Megan McArdle (March 31, 2008) - Let's predict the Zimbabwe news cycle (War and other inhumanities)

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz,

Posted by Blake | March 31, 2008 12:48 AM

Sweet, you don't know that the purpose of blockquoting is to quote people either. It's like Megan hasn't even left!

Posted by NutellaonToast | March 31, 2008 12:58 AM

I hope you know, he is actually quoting himself.

Posted by John Doe | March 31, 2008 1:19 AM

Daniel Drezner,

It seems you don't have enough knowledge of what is going on in Zimbabwe.

Morgan Tsvangirai is a puppet of the west, and he is trying to push for violence if he loses.

How could he claim a victory, when the results are not yet known?

Morgan Tsvangirai is un opportunist tout court, and I doubt if the Zimbabwean masses are going to give him a victory!

For the time being, Mugabe is the only hope for Zimbabwe! The West has been trying to collapse his country's economy for many years now and finally influence the current election, but I doubt if they will succeed, as the Zimbabwean masses are very socially educated about imperialism.

Posted by EDDIE | March 31, 2008 1:45 AM

yes eddie, tell us more about how mugabe is your only hope for stemming the imperialist tide!

what you call "social education" the rest of the world calls transparent propaganda used to keep that maniac mugabe in power

Posted by ike | March 31, 2008 1:58 AM

Ike,

You don't have to believe everything you read or hear in our corporate news media.

See what Mr. Gregory Elich says below and educate yourself!

Zimbabwe's Fight For Justice
by Gregory Elich
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=160

Posted by EDDIE | March 31, 2008 2:22 AM

Mugabe has made us suffer as Zimbabweans & it breaks my heart to hear people proclaim him a hero. I would say to Eddie, if you're in Zim right now you would not be saying what you're saying. Isnt it amazing that most people who defend Mugabe are doing so in the comforts of other countries where they have functional democracy. Eddie come to Zimbabwe & see for yourself dont hoot about imperialism because people in Zim are now tried about that line as we dont what to fight imaginary foes when we have real issues like inflation ( brought about by Mugabe & his cronies thru practising what I can only term Mugabenomics), hunger (bought about by the allocation of prime land to his cronies who have no clue about farming & who view the farms as weeekend hideouts & status symbols), collapsed infrastucture ( due to mismanagement brought about by corruption due to appointing under qualified pple to head vital departments and institutions). In 90% all of our problems the buck stops with Mugabe & ZANU so to blaime the shortcomings of our leaders to the "imperialist" is the highest form of naivety. What is happening in Zim is that we have a group of thugs hiding under the guise of being anti-imperialists to safe guard their own ill got gains. From the tone of your posting I can assume that you are an African-American because its one of your traits to not accept the simple fact that for Africa (& you to succeed) you need to stop this blame game & accept responsibility for your shortcomings. Proud black Zimbabwean ( from Chipinge)

Posted by peter | March 31, 2008 2:30 AM

Peter,

please, read Stephen Gowans below and undestand how uneducated you are when it comes to Zimbabwe:

Slandering Zimbabwe's Fight for Independence
By Stephen Gowans

Zimbabwe is in the grips on an economic crisis. Food and electricity
shortages plague the country, but because Zimbabwe is singled out in the
Western media for special attention, it seems as if its problems are unique,
not part of a wider pattern of scarcity in sub-Saharan Africa, but the
product of the misguided policies of the Mugabe government. There's a
message in the Western media spin on Zimbabwe: reclaiming land and working
to put the economy into hands of nationals leads to economic meltdown. It's
best to leave historical patterns of domination alone, and to adapt to the
prevailing balance of power.

http://gowans.wordpress.com/2007/07/30/slandering-zimbabwe%e2%80%99s-fight-for-independence/

Posted by EDDIE | March 31, 2008 2:57 AM

Eddie

I dont have to read that article, do you know why? Because I live in Zimbabwe & I know how life was before before this Mugabe transformed into a dictator and was prepared to let the country die and the citizens suffer so that he could maintain power at any cost.
Let me enlighten you a bit.
1. Zimbabwe used to be a net exporter of food in the SADC region prior to 2000 (the only seasons that I can remember when we failed to grow enough food was in 1982/3 & 1991/2 due to droughts).
2. As far back as 1993, it was projected that they would be a deficit in electricity in the SADC region by 2007 & plans were made to increase eletricity output in the respective countries.However, because Mugabe & company wanted kickbacks, they gave the contracts to companies that did not have the capacity to perform the work & the end result was obvious.
3.Why do you expect that if other countries in Africa have failed we should just accept that we are not alone and look at other failed countries and be happy about it without addressing the root causes of why we are in such a situation.Are you suggesting that Africans do not deserve to live a decent life?
4.Zimbabwe is not under sanctions but certain individuals in Zimbabwe are under targetted sanctions period!!
5.The war in the Congo whilst never benefited the country of Zimbabwe except the ruling class who benefited from the diamonds i.e Mnangagwa, the leading army generals, mugabe etc. if the truth be told we lost a good number of our brothers, friends.Why go to put out the fire in your neighbours house when your house is on fire
5. The Rhodesian Front ceased to exist as a party in 1990 so the point raised in the article is not accurate about the rhodesian front being involved on the formation of the MDC. Its patronising to as it suggests that black Africans can not think for themselves & need a white person to control & direct them.
6. Do you know that Mugabe has got the blood of more black people than white people on his hands and that is the reason why he is scared to reliquish power as he fears the people.

Morals are neither white nor black & it pains me & Mugabe has shown to us Zimbabweans that he is not a moral person and he does not have the decency to lead us. Its unfortunate that armchair analyst who have not lived (& are not living) in Zimbabwe take it upon themselves to
defend him based on half-truths

Posted by Peter | March 31, 2008 7:17 AM

Hi Peter,

Though it's not for me to say which one of you is right in distributing the blame for Zimbabwe's current political, economic, and social situation, I thought your debate was interesting.

It reminds me of the fact that it's always going to be hard to know from afar what to think about things going on on the other side of the world.
In particular, it's always hard to get good reading on such sensitive issues.

On the other hand, I'm not sure we can just not reflect on such situations on the basis that we're not sure what we think is necessarily going to be right. [This is not a criticism of your writing]

Anyways, maybe you'll be interested in reading my blog (http://whatyoumustread.blogspot.com/). I'd be happy to read your comments in the future if you have any.

Sincerely,

Posted by Andrew Bishop | March 31, 2008 8:25 AM

Andrew,

If you want to inform yourself about what is going on in Zimbabwe, it would not take you a longtime, to know the problems, Zimbabwe is going through.

What we read in our Corporate News Media about Zimbabwe is just a fiction, set to brainwash the people of the West.

The West is not intersted in a Zimbabwe democracy, they just want to put in power their MDC puppets so that they can continue looting the huge natural resources of Zimbabwe.

Posted by EDDIE | March 31, 2008 11:56 AM

Eddie - It's reprehensible that you're willing to sacrifice the people of Zimbabwe by putting your political agenda over their lives. You haven't responded to any of the substance of what Peter has said. Zimbabwe used to be very prosperous, and Mugabe has looted and destroyed it. Are you saying that Africans aren't capable of anything but destruction, and therefore it's not his fault? I don't believe that. Out of all the bad leaders around the world over the last few decades, he's one of the worst.

Peter - Thank you for sharing some of what is going on there. My heart breaks thinking about all that Mugabe has thrown away. A new leader may not be all that good, but it would be very difficult for him to be nearly as bad as Mugabe has been, so there's at least hope for leveling off and stopping the slide.

Andrew - There are plenty of sources around to help you learn more about Zimbabwe, and the methods that have failed there were illogical and have consistently failed elsewhere. It's not all that hard to sort out pathetic excuses and scape-goating from clear analysis of the situation.

Posted by Ann | March 31, 2008 1:37 PM

"so that they can continue looting the huge natural resources of Zimbabwe."

The biggest natural resource of Zimbabwe is its people - people that could be creating and building and contributing, but instead have to struggle to simply survive, thanks to Mugabe. He's the one that is looting the 'huge natural resources of Zimbabwe'.

Posted by Ann | March 31, 2008 1:56 PM

That Gowans guy linked by Eddie is priceless -- a guy who thinks Stephen Zunes isn't leftist enough.

Posted by David Nieporent | March 31, 2008 3:17 PM

Ann,

"Eddie - It's reprehensible that you're willing to sacrifice the people of Zimbabwe by putting your political agenda over their lives. You haven't responded to any of the substance of what Peter has said".

I didn't need to respond to Peter, because he is involved in misinformations on Zimbabwe, on his last post. It's all clear, he is not truthful, and anyone with a brain can see that!

Peter is talking about the politcal and economic symptoms of Zimbabwe, but he doesn't want to mention the causes of all those problems. The causes are IMF and World Bank's neoliberal policies imposed on Zimbabwe since the last decade and the polical and economic embargo imposed on Zimbabwe to force Inverstors to shy away from Zimbabwe!

One example for you to know is that the MDC/West had an agenda of overthrowing a democratically elected government since the last five years to say the least and that caused a lot of insecurity in the country, and that insecurity contributed to the decline of Zimbabwe economy!

Give me some time, I will respond to all the points(misinformation) raised by Peter in his last posting!

Posted by eddie9 | March 31, 2008 9:46 PM

Ann,

"Eddie - It's reprehensible that you're willing to sacrifice the people of Zimbabwe by putting your political agenda over their lives. You haven't responded to any of the substance of what Peter has said".

I didn't need to respond to Peter, because he is involved in misinformations on Zimbabwe, on his last post. It's all clear, he is not truthful, and anyone with a brain can see that!

Peter is talking about the politcal and economic symptoms of Zimbabwe, but he doesn't want to mention the causes of all those problems. The causes are IMF and World Bank's neoliberal policies imposed on Zimbabwe since the last decade and the polical and economic embargo imposed on Zimbabwe to force Inverstors to shy away from Zimbabwe!

One example for you to know is that the MDC/West had an agenda of overthrowing a democratically elected government since the last five years to say the least and that caused a lot of insecurity in the country, and that insecurity contributed to the decline of Zimbabwe economy!

Give me some time, I will respond to all the points(misinformation) raised by Peter in his last posting!

Posted by EDDIE | March 31, 2008 9:47 PM

Ann,

"Eddie - It's reprehensible that you're willing to sacrifice the people of Zimbabwe by putting your political agenda over their lives. You haven't responded to any of the substance of what Peter has said".

I didn't need to respond to Peter, because he is involved in misinformations on Zimbabwe, on his last post. It's all clear, he is not truthful, and anyone with a brain can see that!

Peter is talking about the politcal and economic symptoms of Zimbabwe, but he doesn't want to mention the causes of all those problems. The causes are IMF and World Bank's neoliberal policies imposed on Zimbabwe since the last decade and the polical and economic embargo imposed on Zimbabwe to force Inverstors to shy away from Zimbabwe!

One example for you to know is that the MDC/West had an agenda of overthrowing a democratically elected government since the last five years to say the least and that caused a lot of insecurity in the country, and that insecurity contributed to the decline of Zimbabwe economy!

Give me some time, I will respond to all the points(misinformations) raised by Peter in his last posting!

Posted by EDDIE | March 31, 2008 9:48 PM

Ann,

One of the Peter's misleading points was the following:

"
I dont have to read that article, do you know why? Because I live in Zimbabwe & I know how life was before before this Mugabe transformed into a dictator and was prepared to let the country die and the citizens suffer so that he could maintain power at any cost.
Let me enlighten you a bit.
1. Zimbabwe used to be a net exporter of food in the SADC region prior to 2000 (the only seasons that I can remember when we failed to grow enough food was in 1982/3 & 1991/2 due to droughts).
"

Now, read what one of the Investigative Journalist, Stephen Gowans, says below:

Slandering Zimbabwe's Fight for Independence
By Stephen Gowans

Zimbabwe is in the grips on an economic crisis. Food and electricity
shortages plague the country, but because Zimbabwe is singled out in the
Western media for special attention, it seems as if its problems are unique,
not part of a wider pattern of scarcity in sub-Saharan Africa, but the
product of the misguided policies of the Mugabe government. There's a
message in the Western media spin on Zimbabwe: reclaiming land and working
to put the economy into hands of nationals leads to economic meltdown. It's
best to leave historical patterns of domination alone, and to adapt to the
prevailing balance of power.

In a July 28, 2007 article on the regrettable state of Zimbabwe's economy,
The Washington Post points out that "daily power outages are forcing
Zimbabweans to light fires to cook and to heat water." Wood poachers have
stripped nearly 500 acres of conservation woodland.

But what the Post doesn't point out is that it's not only Zimbabweans, but
people throughout sub-Saharan Africa, who are stripping forests bare to
provide heat and cooking fuel. (1)

The reason why is rolling power blackouts. "Perhaps 25 of 44 sub-Saharan
nations face crippling electricity shortages." (2) Drought, climbing oil
prices, and the chaos caused by privatization of formerly state-owned power
companies have created an "unprecedented" power crisis that not only affects
Zimbabwe, but Zambia, Nigeria, Angola, Mozambique, the Democratic Republic
of Congo, Kenya, Uganda and Togo.

Even South Africa was hit by rolling blackouts in January and sporadic power
failures continue to bedevil the country.

Yet, as a mark of how the Western media frame their reporting to discredit
Zimbabwe, it is in Zimbabwe alone that the electricity shortages are
attributed to the policies of the government.

Zimbabwe's "power, water, health and communications systems are collapsing,"
the Post notes, "and there are acute shortages of staple foods and
gasoline." The newspaper points to critics who say economic mismanagement
and Harare's land reform policies are to blame.

But acute food and gasoline shortages are common to neighboring countries.
If Zimbabwe is short of gasoline, "Uganda's gas stations are.short of diesel
for vehicles." (3) If there are shortages of food staples in Zimbabwe, there
are close to two dozen other countries in sub-Saharan Africa that are
contending with food scarcity, according to the UN's Food and Agricultural
Organization.

Since neighbouring countries have not pursued Zimbabwe's fast track land
reform policies, and have tended to shy away from the economic
indigenization policies Harare favors, gasoline, electricity and food
shortages can hardly be attributed to policies uniquely pursued by Harare.
The aim of the media's propaganda is clear: to discredit the Mugabe
government's economic independence policies by suggesting they are to blame
for the country's economic difficulties.

Unlike other sub-Saharan countries, Zimbabwe is a target of economic
sanctions, which have made the region-wide drought and
oil-price-rise-induced crises more acute. The sanctions, imposed by the US
and EU, deny Zimbabwe access to international development aid. NGOs,
following the Western governments that provide their funding, have also cut
off assistance, amplifying the sanctions' effects.

Are the sanctions justified?

The West's opposition to Zimbabwe began in the mid-90s, when the Mugabe
government failed to undertake pro-foreign investor (often called
neo-liberal) economic reforms as quickly as the International Monetary Fund
prescribed.

The IMF expected Zimbabwe to pare back government social spending, reduce
the size of the civil service, devalue its currency, and move strongly
toward an export-oriented economy - measures that would benefit
international investors but would increase the hardships Zimbabweans already
faced.

The IMF also insisted that Zimbabwe pay full market value for the land it
sought to acquire as part of its program to resettle the rural poor - land
that had been stripped from indigenous Africans by European settlers.

Zimbabwe had received assurances in 1979 from the Thatcher government that
Britain would fund the purchase of land from white settlers, but the Blair
government reneged, proposing instead that it lend Zimbabwe money in return
for Harare enacting policies to enhance investor confidence (i.e., policies
to increase the profits foreign investors could extract from Zimbabwe.)
Since this would amount to taking on new debt to buy back what had been
stolen in the first place, the offer was refused. Farmland was reclaimed
without compensation (except for improvements the European settlers had
made.) The expropriated farmers were told to seek compensation from London.

By 1997, Harare was in open revolt. IMF-prescribed programs the government
deemed to be injurious to Zimbabweans were rejected and the IMF's
prohibitions on pursuing economically nationalist policies were ignored.
Mugabe announced new tariffs to protect domestic businesses from foreign
competition and introduced an affirmative action program that differentially
benefited domestic firms at the expense of foreign investors. Western
governments, ever vigilant about promoting the export and foreign investment
interests of their own corporations, saw red.

By 1998, the EU had had enough. Mugabe's land reform program - and now, the
military aid Harare was providing to the young government of Laurent Kabila
in the Democratic Republic of Congo - bid that steps be taken to force the
independence-minded Mugabe out. Kabila, who the US and Britain were trying
to overthrow, was following economically nationalist policies reminiscent of
those of Patrice Lumumba, who the West had deposed in a CIA-sponsored coup
decades earlier. Washington and London recruited Uganda and Rwanda as
proxies to invade the DR Congo, but their plans were frustrated when
Zimbabwe intervened militarily on the side of the Kabila government. To
counter Mugabe, the EU set out to build civil society -- the unions and NGOs
-- as opposite poles of attraction to Mugabe's government of national
liberation.

Soon, Morgan Tsvangirai, head of the Zimbabwe Trades Union Congress, emerged
as leader of a new political party, the Movement for Democratic Change. The
white commercial farmers abandoned their old party, the Rhodesian Front, and
lined up behind their new vehicle, the MDC. With a war chest filled with
generous funding from Western governments and corporations, the MDC was to
lead the opposition to the Mugabe government from within Zimbabwe.

By 2001, the Sunday Times was urging London to spearhead a worldwide
economic boycott of Zimbabwe. "Until decisive action is taken," the
newspaper warned, "the whole region is a high-risk area for investment." (4)

The same year, the US enacted the US Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic
Recovery Act. The arch-conservative Jesse Helms was a co-sponsor, along with
Hilary Clinton. The act obligates US officials to vote against assistance to
Zimbabwe at the IMF and World Bank; allows the president to fund groups and
individuals working to overthrow the Mugabe government; and makes respect
for the rule of law (i.e., reversal of Zimbabwe's land reform program) a
condition of ending sanctions. US Representative Cynthia McKinney asked
legislators what law European settlers had respected when they seized the
land by force.

Sanctions have one aim: to make the lives of Zimbabweans miserable so
they'll oust Mugabe. The MDC, which supports the sanctions, and is
indefatigable in calling for additional punishments, uses the economic
hardships sanctions have aggravated to call for Mugabe's departure.

Mugabe's program has always been one of independence. As a leader of the
guerrilla movement that fought for national liberation, the goal was an end
to Rhodesian apartheid. As leader of the government, the goal since the mid
90s has been economic independence; to be secured, first, by reclaiming the
land the indigenous population had been dispossessed of by European
settlers; and second, by putting the economy in the hands of Zimbabweans as
owners, not just employees.

The inevitable consequence of this project has been the backlash of foreign
corporations, Western investors and their governments.

While the Western media would have you believe Zimbabweans are champing at
the bit to oust Mugabe, the reality is that Mugabe is widely supported, not
only in Zimbabwe, but throughout Africa. His credentials as the leader of a
national liberation movement have established his reputation, his land
reform policies have strengthened his support among the rural poor (who make
up the majority of Zimbabweans) and his insistence on pursuing an
independent foreign policy have made him a rallying point for
anti-imperialist sentiment in Africa. As recently as August 2004, Mugabe was
voted number three in the New African magazine's poll of the 100 greatest
Africans (behind Nelson Mandela and Ghana Kwame Nkrumah, the first president
of post-colonial Ghana.) One of Mugabe's most vehement critics, Archbishop
Pious Ncube, grudgingly acknowledges his popularity. "The United Nations
should take (Mugabe) out but that will not happen because Africa supports
Mugabe." (5)

It is fashionable in some circles to profess admiration for Mugabe, as the
leader of the armed national liberation struggle, while denouncing Mugabe,
the politician. Mugabe once fought for national liberation, it's said, but
as a politician, he simply clings to power for power's sake. Power has
corrupted him.

This is the typical screed against the leaders of all really-existing
movements that seek to end the oppression of class or nations. They are
invariably accused of demagogy and corruption and of betraying their
movement's goals. The revolution betrayed is the constant theme. The purpose
of these accusations is to breed cynicism, disillusionment and ultimately
pessimism, passivity and capitulation. It's all in vain, the detractors say.
You'll simply end up with something worse than you started with. Your
movement will be hijacked by authoritarian strongmen who utter
leftist-sounding phrases while enriching themselves and their cronies.

The goal Mugabe has pursued, whether in the armed struggle or in government,
has never changed: independence. Placing the economy in the hands of
Zimbabweans, as Mugabe is working to do now, is just as much - indeed, is
even more significantly a part - of national liberation as achieving nominal
political independence is. Zimbabweans got their own flag in 1980, their
land after 2000, and now are working to secure control of their mines and
businesses. To say, then, that Mugabe was true to the goals of national
liberation once, but is no longer, reveals either a miscomprehension of the
centrality of land reform and indigenization to national liberation, a
surrender to the barrage of propaganda against Zimbabwe's national
liberation movement, or an absent commitment to true national liberation.

Posted by EDDIE | March 31, 2008 10:14 PM

Ann,

Here are other misleading points from Peter:

Peter said:
"
2. As far back as 1993, it was projected that they would be a deficit in electricity in the SADC region by 2007 & plans were made to increase eletricity output in the respective

4.Zimbabwe is not under sanctions but certain individuals in Zimbabwe are under targetted sanctions period!!
"

And here below, see some of the economic sanctions imposed on Zimbabwe by the West, in this case the USA and Britain and,please educate yourself.

Zimbabwe Under Siege
by Gregory Elich
http://www.swans.com/library/art8/elich004.html

1)
"In November 2001, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw revealed that during the past few months he had been"building coalitions" against
Zimbabwe. (19)".

2)
"As the Extraordinary Summit of the South African Development Community
(SADC) opened in Blantyre, Malawi on January 14, 2002, Great Britain
threatened to withhold $18 million in budgetary support from Malawi,
the chair of the SADC, unless it agreed to direct the SADC towards the
imposition of sanctions against Zimbabwe. This was a significant
portion of Malawi's budget. Some sources also indicate that Great
Britain held the threat of withholding aid for Malawi's food crisis.
Similar threats to withdraw budgetary support were wielded against
Mozambique. (20) At the summit, President Benjamin Mkapa of Tanzania
announced that British Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Baroness
Amos telephoned him directly and urged him not to support Zimbabwe at
the SADC and at the upcoming meeting of the Commonwealth. When that
call failed, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw then telephoned and
attempted to bully him. (21)"

3)
"On February 18, 2002, the European Union's foreign ministers voted
unanimously to impose sanctions against Zimbabwe. Under terms of the
sanctions, The European Union suspended budgetary support to Zimbabwe
and terminated "financial support for all projects" except "those in
direct support of the population." All financial aid would be
"reoriented in support of the population, in particular in the social
sectors, democratization, respect for human rights and the rule of law,
by which the EU meant that financial support would be funnelled to
groups seeking to overthrow the government of Zimbabwe."

4)
"On June 13, 2002, the IMF issued a declaration of non-cooperation and
announced that it was suspending "the provision of technical
assistance" to Zimbabwe and "urged the Zimbabwean authorities to adopt
an economic adjustment program."

5)
"Meanwhile, de facto sanctions continued to press Zimbabwe, as foreign
trade continued to slump. Rapidly dwindling foreign currency reserves
severely restricted the import of fuel, causing manufacturing and
mining operations to go into a tailspin."

6)
" Zimbabwe, which has no natural gas or oil reserves, must rely
entirely on imported fuel supplies, leaving it vulnerable to economic
pressure. At the end of June 2002, the black-market exchange rate for
the Zimbabwe dollar wentinto free fall. (39) Zimbabwe Financial
Holdings Limited, a commercial bank, reported that the nation's entire
foreign currency supply was sufficient to cover only three days of
imports, and that "shortages have worsened in the pastfew weeks."

7)
"The IMF's declaration of non-cooperation was expected to discourage
lending by other financial institutions, resulting in a further
squeezing of Zimbabwe's economy. Due to the evaporation of foreign
trade and the denial of credit, unemployment in Zimbabwe has soared to
70 percent while three fourths of the population is classified as poor"

8)
"On July 30, 2002, Daniel Maviva, management services officer at the
Zimbabwe Electricity Supply Authority, reported that sanctions had
caused the firm to lose $18 million. The elimination of foreign funding
by the World Bank, the European Investment Bank and other institutions
had dealt a crippling blow, forcing the firm to use its "own resources
due to the withdrawal of those financiers under targeted
sanctions."(44) As sanctions continue to tighten the noose around
Zimbabwe, electrical power blackouts may become a frequent occurrence."

Posted by EDDIE | March 31, 2008 10:45 PM

First, on power shortages, you're proving my point! Providing power is the responsibility of the country's government. If there are shortages, the government failed. The fact that neighbors also screwed up and also look incompetent doesn't reduce the incompetence of Zimbabwe's government. You yourself admit that Mugabe messed this up, yet you seem to think that this is a sign of his ability! I never said that literally all of his crimes were related to land 'reform' (a.k.a. looting), simply that he has done a really, really bad job. You admitted this.

Regarding your broader argument that many African countries are messed up, so it must not be their fault: You haven't addressed the fact that Zimbabwe was far more prosperous than most of its neighbors a decade and a half ago, and now it is much worse off. The incredibly, disastrously steep decline in Zimbabwe can't be explained or excused by the more moderate problems of its neighbors.

Mugabe took Zimbabwe from prosperity to starvation, largely through land 'reform' that involved killing or driving away those that were productive and handing out the stolen land as favors to cronies that knew nothing about farming. There are arguments to be made in favor of true land reform, but Mugabe didn't attempt reform, he just stole.

And it's ludicrous to blame the sharp decline in Zimbabwe's economy on its being cut off from IMF handouts! Any country can develop without IMF subsidies, particularly one as prosperous as Zimbabwe used to be. The handouts come with strings, and you either take them or not. Either way, the kind of hyperinflation and shortages Zimbabwe is suffering can't possibly be caused by a shortage of foreign handouts.

"By 2001, the Sunday Times was urging London to spearhead a worldwide economic boycott of Zimbabwe. "Until decisive action is taken," the newspaper warned, "the whole region is a high-risk area for investment.""

In other words, Mugabe robbed landholders and signalled his intention to steal from anyone within reach, and thus anyone with a brain and with choices stayed away, leaving only the helpless Zimbabweans trapped at the mercy of this man. Are you saying that the problems of Zimbabwe are the fault of the world community, because if the entire planent had let Mugabe rob them, it would have taken him longer to destroy his own people?

International investors will flock to developing countries to build high quality infrastructure quickly, with no up front cost to the country. The catch is that they want to earn a reasonable (not excessive) return on their investment. Looters like Mugabe drive investors away, with good reason. The fault is his.

"To say, then, that Mugabe was true to the goals of national liberation once, but is no longer, reveals either a miscomprehension..."

True, since it's obvious that Mugabe was never true to the interests of Zimbabwe. Talk is cheap - Mugabe's actions show how little he cares for his own people.

"Sanctions have one aim: to make the lives of Zimbabweans miserable so they'll oust Mugabe."

This is obviously not true, since there are no sanctions against the country or economy of Zimbabwe. The only sanctions are against certain members of the government who have been acting to destroy the economy. You've admitted that the government wrecked the power supply, and that it drove away foreign investors (who didn't want to be robbed). The IMF choosing not to fund a country that will only squander its funds doesn't constitute 'sanctions', just sound policy. There are no sanctions against Zimbabwe - there are sanctions against Mugabe and the other looters, but that's simply common sense.

Look, I have no friends or relatives in Zimbabwe and have no personal interest in this. My concern is simply that Mugabe took a prosperous country and destroyed it, and no human beings should have to suffer the way that the Zimbabweans are suffering. It's a waste of their lives, their potential. If your policy goal is to attack the US, there surely are ways you can do it without sacrificing the people of Zimbabwe. If you're willing to make up complaints, why not make up complaints that don't involve so much harm to these innocent people? Pick some Hollywood blowhards to admire. They'll spew all the hatred you want but won't have to kill actual people in the process. You may admire Mugabe's hatred for white people, but why does that mean he should be allowed to kill black people?

Posted by Ann | March 31, 2008 11:48 PM

Ann said this below:

"Look, I have no friends or relatives in Zimbabwe and have no personal interest in this. My concern is simply that Mugabe took a prosperous country and destroyed it, and no human beings should have to suffer the way that the Zimbabweans are suffering"

More I read your previous posting, the more, I found you, to be ignorant of what is going on in Zimbabwe!

Tell me, how Zimbabwe or any other country can prosper when one of the USA State Department's agenda is to destabilize Zimbabwe, politically and economically with terrorist and violence?

Imagine if Russia was to sponsor violence in the USA or even fund the Opposition, the Democrats in this case, do you understand how Republicans or even the country as whole can react in all of that?!? This is what the USA is doing currently, funding the MDC Party, the Opposition, to destabilize Zimbabwe!

Don't you know why the MDC Party claimed victory, before the closing of the elections few days ago. Those are tactics used to cause violence, and overthrow by force, the government!

Anyway, here is the proof below, for USA agenda of terrorism and violence in Zimabwe:

The US Government admits SPONSORING Terrorism AND violence in Zimbabwe
By Ayinde

The US government is sponsoring critics of the Zimbabwe government and is funding activities aimed at "discrediting" positions taken by the Zimbabwe government under President Mugabe. (US reveals its efforts to topple Mugabe regime) No one should believe that these activities are only of a nonviolent nature. The US is definitely funding Terrorism in Zimbabwe.

http://www.trinicenter.com/articles/2007/070407.html

Posted by EDDIE | April 1, 2008 2:26 AM

Eddie
If Mugabe had not messed up our country, Zimbabwe would not need to worry about other countries suspending balance of payment support etc. Surely this is a sign that your hero failed in leading our country. Right now your leader is trying to subvert the will of the people by tinkering around with the election results and I feel that has got nothing to do with the West but more to do with his self preservation.
Mugabe & his party receive funding from China and other 'friendly countries' and Tiny Rowland was the biggest financier of Zanu before he died. The Chinese are certainly not Zimbabweans and Tiny Rowland was certainly not black so your point about funding of parties should be addressed in the context of whether it is proper for foreign bodies and individuals to fund political parties in other countries. If this is not proper then Zanu & Mugabe are equally as guilty.
Democracy is neither white nor black & Africa needs all the support it can get to get rid of the tyrants who have failed to lead us & now resort to ruling us.
If Mugabe cheats his way to power, I would be glad if Eddie could come to Zimbabwe & see for himself the situation on the ground & not rely on individuals who write about places they have never lived in.

Posted by Peter | April 1, 2008 7:06 AM

Eddie -

All you did was to make wild claims with no evidence whatsoever, and then quote someone else making the same wild claims, with no evidence or even logic. For an opposition party to put up a candidate for an election and try to convince people to vote for him is democracy, not terrorism and violence. You have no evidence that the MDC is trying to "cause violence, and overthrow by force, the government!" You only have evidence that they are trying to win the election and to prevent Mugabe from stealing it.

The evidence that Mugabe is trying to rig the election is the fact that he refused to allow international monitors in to observe the elections. Jimmy Carter is pretty strongly anti-American, so Mugabe could have trusted him and his organization to not be on the side of the US State Department. Or there are plenty of Europeans that hate America and could have been monitors. Why didn't Mugabe allow them, or the press, to observe the voting? Only guilty people go to such lengths to try to bury the evidence.

Posted by Ann | April 1, 2008 8:53 AM

I haven't lived in Zimbabwe, but I've lived in SubSaharan Africa. Inflation running at 100,000% is a special situation not shared by any of the surrounding countries. Coincidentally, so is being ruled by Mugabe.

Peter is reporting from Zimbabwe. Eddie is reporting from elsewhere that he found one article that claimed Mugabe was great and all Zimbabwe's problems are everyone else's fault. Come on.

As to Megan's original point, while it's worth remembering that things can always get worse, they can get better, too. Might as well let the opposition take a stab at it.

Posted by Deborah | April 1, 2008 9:42 AM

Ann and Deborah,

Please don't let yourselves be misled by Western news media. Peter is not posting from Zimbabwe, and he may be lying when saying that he is a Black Zimbabwean.

Myself, I am from Zimbabwe, and I would tell you that Tsvangirai will never rule Zimbabwe. He is a puppet of the West, just like Maliki is, in Irak.

You will do yourselves good if you stop reading Western Corporate news media about Zimbabwe, and instead spend your time, reading the blog below if you want to know true facts about the neoliberal economic politicies and economic embargo imposed on Zimbabwe by the West and not to mention the Western agenda of destabilizition of Zimbabwe politically and economically since a decade ago!

http://gowans.blogspot.com/

Posted by EDDIE | April 1, 2008 11:42 PM

Eddie:
I will admit that it is difficult for me to prove that I am in Zimbabwe but just to confirm to you, yes I am in Zimbabwe and yes I am a black African. I live in a small town called Kwekwe.
You must admit that the fight you have with the Western Corporate establishment etc is your own fight whilst our fight in Zimbabwe is one that involves delivery from dictatorship & restoration of the dignity that we have lost as Zimbabweans. Why do you side with Mugabe and company and not with the people of Zimbabwe. Right now what we need is freedom, justice & food on our tables in Zimbabwe not some sinister non-existent plots about shadowy organisations.

Posted by Peter | April 2, 2008 1:40 AM

Peter,

Stop your lies. No only you are not in Zimbabwe, but you are not a Black Zimbabwean.

Tell me, if you are in Zimbabwe, wouldn't you be sleeping this time. You previous post was posted around 4:00-500 AM in morning.

If you are a Black Zimbabwean, I would think you would care more about Mugabe's land reforms for the oppressed black masses in Zimbambwe. MDC is against Land Reforms, so why do you vote against your interests? You are not that truthful, Peter!

You said that MDC cares about food, justice and so on and you go on, approving the economic agenda of MDC Party which wants to privatize Zimbabwe's natural resources, and even the whole Zimbabwe school education.

Please, read below, the agenda of MDC Party and you will see that leaders of MDC are puppets of the West, and want to destroy Zimbabwe completely.

MDC Party party makes the USA Republican Party look like a Democratic Party. Remember that in the USA, the Bush cabal was not able to privatize Social Security, but the MDC Party wants to privatize Zimbabwe and sell it to Foreigners.

I have noticed that none of the fascist MDC Supporters is not
interested to comment on their platform economic agenda, I believe they
know how worse, Zimbabwe can become economically, if their economic
platform is implemented in Zimbabwe. In brief, Zimbabwe and it's land
could be all sold by now, to a handful of the f** fascist elite
Capitalists using the means of privatization.

So here are some of their nine fascist economic solutions of MDC, please read them and weep!

The MDC appointed an official of the Confederation of Zimbabwe
Industries, Eddie Cross, as its Secretary of Economic Affairs.

In a speech delivered shortly after his appointment, Cross articulated
the MDC economic plan:

1) First of all, we believe in the free market.

2) We do not support price control.

3) We are in favor of reduced levels of taxation.

4) We are going to fast track privatization.

5) All fifty government parastatals will be privatized within a
two-year frame, but
6) we are going far beyond that.

7) We are going to privatize many of the functions of government.

8) We are going to privatize the Central Statistics Office.

9) We are going to privatize virtually the entire school delivery
system.

But in contrast, look what Mugabe's Party says:
A press release issued by ZANU-PF presents a contrasting vision for
Zimbabwe. "For ZANU-PF, the central question was and still is who
benefits from the management of the economy? The answer is simple; it
must be the BROAD MASSES OF OUR PEOPLE. That is where we differ with
the MDC and with other parties. They want to benefit the employers and
the capitalists. We say no, no, no

Posted by EDDIE | April 2, 2008 2:31 AM

Eddie -

Have you learned nothing from the 20th century? The biggest lesson of the last century was the failure of central planning. Communist governments killed far more people than all of the wars combined (and there were a lot of wars in the 20th century, including two 'world wars'). The Soviet Union fell because central planning is such a dismally inefficient system, whereas China turned around their economy by turning away from the policies that ZANU-PF advocates.

Decades of Mugabe-style policies in China led to famine and deep, deep poverty that was only reversed when China moved in the direction that the MDC is advocating for Zimbabwe. Your accusation against the MDC is that they're trying to do what works, rather than what has failed everywhere!

The only argument left is that Zimbabwe is about to transform into some magical, mystical place where human nature is reversed and everything that has ever been known about economics is turned on its head. Are the laws of gravity also about to mysteriously reverse themselves, but only within Zimbabwe's borders? You freely admit that ZANU-PF wants to continue imposing economic policies that have consistently failed around the world, and that have also spectacularly failed so far in Zimbabwe. Uttering the magic incantation "it's for the BROAD MASSES OF OUR PEOPLE" doesn't undo the bizarre irrationality of these policies, when both logic and experience show that the people of Zimbabwe will contiue to be badly hurt by this failed approach.

I am very happy to hear that the MDC is proposing sound policies that are likely to work. Hopefully the policies will be implemented well, since corruption could drastically reduce their effectiveness. But even if the MDC's policies are poorly implemented, they can't be worse than the institutionalized corruption of central planning.

Posted by Ann | April 2, 2008 9:32 AM

Ann said this:

"I am very happy to hear that the MDC is proposing sound policies that are likely to work. Hopefully the policies will be implemented well, since corruption could drastically reduce their effectiveness. But even if the MDC's policies are poorly implemented, they can't be worse than the institutionalized corruption of central planning."

I really can't believe what you are saying here.

The neoliberal economic policies the MDC is advocating are the same policies dictated by IMF and World Bank which collapsed Argentina economies a decade ago, and destroying the local economies of South-American countries!

They are the same policies which have contributed on the devaluation of our $ Currency and on the current decline of the USA Economy.

Just one question for you: Would you prefer if Bush was able to privatize the USA Social Security?

Privitization of Zimbabwe is DEATH for the majority of the poor masses! And you know it!

Posted by EDDIE | April 2, 2008 4:56 PM

Ann said this:

"Have you learned nothing from the 20th century? The biggest lesson of the last century was the failure of central planning. Communist governments killed far more people than all of the wars combined (and there were a lot of wars in the 20th century, including two 'world wars'). The Soviet Union fell because central planning is such a dismally inefficient system, whereas China turned around their economy by turning away from the policies that ZANU-PF advocates".

Ann, Communism or Socialism in Russia didn't have any opportunity to succeed. It was destroyed by Capitalists, when they put Stalin in power.

Stalin was a puppet of the Globalists, and those same Globalists are involved in destroying the USA economically!

ZANU-PF "socialist" policies could have succeeded but unfortunately, the same Capitalists who run the global economy have been working really hard in destroying Zimbabwe Economy by imposing an economic/political embargo on Zimabwe.

As for China, don't you see that China is our Banker now?!?

I know you would say that China economy is growing because she is moving toward Capitalism, but I would say that you are wrong!

The fact that China economy is growing is mainly, because our jobs and our manufacturing companies, here in the WEST, have been shipped to China, and Investors are using the cheap labor in China..

20 years from now, if you live in the USA, I believe you would be able to understand that Capitalism is EVIL! The USA will become like a Third World Country, at least like Brazil if we are lucky!

Since the last Century, Capitalism could not have survived without Genocides and Wars. Read your history, and you would notice that the USA has been at war, since a Century ago to now. Every year or every other year, the USA has been always involved in war with an other country, just like what we are currently see in Iraq, the USA looting their natural resources/committing Genocide, to satify our Western high standard of living!

But in this day, in the 21 st century, the Capitalist elites don't care that much, anymore, for the people of the West, like they used to, before, now they are just concerned about the implementation of the Corproate New World Order.
So that's why I said before, in a decade from now, you will truly learn what Capitalism is!

If you want to see what socialism is, Go to Venezuela, and you would see what the Bolivarian Revolution is all about!

Posted by EDDIE | April 2, 2008 5:38 PM

Eddie
MDC is not against equitable land redistribution but is against the chaotic manner the current land redistribution has been done in Zimbabwe which has resulted in Zimbabwe being a basket case (if you want further details about the policies of the MDC I refer you to this link
www.mdc.co.zw)
Eddie are you suggesting that because I point out the errors of Zanu, then I should be white! If this is the case then it implies to me that your idea of a black african is a person who cannot distinguish right & wrong & needs a white person to think for them. I find this attitude highly patronising and offensive.

May you google up the word "murambatsvina" and see how much suffering he brought to us.

The Zanu press release should read more like this
"For ZANU-PF, the central question was and still is who benefits from the management of the economy? The answer is simple; it must be the ZANU PF & its cronies. That is where we differ with the MDC and with other parties. They want to benefit the country and make it prosper whilst we want to line our pockets. We say no, no, no zimbabwe is the private property of ZANU PF because we fought for this country (i.e liberated this country) and we can disregard those laws that offer personal freedoms and also those that we simply do not like"

Eddie may you also google up the following AIPPA;
POSA (laws that are use to curtail freedom of movement and speech)
Zanu PF has been the one waging violence against us Zimbabweans using the Police & army.If you have any doubts just search for the pictures of the leaders of the civil society, MDC & other parties who were beaten up to almost death last year when they were about to hold a prayer meeting under the banner of the SAVE Zimbabwe campaign in Highfields, Harare last year. If this does not change your outlook towards ZANU PF then nothing will

We are on the brink of a new start in our country & I urge you to put pray for us so that we can reclaim our dignity and achieve peaceful transition of power.

Some Zimbabwean news sites for those interested

www.zwnews.com
www.zimbabwesituation.com
www.zimonline.co.za
www.zimdaily.com
www.newzimbabwe.com
www.thezimbabwetimes.com
www.swradioafrica.com

Posted by Peter | April 3, 2008 2:38 AM

Peter,

As usual, your post is full of misleading informations about MDC economic agenda.

MDC is against Land Reforms, period!

MDC Party's handlers are foreigners who want to privatize Zimbabwe lands and rish natural resources.

See the link below and weep! The IMF and World Bank( USA and Britain ) want Zimbabwe to accumilate more debts, so that they can control Zimbabwe economy, just like they do, in many of the Third World Countries such as Congo, Colombia and so on!

Zimbabwe reconstruction $1 billion a year-UK
http://www.reuters.com/article/homepageCrisis/idUSL03932575._CH_.2400

The same neoliberal policies of IMF and World Bank have been used by the Federal Reserve, here in the USA, to finance Americans to buy houses, so that in the near future, they can bankrupt the American people and take way their houses.

And again READ MY POST, I POSTED HERE ON April 2, 2008 2:31 AM and see the kind of fascist and capitalist deregulation, the MDC Secretary of Economic Affairs, Eddie Cross said in one of the MDC Conferences few years ago, about the PRIVATIZATION OF THE ENTIRE ZIMBABWE SCHOOL DELIVERY SCHOOL!

For example, here in the USA, in the belly of the Beast of Capitalism, there is none Politician who would dare to privatze our public school.

Posted by EDDIE | April 3, 2008 12:49 PM

Eddie Cross, the Secretary of Economic Affairs for the MDC Party said this below few years ago:

WE ARE GOING TO PRIVATIZE VIRTUALLY THE ENTIRE SCHOOL DELIVERY SYSTEM OF ZIMBABWE!

Peter, Wake up and inform yourself what is the agenda of MDC. MDC's economic agenda would be coming from IMF and World Bank! If MDC comes to power, Zibmabwe would be like Haiti.

Zimbweans need to wake up and see that they are playing with fire, when voting for MDC!

Posted by EDDIE | April 3, 2008 1:04 PM

Peter -

Thanks for posting that list of news sources.

Eddie is just a communist crackpot ('the reason communism has consistantly failed everywhere is because of some vague, secret conspiracy, and the fact that there's no evidence of that conspiracy shows just how powerful it is....').

Sadly, Eddie would gladly sacrifice the people of Zimbabwe, and Venezuela, and the entire world, to get a chance at proving that he was right about a system that has failed so spectacularly. The only way that communism can 'succeed' is by controlling the entire planet, so that there is no benchmark against which the world decline can be measured. Otherwise, as countries like North Korea, Cuba, Zimbabwe and Venezuela fall farther and farther behind, the people eventually catch on to the difference between the rhetoric - that communists want to help the poor - and the reality that communism is about making everyone poor, except of course for top Party members (the new feudal overlords).

Posted by Ann | April 3, 2008 1:07 PM

Peter said:

Eddie may you also google up the following AIPPA;
POSA (laws that are use to curtail freedom of movement and speech)
Zanu PF has been the one waging violence against us Zimbabweans using the Police & army.If you have any doubts just search for the pictures of the leaders of the civil society, MDC & other parties who were beaten up to almost death last year when they were about to hold a prayer meeting under the banner of the SAVE Zimbabwe campaign in Highfields, Harare last year. If this does not change your outlook towards ZANU PF then nothing will"

The problem is that Zimbabwe Leaders had to take seriously the security of their country since the USA Departement of state was/is dedicated to finance MDC Thugs to overthrow the democratically elected government.

See this again:
US admits working to undermine Mugabe

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/apr/06/zimbabwe.topstories3

If Zimbabweans gives in to USA presure in voting for MDC, don't you think that MDC Leaders would not be able to stand against the USA agenda of controlling Zimbabwe?

Instead of blaming Imperialists who want to control Zimabwe, you should blame the USA's destabilization plan for Zimbabwe economy decline

Posted by EDDIE | April 3, 2008 1:25 PM

Ann said this:

"Otherwise, as countries like North Korea, Cuba, Zimbabwe and Venezuela fall farther and farther behind, the people eventually catch on to the difference between the rhetoric - that communists want to help the poor - and the reality that communism is about making everyone poor, except of course for top Party members (the new feudal overlords).
"

That's so laughable, Ann!

As we see Americans getting more poors than before, since 7 years of the bush cabal and few CEO and Dick' Controllers getting $ Billions from the no bid contracts, do you mean that Bush is a communist?!?

Bush is a capitalist, Ann!

Cuba is poor because the USA which runs the global economy and control at a gun point, the middle east oil, didn't want Cuba competes in the global economy. The USA put in place an economy embargo on Cuba since a half-century and you wonder why Cuba is not doing very well!

From my end, I don't support Chinese Communism or socialism or even the russia one, as they are corrupted by Capitalism, but I support socialism practiced in Zimbabwe, the Bolivarian Revolution!

Ann, if Capitalism can murder its own citizen in 9/11 in New york City, to steal/control oil in Iraq and control opium in Afghanistan, would you say this system is EVIL? Maybe when one of the city is nuked, you would have to understand what I told you!

Don't you know that 9/11 was INSIDE JOB?!? Capitalism can't survie without wars or divisions.

Posted by EDDIE | April 3, 2008 1:44 PM

Eddie,
Has America been at war regularly? Yes. You can even blame capitalism. Because of the concepts of capitalism, America is rich. Because America is rich, it becomes a object of envy, which leads to hate. And from there, a target. Because Americans quite like our lifestyle, thank you very much, we (or at least some of us) are willing to fight to preserve our country and our freedoms. And yes, I do think that some of our freedoms involve economic choices. The last genocide I remember the USA being involved in is when Clinton & co refused to allow the Serbs to all be killed. Which didn't make bin Laden like us any better, and probably didn't even register in your world view.
You might be interested to know that a small portion of the country (Galveston, Texas) was able to allow its citizens to partially privatize their social security benefits, meaning that the people were allowed to invest their retirement money where they saw fit. And the average account ended up being about three to five times larger than non-privatized. And Chile's system seems to work just fine.
Now, if I'm reading you right and manage to ignore the fact that you think that some of my close relatives who are actually doing honorable work in unpleasant situations are murderers and thieves, you think that if Zimbabwe goes to capitalism, the poor in Zimbabwe will suffer. And this might be true, too, depending on how the transition takes place. The majority of the people in Zimbabwe don't have jobs. And if they don't have land, they also can't farm. Land was taken away from the white farmers, but a lot of it isn't being used for farming at all any more. And if they can't earn money to buy food, grow their own food, or have someone to give them food, that spells starvation. So the first part isn't great option, the second has been removed by automatic-toting gangs, and the third is subject to the vagrieties of government. Which is to you the only option, right? In the current system, if you want to give it that much credit, the poor are also suffering, and with the inflation rates as high as they are, how could you think that this will stop any time soon? Government controls on prices on everything from corn to pants might make things "affordable" but that hardly matters if no one can make a thing available for that price! If you have to pay people $15 to make a pair of pants that you have to sell for $5, you go out of business. Which means that no one gets paid and there aren't any new pairs of pants. And it's hard to work your way out of poverty when there are no jobs. The thing about a job is that you tend to get them from people with money. And if you don't let the people with money into a country, chances of people getting jobs is small to non-existant.
If you run people out of the country who efficiently produce food, you don't have enough food to feed everyone. And then you no longer export to surrounding countries, but are then reduced to begging for foreign aid.
And I don't think the Venezuelan system will work in Zimbabwe, seeing how more than half the government is funded with oil revenues, still runs at more than 20% inflation, and with the move to grab US company's facilities, violating their contracts in the process, the amount of crude produced is falling. Not that that's going to stop oil from being the source of massive export and tax revenue for Venezuela's forseeable future.
I would suggest you use every caution available to you if you should decide to visit either Venezuela or Zimbabwe. And you might think about giving the people on the ground a little bit of credit. Think of it this way: Cuba is supposed to be a worker's paradise with free healthcare for everyone. But unstable rafts aren't being built by in Miami for a precarious journey south; they're being built in Cuba and heading north.

Posted by Nony Mouse | April 3, 2008 1:50 PM

Nony Mouse -

You make a lot of sense, but it's wasted on Eddie. He's descended so far into nonsense (people in the US are "more poors" than 7 years ago, 9/11 was an inside job, etc.) that it's clear his mind isn't open to evidence. Just ignore him.

Posted by Ann | April 3, 2008 2:22 PM

Nony Mouse,

The USA is not a rich country.
Our national debt is the hightest in the world with $9 trillions.

Do you know why we still have a high standard of living? It's because the USA is controlling the oil of the other country.

See this below:
The Proposed Iranian Oil Bourse
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11613.htm

But currently, you can see the USA is not able to control even Baghdad now, and it makes difficult to control oil, so our petro dollar business is not going well and that's one of the reason, the greeback is being devalued every other week as we speak. the Dollar Currency may be worthless in the near future, as countries are standing up for their right than ever before.

So, I think you are mistaken to say that the USA is rich because of a "good system" of capitalism.

Wait for few years from now, and see millions of americans losing their houses, and you would have a better picture of Capitalism.

Also, remember that it is because of Capitalism, that our manufacturing companies have been shipped overseas, and now we don't produce anything anymone and that's also one of the many reasons why our $ Currency is collapsing!

Posted by lisa | April 3, 2008 3:52 PM

Nony Mouse,

The USA is not a rich country.
Our national debt is the hightest in the world with $9 trillions.

Do you know why we still have a high standard of living? It's because the USA is controlling the oil of other countries.

See this below:
The Proposed Iranian Oil Bourse
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11613.htm

But currently, you can see the USA is not able to control even Baghdad now, and it makes difficult to control oil, so our petro dollar business is not going well and that's one of the reason, the greeback is being devalued every other week as we speak. the Dollar Currency may be worthless in the near future, as countries are standing up for their right than ever before.

So, I think you are mistaken to say that the USA is rich because of a "good system" of capitalism.

Wait for few years from now, and see millions of americans losing their houses, and you would have a better picture of Capitalism.

Also, remember that it is because of Capitalism, that our manufacturing companies have been shipped overseas, and now we don't produce anything anymone and that's also one of the many reasons why our $ Currency is collapsing!

Posted by lisa | April 3, 2008 3:56 PM

Why are censoring my postings? Shame on you!

My Freedom of speech is not respected! Wow!!

Yes, this is the Bush world we are living in!

Police state?!?!

Posted by EDDIE | April 3, 2008 4:25 PM

Why are you censoring my postings? Shame on you!

My Freedom of speech is not respected! Wow!!

Yes, this is the Bush world we are living in!

Police state?!?!

Posted by EDDIE | April 3, 2008 4:25 PM

Why are you censoring my postings? Shame on you!

My Freedom of speech is not respected! Wow!!

Yes, this is the Bush world we are living in!

Police state?!?!

Posted by EDDIE | April 3, 2008 4:25 PM

Nony Mouse said:

"Has America been at war regularly? Yes. You can even blame capitalism. Because of the concepts of capitalism, America is rich."

Nope, America is not rich, Idiot!
China has become our BANKER, as we speak, and we have $9 trillions of DEBT.

See the link below and weep!

USA U.S. NATIONAL DEBT CLOCK below
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

Do you know why we still have a high standard of living although we still have the most hight debt in the world?

It's because the USA controls/steal oil from other countries, by gun point.

See this below:
The Proposed Iranian Oil Bourse
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11613.htm

Capitalism is about profits and genocides.
http://members.aol.com/bblum6/American_holocaust.htm

Nony Mouse said:
"Because America is rich, it becomes a object of envy, which leads to hate. And from there, a target. Because Americans quite like our lifestyle, thank you very much, we (or at least some of us) are willing to fight to preserve our country and our freedoms."

Do you mean Iraqis hated our freedom?!?!? Which kind of freedom, are you talking about?!?!

Do you mean We are fighting for our freedom, in Iraq?!?!?

Posted by EDDIE | April 3, 2008 4:33 PM

Nony Mouse said:
"The last genocide I remember the USA being involved in is when Clinton & co refused to allow the Serbs to all be killed. Which didn't make bin Laden like us any better, and probably didn't even register in your world view."

You are such a misinformed, Nony Mouse.

The USA was involved in Genocide in Yougoslavia.
It was a geopolitical war started by the USA to have a presence in that part of the world, to be able to control Central Asia countries!

Read the link below:
Genocide or Veracicide
Will NATO's Lying Ever Stop?
by Stephen Gowans

http://www.swans.com/library/art7/gowans02.html

And you don't even mention the Rwandan/Congo Genocide caused by the USA, or Sudan Genocide or Even the Iraq Genocide.

See the link below, so that you may learn how the USA started the Genocide in Rwanda, so that Capitalist Investors can loot the natural resource wealth of Congo from Coltan to Gold, from Diamond to Uranium.

The US was behind the Rwandan/Congo Genocides:
Rwanda: Installing a US Protectorate in Central Africa
by Michel Chossudovsky

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO305A.html
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/35/033.html

Posted by EDDIE | April 3, 2008 4:35 PM

I hope that these crazy people will go away, so that we can have reasoned debate again. The idea that the one and only way to create wealth is to steal oil is very communist (they're all about zero-sum games where wealth is taken from one to 'help' another), but it doesn't work in the real world.

Posted by Ann | April 4, 2008 12:34 AM

Ann, you too, are about zero-sum games!

You support a system which can't survive, without creating divisions, and wars. Capitalism cares only about profits and not basic human needs.

Your high standard of living is at the expense of the millions of people of the Third World such as iraqis who have been/ are being murdered because of greed of capitalism.

VERY SAD THAT YOU SUPPORT ZIMBABWE OPPOSITION, the MDC PARTY whose economy agenda is the neoliberal economic policies which failed everywhere, and which are bankrupting Americans in the current crisis of housing bubble!

Now, as the USA/Western ruling elites are moving toward the New World Order, you will not benefit anymore of what Capitalism used to provide you and yours, as the Investors are moving their wealth to Asia, to profit from sheap labor!

I know may of us, we, Americans have been braiwashed for almost a century about the goods of Capitalism, but I would tell you that in these Days of Globalization, in 20 years from now to say the least, you will learn that Capitalism is your ennemy as a middle class american!

The chickens have come home to roost!

Posted by EDDIE | April 4, 2008 2:39 PM

Ann,
The actual problem is that at the bottom of the ranting and raving there are the bits that can be viewed as 'facts on the ground' that could be discussed rationally.

Eddie,
There's something you really need to understand: if someone does not agree with you on something, politics to ice cream flavors, it does not necessarily mean they are wrong, stupid, or evil. Further, if someone holds a position for a good reason and then finds information that discounts that reason, it's much more difficult to change an opinion when one has been badmouthing the "other side" as fools or idiots. We can agree that 2 + 2 = 4. Unless it's two minks and two years. In which case, the answer might be ten minks, one fur hat, still two minks, or none of the above. And the probable answer will change based on known information (and the reliability of the source of the information). The sad part is that I've seen my fair share of adults who don't believe in the adage repeated by my high school science teacher ("I try to keep my words/ tender and sweet,/ because I never know, tomorrow,/ which ones I'll have to eat."), and wound up professionally humiliated and sidelined.
Now, in my case, I happen to have an award in a box somewhere gathering dust that says that at one time someone else thought I had a pretty decent handle on economics. And if you really want a thoughtful discussion of the points you brought up, I'll be happy to oblige, on two conditions. The first is that you decide to be civil, which means that you don't call me names, even if you disagree with something, and that you acknowledge that we are going to have very different views on what a 'reliable' source is (is the govt lying to make itself look good, is a political group lying to make the govt look bad, or are they both telling the truth as far as they see it, but getting very different results), so we're going to have to try to figure out what each other thinks the facts actually are before continuing a discussion. The second, at least when it comes to the economic conditions, is that you can explain the terms (open book, open 'net, single-sentence, no links needed) public debt, budget deficit, bond, government bond, money supply, GDP, GNP, poverty line, absolute poverty, and relative poverty. I get the feeling unless we get the terminology down we're going to be talking past each other.

Posted by Nony Mouse | April 4, 2008 3:21 PM

You summed it up, Eddie. MDC supports the "economic policies which failed everywhere", which is why the US, UK, Australia, most of Western Europe, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Taiwan and Hong Kong, among others, are so shamefully poverty-stricken that people are risking their lives building rafts or sneaking across borders to get to the few booming economies out there such as Cuba and North Korea.

I've been searching for some actual logic in your positions, but all you offer are bizarre, twisted statements such as this: "Capitalism cares only about profits and not basic human needs." (There's money to be made providing basic human needs, which is why such needs are met under capitalism but not communism).

I should have given up responding to you earlier, since a logical, clear-thinking communist is pretty much impossible. Go ahead and rant away.

Posted by Ann | April 4, 2008 3:36 PM

Oh, well, it looks like this has fallen off the front page, and I doubt I'll check it any more. Just take it as read that I had a nice little write up about the deficit and the public debt as it relates to the GNP, a comparison of the ratios of governments that are stable vs those in Africa, and the observation that while you want the gov't to be stable it's better from the citizen's point of view to be able to have cash, along with some snide remarks about pork barrel projects, non-snide remarks about Bono's concerns of the debts in Africa and comparisons of what poverty and median are in the US vs EU vs third world, and some commentary China's holdings of US debt.
Favorite comparison: "that public debt looks HUGE to our personal eye, much like the amount of a business loan or mortgage looks to a three year old who only has a piggy bank with pennies and a dime. But the entirety of the public debt is less than the GDP."
Favorite question: "So did China buy so much US public debt because they wanted a hold on us, a hold on its economy, an insulation against its own inflation, a proven low-risk investment, a combination of the above, or other reasons altogether?"

Posted by Nony Mouse | April 4, 2008 6:29 PM

Nony Mouse said" -

"You make a lot of sense, but it's wasted on Eddie. He's descended so far into nonsense (people in the US are "more poors" than 7 years ago, 9/11 was an inside job, etc.) that it's clear his mind isn't open to evidence. Just ignore him."

Although I refuted the nonsenses arguments of your previous post, our readers here should just notice from your words above, about 9/11, and conclude how misinformed you are, about the events affecting this world.

Nony, let's me ask you this, have you seen in the past, Loose Change or 9/11 misteries?

Tell me, Ann, do you deny too, that 9/11 was inside job?

Posted by EDDIE | April 4, 2008 9:02 PM

PETER, tell me what you don't understand below!
You support MDC blindly, and yet you ignore the external imperialist forces which contributed to the decline of the Zimbabwe economy!

ZIMBABWE AND THE NEW COWARDLY COLONIALISM

Western intervention against Robert Mugabe’s ‘evil regime’ put Zimbabwe into
an economic straitjacket and disempowered its people.

by Brendan O'Neill

‘We’ve beaten Mugabe’, said a frontpage headline in the London Evening
Standard yesterday. Only there were no quote marks around the words ‘We’ve
beaten Mugabe’, which made it difficult to tell if the paper was reporting
the thoughts of Morgan Tsvangirai’s Movement for Democratic Change (MDC)
upon its electoral victory over Robert Mugabe’s Zanu-PF Party, or its own
back-slapping relish at the thought that its journalism may have played a
part in toppling Mugabe. Indeed, ‘We’ve beaten Mugabe’ could be the slogan
of political and media operators in Britain and elsewhere in the West, who
like to fantasise that Mugabe is ‘Africa’s Hitler’, that his Zimbabwe was
‘more evil than, for example, China and Saudi Arabia’, and that it is up to
the West to ‘put pressure on Zimbabwe to change’ (1).

The media reports about Zimbabwe’s elections present them as a clash between
the ‘evil’ Mugabe and the ‘heroic’ Tsvangirai, an electoral battle for
Zimbabwe’s soul. Mugabe is depicted as having brought Zimbabwe to its knees,
causing widespread poverty and enforcing terror and repression, and
Tsvangirai is discussed as the harbinger of a dignified ‘revolution’ against
Mugabeism (2). This is a fantasy. It ignores the key role played by Western
governments and financial institutions in using sanctions, tough diplomacy
and the proxy interventionists of the South Africa government and the
African Union to isolate and harry Zimbabwe over the past decade. Such
self-serving external meddling has contributed to Zimbabwe’s economic
crisis - and it has dangerously distorted the political dynamics inside
Zimbabwe and elsewhere in the south of Africa.

Full article at:

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/4942/

Posted by EDDIE | April 5, 2008 1:03 AM

Ann, the misinformed and brainwashed one,

Hope you read my new recent post posted on April 5, 2008 1:03 AM, and understand how the Western ruling elites have been trying to destroy the human socialist agenda and leadership of Mugabe since a decade ago.

As I told you, the Western Capitalists never gave a chance to socialism to succeed.

Socialism in Venezuela is succeeding because Western sanctions can't undermine Venezuala economy because Hugo Chavez has oil!

Posted by EDDIE | April 5, 2008 1:21 AM

Let's predict the Zimbabwe news cycle

Comments (58)