in pursuit. Inevitably, several are caught and emerge a few days later, bloodied and battered. “Yes, you will be beaten up, for sure,” Mr Mugabe said last year after trade union leaders had been assaulted for attempting to hold a peaceful demonstration in Harare.
 
wow, I wish we had that freedom from worry of gun violence here...err, wait a minute...
 
I don't know why those poor people were putting themselves in danger by doing something utterly so hopeless. People determined enough to injure the mothers of infants will never listen.
 
Protests don't work on thugs. Only greater violence in return teaches thugs anything.

If Mugabe's thugs swing a club, they need to swing axes.
 
Mugabe isn't 'socialist'..

He is a looter. Socialism (or state capitalism) run by sane people usually means things like self-sufficiency in basic foodstuffs, no oranges in stores, occassional toilet paper shortages...

And guns. Lots of guns(for the People's Army), and even more tanks!

------------------------------------------

Zimbabwe is a really, really sad case. Seeing a once prosperous country going down like the Titanic or the US private savings' rate makes me lose hope in humanity.

At least Mugabestan serves as a lesson for us to learn where politicians here would take us if they could.
You've got it wrong. Nazi Germany is where politician here want to take you if you let them... I mean, it wasn't a bad place for the Germans to live in... if you didn't mind the totalitarian society, having to march in lock-step, self-censorship, prospect of being woken at 3 am by the Gestapo if you stepped out of line and the subsequent world war...
But mind you, living conditions in Germany at that time were on par or better than in the US.

Zimbabwe is just a really horrific example of a dictatorship, were the dictator and his clique just can't cut it. They are not up to running a country.
 
Socialist..

Mugabe is definitly a socialist, in the same vein as the Hildabeast or Obamastan. they think the .gov should run the show with everything doled out to the serfs... except for the lions share handed out to the cronies.

If you think in a socialist health care world, elitists like the Hildabeast would queue up with the great unwashed to wait in line for health care, you are sadly mistaken. Just as Mugabe lives a life of leisure while his people starve.

Hildabeast = Mugabe... just one is farther down the crappy brown brick road.
 
I don't think you can really define "socialist" as simply meaning "government runs everything, keeps most for itself/cronies, and hands out enough to the masses to keep them docile".


Now, I accept that socialism often ends up with that result (which is one of the reasons I'm not a socialist).

But a) there is a lot more to socialism than that, and many socialist would oppose such a system.

And b) that definition would include most dictatorships throughout history, including all those that rose and fell centuries before Marx etc ever lived.



As for Mugabe himself, I think the earlier poster nailed it:

He's a thuggish dictator who wants to run the country himself, but lacks the competence to do anything other than loot it. (And possibly not even that for much longer. The last I heard, even the "security" forces were starting to suffer as a result from the collapse of the economy, so he might find himself on the end of a coup soon).
 
He's a kleptocrat, not a socialist. A socialist, however misguided, believes in state confiscation of property for the public good. Mugabe believes in state confiscation of property for his own good, and to heck with everyone else.
 
Mugabe is also literally killing off the population of his country en massse. Hillary Clinton is pretty backwards but I don't think she would go that far.
 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/29/wzim229.xml

Zimbabwe's top generals have pledged to help Robert Mugabe win next year's presidential election.

Army chiefs met on Tuesday to discuss their role in the election after the 83-year-old president's appeal for their help in securing a victory for his ruling Zanu-PF Party.

According to a senior officer who was present at the meeting, the generals agreed that the army would have a "heavy" presence at polling stations and would take part in the vote-counting process, alongside the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission.
....
In a bid to persuade the army to back him, Mr Mugabe told senior officers earlier this month that he would step down after the elections but needed their help to "secure victory" and to shame "Western governments bent on re-occupying us".

At last week's meeting, the commander of Zimbabwe's defence forces, Constantine Chiwenga, told the generals that it was important for the army to help Mr Mugabe, "as a means of allowing his smooth exit from office, because he is our commander-in-chief and as such we're obliged by law to obey his commandments".
 
Titan 6
Hillary Clinton is pretty backwards but I don't think she would go that far
I think you are correct, given our current political atmosphere.
But stop for a minute and fast forward for, say, 75yrs. What would be happening if we have lost our right to own firearms? :confused:
Given the invasion that we have from the south, the failure of the Republican party to give us a viable alternative to the Demos, and the Globalist movement in American politics, you have to say that something simliar to this mindless violence is not out of the queston! We must stay the course in our battle to keep our arms, no matter the cost.
I feel for the people of Zimbabwe, and as a Christian I must try to help them, but the U.S. cannot and should not undertake to police the entire world.
:banghead:
 
LOL, Mugabe =/= socialism, :p

yet it still holds for my earlier statement :

Half true, there is a difference between personal property and private property. Any who, I am no fan of socialism either, they think that the dictatorship of the proletariat will just disappear when it is no longer needed, pff. I say straight to anarchy after the revolution.

At least Mugabestan serves as a lesson for us to learn where politicians here would take us if they could.

You've got it wrong. Nazi Germany is where politician here want to take you if you let them... I mean, it wasn't a bad place for the Germans to live in... if you didn't mind the totalitarian society, having to march in lock-step, self-censorship, prospect of being woken at 3 am by the Gestapo if you stepped out of line and the subsequent world war...
But mind you, living conditions in Germany at that time were on par or better than in the US.

I think that this sums things up pretty well.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top