BBC (early Monday): Zimbabwe quits Commonwealth

[Jack Rabbit]

From the BBC Online
Dated Monday December 8 00:36 GMT (Sunday 4:36 pm PST)

Zimbabwe quits Commonwealth

Zimbabwe's President Robert Mugabe says he is pulling his country out of the Commonwealth with immediate effect.
He said he did not accept the decision by Commonwealth leaders at their summit in Abuja, to maintain Zimbabwe's suspension indefinitely.
Commonwealth spokesman Joel Kibazo told the BBC that Mr Mugabe's decision to withdraw was "very disappointing".
Zimbabwe's fate has dominated the summit and number of leaders are deeply unhappy with the outcome.
Zimbabwe was suspended from the Commonwealth last year after an election widely seen as flawed.

It's almost a case of "You can't fire me; I quit."

[AP]

1. It would be funny if every country except Canada, Aus., UK and NZ quit.

[Matilda]

2. In wonder why Bush and Blairand Howard don't invade Zimbabwe

to free its people and return it to democracy. (Sarcasm off ...)

[Virginian]

3. The method of killing is different.

People in Zim are dying of starvation because of the farms being turned over to Mugabe's buddies and supporters who don't know how or don't want to work the farms.
People die from beatings administered by Mugabe's goons.
People die from a short sentance to jail for minor offenses, because anyone who goes to jail contracts AIDS.

[Matilda]

4. How is that different to Iraq?

[Gore1FL]

5. Very different

1: The civil rights are not being violated on top of vast oil reserves

2: The death are not at the hands of US provided WMD.

3: It is easier to fake intelligence data against Iraq.

4: We only invade over civil rights when all the other reasons are exposed as blatent lies.

[AP]

9. Actually, I don't think anyone's dying of starvation.

The UN pulled through with the food aid.

And the farms are now used for subsistence farming, feeding Zimbabweans, rather than growing artichokes and tobacco for Europeans.

[recidivist]

6. Maybe we should. Do you think we would just stand by if ...

... the starving people were white, European, and had an effective lobby in the U.S.? We are standing aside in Zimbabwe for the same reasons we stood aside during the Rwandan genocide: the victims are the wrong color; the local hotels are bad so the press doesn't want to cover the story, which makes it invisible on tv; and anything involving black/white tends to automatically drive political debate in the U.S. along prescripted lines that are, in this case, quite irrelevant.

Mind you, I use "we" in the imperial sense, as meaning the West. It's a former British colony; preferably the Brits would do it. About 5000 men would suffice.

[Matilda]

7. No, I don't think too many whites would be allowed to starve.

Only blacks and Arabs who don't have large reserves of oil on their
land. Yet I'm continually amazed by the number of people who give
Saddam's cruelty to his own people as a valid argument for invasion,
without a thought given to similar situations in Zimbabwe, Korea
(both sides), Saudi Arabia and other Arab nations, etc., etc. They
seem to instinctively know that invasion of these countries is not
on the agenda, without ever considering why this should be so.

[Gore1FL]

8. Its not a matter of should we or shouldn't we

It is a matter of can we or can't we.

We don't have the resources to fight the war on terror now that half the armed forces are tied up in unrelated Iraq.

We proved on 9/11 we don;t have the capacity (and or competence) to defend our own territory.

With finite resources, the last thing you want to do is commit those resources indiscriminately around the globe.

[goobergunch]

10. kick

:kick: