|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
 Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 8:42 am Post subject: Invade Zimbabwe? |
 |
|
| Quote: |
HYPERINFLATION is a bit like an automobile accident. You want to turn away, but you can't help staring at the wreckage. Today's rubbernecking comes courtesy of Felix Salmon:
Comparing Old Mutual's share price in London and Harare, Josh Giersch concludes that there are now 35 billion Zimbabwean dollars to one US dollar - up from a mere 17 billion on Friday. Which would put annualized inflation, he says (I haven't checked his math) at 430,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000%. May as well just round it up to the nearest billion quadrillion quadrillion, at this rate.
Josh also notes that this kind of inflation does very interesting things to past profits. Insurance company NicozDiamond, for instance, wrote total premiums, at today's exchange rates, of $5,171 in the year to May. I hope they invested them wisely!
At least Zimbabweans can oust their irresponsible leaders at the polls, right? |
http://www.economist.com
An OpEd in the Tuesday WSJ loosely advocated for a Bush Doctrine for Zimbabwe. I assume that means 'regime change'. I don't know how much support Mugabe actually has in his country.
Last edited by mises on Wed Jun 25, 2008 8:51 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 9:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| An OpEd in the Tuesday WSJ loosely advocated for a Bush Doctrine for Zimbabwe. |
I'm surprised anyone in that corner of the political arena still thinks its a good idea to identify their policies with Bush. They must really think that "the surge" has made the public forget everything else that happened in the last five years. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 9:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
| Quote: |
| An OpEd in the Tuesday WSJ loosely advocated for a Bush Doctrine for Zimbabwe. |
I'm surprised anyone in that corner of the political arena still thinks its a good idea to identify their policies with Bush. They must really think that "the surge" has made the public forget everything else that happened in the last five years. |
Here it is:
| Quote: |
Here's a prediction: Zimbabwe's Morgan Tsvangirai will win this year's Nobel Peace Prize.
He would be its worthiest recipient since the prize went to Burma's Aung San Suu Kyi (one of the prize's few worthy recipients, period) in 1991. He deserves it for standing up � politically as well as physically � to Robert Mugabe's goon-squad dictatorship for over a decade; for organizing a democratic opposition and winning an election hugely stacked against him; and for refusing to put his own ambition ahead of his people's well-being when the run-off poll became, as he put it last weekend, a "violent, illegitimate sham."
Here's another prediction: Mr. Tsvangirai's Nobel will have about as much effect on the bloody course of Zimbabwe's politics as Aung San Suu Kyi's has had on Burma's. Effectively, zero.
Zimbabwe is now another spot on the map of the civilized world's troubled conscience. Burma is also there, along with Tibet and Darfur. (Question: When will "Free Zimbabwe" bumper stickers become ubiquitous?) These are uniquely nasty places, and not just because uniquely nasty things are happening. They're nasty because the dissonance between the wider world's professed concern and what it actually does is almost intolerable.
It's a similar story in Zimbabwe. The U.N. Security Council met yesterday to discuss the crisis, while British Prime Minister Gordon Brown told parliament "the world is of one view: that the status quo cannot continue."
But, of course, the status quo will continue. Just possibly, Mr. Mugabe and his senior ministers will no longer be allowed to travel to Europe, though that does nothing for the people of Zimbabwe. Other sanctions will have no effect: The regime is already busy expelling relief workers and seizing food aid. Mr. Mugabe wants "his people" to die � it means fewer mouths to feed, and fewer potential opposition supporters to jail, maim or murder.
A solution for Zimbabwe's crisis isn't hard to come by: Someone � ideally the British � must remove Mr. Mugabe by force, install Mr. Tsvangirai as president, arm his supporters, prevent any rampages, and leave.
International relations theorists, including prominent Obama adviser Susan Rice, justify these sorts of interventions under the rubric of a "Responsibility to Protect" � a concept that comes oddly close to Kipling's White Man's Burden. So close, in fact, that its inherent paternalism has hitherto inhibited many liberals from endorsing the kinds of interventions toward which they are now tip-toeing, thousands of deaths too late.
So let's by all means end the hand-wringing and embrace the responsibility to protect, wherever necessary and feasible. Let's spare the thousands of innocents, punish the wicked, oppose tyrants, and support democrats � both in places where it is now fashionable to do so (Burma) and in places where it is not (Iraq). If that turns out to be Mr. Obama's foreign policy, it will be a worthy one. It does come oddly close to the Bush Doctrine. |
I left out much of the stuff on Darfur. It seems to be a partisan attack on the opponents of the Iraqi invasion who use different criteria to rationalize the same outcomes. Typical 2004 stuff. However, he glibly and quickly advocates the British invading and "leaving" which is typical 2002 nonsense.
The author seems to be in support of both the 2003 invasion and an invasion in Zim. His point of contention is I guess the hypocrisy he sees in a Bush Doctrine for Zimbabwe/Sudan and not one for Iraq. Typical politics.
I'd just rather we keep to ourselves. No need for a proxy war with China. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 10:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| His point of contention is I guess the hypocrisy he sees in a Bush Doctrine for Zimbabwe/Sudan and not one for Iraq. |
Yeah, you can count me as someone who pretty much objects to non-defensive invasions on principle, no matter how solidly the case is made that a particular invasion might make life better for somebody somewhere.
And part of my adherence to principle is that, even if the one invasion does improve things for the "liberated" country, continued violation of the principle can uspet the international applecart in a way that ultimately doesn't benefit anyone. And the way to prevent ongoing violation is to make sure that no initial violation occurs in the first place.
| Quote: |
| No need for a proxy war with China. |
That would be one very clear example of "upsetting the international applecart". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bigfeet
Joined: 29 May 2008
Location: Grrrrr.....
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 1:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| No, I don't want the US going into Zimbabwe, especially not with Bush at the helm. After all his lies and deceptions I trust him as far as I can throw him. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 1:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bigfeet wrote: |
| No, I don't want the US going into Zimbabwe, especially not with Bush at the helm. After all his lies and deceptions I trust him as far as I can throw him. |
The suggestion seems to be that the UK would lead any "liberation" but I assume they would require some American know-how.
I just don't think that this is the proper role of governments in the West. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 1:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I'm with OTOH. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 2:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I don't understand the Guardian Saddam was a far greater killer than Mugabe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nautilus
Joined: 26 Nov 2005
Location: Je jump, Tu jump, oui jump!
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 4:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Doesn't the US have some sort of secret base in Botswana?
Last edited by nautilus on Wed Jun 25, 2008 5:11 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JustJohn
Joined: 18 Oct 2007
Location: Your computer screen
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 5:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Okay brits, now's your time to shine. Go go go!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ReeseDog
Joined: 05 Apr 2008
Location: Classified
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 5:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| JustJohn wrote: |
| Okay brits, now's your time to shine. Go go go! |
Oh yeah! Have at it, you guys. Oh - and when you finish up in Harare, head SSW and give it hell until you reach the sea. There are other states in those parts that could use some cleaning up. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dirty_scraps83
Joined: 02 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 7:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| Bigfeet wrote: |
| No, I don't want the US going into Zimbabwe, especially not with Bush at the helm. After all his lies and deceptions I trust him as far as I can throw him. |
The suggestion seems to be that the UK would lead any "liberation" but I assume they would require some American know-how.
I just don't think that this is the proper role of governments in the West. |
On past performance, I think the Brits could handle an invasion on their own 'know-how'. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fiveeagles
Joined: 19 May 2005
Location: Vancouver
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 8:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| dirty_scraps83 wrote: |
| mises wrote: |
| Bigfeet wrote: |
| No, I don't want the US going into Zimbabwe, especially not with Bush at the helm. After all his lies and deceptions I trust him as far as I can throw him. |
The suggestion seems to be that the UK would lead any "liberation" but I assume they would require some American know-how.
I just don't think that this is the proper role of governments in the West. |
On past performance, I think the Brits could handle an invasion on their own 'know-how'. |
As an aside; where did you get that picture? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 8:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| just kill Mugage |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
