Remember all the talk about apartheid? There were movies, Bill Cosby had a "Stop Apartheid" sign hanging up on the set of his TV show, and it was on the news almost daily. Remember the sanctions and businesses who couldn't do business with South Africa? Had apartheid been alive today Obama and his race hustling friends would be making international headlines in their calls for it to end. Now that it's happening to the white man, where are they?

Quote:Whites in Zimbabwe can own businesses and urban apartments but not land, according to the country’s president, Robert Mugabe, who called for the removal of white farmers in a fiery speech to a group of supporters on Wednesday.

“We say no to whites owning our land and they should go,” the 90 year-old Mugabe told the crowd, gathered in Mhangura, a farming village, according to the Christian Science Monitor.

“They can own companies and apartments…but not the soil. It is ours and that message should ring loud and clear in Britain and the United States.”

“Don’t be too kind to white farmers. Land is yours, not theirs,” Mugabe added, according to the BBC.

Mugabe’s call for black land ownership is not new, though it has become more extreme since he took power in 1980, when he called for more equality in land ownership, not outright abolition of white farm ownership.

Since then, Mugabe has instituted a number of land reforms that have led to violence and have driven thousands of white farmers off of their lands with no compensation. He has also used more hostile language in reference to whites who, in 2000, he said were part of “an evil alliance.”

Overall, the number of whites in Zimbabwe has decreased steadily since the 1970s, when around 300,000 lived there. Whites migrated to what was then Rhodesia in the 1890s and held a majority of the arable land in the area.

Now, there are approximately 30,000 whites living in the country and, according to the BBC, between 100 and 150 white farmers.

Mugabe’s land policies have been blamed for pushing the country into a deep recession marked by extremely high unemployment and inflation that has lasted nearly 15 years. Critics of the land grab say it had the effect of replacing experienced farmers with inept ones.

In his speech Wednesday, Mugabe also condemned blacks, some of whom are his cabinet members, who continue to rent land to white farmers.

“There are white farmers who are still on the land and have the protection of some cabinet ministers and politicians as well as traditional leaders,” said Mugabe in the speech. “That should never happen. They [whites] were living like kings and queens on our land and we chucked them out. Now we want all of it.”

Link

Quote:The United States has no trade embargo against Zimbabwe.

There is no U.S. bilateral trade embargo against Zimbabwe. Trade levels fluctuate, but in ten of the past twelve years (with the exception of 2007 and 2009, when the global economic crisis affected nearly all markets), the trade balance between Zimbabwe and the United States has favored Zimbabwe, often by a large margin.

The United States has not cut off aid to Zimbabwe.

In fact, the United States provided over $300 million in 2009 and over $200 million in 2010 for humanitarian, food, health, and democracy and governance assistance to Zimbabwe. In 2011, the United States will continue to provide this level of assistance while also raising its commitment to fight HIV and AIDS in Zimbabwe by $10 million to a total of $57.5 million.

Link

(07-05-2014 01:47 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  The United States has not cut off aid to Zimbabwe.

In fact, the United States provided over $300 million in 2009 and over $200 million in 2010 for humanitarian, food, health, and democracy and governance assistance to Zimbabwe. In 2011, the United States will continue to provide this level of assistance while also raising its commitment to fight HIV and AIDS in Zimbabwe by $10 million to a total of $57.5 million.

Link

This is why I oppose any tax increases for anything, Democrat or Republican sponsered. $500+ million to frickin' Zimbabwe over two years. The total foreign aid must be staggering. To think of the good some of that money could do for humanitarian aid in our own country. $17 trillion in debt and we're just handing it out like drunken sailors. We are so screwed.

How is the soil theirs? Squatters rights????

White men are slaves, that is the way blacks in Zimbabwe want it. Whites are inferior to blacks in Zimbabwe. So why is the US sending them money?

Heck if Obama could he would do that in the USA. He hates his white side. White libs are you ok with this apartheid against white people?

Why is this even an issue? The USA been supporting ruthless dictators for nearly 100 years now. We expecting this president to be any different... come on.

(07-05-2014 10:00 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  Why is this even an issue? The USA been supporting ruthless dictators for nearly 100 years now. We expecting this president to be any different... come on.

Not the issue. What about apartheid against white people? Are liberals ok with that?

The US does not support Mugabe. Full stop. Obama does not support Mugabe. Full stop. The only Americans providing support to Mugabe that I'm aware of are from the anti-Gay religious right http://www.globalpost.com/dispatches/glo...-gay-right

I'd certainly support an end to tax deductibility for donations to groups supporting Mugabe. That would include the ACLJ. And Jay Sekulow. And the Anglican Orhtodox Movement (CANA - Global South)

The situation in Zimbabwe is very complicated. The US has very few levers. The country with the most leverage has been curiously unwilling to use them, even at terrible cost to their own nation. There are more than 3 million Zimbabwean displaced persons in South Africa, which contributes mightily to the problem of 25% plus unemployment in South Africa. But due to a misplaced sense of loyalty to Mugabe by the ANC dating back to the 1980's, Mbeki and now Zuma are unwilling to use those levers. The other big issue to understand is that the MDC has their own problems as well. Mugabe will fall (or die) eventually and ZANU/ZAPU will go out of power. But I wouldn't expect much change from the MDC. Another issue is that the two groups in Zim both represent different regions/tribes and the instability will likely continue past Mugabe (The MDC represents the West and ZANU/ZAPU represents the East). In that instability, the white minority will likely be remain a convenient punching bag as the two groups jockey for power.

This is what we should do

1) Suspend all US Aid. Tell South Africa's ANC government that we might help out again, albeit at some lower level, if they actually started to help work towards a solution. Remember its South Africa that is really threatened by a further collapse in Zim's economy. Remember, US Aid to Zim really isn't directed to stabilizing Zim, but rather at stabilizing South Africa.

2) Require that any US entity claiming a tax deduction certify that any donations to Uganda, or Zimbabwe, etc. actually prove that none of the donations actually go to persons or groups that support human rights abuses.

Other than that, there's little we can do. We don't really trade with Zim. Nor is Mugabe really looking for aid. He'll sacrifice the whole country to stay in power because he knows he'll get the chop as soon as he's done.

(07-05-2014 10:04 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(07-05-2014 10:00 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  Why is this even an issue? The USA been supporting ruthless dictators for nearly 100 years now. We expecting this president to be any different... come on.

Not the issue. What about apartheid against white people? Are liberals ok with that?

I agree that supporting any dictator is wrong. But how many dictators, that the US supported, been ruthless people that murdered their own people. All ruthless dictators are wrong, just the outrage due to the victims being white is what's baffling me. Sh*t, there was a time when the US supported Saddam Hussein.

(07-05-2014 10:22 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  

(07-05-2014 10:04 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(07-05-2014 10:00 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  Why is this even an issue? The USA been supporting ruthless dictators for nearly 100 years now. We expecting this president to be any different... come on.

Not the issue. What about apartheid against white people? Are liberals ok with that?

I agree that supporting any dictator is wrong. But how many dictators, that the US supported, been ruthless people that murdered their own people. All ruthless dictators are wrong, just the outrage due to the victims being white is what's baffling me. Sh*t, there was a time when the US supported Saddam Hussein.

There is no outrage about this apartheid, that is the issue. You keep deflecting issue.
The issue is not dictator vs. rigged election banana republic. The issue is racism and apartheid against white people.

(07-05-2014 10:06 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  The US does not support Mugabe. Full stop. Obama does not support Mugabe. Full stop. The only Americans providing support to Mugabe that I'm aware of are from the anti-Gay religious right http://www.globalpost.com/dispatches/glo...-gay-right

I'd certainly support an end to tax deductibility for donations to groups supporting Mugabe. That would include the ACLJ. And Jay Sekulow. And the Anglican Orhtodox Movement (CANA - Global South)

The situation in Zimbabwe is very complicated. The US has very few levers. The country with the most leverage has been curiously unwilling to use them, even at terrible cost to their own nation. There are more than 3 million Zimbabwean displaced persons in South Africa, which contributes mightily to the problem of 25% plus unemployment in South Africa. But due to a misplaced sense of loyalty to Mugabe by the ANC dating back to the 1980's, Mbeki and now Zuma are unwilling to use those levers. The other big issue to understand is that the MDC has their own problems as well. Mugabe will fall (or die) eventually and ZANU/ZAPU will go out of power. But I wouldn't expect much change from the MDC. Another issue is that the two groups in Zim both represent different regions/tribes and the instability will likely continue past Mugabe (The MDC represents the West and ZANU/ZAPU represents the East). In that instability, the white minority will likely be remain a convenient punching bag as the two groups jockey for power.

This is what we should do

1) Suspend all US Aid. Tell South Africa's ANC government that we might help out again, albeit at some lower level, if they actually started to help work towards a solution. Remember its South Africa that is really threatened by a further collapse in Zim's economy. Remember, US Aid to Zim really isn't directed to stabilizing Zim, but rather at stabilizing South Africa.

2) Require that any US entity claiming a tax deduction certify that any donations to Uganda, or Zimbabwe, etc. actually prove that none of the donations actually go to persons or groups that support human rights abuses.

Other than that, there's little we can do. We don't really trade with Zim. Nor is Mugabe really looking for aid. He'll sacrifice the whole country to stay in power because he knows he'll get the chop as soon as he's done.

Here's yet another post from Tom, where no matter the subject, Tom always injects gayness into it. Be it his own, or others, it doesn't matter.

(07-05-2014 10:39 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(07-05-2014 10:06 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  The US does not support Mugabe. Full stop. Obama does not support Mugabe. Full stop. The only Americans providing support to Mugabe that I'm aware of are from the anti-Gay religious right http://www.globalpost.com/dispatches/glo...-gay-right

I'd certainly support an end to tax deductibility for donations to groups supporting Mugabe. That would include the ACLJ. And Jay Sekulow. And the Anglican Orhtodox Movement (CANA - Global South)

The situation in Zimbabwe is very complicated. The US has very few levers. The country with the most leverage has been curiously unwilling to use them, even at terrible cost to their own nation. There are more than 3 million Zimbabwean displaced persons in South Africa, which contributes mightily to the problem of 25% plus unemployment in South Africa. But due to a misplaced sense of loyalty to Mugabe by the ANC dating back to the 1980's, Mbeki and now Zuma are unwilling to use those levers. The other big issue to understand is that the MDC has their own problems as well. Mugabe will fall (or die) eventually and ZANU/ZAPU will go out of power. But I wouldn't expect much change from the MDC. Another issue is that the two groups in Zim both represent different regions/tribes and the instability will likely continue past Mugabe (The MDC represents the West and ZANU/ZAPU represents the East). In that instability, the white minority will likely be remain a convenient punching bag as the two groups jockey for power.

This is what we should do

1) Suspend all US Aid. Tell South Africa's ANC government that we might help out again, albeit at some lower level, if they actually started to help work towards a solution. Remember its South Africa that is really threatened by a further collapse in Zim's economy. Remember, US Aid to Zim really isn't directed to stabilizing Zim, but rather at stabilizing South Africa.

2) Require that any US entity claiming a tax deduction certify that any donations to Uganda, or Zimbabwe, etc. actually prove that none of the donations actually go to persons or groups that support human rights abuses.

Other than that, there's little we can do. We don't really trade with Zim. Nor is Mugabe really looking for aid. He'll sacrifice the whole country to stay in power because he knows he'll get the chop as soon as he's done.

Here's yet another post from Tom, where no matter the subject, Tom always injects gayness into it. Be it his own, or others, it doesn't matter.

I don't mind Tom, at least he tries to be rational with his debates, not like some of the other lefties here who are just idiots. I'd split a case of beer with Tom any time even though I already know what would dominate the conversation.

(07-05-2014 09:46 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Heck if Obama could he would do that in the USA. He hates his white side. White libs are you ok with this apartheid against white people?

Wow, people actually hold this point of view?? This is very sad to hear.

(07-05-2014 10:54 PM)Cali_Cat Wrote:  

(07-05-2014 09:46 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Heck if Obama could he would do that in the USA. He hates his white side. White libs are you ok with this apartheid against white people?

Wow, people actually hold this point of view?? This is very sad to hear.

Yeah, imagine what Obama had to do to make people think that. Obama only has himself to blame.

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.

(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.

(07-05-2014 10:54 PM)Cali_Cat Wrote:  

(07-05-2014 09:46 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Heck if Obama could he would do that in the USA. He hates his white side. White libs are you ok with this apartheid against white people?

Wow, people actually hold this point of view?? This is very sad to hear.

You didn't read the books he 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.

(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?

(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.