For Zimbabwe:
Everything in Mr. Mugabe's history suggests he will use whatever force is necessary to maintain his grip on power. As a rebel leader participating in the 1980 election, he promised to continue the country's civil war if he lost. Not long after taking power, he murdered some 30,000 members of the minority Ndebele tribe in what is known as the Matabeleland Massacre. In 2005, as punishment for voting against his ZANU-PF party, he destroyed the homes of 700,000 poor Zimbabweans. He has killed untold numbers of political opponents in the past and driven even more into exile.
Since so many of the country's security officials are prime beneficiaries of Mr. Mugabe's kleptocracy (and might be implicated for human-rights abuses were the regime to fall), it's doubtful that the military would ever allow a peaceful "velvet revolution" to transpire - as many speculated in the days after the election.
In short, Mr. Mugabe's opponents need weapons soon. This is not to effect regime change, but for simple self-defense.
Hopefully, though, it would result in regime change as well. Jefferson famously said that the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. Well, there's been plenty of patriot blood shed there, but apparently there's an element lacking in the fertilizer. Monsters like Mugabe were exactly the kind of tyrants he had in mind.
It might have escaped your attention but African countries aren't, on the whole, particularly short on guns.
The white farmers who got kicked off their land, for example, were pretty well armed. Guns aren't any guarantee of freedom.
Really, David, I'm appalled at the depth of cluelessness of your comment.
Do you really imagine that a few white farmers with guns are going to be able to fend off a demagogue who has stirred up the people against them in the name of social justice? And that this has anything whatsoever to do with a stolen election, in which the (unarmed) majority are now enraged against the tyrant?
Really Rand? Frankly, I'm consistently appalled by the cluelessness of the items you post on your blog. It's why I barely bother with it these days.
Do I really think that any small group of people can fend off an armed police force and para-military group who are determined to do something about them? No. Not a snowballs chance in a Nova. I don't think individuals in the US would stand much of a chance against the state should the rule of law in this country break down. The good thing about the US isn't the 2nd amendment nor the constitution, it is the solid, grounded respect for the rule of law. You could argue that one extends from the other but I don't think its a unique feature of constitutions nor of gun laws.
Back to Zim. Firstly, the majority is marginal, even after all that Mugabe has done to the country. He still can call upon 40%+ of the population (enough to keep Margaret Thatcher in power for 10 years) and he still has the army and police completely loyal to him.
Second, he unarmed could easily be armed - getting arms to fight "tyrants" has never been a problem across Africa as any rudimentary history/research/or reading would inform you. The trouble is we have words for what happens in Africa when the unarmed rise up against the armed, and its called civil war. It frequently goes out for lunch with an African friend called genocide (although to be fair Genocide has demonstrated that hand weapons can be enough in Africa).
Now, there is a serious question to be asked about whether or not, given the depths that the senile loon has taken Zimbabwe to, that would be a worse outcome - but the chances are it would do nothing more than increase the internal problems in South Africa and set another domino up to fall.
Really Rand? Frankly, I'm consistently appalled by the cluelessness of the items you post on your blog. It's why I barely bother with it these days.
Well, boo and hoo. Whatever will I do without a single clueless Brit reading my blog?
But just (for amusement) addressing your cluelessness:
Second, he unarmed could easily be armed - getting arms to fight "tyrants" has never been a problem across Africa as any rudimentary history/research/or reading would inform you.
Perhaps you've missed it, but potential arms shipments from China (and others) to Mugabe have been blocked at port. So he's not that easily armed. The point of the editorial (which you obviously, given your general cluelessness, missed) was that there is an effort on to deprive the regime of more means to oppress its subjects. And that if they were instead armed, the future outcome might be quite different.
But disliking arms and (having no problems with dictators?) you apparently think that the people should remain unarmed...
Whatever will I do without a single clueless Brit reading my blog?
Go on believing that you're right by playing to your tame gallery I expect. Plus Ca Change and all that.
But so many many more mistakes in basic logic in your next segement, again hard to know where to start. But, hey, it doesn't stop you does it...
Perhaps you've missed it, but potential arms shipments from China (and others) to Mugabe have been blocked at port.
About time too. Of course, that's one shipment. This is Africa. As I said, there is no problem getting arms if you want them in that continent.
So he's not that easily armed.
He has a flaming army you twit! And that's already pretty well armed, but armies do like to have more weapons. Its a feature I think.
The point of the editorial (which you obviously, given your general cluelessness, missed)
No, I just decided it was wrong. Believing something which is utterly wrong is wrong is not, in itself an example of cluelessness - some would consider it right thinking.
was that there is an effort on to deprive the regime of more means to oppress its subjects. And that if they were instead armed, the future outcome might be quite different.
Yes, we could have another African Civil War.
But disliking arms and (having no problems with dictators?) you apparently think that the people should remain unarmed...
Two non-sequitors in one statement? Not a record for you of course.
I quite like arms. Don't own any myself, don't see the need. Have been to Wade's range on occasion and have friends with some great collections. I don't think it provides them with much defense though. Most of them keep them pretty tightly locked up to avoid accidents. If people want to be armed, I have no issue with that. I just don't believe that they are some how magic anti-tyrant devices because, frankly, the data doesn't support that.
Ask the people in Darfur.
Tyrants? I'm all for miltiary action to remove Tyrants. Let's go for Zim shall we? I'll back it.
Go on believing that you're right by playing to your tame gallery I expect.
My "tame gallery"?
Thank you for reinforcing your cluelessness, and ignorance of my site.
Daveon wrote:
The guns might have made the difference between being kicked off your land, and being murdered to take your land.
The guns might have made the difference between being kicked off your land, and being murdered to take your land.
Sadly many were also murdered.
Thank you for reinforcing your cluelessness, and ignorance of my site.
No Rand, THANK YOU, for reinforcing my stereotype of you and your readers. Oh, and Mike Combs did excellent work too.
As they say, there are none so blind that those that shall not see.