Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 21, 2019, 09:08:22 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  General Politics
| |-+  International General Discussion (Moderators: Gustaf, afleitch, Hash, Balkan Hitman)
| | |-+  Zimbabwe to nationalise all land
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 Print
Author Topic: Zimbabwe to nationalise all land  (Read 8964 times)
WMS
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,905


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -1.22

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: June 10, 2004, 11:45:18 pm »

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3786785.stm

Snippet: "'Ultimately, all land shall be resettled as state property. It will now be the state which will enable the utilisation of the land for national prosperity,' he {John Nkomo, minister in charge of land reform} said.

Private ownership of land is not allowed in many African countries. "

WTF?! Are these socialists insane?! I guess it's a hop and skip to state-sponsored genocide by famine, just like what Mugabe's buddy Mariam did in Ethiopia. And watch as the ANC will remain silent yet again...
Logged
opebo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 47,089


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: June 11, 2004, 12:00:11 am »

Zimbabwe is a nightmare, even for the people who had it pretty bad under good ol' Rhodesia.
Logged
M
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,492


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: June 11, 2004, 12:28:17 am »

Somebody has to go in their and kill that creature. If not South Africa, than the Brits. Adn if not them, than maybe it's up to us. But this can't be allowed to go on.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 62,302
United Kingdom


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: June 11, 2004, 04:29:47 am »

This isn't anything to do with "socialism". This is a return to feudalism.
Logged
opebo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 47,089


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: June 11, 2004, 05:44:42 pm »

This isn't anything to do with "socialism". This is a return to feudalism.

Precious little difference between the two.
Logged
KEmperor
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8,473
United States


Political Matrix
E: 8.00, S: -0.05

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: June 11, 2004, 06:11:13 pm »

This isn't anything to do with "socialism". This is a return to feudalism.

Precious little difference between the two.


One has a King and Nobility, one has a Chairman and a Central Committee.  Same thing, different titles.
Logged
opebo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 47,089


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: June 11, 2004, 07:28:05 pm »

This isn't anything to do with "socialism". This is a return to feudalism.

Precious little difference between the two.


One has a King and Nobility, one has a Chairman and a Central Committee.  Same thing, different titles.

I'll take feudalism.
Logged
MHS2002
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,645


Political Matrix
E: 0.90, S: 1.57

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: June 11, 2004, 07:28:22 pm »

Wow. A step in the wrong direction if there ever was one.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29,275


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

P P

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: June 12, 2004, 01:10:02 pm »

Zimbabwe...*shakes head*. Stupid ers. I wish they'd have free elections and let the MDC win, maybe we would get some order then.
Logged
Jens
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,461
Angola


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: June 12, 2004, 01:20:10 pm »

This isn't anything to do with "socialism". This is a return to feudalism.

Precious little difference between the two.


One has a King and Nobility, one has a Chairman and a Central Committee.  Same thing, different titles.

I'll take feudalism.
Come on, guys. That is like saying capitalism = fascism. There might be some minor resemblence but only on the surface.

Back to this quite interesting topic. The politics conducted by Mugabe are not very sane to put it mildly, but Zimbabwe has been begging for a land reform ever since independence. It was part of the peace agreament that after a 10 years transition period the white farmers would begin to parcel out parts of their land, but non of this happened (Britain for one failed to provide the finacial support promised in the peace treaty). When the tide started chancing Mugabe played on the widespread dissatifaction and fustration among the landless black peasants.
Logged
AuH2O
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,245


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: June 17, 2004, 10:16:13 pm »

This is what happens when you remove a civilized government in the interests of "democracy," aka Communism.

You get neither freedom, nor democracy, nor equality, but genocide and poverty.
Logged
Jens
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,461
Angola


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: June 18, 2004, 03:30:11 am »

This is what happens when you remove a civilized government in the interests of "democracy," aka Communism.

You get neither freedom, nor democracy, nor equality, but genocide and poverty.
You surely don't mean Smith's Rhodesia because I would not call a minority government that was very apartheid inspired, civilized. It was a brutal and oppresive regime that would do anything to hang on to their little "paradise"
Logged
AuH2O
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,245


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: June 18, 2004, 06:52:09 am »

How was it brutal? What atrocities were committed?

How is the current government better?

Why is everyone poorer now?
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 62,302
United Kingdom


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: June 18, 2004, 06:53:15 am »

How was it brutal? What atrocities were committed?

How is the current government better?

Why is everyone poorer now?

Both Smith and Mugabe's regimes were/are evil. Case closed.
Logged
AuH2O
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,245


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: June 18, 2004, 06:54:14 am »

Mugabe is a lot worse, and it's not even debatable.
Logged
Jens
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,461
Angola


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: June 18, 2004, 02:28:37 pm »

How was it brutal? What atrocities were committed?

How is the current government better?

Why is everyone poorer now?
The Smith-regime forcefully moved parts of the population and burned their villages. The regime refuged to give the majority of the population the right to selfdetermination and waged war against those who tried to claim that right. Rhodesia attacted its nabour countries on several occations and armed and trained RENAMO, effectively initiating a very brutal civil war in Mozambique.
I am not claiming that the recent Mugabe-regime is much better, but until he snapped around 1996-97 and sent troops to Zaire, Zimbabwe had been the most important country in the battle against Apartheid and played a very important role in SADCC (Today SADC). You have to see the nuances.
When it comes to poverty one of the reasons is Mugabes politics and AIDS/HIV, but another reason is that most of the wealth was concentrated on very few hands who got their money out of the country very fast hurting those who has not got the means to leave.
Claiming that "Mugabe is a lot worse, and it's not even debatable" is a too simplistic conclution on a very complex situation
Logged
AuH2O
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,245


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: June 18, 2004, 04:45:26 pm »

The country's economy has been destroyed. Even with a problematic social/political system, there can be reform. But when destroy the economic base- particularly the agriculture necessary to feed the populace- you cause a permanent change for the worse.

I'm not saying whether Smith or Mugabe is a better guy, rather, which regime did/has done more to hurt the country.
Logged
opebo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 47,089


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: June 18, 2004, 04:54:49 pm »

The Rhodesian government was far superior to the current regime in 'Zimbabwe'.
Logged
Jens
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,461
Angola


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: June 18, 2004, 05:39:14 pm »

The Rhodesian government was far superior to the current regime in 'Zimbabwe'.
The Smiith-regime nearly destroyed the countrys economy an a lot of rebuilding had to take place after 1980 - oh, and a few were better of during the "Rhodesia"-intermetzo but the majority were living in absolute poverty. I can under no circumstances accept a regime that define people by colour and that believe that because your skin colour is "white" you are more important than those whose skin is darker.
Logged
opebo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 47,089


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: June 18, 2004, 05:54:36 pm »

The Rhodesian government was far superior to the current regime in 'Zimbabwe'.
The Smiith-regime nearly destroyed the countrys economy an a lot of rebuilding had to take place after 1980 - oh, and a few were better of during the "Rhodesia"-intermetzo but the majority were living in absolute poverty. I can under no circumstances accept a regime that define people by colour and that believe that because your skin colour is "white" you are more important than those whose skin is darker.

All good points.. and I never said it was perfect, just better than the current regime.  The real heyday in that part of the world was the British Empire.
Logged
Jens
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,461
Angola


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: June 18, 2004, 06:06:11 pm »

The Rhodesian government was far superior to the current regime in 'Zimbabwe'.
The Smiith-regime nearly destroyed the countrys economy an a lot of rebuilding had to take place after 1980 - oh, and a few were better of during the "Rhodesia"-intermetzo but the majority were living in absolute poverty. I can under no circumstances accept a regime that define people by colour and that believe that because your skin colour is "white" you are more important than those whose skin is darker.

All good points.. and I never said it was perfect, just better than the current regime.  The real heyday in that part of the world was the British Empire.
For the majority no. There still is a lot of poverty and disaster, but countries like Botswana, Mozambique, Namibia (I know - never a british colony - only RSA and Der Kaiser) and even South Africa the majority is better of than they where 10, 20, 50 and 100 years ago. They are all still very poor but in these countries people have a chance to do something about it. THAT is my main dislike when it comes to Zimbabwe. The Zanu-FP have taken away that right and is abusing real problems like the need for a land reform, to promote their own agenta. Take this from a man who spends most of his time studying the "Good Old Days." There is very little good about those days (oh and remember it was only a few hundred kilometers south of the Limpopo that those nice British fellows invented the Concentration Camp. What a jolly bunch Wink )
Logged
Gustaf
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29,275


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

P P

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: June 19, 2004, 10:36:05 am »

The Rhodesian government was far superior to the current regime in 'Zimbabwe'.
The Smiith-regime nearly destroyed the countrys economy an a lot of rebuilding had to take place after 1980 - oh, and a few were better of during the "Rhodesia"-intermetzo but the majority were living in absolute poverty. I can under no circumstances accept a regime that define people by colour and that believe that because your skin colour is "white" you are more important than those whose skin is darker.

All good points.. and I never said it was perfect, just better than the current regime.  The real heyday in that part of the world was the British Empire.
For the majority no. There still is a lot of poverty and disaster, but countries like Botswana, Mozambique, Namibia (I know - never a british colony - only RSA and Der Kaiser) and even South Africa the majority is better of than they where 10, 20, 50 and 100 years ago. They are all still very poor but in these countries people have a chance to do something about it. THAT is my main dislike when it comes to Zimbabwe. The Zanu-FP have taken away that right and is abusing real problems like the need for a land reform, to promote their own agenta. Take this from a man who spends most of his time studying the "Good Old Days." There is very little good about those days (oh and remember it was only a few hundred kilometers south of the Limpopo that those nice British fellows invented the Concentration Camp. What a jolly bunch Wink )

You cannot simply make intertemporal comparisons though. You have to try and reason about what it would be like today if those countries had remained parts of the British Empire.
Logged
Jens
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,461
Angola


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: June 19, 2004, 10:40:45 am »

The Rhodesian government was far superior to the current regime in 'Zimbabwe'.
The Smiith-regime nearly destroyed the countrys economy an a lot of rebuilding had to take place after 1980 - oh, and a few were better of during the "Rhodesia"-intermetzo but the majority were living in absolute poverty. I can under no circumstances accept a regime that define people by colour and that believe that because your skin colour is "white" you are more important than those whose skin is darker.

All good points.. and I never said it was perfect, just better than the current regime.  The real heyday in that part of the world was the British Empire.
For the majority no. There still is a lot of poverty and disaster, but countries like Botswana, Mozambique, Namibia (I know - never a british colony - only RSA and Der Kaiser) and even South Africa the majority is better of than they where 10, 20, 50 and 100 years ago. They are all still very poor but in these countries people have a chance to do something about it. THAT is my main dislike when it comes to Zimbabwe. The Zanu-FP have taken away that right and is abusing real problems like the need for a land reform, to promote their own agenta. Take this from a man who spends most of his time studying the "Good Old Days." There is very little good about those days (oh and remember it was only a few hundred kilometers south of the Limpopo that those nice British fellows invented the Concentration Camp. What a jolly bunch Wink )

You cannot simply make intertemporal comparisons though. You have to try and reason about what it would be like today if those countries had remained parts of the British Empire.
Do you think that I would have been better if Zimbabwe still was a part of GB??
Logged
Gustaf
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29,275


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

P P

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: June 19, 2004, 10:47:50 am »

The Rhodesian government was far superior to the current regime in 'Zimbabwe'.
The Smiith-regime nearly destroyed the countrys economy an a lot of rebuilding had to take place after 1980 - oh, and a few were better of during the "Rhodesia"-intermetzo but the majority were living in absolute poverty. I can under no circumstances accept a regime that define people by colour and that believe that because your skin colour is "white" you are more important than those whose skin is darker.

All good points.. and I never said it was perfect, just better than the current regime.  The real heyday in that part of the world was the British Empire.
For the majority no. There still is a lot of poverty and disaster, but countries like Botswana, Mozambique, Namibia (I know - never a british colony - only RSA and Der Kaiser) and even South Africa the majority is better of than they where 10, 20, 50 and 100 years ago. They are all still very poor but in these countries people have a chance to do something about it. THAT is my main dislike when it comes to Zimbabwe. The Zanu-FP have taken away that right and is abusing real problems like the need for a land reform, to promote their own agenta. Take this from a man who spends most of his time studying the "Good Old Days." There is very little good about those days (oh and remember it was only a few hundred kilometers south of the Limpopo that those nice British fellows invented the Concentration Camp. What a jolly bunch Wink )

You cannot simply make intertemporal comparisons though. You have to try and reason about what it would be like today if those countries had remained parts of the British Empire.
Do you think that I would have been better if Zimbabwe still was a part of GB??

That obviously depends on the forms of the government. If the scenario is that Britain tried to keep it as a colony or an integrated part of the country against the will of the population, then obviously not. If an agreement that both sides agreed on had been reached and in which the black population was not discriminated against (let's remember that GB was a much more tolerant country after WWII than RSA or Rhodesia and that they even planned to overthrow the Rhodesian government in the 60s) then yes, it would most likely have been better. Though not likely to occur, of course.
Logged
Jens
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,461
Angola


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: June 19, 2004, 11:07:46 am »

The Rhodesian government was far superior to the current regime in 'Zimbabwe'.
The Smiith-regime nearly destroyed the countrys economy an a lot of rebuilding had to take place after 1980 - oh, and a few were better of during the "Rhodesia"-intermetzo but the majority were living in absolute poverty. I can under no circumstances accept a regime that define people by colour and that believe that because your skin colour is "white" you are more important than those whose skin is darker.

All good points.. and I never said it was perfect, just better than the current regime.  The real heyday in that part of the world was the British Empire.
For the majority no. There still is a lot of poverty and disaster, but countries like Botswana, Mozambique, Namibia (I know - never a british colony - only RSA and Der Kaiser) and even South Africa the majority is better of than they where 10, 20, 50 and 100 years ago. They are all still very poor but in these countries people have a chance to do something about it. THAT is my main dislike when it comes to Zimbabwe. The Zanu-FP have taken away that right and is abusing real problems like the need for a land reform, to promote their own agenta. Take this from a man who spends most of his time studying the "Good Old Days." There is very little good about those days (oh and remember it was only a few hundred kilometers south of the Limpopo that those nice British fellows invented the Concentration Camp. What a jolly bunch Wink )

You cannot simply make intertemporal comparisons though. You have to try and reason about what it would be like today if those countries had remained parts of the British Empire.
Do you think that I would have been better if Zimbabwe still was a part of GB??

That obviously depends on the forms of the government. If the scenario is that Britain tried to keep it as a colony or an integrated part of the country against the will of the population, then obviously not. If an agreement that both sides agreed on had been reached and in which the black population was not discriminated against (let's remember that GB was a much more tolerant country after WWII than RSA or Rhodesia and that they even planned to overthrow the Rhodesian government in the 60s) then yes, it would most likely have been better. Though not likely to occur, of course.
I have heard that opinion sometimes but I have to say that I consider it a modernised version of Kiplings "White Man's Burden." (Nothing personal Smiley ) Most African nations are perfectly capable of taking care of their one affairs, but sometime things goes the wrong way, like it does in European, Asian and American countries (like Sweden around 1770-90 Wink ). It is not curtain that a union between Britain and her African colonies (or just those with some white population) would be a happy solution. In the modern society most people appreciate that the ones who makes the decisions are close bye (like the EU-scepticals Grin ).
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines