Wednesday, February 28, 2007

Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe

The International Herald Tribune describes the economic crisis in Zimbabwe. "If we were talking about local currency, I would say: Don't worry, in the next 30 minutes we will print money." Problems? Who's talking about problems? Zimpundit describes the crackdown on the hungry.

Despite a High Court order preventing the police from interfering with the MDC rally to launch its Presidential campaign at Zimbabwe grounds in Highfield, Harare, armed riot police sealed off the venue and patrolled the streets of Highfield indiscriminately firing live ammunition, teargas and water cannons in the tranquil environment around Machipisa shopping centre.

When the crowd became agitated, the over 50 000-strong crowd that had turned up for the rally were sent scurrying for cover after armed riot police ordered the shopping center closed, searched people’s homes and indiscriminately assaulted any person seen outside their home. The terror campaign spread to all high density suburbs in Harare where running battles are still being fought between the people and the security forces of an unpopular regime.

Where's the Interational Criminal Court when you need them? Why grandstanding. A Reuters blogger notes that one of the men the ICC has symbolically indicted over Darfur has been promoted to Minister of Humanitarian Affairs, where he now has power over the very people he has persecuted -- as well as supervision over foreign aid.

Not only will a man accused of war crimes by one of the world's top courts likely remain in charge of the fate of the people whose lives he is alleged to have made a misery. To make matters worse, Sudan expert Eric Reeves told Inter Press Service he's concerned the ICC's move could provoke "increased hostility and recklessness on the part of the regime, especially toward international humanitarian agencies" active in Darfur.

That's OK because according to its supporters, the ICC, by filing its phoney suit against the Darfur criminals, has achieved recognition from the United States. Which was probably its real goal in life. In the end there will be one winner: the ICC; and one big loser, the United States. There will be millions of other smaller losers in Zimbabwe, Darfur, the Congo. But we're talking about the greater good, aren't we?


Blogger allen said...

___The state of a world gone mad

Think about this for a minute:
Tokyo had 1st winter without snow on record+

2/28/2007 12:45:00 PM  
Blogger Alexis said...

It isn't about "the greater good". Yet it also isn't about creating jobs for a phony court. There is something more insidious at stake.

It is pageantry.

Justice for victims of atrocity is not deemed nearly so important as the pageantry of justice. Actual peace in Israel/Palestine is not deemed nearly so important as the pageantry of the "peace process". And now, a new pageant is being created in Baghdad where Iraq's neighbors dictate terms of America's humiliation, but where America's presence there is deemed all-important because an incessant demand from powerful quarters for pageantry, pageantry, and more pageantry.

And that's what the United Nations really is, isn't it? One of the reasons why state actors were more important than they are today is because borders were more malleable and the definition of a state was control over territory. In contrast, the definition of a state comes from Humpty Dumpty -- it is whatever the United Nations says it is, no more and no less. If the United Nations decided Antarctica was a nation and deemed the Secretary General's horse as its recognized president, should we all respect the sovereignty of such a construct? And yet, much damage has come in the post-Cold War era from the United Nations recognizing states genetically unable to exercise sovereignty over their territory, and then some outside forces are deemed necessary to prop up a government whose sole legitimacy derives from recognition by the United Nations.

The reason why al-Qaeda is deemed a "non-state actor" rather than a state actor is because it parasitically exerts state power over territory that is recognized by the United Nations as controlled by a recognized state that is either unable or unwilling to assert sovereignty over it.

Unless and until someone comes around to smash this hall of mirrors, this caricature of legitimacy, this pageantry of false statesmanship will continue to consume humanity. One of the reasons why al-Qaeda attacks the United States is because the legitimacy of the United States is based on a deep foundation, whereas states is much of the rest of the world will blow away in the breeze once the United Nations is destroyed. The United States withstood the September 11 attacks, yet if al-Qaeda had destroyed the United Nations, I doubt the United Nations Organization as an institution would have had the resilience of the United States.

2/28/2007 01:44:00 PM  
Blogger allen said...

"allen said...
___The state of a world gone mad
Think about this for a minute:
Tokyo had 1st winter without snow on record+
2/28/2007 12:45:00 PM"

The last day of winter in Japan will be 20 March 2007.

Neither the media nor I can predict whether snow will NOT fall before that date.

2/28/2007 04:46:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


Didn't Lincoln say, "You can snow some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can’t snow all of the people all of the time"?

2/28/2007 04:59:00 PM  
Blogger allen said...

Mr. Lincoln never met Al Gore.

PS: Mr. Lincoln's public was sufficiently educated to know a snowball's chance in Hell.

2/28/2007 06:11:00 PM  
Blogger allen said...

That last was for "aase's death".

2/28/2007 06:12:00 PM  
Blogger 3Case said...

As I recall, Rhodesia was a food exporter....

2/28/2007 08:15:00 PM  
Blogger Sparks fly said...

Global Warming, evolution and abortion give science a bad name.

In the beginning is the word.

The monsters of the world seem to know this fact from the Bible how come the Christians don't. The monsters self describe themselves as saviors and benefactors and declare a barely measurable Global warming can be solved by their new tax scheme. They just say it over and over again. The old "BIG LIE".

Mugabe's phony money is a paper lie.

Here's one from the Drudge report 2/28/2007:

Cronkite: Iraq war a disaster...


No! Cronkite is the disaster. He is a disaster personally and for this country.

The people on the far left are always talking about themselves. Just look at it. The evil things they say really apply to them if you just turn it around and apply it to them. They self confess. They can't help it.They are self encapsulated.

So let us turn what they say around and point it at them. Don't think about it too much. It's fun and it makes you look smart and perceptive. They know the type of evil they are better than you or I could ever figure out.

Bush did it? No, you did it. Fill in the name and the data. Spread it around the net.

Have a nice day.

3/01/2007 02:46:00 AM  
Blogger Habu1 said...

Cronkite is full of shit.
Cronkite after "Tet" in Vietnam
Cronkite: Iraq war a disaster...

In the the 1960's at the zenith of his career as CBS Evening News anchor and consistentetly voted "the most trusted man in America" What did he do..he read the news. He didn't make tough policy decisions or run for office, he read the news. It was all bull shit in the 1960's.
His declaration that we could not win the war in Vietnam in 1968 gave aid and confort to the enemy, embolded the left to take to the streets and was total bull shit.

This interview ,along with others from North Vietnamese General Giap, their overall commander makes the case.

Vietnam War Interview
What did the North Vietnamese leadership think of the American antiwar movement? What was the purpose of the Tet Offensive? How could the U.S. have been more successful in fighting the Vietnam War? Bui Tin, a former colonel n the North Vietnamese army, answers these questions in the following excerpts from an interview conducted by Stephen Young, a Minnesota attorney and human-rights activist [in The Wall Street Journal, 3 August 1995]. Bui Tin, who served on the general staff of North Vietnam 's army, received the unconditional surrender of South Vietnam on April 30, 1975. He later became editor of the People's Daily, the official newspaper of Vietnam . He now lives in Paris , where he immigrated after becoming disillusioned.
Question: How did Hanoi intend to defeat the Americans?
Answer: By fighting a long war which would break their will to help South Vietnam . Ho Chi Minh said, "We don't need to win military victories, we only need to hit them until they give up and get out."
Q: Was the American antiwar movement important to Hanoi 's victory?
A: It was essential to our strategy. Support of the war from our rear was completely secure while the American rear was vulnerable. Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9 a.m. to follow the growth of the American antiwar movement. Visits to Hanoi by people like Jane Fonda, and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and ministers gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses. We were elated when Jane Fonda, wearing a red Vietnamese dress, said at a press conference that she was ashamed of American actions in the war and that she would struggle along with us.
Q: Did the Politburo pay attention to these visits?
A: Keenly.
Q: Why?
A: Those people represented the conscience of America . The conscience of America was part of its war-making capability, and we were turning that power in our favor. America lost because of its democracy; through dissent and protest it lost the ability to mobilize a will to win.

Q: How could the Americans have won the war?
A: Cut the Ho Chi Minh trail inside Laos . If Johnson had granted [Gen. William] Westmoreland's requests to enter Laos and block the Ho Chi Minh trail, Hanoi could not have won the war.
Q: Anything else?
A: Train South Vietnam 's generals. The junior South Vietnamese officers were good, competent and courageous, but the commanding general officers were inept.
Q: Did Hanoi expect that the National Liberation Front would win power in South Vietnam ?
A: No. Gen. [Vo Nguyen] Giap [commander of the North Vietnamese army] believed that guerrilla warfare was important but not sufficient for victory. Regular military divisions with artillery and armor would be needed. The Chinese believed in fighting only with guerrillas, but we had a different approach. The Chinese were reluctant to help us. Soviet aid made the war possible. Le Duan [secretary general of the Vietnamese Communist Party] once told Mao Tse-tung that if you help us, we are sure to win; if you don't, we will still win, but we will have to sacrifice one or two million more soldiers to do so.
Q: Was the National Liberation Front an independent political movement of South Vietnamese?
A: No. It was set up by our Communist Party to implement a decision of the Third Party Congress of September 1960. We always said there was only one party, only one army in the war to liberate the South and unify the nation. At all times there was only one party commissar in command of the South.
Q: Why was the Ho Chi Minh trail so important?
A: It was the only way to bring sufficient military power to bear on the fighting in the South. Building and maintaining the trail was a huge effort, involving tens of thousands of soldiers, drivers, repair teams, medical stations, communication units.
Q: What of American bombing of the Ho Chi Minh trail?
A: Not very effective. Our operations were never compromised by attacks on the trail. At times, accurate B-52 strikes would cause real damage, but we put so much in at the top of the trail that enough men and weapons to prolong the war always came out the bottom. Bombing by smaller planes rarely hit significant targets.
Q: What of American bombing of North Vietnam ?
A: If all the bombing had been concentrated at one time, it would have hurt our efforts. But the bombing was expanded in slow stages under Johnson and it didn't worry us. We had plenty of times to prepare alternative routes and facilities. We always had stockpiles of rice ready to feed the people for months if a harvest were damaged. The Soviets bought rice from Thailand for us.
Q: What was the purpose of the 1968 Tet Offensive?
A: To relieve the pressure Gen. Westmoreland was putting on us in late 1966 and 1967 and to weaken American resolve during a presidential election year.
Q: What about Gen. Westmoreland's strategy and tactics caused you concern?
A: Our senior commander in the South, Gen. Nguyen Chi Thanh, knew that we were losing base areas, control of the rural population and that his main forces were being pushed out to the borders of South Vietnam . He also worried that Westmoreland might receive permission to enter Laos and cut the Ho Chi Minh Trail.
In January 1967, after discussions with Le Duan, Thanh proposed the Tet Offensive. Thanh was the senior member of the Politburo in South Vietnam . He supervised the entire war effort. Thanh's struggle philosophy was that " America is wealthy but not resolute," and "squeeze tight to the American chest and attack." He was invited up to Hanoi for further discussions. He went on commercial flights with a false passport from Cambodia to Hong Kong and then to Hanoi . Only in July was his plan adopted by the leadership. Then Johnson had rejected Westmoreland's request for 200,000 more troops. We realized that America had made its maximum military commitment to the war. Vietnam was not sufficiently important for the United States to call up its reserves. We had stretched American power to a breaking point. When more frustration set in, all t
Tet was designed to influence American public opinion. We would attack poorly defended parts of South Vietnam cities during a holiday and a truce when few South Vietnamese troops would be on duty. Before the main attack, we would entice American units to advance close to the borders, away from the cities. By attacking all South Vietnam 's major cities, we would spread out our forces and neutralize the impact of American firepower. Attacking on a broad front, we would lose some battles but win others. We used local forces nearby each target to frustrate discovery of our plans. Small teams, like the one which attacked the U.S. Embassy in Saigon , would be sufficient. It was a guerrilla strategy of hit-and-run raids. [looks like a re-writing of history with the benefit of hindsight]
Q: What about the results?
A: Our losses were staggering and a complete surprise;. Giap later told me that Tet had been a military defeat, though we had gained the planned political advantages when Johnson agreed to negotiate and did not run for re-election. The second and third waves in May and September were, in retrospect, mistakes. Our forces in the South were nearly wiped out by all the fighting in 1968. It took us until 1971 to re-establish our presence, but we had to use North Vietnamese troops as local guerrillas. If the American forces had not begun to withdraw under Nixon in 1969, they could have punished us severely. We suffered badly in 1969 and 1970 as it was.
Q: What of Nixon?
A: Well, when Nixon stepped down because of Watergate we knew we would win. Pham Van Dong [prime minister of North Vietnam] said of Gerald Ford, the new president, "he's the weakest president in U.S. history; the people didn't elect him; even if you gave him candy, he doesn't dare to intervene in Vietnam again." We tested Ford's resolve by attacking Phuoc Long in January 1975. When Ford kept American B-52's in their hangers, our leadership decided on a big offensive against South Vietnam .
Q: What else?
A: We had the impression that American commanders had their hands tied by political factors. Your generals could never deploy a maximum force for greatest military effect.

Apologies for no link but it's back from '95 and I couldn't find one.

3/01/2007 04:24:00 AM  
Blogger Habu1 said...


Gathering of Eagles

Protect the Wall front the anti war left on March 17th.

Protect the Wall

3/01/2007 05:47:00 AM  
Blogger Buddy Larsen said...

Good posts, habu.

3case--right--before Teddy Kennedy in the 80s tried to ride "Africa" to the White House, Rhodesia was a fine little country, well-run & prosperous, and making reforms as needed on its own.

Now that Rhodesia and South Africa are utter disasters, Teddy don't wanna talk about all those 80s sanctions anymore.

Also, he and his Dem party don't wanna discuss Mugabe. Or the near anarchic crime conditions in South Africa. Those topics are verboten. Maybe that's good, maybe that means DC won't be doing any MORE damage to the peoples of the two nations.

3/01/2007 08:50:00 AM  
Blogger allen said...

___The state of the world gone mad cont'd

Japan's Abe: No Proof of WWII Sex Slaves

3/01/2007 11:00:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Powered by Blogger