• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Zimbabwe's Future?

Ur Choices?

  • Continue As A Test Nation?

    Votes: 4 11.4%

  • Be Neutral as now? (In between Associate & Full Member)

    Votes: 1 2.9%

  • Suspend From Being Test Nation? (Same As All Other Associate Members, Play In WCL & IC Cup)

    Votes: 30 85.7%
  • Total voters
    35
Richard

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
TT Boy said:
You suggest the situation in Zimbabwe is far worse than Pakistan and Sri Lanka but you just previously conceded that you haven’t paid any attention to sub-Saharan politics in years. Zimbabwe is apart of sub-Saharan Africa so you must have been paying some attention to sub-Saharan 'politics' to form such an opinion, correct?
Click to expand...
"Sub-Saharan Africa" doesn't generally tend to relate to Zimbabwe or South Africa.

At least, not where I've heard the term used.
 
Richard

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Goughy said:
TT Boy has a point. Im not going to go into whether a country like Pakistan deserves to be banned from cricket.

If the criteria was purely a country in crisis then it should be. It ranks 12th worst in the Failed States Index (out of nearly 200 countries) which measures the 12 political, economic, military, and social indicators of instability (Zimbabwe is 4th).

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3865&page=7
Click to expand...
That's interesting in itself - but there's still quite a considerable gap between 4th and 12th. There's also no "cut-off point" where bad goes to worse, which is the point I've made all along about Zimbabwe.

It's no secret that Pakistan is poor politically, economically, socially, etc. but I still dispute that it's anywhere near as bad as Zimbabwe.
 
Last edited:
Richard

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Langeveldt said:
haha.. Doesn't it?
Click to expand...
Goughy said:
hmm :blink:
Click to expand...
Yes, I know it's below the Sahara and it's in Africa, but when I use the term I'm basically talking about the countries in the middle.

I honestly couldn't tell you the name of the President, or ruler, of a single country between Egypt and Zimbabwe. But I could tell you a few bits and pieces about the recent (and even the odd thing here and there on the not-so-recent) politics from both Zimbabwe and South Africa, for obvious reasons.
 
Marius

Marius

International Debutant
Sub-Saharan Africa is a more politically correct term for "black" Africa, everything below the Sahara. It definitely includes Zim and SA.
 
Son Of Coco

Son Of Coco

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
LA ICE-E said:
Why the **** are you guys arguing over this. Why does the ICC have to do something? Why the hell are the governments of the countries doing any thing? Stop trade, start economic santons etc. Don't get me wrong I'm against the dictator but it's not the ICC job to fix it.


Other governments are for their own countries but those other governmets deal with ZImbabwe and trade with them etc and if it is the will of their own countries' people because of moral issues than they should act upon that. But It's not for the the ICC to deal with moral issues because in the end, morals are different for each and every person.

Again here's an example, in your morality it's ok or not as big of a deal if injustice is happening to 1 or small group of people while it is a big deal if it's happening to a lot of people. But for me, it's wrong no matter how many people the injustice is happening to and I'd stand up for each one of them not just stand up for 1 group and let the others die just because they are a smaller, less powerful group. So if sports are going to act up morals then we will end up in a whole lot of mess that doesn't really have to do with sports. Let organizations for moral issues and dedicated against this kind of things, governments etc deal with these not sports organizations.

So the guide lines for sports organizaitons should be only get invovled when it's effecting the sport and right now in Zimbabwe it is which is why they can not have a test level team or home support for the team etc which means they dont meet the criteria of being a full member and so they should be suspended.
Click to expand...
I think you got what I said completely wrong if you think this is the case.
 
Son Of Coco

Son Of Coco

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Richard said:
Given that all Pnottath's points on this issue are related to "the British can't be taken seriously where the Zimbabwe situation is concerned because they're only exhibiting colonialism" we can safely dismiss it all as nonsense.

The situation in Zimbabwe is infinitely worse, and has been for years, than the situation in either Pakistan or Sri Lanka (or most other places, for that matter). Get a clue on the situation before coming-out with this claptrap.
Click to expand...
Exactly, given he/she is trying to compare a situation where a leader is actively destroying his citizens to those where organisations (somewhat terrorist in nature) are fighting against their own governments.

Edit: Feel free to tell me what else is going on in Pakistan!
 
Last edited:
Richard

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Originally Posted by Michael Atherton
Chingoka called the move to table a resolution on Zimbabwe as “unethical”, which is like being lectured on fidelity by a *** addict.
Click to expand...
Indeed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top