Zimbabwe: Get Behind the Fist

[Lemur]

They're holding elections in that blighted land as we speak. I'm secretly impressed with Mugabe's campaign slogan; no "Ready on Day One" or "Change We Can Believe In" for him, no, that would be too mellow -- his personal and party slogan is Get Behind the Fist.

Lovely.

With most news agencies banned, getting news devolves to bloggers and the few journos who are tolerated.

Extra credit bonus material: Samantha Power's 2003 essay, How to Kill a Country, with its patented ten-step program for utterly destroying your nation. (Yes, this the the same Powers who called Senator Clinton a "monster.")

So what do the Orgahs think? Will Zimbabwe get behind the fist? Will Zimbabwe turn into another North Korea, a blighted, blasted place where people starve in silence while a few elite leaders drink cognac? Or will they descend into revolution? Why haven't they revolted already? Is Mugabe just that good at strangling dissent and killing opponents? What's the idea? Why can't they get rid of the crazy dude?

[Furious Mental]

I think Zimbabwe will probably turn out like Zaire- collapsing into a very bloody war. I don't think it could become another North Korea. The government there has had half a century to build up the apparatus of indoctrination and intimidation. By comparison Mugabe's methods are crude although still sufficient.

I would say one reason why there hasn't been a revolt yet is that the persons that would start one- urban dissidents in their youth or middle age, have mostly just left the country. By sending back foreign currency to their relatives they also ameliorate the misery of living in Zimbabwe, somewhat. Another reason is that no one doubts Mugabe would meet any revolt with force so success is impossible without arms. However Mugabe has always managed to maintain the loyalty of the army, police, and security apparatus, and I don't think any of the opposition politicians have the mettle (or resources) to become guerrilla leaders (ironically what they actually need is their own pre-1980 Robert Mugabe). In any case none of Zimbabwe's neighbours show any willingness to dole out weapons, money and sanctuary to rebels; alot of them still view Mugabe as a hero of anti-colonialism.

[Kralizec]

There already is an African North Korea. It's called Eritrea.

Why can't they get rid of the crazy dude?

Because Zimbabwe is a police state, and the elections held thus far have been shams. The only reason that his most important opponent stands a chance is because he's from the same party.

[Big_John]

what? samantha power is dating a man?? my gaydar is acting a bit wonky.

and oh yeah, zimbabwe.. dang.

but i have to take issue with your phrase "devolves to bloggers" Lemur. blogging is in many ways superior to traditional media. "limited to bloggers" would be a fairer wording, imo.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Why don't they revolt? I'd imagine it has to do with Mugabe's control of the army and the seizing of firearms from the people. After all, firearms are just for the state, right? (Looks at people who said in the Member profile thread that only the military and police should have guns).

http://www.zwnews.com/issuefull.cfm?ArticleID=12207

And here's a story several years old about people pleading for weapons:
http://www.zwnews.com/issuefull.cfm?ArticleID=11982

Not the whole reason certainly, but a significant part I'd say.

CR

[woad&fangs]

80% Unemployment
100,000% Inflation
Millions of homes and business' destroyed
Corrupt Despot who still considers Colonialism a threat

Why the hasn't a revolution started??!!??! Mugabe can't kill 90% of the population. Even without guns they should be able to pull it off. What is the worse that can happen if they fail? Life can't get much worse than it already is.

[Romanus]

The problem is that he has the support of a lot of african leaders. Which tells me a lot about the continent as a whole...

[CountArach]

I can't see any way for the opposition to win... especially with this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7310544.stm

[Viking]

Will Zimbabwe turn into another North Korea

If you had seen the documentary posted in the Korea thread I doubt you'd think in that direction. A fascinating, disturbing and interesting documentary, all at the same time. But er, definately not a new NK, no.

[CountArach]

And what do you know:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2...30/2202807.htm

Marwick Khumalo, head of the Pan-African Parliament, says in one Harare constituency, "It has been brought to our attention that out of the 24,678 registered voters more than 8,450 have been registered under block 081083 ... which is a deserted land with a few scattered wooden sheds".

[Banquo's Ghost]

Crazed Rabbit will appreciate this one.

According to a BBC report, many districts are made up entirely of the dead. In a delicious irony, they even found the name of Ian Douglas Smith, the leader of Rhodesia who declared UDI and whom Mugabe finally overthrew, still listed as a voter (he died in 2007).

[HoreTore]

Why don't they revolt? I'd imagine it has to do with Mugabe's control of the army and the seizing of firearms from the people. After all, firearms are just for the state, right? (Looks at people who said in the Member profile thread that only the military and police should have guns).

If there is one thing africa does not lack, it's guns. If someone wanted to make a rebellion in zimbabwe, getting guns would be the least of their problems...

[Pannonian]

Crazed Rabbit will appreciate this one.

According to a BBC report, many districts are made up entirely of the dead. In a delicious irony, they even found the name of Ian Douglas Smith, the leader of Rhodesia who declared UDI and whom Mugabe finally overthrew, still listed as a voter (he died in 2007).

Does anyone know whom he voted for?

[naut]

Judge George Chiwese told the BBC that the vote would be free and fair.

Bollox, about as free as a Jew in Nazi Germany.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Comforting to know that this is all the UK's fault.

[Lt Nevermind]

Hmm, according to the news here, citated from Reuters I believe, it looks like the opposition declared themselves victorious over Mugabe with an estimated 67 % share of all votes given (though only a third yet counted). Strangely enough, I was under the impression that these elections would have been pre-elected like so many others under silmilar conditions have been, and that such behaviour from the opposition would not a) be possible in the first place b) be tolerated by the regime. Now the regime seems to settle in warning the opposition that pre-declarations lead to dire consequences. I'm not quite sure what to think about this situation but I doubt Mr. Mugabe is too excited about passing his throne to the opposition with a friendly handshake.

[Crazed Rabbit]

If there is one thing africa does not lack, it's guns. If someone wanted to make a rebellion in zimbabwe, getting guns would be the least of their problems...

It doesn't lack guns in the hands of dictators and their militaries. Didn't you read the link? Mugabe has taken guns from the people.

According to a BBC report, many districts are made up entirely of the dead. In a delicious irony, they even found the name of Ian Douglas Smith, the leader of Rhodesia who declared UDI and whom Mugabe finally overthrew, still listed as a voter (he died in 2007).

Ah, reminds me of home. I must express surprise that Ian Smith was allowed to live a peaceful (relatively) life in Zimbabwe.

CR

[HoreTore]

It doesn't lack guns in the hands of dictators and their militaries. Didn't you read the link? Mugabe has taken guns from the people.

Yup. But if anyone wanted to make a rebellion there, the arms dealers would be there in an instant to supply them.

[woad&fangs]

Yup. But if anyone wanted to make a rebellion there, the arms dealers would be there in an instant to supply them.

The country has 80% unemployment and 100,000% inflation. They might have a hard time coming up with the money to pay the arms dealers.

[HoreTore]

The country has 80% unemployment and 100,000% inflation. They might have a hard time coming up with the money to pay the arms dealers.

Haven't you noticed that dirt poor people always seems to be gun-toting as well? What's the unemployment in gaza now? 95%? How many guns do they have?

Besides - if there is going to be a rebellion, it'll need a leader. That leader would have to come from the government, like the opposition candidate in the election is, because Mugabe as basically killed everyone else. But plenty of people in his government don't like him, like the generals of the coup a few years back and the current opposition. They would be rich, and therefore able to supply arms. Also, Mugabe has made a lot of enemies in other governments in the world, governments who would be interested in sending aid to a rebellion.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Yup. But if anyone wanted to make a rebellion there, the arms dealers would be there in an instant to supply them.

I don't think you understand the situation. You think Mugabe would just allow people to come into his country with a huge amount of guns and sell them to the people? And of course, there's the problem of paying with Zimbabwe currency.

The thing is, if you need firearms for a revolution, by then it's usually to late to buy the firearms. You don't buy insurance after you've been robbed, or an airbag after you've been in a crash, do you?

CR

[Pannonian]

I don't think you understand the situation. You think Mugabe would just allow people to come into his country with a huge amount of guns and sell them to the people? And of course, there's the problem of paying with Zimbabwe currency.

The thing is, if you need firearms for a revolution, by then it's usually to late to buy the firearms. You don't buy insurance after you've been robbed, or an airbag after you've been in a crash, do you?

CR

The success or otherwise of an armed rebellion depends on the favour of South Africa. If the South African government decided it had had enough of Mugabe, then they can provide the rebels with the arms necessary to succeed, or even move in themselves. If the South Africans decided to move into Zimbabwe, do you think Mugabe's army could resist? However, if the South African government decided Mugabe was the lesser evil than the alternatives, then they can support him in whatever way necessary. In such a case, do you really think an armed rebellion could succeed by itself?

I think you place too much credence in the effectiveness of the people's rebellion.

[HoreTore]

I don't think you understand the situation. You think Mugabe would just allow people to come into his country with a huge amount of guns and sell them to the people? And of course, there's the problem of paying with Zimbabwe currency.

The thing is, if you need firearms for a revolution, by then it's usually to late to buy the firearms. You don't buy insurance after you've been robbed, or an airbag after you've been in a crash, do you?

No, whether you have firearms available before a revolution doesn't matter, since once it is started, they become available. Say the revolution starts with rioting, as they usually do. That rioting would lead to looting, and that looting would include arms deposits, giving them weapons. Also, once the rioting starts, a leader would probably emerge. That leader would of course be a powerful guy, and he would get the support of a few other powerful guys, like a general who would turn his regiment and its resources against Mugabe. Finally, as I've said, Mugabe has outside enemies, enemies with money and weapons.

Also, I'd say that conscription is a better option than firearms to overthrow a government. If the army is made up of every citizen, it'll be a lot harder for a despot to turn it against the people, as that would mean turning it against themselves.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

No, whether you have firearms available before a revolution doesn't matter, since once it is started, they become available.

Arms dealers are a wonderful thing, no?

The rebels can buy arms if they have money. Weapons are remarkably easy to come by these days - automatic weapons, RPGs, grenades, anything you want. There are Zimbabweans outside Zimbabwe who have money, who could fund rebels. In addition, there are foreign countries who may or may not be willing to supply any potential rebels. The foreign aid to the rebels would be what was really necessary. Besides, what about places like Uganda? They weren't exactly close to Mugabe during the Second Congo War.

[Tribesman]

I don't think you understand the situation. You think Mugabe would just allow people to come into his country with a huge amount of guns and sell them to the people?

Do you think Smith just allowed people to come into the country to sell Mugabe guns .

[Crazed Rabbit]

Gee, tribesy, you think maybe some of the surrounding countries helped Mugabe, and maybe others like China? Gee, I think China makes guns, don't they.

So your question is bollox. Oh, wait, its not a question, your sentence didn't have a question mark. It's just a nonsensical statement.

In such a case, do you really think an armed rebellion could succeed by itself?

I think a rebellion would put a lot of pressure on Mugabe's backers.

No, whether you have firearms available before a revolution doesn't matter, since once it is started, they become available.

Bah, that's nonsense. Rioters aren't going to overwhelm military bases where weapons would be stored.

Also, I'd say that conscription is a better option than firearms to overthrow a government.

Wow. You think Zimbabwe's army is all volunteer? Could you provide a list of the modern dictatorships (last 100 years or so) that have had volunteer armies?

I guess you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

CR

[HoreTore]

Gee, tribesy, you think maybe some of the surrounding countries helped Mugabe, and maybe others like China? Gee, I think China makes guns, don't they.

And just why on earth wouldn't other countries help the rebellion, countries like your own US...?

I think a rebellion would put a lot of pressure on Mugabe's backers.

Like the kurdish uprising in Iraq 15 years ago...?

Yeah, that was a real success. Oh, and they all owned firearms btw.

Bah, that's nonsense. Rioters aren't going to overwhelm military bases where weapons would be stored.

Of course they can, it's happened quite a few times. Who's to say which side the guards will take? Besides, weapons aren't just found in fortresses, there are more deposits around a country.

Wow. You think Zimbabwe's army is all volunteer? Could you provide a list of the modern dictatorships (last 100 years or so) that have had volunteer armies?

I wasn't talking about the situation in Zimbabwe.

A final question though CR; Pannonian, EMFM and myself made a dozen points in our posts, you've only objected with short sentences on a few of them... Does that mean that you agree? And just out of curiosity, how would this "common man's" armed uprising of yours do? How would a disorganized lot armed with rifles beat a state power? And could you please explain just why it is crucial that they have access to some very basic weaponry before the revolution begin?

[Crazed Rabbit]

And just why on earth wouldn't other countries help the rebellion, countries like your own US...?

The rebellion against Rhodesia? Seems like a funny question, considering what we know of Mugabe now, but perhaps we didn't want to help a man that the communists wanted in power, even if Rhodesia was an apartheid state.

Like the kurdish uprising in Iraq 15 years ago...?

Yeah, that was a real success. Oh, and they all owned firearms btw.

Eh, you mean the one that succeeded in taking control of some parts of Kurdistan/Northern Iraq from Saddam?

I wasn't talking about the situation in Zimbabwe.

So guns in the hands of the people would help the situation there?
And maybe you could get that list anyway, to see if your point had any validity?

A final question though CR; Pannonian, EMFM and myself made a dozen points in our posts, you've only objected with short sentences on a few of them... Does that mean that you agree?

Not really, you just repeat a lot of the same, silly points. Well, not Pannonian. And EMFM just talked about arms dealers, which I had already talked about.

And you've made a couple posts where you seem very sure of your predictions on just what exactly will happen, but it all seems based on bad assumptions. And your point about Gaza is really, just silly. They get all sorts of funds to help the 'resistance' from all over the world.

Of course they can, it's happened quite a few times. Who's to say which side the guards will take? Besides, weapons aren't just found in fortresses, there are more deposits around a country.

Ok, evidence please.

And just out of curiosity, how would this "common man's" armed uprising of yours do?

Probably like one of many such revolutions throughout history. I'm very curious as to why you think it'd be worse off than a unarmed mob rioting. Please, tell me how that is better for the people.

How would a disorganized lot armed with rifles beat a state power?

Well, by getting organized first off.

And could you please explain just why it is crucial that they have access to some very basic weaponry before the revolution begin?

Because it's a damn sight harder to get them when you feel a revolution is necessary? Because otherwise the people are disarmed before a authoritarian government. Perhaps you could explain why it's so necessary to have mobs of people get cut down by government machine guns as they 'riot' before they can finally get some weapons.

CR

[HoreTore]

The rebellion against Rhodesia? Seems like a funny question, considering what we know of Mugabe now, but perhaps we didn't want to help a man that the communists wanted in power, even if Rhodesia was an apartheid state.

No, the hypothetical rebellion against Mugabe.

Eh, you mean the one that succeeded in taking control of some parts of Kurdistan/Northern Iraq from Saddam?

And your point about Gaza is really, just silly. They get all sorts of funds to help the 'resistance' from all over the world.

And just why shouldn't an anti-Mugabe rebellion get support from a dozen regimes? Like the US, for example?

Ok, evidence please.

A few miles from where I live there's a locked bunker containing quite a few weapons and ammunition. The only defense there is a fence plus the lock, not really hard to get into. These are scattered all over the country. Now, I don't know the situation in Zimbabwe, but I would be very surprised if they didn't have some supply points around the country.

Probably like one of many such revolutions throughout history. I'm very curious as to why you think it'd be worse off than a unarmed mob rioting. Please, tell me how that is better for the people.

I'm not talking about an unarmed mob, I'm talking about an organized rebel force supplied by outside governments and led by local powers. Powers that don't need to worry about how they'll get a hold of guns.

Well, by getting organized first off.

That would be the point though, when they're already organized, buying/getting weapons is REALLY easy, especially in Africa.

Because it's a damn sight harder to get them when you feel a revolution is necessary? Because otherwise the people are disarmed before a authoritarian government. Perhaps you could explain why it's so necessary to have mobs of people get cut down by government machine guns as they 'riot' before they can finally get some weapons.

No, when the rebellion is there, getting guns would be easier, because the arms dealers would be attracted to coming events and potential money to be made, and foreign governments are more likely to lend support if they see things are moving along; when things are quiet they will be more conservative, because it may turn out as nothing, and hurt relations with the regime.

Also, aren't you overestimating the value of your guns a little? When Mugabe deploys his T59's, it doesn't really matter if you're holding a stone or an ak-47 in your hand. It's not going to damage that tank at all. Or do you include RPG's, tanks, grenades, artillery, etc in your "right to keep and bear arms"?

[Tribesman]

Gee, tribesy, you think maybe some of the surrounding countries helped Mugabe, and maybe others like China? Gee, I think China makes guns, don't they.

So your question is bollox. Oh, wait, its not a question, your sentence didn't have a question mark. It's just a nonsensical statement.

So you now say that they do get guns after it starts , damn I coud have sworn you said that it was too late by then

Whats even funnier Rabbit is even though you write ....I don't think you understand the situation.....it is you that doesn't understand the situation , in that conflict the ones already with the guns who had their little rebellion were the ones who lost , and those that didn't already have the guns who won and now mismanage the place .

Bah, that's nonsense. Rioters aren't going to overwhelm military bases where weapons would be stored.

Errrrrr...since history repeatedly says otherwise it must be you thats talking nonsense .