Zimbabwe's Future?

[biased indian]

Such as what not, more like.

China has a massive population, nuclear capability and a few other things besides. There's no knowing exactly what would happen if someone were to basically stick the fingers up to them. It might turn-out to be nothing major. But equally, it might turn-out to be seriously catastrophic.

Fortunately, no-one is silly enough to try it and see.

But we still ban or boycott...other nuclear contires though

in olmpics of 80,84

no body have any problem saying anyhtong aganist the nuclear North korea...

 

[Richard]

Haha, you have the strangest opinions sometimes. Silentstriker is spot on here. You don't just take action when it suits you or when it's easy.

Why not? Why try to take action when you have zero chance of making any impact and to attempt would cause you serious harm? It makes no sense, whatsoever.

Only attempt action when it could actually help. And while it'd obviously be nice to make some sacrifice (far from likely to happen of course) to improve certain things, sacrificing plenty to make sod-all difference would be a rather silly thing to do.

If I thought Britain could completely overhaul China's appalling human-rights record at the expense of an economic hit to this country, I'd probably be in favour. But we can't. It's as simple as that. We can try to make some difference in Zimbabwe without any real hit to this country. So therefore it makes more sense to try with Zimbabwe than it does with China (or similar countries to China).

 

[Richard]

no body have any problem saying anyhtong aganist the nuclear North korea...

Really?

Where I've been looking people have always made quite some effort to tread pretty carefully where North Korea is concerned.

 

[pasag]

Why not? Why try to take action when you have zero chance of making any impact and to attempt would cause you serious harm? It makes no sense, whatsoever.

Only attempt action when it could actually help. And while it'd obviously be nice to make some sacrifice (far from likely to happen of course) to improve certain things, sacrificing plenty to make sod-all difference would be a rather silly thing to do.

If I thought Britain could completely overhaul China's appalling human-rights record at the expense of an economic hit to this country, I'd probably be in favour. But we can't. It's as simple as that. We can try to make some difference in Zimbabwe without any real hit to this country. So therefore it makes more sense to try with Zimbabwe than it does with China (or similar countries to China).

Because it's an absurd point of view, I don't know as much as the China situation as I'd like, but you don't only make a stand when you can win, you make a stand because it's the right thing to do. Not standing up in what you believe in because you are worried about the consequences is the hight of cowardice.

 

[Richard]

So it's cowardice to not throw a lot away in order to make no difference?

Not for mine. Comes under "common sense".

Nor is not making a stand where you have no chance of making any impact any good reason to not make one where you might just do. I hate the way people say "you've no right trying to do something about Zimbabwe because you don't do anything about China".

 

[pasag]

So it's cowardice to not throw a lot away in order to make no difference?

Not for mine. Comes under "common sense".

Nor is not making a stand where you have no chance of making any impact any good reason to not make one where you might just do. I hate the way people say "you've no right trying to do something about Zimbabwe because you don't do anything about China".

Well I agree with you there.

And it might be common sense, and it might help your interest but as I said, it's the hight of cowardice to look away when something is going wrong because it might affect you negatively down the line. You still have try and make a difference and as the famous saying goes, 'the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil, is for good men to do nothing' etc.

 

[Richard]

I'm not saying you shouldn't try, if there is a chance you can make a difference. But the UK cannot do a thing to change China's doings. China has carte-blanche to do what it likes. That's not nice, but it's the reality of the situation. I don't think anyone's looking away - there are always people trying to reason, but so far - nothing happening there.

Therefore it'd make no sense for the UK to damage its own interests trying to force China to do something we have no power to make them do.

 

[LA ICE-E]

but the point is richard, you should always stand up for what you believe in.

 

[Richard]

Not if to stand-up makes no impact on what you're trying to oppose and also costs you big-time.

In that eventuality, standing up for what you believe in comes under "futile" and "wholly ill-adviseable".

 

[Salamuddin]

WHether the BCCI bans Zimbabwe or not makes not one iota of difference......

Talk is cheap. If the Brits really care about the Zimbabwean people, why not team up with your buddies across the Atlantic and launch an invasion of Zimbabwe ?
Hell why not do it yourself....a regiment of Royal Gurkhas should be enough to take harare.

But heh its warm and fuzzy to issue the few token statements of disapproval and take the moral high ground when it suits you.
Why didn't you take the same position in Rwanda or Sierra Leone or Darfur ?

 

[LA ICE-E]

WHether the BCCI bans Zimbabwe or not makes not one iota of difference......

Talk is cheap. If the Brits really care about the Zimbabwean people, why not team up with your buddies across the Atlantic and launch an invasion of Zimbabwe ?
Hell why not do it yourself....a regiment of Royal Gurkhas should be enough to take harare.

But heh its warm and fuzzy to issue the few token statements of disapproval and take the moral high ground when it suits you.
Why didn't you take the same position in Rwanda or Sierra Leone or Darfur ?

diplomacy should always be used until the last straw breaks after which the talks of launching an war/invasion. But however if put in contexts with the Iraq war then invading Zimbabwe would make more sense.

 

[Richard]

Talk is cheap. If the Brits really care about the Zimbabwean people, why not team up with your buddies across the Atlantic and launch an invasion of Zimbabwe ?
Hell why not do it yourself....a regiment of Royal Gurkhas should be enough to take harare.

It is a question I've asked once or twice myself. Nonetheless, I'd expect someone making such grandiose statements as you make there might be able to provide some answers.

 

[Salamuddin]

It is a question I've asked once or twice myself. Nonetheless, I'd expect someone making such grandiose statements as you make there might be able to provide some answers.

Why should I provide the answers Dickinson ? I don't support the government thats picking and choosing when to take the moral high ground.....

 

[Richard]

If you're criticising them for not doing something, you'd do well to explain why you think they should TBH.

 

[silentstriker]

So it's cowardice to not throw a lot away in order to make no difference?

Banning Zimbabwe isn't going to make a difference either, but (I assume) you still support it?

 

[Salamuddin]

If you're criticising them for not doing something, you'd do well to explain why you think they should TBH.

No I am criticising them for their blatant double standards on who to criticise and who not to.

 

[steds]

Talk is cheap. If the Brits really care about the Zimbabwean people, why not team up with your buddies across the Atlantic and launch an invasion of Zimbabwe ?

Definitely think that's been proved to be a bad idea.

 

[Salamuddin]

Definitely think that's been proved to be a bad idea.

Well I was being facetious.

 

[andruid]

With Mugabe forcing through that farce of a runoff i expect no one will recognise the result, Zimbabwe will be made a pariah state and it will be that much easier for all global organisations including the ICC to suspend Zimbabwe's membership.

 

[Craig]

I'm surprised the people haven't started an uprising yet.