(07-05-2014 11:22 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(07-05-2014 11:18 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-05-2014 11:13 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(07-05-2014 11:10 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-05-2014 11:02 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The US has been instrumental in propping up the Mugabe regime. Most recently we've played a role is stabilizing their economy and currency issues.

Our reasons lie outside of Zimbabwe though.

Its about South Africa, not Zim.

South Africa is in more trouble than many realize. They run a current account/governmental deficit triple that of the USA. They have a stated unemployment rate of 25% and a unemployment/underemployment rate of close to 50%. Close to 10 percent of the population are largely economically destitute refugees from Zimbabwe.

It has nothing to do with South Africa. That's an overly simplistic assumption.

It had everything to do with countries north and west of them.

Ok, I'll bite, which countries are we trying to assist via aid to Zim and why?

Nothing to bite on. Mugabe's value for us lies in Angola, Congo, and the rest of central Africa. It hasn't ever been about South Africa, that's just what Americans believe.

Your first statement in your long post is simply 100% inaccurate and wrong.

Obviously, Mugabe has been trying to get his hands on some resources in Congo - Kinshasha for a while, but where's the US interest there? What's he doing in Angola?

I hope we aren't sending that kind of coin to spend on Central Africa. Don't see the US interest. I know you're more involved with that part of the world. What are the US strategic interests there? And why would they trump the US interest in a much more major trading partner and strategically located nation like South Africa.

(07-05-2014 11:38 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-05-2014 11:22 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(07-05-2014 11:18 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-05-2014 11:13 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(07-05-2014 11:10 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Its about South Africa, not Zim.

South Africa is in more trouble than many realize. They run a current account/governmental deficit triple that of the USA. They have a stated unemployment rate of 25% and a unemployment/underemployment rate of close to 50%. Close to 10 percent of the population are largely economically destitute refugees from Zimbabwe.

It has nothing to do with South Africa. That's an overly simplistic assumption.

It had everything to do with countries north and west of them.

Ok, I'll bite, which countries are we trying to assist via aid to Zim and why?

Nothing to bite on. Mugabe's value for us lies in Angola, Congo, and the rest of central Africa. It hasn't ever been about South Africa, that's just what Americans believe.

Your first statement in your long post is simply 100% inaccurate and wrong.

Obviously, Mugabe has been trying to get his hands on some resources in Congo - Kinshasha for a while, but where's the US interest there?

I hope we aren't sending that kind of coin to spend on Central Africa. Don't see the US interest. I know you're more involved with that part of the world. What are the US strategic interests there?

Oil and natural gas.

Those countries, even with rough histories connected to the Angolan and Congolese civil wars, still view Mugabe favorably as a sort of Lumumba who made it. He personifies African nationalism and relations in those nations demand we do at least the bare minimum to keep Mugabe around.

In the last few months Obiang, our biggest and most stable partner in the region, has visited with him 4 times. Also, thanks to Mugabe, and Thatchers son, the Angolese, Republic of Congolese, and Equataguineans all owe their survival as regimes to him.

Our interest in South Africa has been on a downward trend for years. It's East and West Central Africa where a not so cold economic war with China is being fought. We've poured a lot into that in those regions.

(07-05-2014 11:43 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(07-05-2014 11:38 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-05-2014 11:22 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(07-05-2014 11:18 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-05-2014 11:13 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  It has nothing to do with South Africa. That's an overly simplistic assumption.

It had everything to do with countries north and west of them.

Ok, I'll bite, which countries are we trying to assist via aid to Zim and why?

Nothing to bite on. Mugabe's value for us lies in Angola, Congo, and the rest of central Africa. It hasn't ever been about South Africa, that's just what Americans believe.

Your first statement in your long post is simply 100% inaccurate and wrong.

Obviously, Mugabe has been trying to get his hands on some resources in Congo - Kinshasha for a while, but where's the US interest there?

I hope we aren't sending that kind of coin to spend on Central Africa. Don't see the US interest. I know you're more involved with that part of the world. What are the US strategic interests there?

Oil and natural gas.

Those countries, even with rough histories connected to the Angolan and Congolese civil wars, still view Mugabe favorably as a sort of Lumumba who made it. He personifies African nationalism and relations in those nations demand we do at least the bare minimum to keep Mugabe around.

In the last few months Obiang, our biggest and most stable partner in the region, has visited with him 4 times. Also, thanks to Mugabe, and Thatchers son, the Angolese, Republic of Congolese, and Equataguineans all owe their survival as regimes to him.

Its a fools game IMHO to bother with that group. Do we really need their Oil/Gas? From a practical perspective, I don't see us being able to compete with 'no questions asked China' in the long term anyway. Besides Mugabe is going and probably soon (he can't live forever) and then what happens?

Obiang? If he's the best we got, then we don't need to be there.

(07-05-2014 11:53 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-05-2014 11:43 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(07-05-2014 11:38 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-05-2014 11:22 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(07-05-2014 11:18 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Ok, I'll bite, which countries are we trying to assist via aid to Zim and why?

Nothing to bite on. Mugabe's value for us lies in Angola, Congo, and the rest of central Africa. It hasn't ever been about South Africa, that's just what Americans believe.

Your first statement in your long post is simply 100% inaccurate and wrong.

Obviously, Mugabe has been trying to get his hands on some resources in Congo - Kinshasha for a while, but where's the US interest there?

I hope we aren't sending that kind of coin to spend on Central Africa. Don't see the US interest. I know you're more involved with that part of the world. What are the US strategic interests there?

Oil and natural gas.

Those countries, even with rough histories connected to the Angolan and Congolese civil wars, still view Mugabe favorably as a sort of Lumumba who made it. He personifies African nationalism and relations in those nations demand we do at least the bare minimum to keep Mugabe around.

In the last few months Obiang, our biggest and most stable partner in the region, has visited with him 4 times. Also, thanks to Mugabe, and Thatchers son, the Angolese, Republic of Congolese, and Equataguineans all owe their survival as regimes to him.

Its a fools game IMHO to bother with that group. Do we really need their Oil/Gas? From a practical perspective, I don't see us being able to compete with 'no questions asked China' in the long term anyway. Besides Mugabe is going and probably soon (he can't live forever) and then what happens?

Obiang? If he's the best we got, then we don't need to be there.

It's as much about keeping the Chinese out as it is us needed it. Besides, we are the only ones with the expertise to tap some of these areas. So far that's kept us ahead in spite of FCPA. Letting the Chinese put these countries firmly under their influence would be a catastrophe for the United States.

I have a lot of respect for Obiang personally. Very few dictators can actually claim they truly saved their nation; he can.

Mugabe is quite literally the apex stone that keeps it all together. He hates Asians more than Europeans, and so do most Africans in general.

(07-05-2014 11:59 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(07-05-2014 11:53 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-05-2014 11:43 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(07-05-2014 11:38 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-05-2014 11:22 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Nothing to bite on. Mugabe's value for us lies in Angola, Congo, and the rest of central Africa. It hasn't ever been about South Africa, that's just what Americans believe.

Your first statement in your long post is simply 100% inaccurate and wrong.

Obviously, Mugabe has been trying to get his hands on some resources in Congo - Kinshasha for a while, but where's the US interest there?

I hope we aren't sending that kind of coin to spend on Central Africa. Don't see the US interest. I know you're more involved with that part of the world. What are the US strategic interests there?

Oil and natural gas.

Those countries, even with rough histories connected to the Angolan and Congolese civil wars, still view Mugabe favorably as a sort of Lumumba who made it. He personifies African nationalism and relations in those nations demand we do at least the bare minimum to keep Mugabe around.

In the last few months Obiang, our biggest and most stable partner in the region, has visited with him 4 times. Also, thanks to Mugabe, and Thatchers son, the Angolese, Republic of Congolese, and Equataguineans all owe their survival as regimes to him.

Its a fools game IMHO to bother with that group. Do we really need their Oil/Gas? From a practical perspective, I don't see us being able to compete with 'no questions asked China' in the long term anyway. Besides Mugabe is going and probably soon (he can't live forever) and then what happens?

Obiang? If he's the best we got, then we don't need to be there.

It's as much about keeping the Chinese out as it is us needed it. Besides, we are the only ones with the expertise to tap some of these areas. So far that's kept us ahead in spite of FCPA. Letting the Chinese put these countries firmly under their influence would be a catastrophe for the United States.

I have a lot of respect for Obiang personally. Very few dictators can actually claim they truly saved their nation; he can.

Mugabe is quite literally the apex stone that keeps it all together. He hates Asians more than Europeans, and so do most Africans in general.

1979 was a long time ago. I find the way Obiang handles the sovreign wealth to be very problematic to say the least. The Chinese wear out their welcome rather quickly. I say "let them see how China treats them, they'll be back".