[lil'babykitten]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programme...nt/3537511.stm (Please read article in its entirety)

This job is a steady diet of wars, death at close range, natural disasters that make the earth shake, or that cause liquid fire to spew from mountains, planes that fall out of the skies, diseases that kill millions and meetings with individuals at the heart of unspeakable tragedies.

But never before have I spent months sitting in front of young people who have tortured, raped, beaten their relatives and who speak of it quite matter-of-factly.

....

Zimbabwe's government is absolutely outraged at our report.

The state newspaper has called it abominable, malicious, inaccurate, odious, criminal, ignorant, misguided. They have called the BBC rapists of the truth.

They say we are involved in a conspiracy to undermine Robert Mugabe.

And they say the camps are there to instil discipline and a sense of national pride into young Zimbabweans.

It will be interesting to see if they allow international investigators into the camps.

Well, I lost count of how many times we heard "brutal dictator" when Iraq was at the top of the US and UK's agendas. What of Mugabe? Is the international community going to sit idly by this one? Surely this is an issue of paramount importance if we are really concerned about human rights?

The Zimbabwe government has blasted the BBC investigation and the media have managed to distort this story further, making it appear as though it is untrue. I think we all know about Zimbabwe's flagrant abuse of human rights.

The fact that this is being ignored shouldn't really amaze me but it does.

Opinions/Stories/flames/bla bla bla

[clt2]

<preempt>What does Iceland intend to do about it? Are they sitting around waiting for the US to do something?</preempt>

[lil'babykitten]

[Troll]

Haven't you heard that the US and South Africa teamed up and sent in a plane load of mercenaries? It's all over the BBC!

I really think South Africa and Nigeria and some other African countries need to deal with Uncle Bob. Sanctions are the way to go I think. Mbeki's silent diplomacy hasn't worked. They need a change of course. But, at the end of the day, I think this is something that Africa needs to deal with on its own and not by force. Bob is a clever guy and a tough customer and I think non-African intevention in Zimbabwe would only serve to reinforce his ideals. Military action would also just cause even more suffering for Zimbabweans.

[lil'babykitten]

LOL! I totally missed that, it's not on my edition of the BBC..i had to search for it!

Doesn't seem connected though.

Originally posted by Troll:
I really think South Africa and Nigeria and some other African countries need to deal with Uncle Bob. Sanctions are the way to go I think. Mbeki's silent diplomacy hasn't worked. They need a change of course. But, at the end of the day, I think this is something that Africa needs to deal with on its own and not by force. Bob is a clever guy and a tough customer and I think non-African intevention in Zimbabwe would only serve to reinforce his ideals. Military action would also just cause even more suffering for Zimbabweans.

Good point.

[Troll]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
Doesn't seem connected though.

Not if you ask Bob. He says the Americans (he's not so bold as to accuse his good friend Thabo yet) sent these mercenaries to depose him.

[fizzlemynizzle]

People said the same thing about Charles Taylor. "We're so worried about Iraq, what about Charles Taylor? Why doesn't the US do anything about him?" Two weeks later Charles Taylor was out, after the US leaned on him. Without firing a shot.

So either you're saying A) you WANT the US to exert its influence on unjust leaders around the world, after all.. or B) you're just moving the target around because you have an agenda.

[Krusty]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
Well, I lost count of how many times we heard "brutal dictator" when Iraq was at the top of the US and UK's agendas. What of Mugabe? Is the international community going to sit idly by this one? Surely this is an issue of paramount importance if we are really concerned about human rights?

Thought ever crossed your mind that maybe we really aren't all that concerned about human rights? If we were, we would've ousted Saddam at the height of his war on his own people in late 80's -- not 15 years later. Hasn't this been discussed ad nauseum in this forum ... the war in Iraq became a war to "free the Iraqi people" only as the WMD angle became less and less tenable. Politics is usually a complex mess of killing mulitple birds with one stone ... if human rights goals can be achieved along side geopolitical goals, we'll send in the troops. Human rights alone has rarely been reason enough.

[andi*pandi]

well, that's a damn scary story! And sad.

From a strictly militaristic standpoint, if I were a government entity, I'd be concerned at the conversion/training of children into a large group of sociopaths/militia/mercenaries. Would make a ruthless army.

[rambo47]

Zimbabwe as it stand now is what the international community, led by the U.N., decided was in the best interests of the people of Rhodesia. I remember the love-fest the U.N. had with Mugabe when he was staging his takeover and all the coverage Time Magazine gave this "brave leader of the opressed." What gives the U.S., or anyone else for that matter, the right to undo this "people's paradise"?

When I was at Bucknell I played rugby with two brothers from Rhodesia. The eldest of the brothers, aside from having mad skills as a rugby player, was formerly a captain in the Rhodesian army. The alleged civil war he fought in was reported by the western press as "the people throwing off the yoke of oppression" and fighting for their freedom from the aparthied regime. Interestingly, Shawn said that every person of color he knew was fighting against the rebels. Although aparthied was a bogus social and political agenda it was still preferable to the alternative that we're seeing now. In 3 1/2 years of fighting Shawn saw few freedom fighters, but lots of Angolan army soldiers and even Cuban soldiers. "Just advisors", Angola insisted, all 30.000 of 'em Some paradise they created, huh? Maybe Stevie Wonder would like to rething his lyrics about how "peace has come to Zimbabwe." Looks like more apt lyrics can be found in a song by The Who: "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss." The atrocities continue and have gotten worse by several orders of magnitude.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Krusty:
Thought ever crossed your mind that maybe we really aren't all that concerned about human rights? If we were, we would've ousted Saddam at the height of his war on his own people in late 80's -- not 15 years later. Hasn't this been discussed ad nauseum in this forum ... the war in Iraq became a war to "free the Iraqi people" only as the WMD angle became less and less tenable.

Yes, yes, we all know that - just for God's sake don't let the right wing here hear that.

-s*

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by clt2:
<preempt>What does Iceland intend to do about it? Are they sitting around waiting for the US to do something?</preempt>

I love you, man.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Krusty:
Thought ever crossed your mind that maybe we really aren't all that concerned about human rights? If we were, we would've ousted Saddam at the height of his war on his own people in late 80's -- not 15 years later.

Or alternatively, that there is an ongoing shift in our concern about human rights -- and what kind of intervention is permissible to enforce them against governments who oppress their own people.

That was what Clinton's people argued throughout the 1990s. It's also what Blair argued at the time of Kosovo, and as recently as last week.

Let me attempt an explanation of how my own thinking, as a political leader, has evolved during these past few years. Already, before September 11th the world's view of the justification of military action had been changing. The only clear case in international relations for armed intervention had been self-defense, response to aggression. But the notion of intervening on humanitarian grounds had been gaining currency. I set this out, following the Kosovo war, in a speech in Chicago in 1999, where I called for a doctrine of international community, where in certain clear circumstances we do intervene, even though we are not directly threatened. I said this was not just to correct injustice, but also because in an increasingly interdependent world, our self-interest was allied to the interests of others; and seldom did conflict in one region of the world not contaminate another. We acted in Sierra Leone for similar reasons, though frankly even if that country had become run by gangsters and murderers and its democracy crushed, it would have been a long time before it impacted on us. But we were able to act to help them and we did.

It's also more than just a political or ideological trend. The international context is different. You are comparing the Cold War era with the post-Cold War era. It's a false comparison. There wasn't the same freedom of action during the Cold War. "Allies" were chosen purely because of their strategic importance in the Cold War. But that constraint is gone now.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by Krusty:
Thought ever crossed your mind that maybe we really aren't all that concerned about human rights?

Yes, exactly. The ongoing situation in Zimbabwe demonstrates this. But like Spheric said, just don't tell this board's righties.

[theolein]

Originally posted by Troll:
Not if you ask Bob. He says the Americans (he's not so bold as to accuse his good friend Thabo yet) sent these mercenaries to depose him.

Thabo Mbeki, is excuse for saying it like this, a spineless sh1t. As my mother says in SA, he has made more friends and spent more time in foreign countries than our own.