Mbeki now talking about crisis in Zimbabwe? How annoying would it be to lunatic Mugabe?

Had Mbeki said that very thing before the run-off elections, he would have spared Zimbabweans a devil standing in the way of an alternate power as decided by the March elections!

Mbeki is the main culprit and he has to sort out the mess himself by forcing his lunatic friend out of the way. In order to do that, he has just to threaten to freeze assets and wealth of Mugabe's cronies amassed illegally in SA and prevent them from travelling via SA airprots.

Just simple! Would he have the guts? That's another thing. talk to the ANC. They know his limits.

Tsvangirai is damn right to reject outright any dilution of powers of the post of PM that of right must be attributed to the MDC-chosen candidate.

Democracy will win in the long run. Zimbabweans who did not fear the bloody crocodiles while crossing over rivers to SA will return soon to tackle Mugabe & cronies who are at the root of all their miseries.

First and foremost let us all be reminded that no one won the march elections in zimbabwe,according to the electoral laws which all the political parties agreed to someone had to have a vote of over 50% to be an outright winner. Non had that kind of vote, so it is mischivious for anyone to claim that MDC T won those elections. Secondly all those people who are down south or overseas are not political refugees, everyone knows that they are economic refugees running away from the economic hardships back home.These hardships were not caused by Mugabe's misrule but rather by sanctions or lack of balance of payments which every country in the world gets from the world bank, IMF etc. lastly i would like to say it is not true that all zimbabweans hate mugabe. According to the March elections +\-42% of those who voted supports him plus others who for one reason or the other did not vote. In future i suggest that when the likes of prem do write anything they must write for themselves not for everyone, because some do not share his views.

Couple of facts to get straights:

"...but rather by sanctions or lack of balance of payments which every country in the world gets from the world bank, IMF etc.." Where did you get this mistaken idea from? Balance of Payments support is not a right. It is a reciprocal arrangement akin to a bank and its customer; banks tend to avoid high credit risk situations. Zimbabwe was already in default with its loans, had disregarged all economic advice from the World Bank & IMF and then launched its version of China's "Cultural Revolution" (which as you should know the Communist Party of China now regards as a grave mistake) before balance of payments support was withdrawn

"According to the March elections +\-42% of those who voted supports him plus others who for one reason or the other did not vote." How do you know that the ones who did not vote for one reason or the other were not actually MDC supporters who felt too terrified to vote for the man of their choice and there for declined to vote at all? That sounds a lot more plausible given the number of victims amongst MDC ranks compared to Zanu-pf victims.

Myself, am greately concerned about the reason why sadc treated mugabe as an ordinary president at the just ended summit. Then afterwards, sitting down to settle the issue that must address power squables. Does it make sense at all? It shows that sadc lacks logic and clarity on the Zim criss.

SADC treated him as the president because he is the president. Just as the UN in June and the AU last month treated his as the president at the conferences he attended.

Sure... but everyone knows he beat and murdered the opposition supporters to keep power. So why legitimise him based on that?

To Selector: Mugabe is your life President and according to you he is not capable of losing an election as long as he is alife. I suppose he can only be winning by rigging; he is not a prophet and would not know for certainty that people will vote for him every time.

maricho, Of course Mugabe can lose an election. I have never suggested otherwise. Please keep your lies to yourself.

he is the president of nothing!!! no power, no nothing!!! the country is crumbling just like the zimbabwe ruins..and the president is reponsible..him and him alone!! he is in charge so he is responsible! he stole the election and he deserves all that is happening now. I see the currency is tumbling again and is on its way to acquiring more zeros again..ha ha ha. Gono...best start ordering more bottles of tippex old chap! wont be long before you needing them!!

Thanks karts, let me ask dear rambo, How long did it take to announce the march presidential result, and why? How reliable were the results produced thereafter? okay, How long did it take to announce the one-man race results? How long did it take for Mugabe to sware-in all by himself onto the presidential seat? Just be honest in yo answers.

Katz, to be fair to Zimbabwe, the amount of money owed to IMF is small compared to the so-called "allies" African states of the USA or UK. Zimbabwe has made surprise payments to the IMF, which has supprised many..A couple of months ago there was a big article on how Zimbabwe is able to pay it's debt.

The issue of the IMF is a very controversial subjects with African economists. Many in Africa are avoiding loans from the IMF in preference of direct dealing with both EU or far east countries. They also find that IMF loans have so much restrictions that their effectiveness have been questioned. Most African countries are working to get loans directly from China, without the IMF.

You also are aware of politics in the IMF and voting rights of UK/USA and other supper powers. It is basically an abuse of the system, just like veto power in the UN security council. Many IMF loans are just bribes to maintain better relations with favored African allies of the western world. Loans/foreign aid from China, Japan and India are the ones fueling the current economic growth in Africa and this is also true in Southern Africa. Not political IMF!

Hi Phiri - The point that needs to be recognized is that WB/IMF funding is not some God given right which the evil West has denied Zimbabwe. They are loans that have been funded by primarily Western tax payers and like any bank loan they come with strings attached. These strings can be political and economic.

Zimbabwe chose not to comply with the lenders' conditions and cannot complain that it is unfair that somehow their sovereign right to have their lunatic economic policies underwritten by some other countries'taxpayers have been usurped.

The Bretton Woods institutions were not established on the premise that there is some collective guilt shared by the developed world that needs to assuaged by hand outs to lunatics. Individual countries have for political or historical reasons filled that role.

You say that this issue is very controversial with African economists. Why? US taxpayers feel no guilt about the colonial past of the Europeans, nor should they. The EU cannot be made collectively responsible for what individual members have done in the past. The citizens of the UK, France, Portugal, Spain, Italy, Germany and Belgium are not lying awake at night worrying about their history in Africa. Nor do they hanker for the good old days of Empire. They have moved on. Africa needs to do the same. It is for this reason that I react when I see suggestions on this site that the World owes Africa. It does not. Africa's salvation will only come from Africa and strong benign leadership is the essential first step to this happening.

"The citizens of the UK, France, Portugal, Spain, Italy, Germany and Belgium are not lying awake at night worrying about their history in Africa. Nor do they hanker for the good old days of Empire. They have moved on. Africa needs to do the same. It is for this reason that I react when I see suggestions on this site that the World owes Africa. It does not. Africa's salvation will only come from Africa and strong benign leadership is the essential first step to this happening".

katz, would that the EU, US UK, et al would move on. Indeed, this is the ask of the government of Zimbabwe. But for every effort Zimbabwe makes to, for a start, stabilise its economy and stop the rot, non-African countries, unilaterally inasmuch as they are acting outside of the consensus of the UN, counter Zimbabwe's efforts with increased sanctions.

You're right, the world does not owe Zimbabwe a living but equally, you have no choice but to concede, that the parties named above are making efforts to deliberately stop Zimbabwe from standing on its own two feet. Iraq, Iran and Cuba have all suffered failed economies as a result of crippling economic sanctions and this despite the fact that Iran and Iraq are two countries with the largest reserves of oil on the planet.

Imho, your argument on Africans savings Africans, fails the moment you accept that the global economy is real and actual and that economies for over two decades cannot exist in isolation but are, instead, dependent on international trade to ensure vital foreign currency and to balance trade payments - all of which is undermined or, in the case of countries like Zimbabwe, Iran, Iraq and Cuba, made impossible by sanctions.

It's old hat for those countries imposing sanctions to look at targeted countries and say, "There! We told you so, you can't even demonstrate prudent fiscal management". All the while, omitting to mention that sanctions imposed by them are the primary reasons for said fiscal failure.

For me the ask is simple, don't give Zimbabwe any special treatment and that's a double-edged sword; no special favours and no special penalties. This I consider to be a fair starting point for recovery, on a level playing field.

Selector - here we stay at complete odds to each other. You cannot compare the sanctions imposed on Cuba and Iran (or Rhodesia for that matter) with those imposed on Zimababwe. They are as different as chalk and cheese. You say " But for every effort Zimbabwe makes to, for a start, stabilise its economy and stop the rot, non-African countries, unilaterally inasmuch as they are acting outside of the consensus of the UN, counter Zimbabwe's efforts with increased sanctions." what increased sanctions? - the only one that has any economic effect is the withdrawal of balance of payments support which, for the reasons discussed in my previous post, has been there for some time.

You say I "have no choice but to concede, that the parties named above are making efforts to deliberately stop Zimbabwe from standing on its own two feet." wrong - you need to accept that Zimbabwe and the Mugabe regime are two quite separate things and when Zimbabwe is finally rid of the curse of Mugabe it is the West that take the lead in helping Zimbabwe re-build. Why is this so? Because no one else has been prepared to put their hand up to do so. Where is the financial assistance package supposedly forthcoming from SADC for some time? Where are the significant loans and investments supposedly coming from China or Russia or India? If any of these were real Mugabe could have happily ignored the West and would not be even speaking to the MDC.

You state that my "argument on Africans savings Africans, fails the moment you accept that the global economy is real and actual and that economies for over two decades cannot exist in isolation ... - all of which is undermined or, in the case of countries like Zimbabwe, Iran, Iraq and Cuba, made impossible by sanctions." Once again you cannot compare the sanctions leveled against Cuba or Iran with those of Zimbabwe. Believe me when I say that I am a convinced globalist and true believer in the primacy of market forces. However, a failure of leadership such as in the case of Zimbabwe is far more fundamental. Remember that Rhodesia's economy actually thrived under full mandatory economic sanctions; it was the Second Chimurenga and US pressure on SA that put paid to the Smith regime.

Your comment "It's old hat for those countries imposing sanctions to look at targeted countries and say, "There! We told you so, you can't even demonstrate prudent fiscal management". All the while, omitting to mention that sanctions imposed by them are the primary reasons for said fiscal failure."- you have ommitted to mention populist politics such paying out money to war vets that the country could not afford, putting political cronies on farms who have no idea about farmings, building more and more bureaucratic departments to fill an ever growing demand for political appointments, driving away the country's pool of talent and printing money without regard to national productivity. These are the primary reasons for the collapse of Zimbabwe.

"For me the ask is simple, don't give Zimbabwe any special treatment and that's a double-edged sword; no special favours and no special penalties. This I consider to be a fair starting point for recovery, on a level playing field." - very few countries in Africa can survive at present without special favours. Zimbabwe most certainly cannot.

katz, I find it interesting that you chose the example of Cuba to protest most vehemently at regarding sanctions whilst not mentioning the two countries much richer in natural resources, oil-ladened Iran and Iraq. But that will keep.

I took up this gauntlet primarily because I read what I considered your terse, "US taxpayers feel no guilt about the colonial past of the Europeans, nor should they. Nor do they [citizens of the EU] hanker for the good old days of Empire. They have moved on. Africa needs to do the same".

It was on this point that I agreed with you and concluded in my response, "...don't give Zimbabwe any special treatment and that's a double-edged sword; no special favours and no special penalties. This I consider to be a fair starting point for recovery, on a level playing field".

I have never heard of any financial assistance package coming from SADC. Indeed, SADC is not a finance organisation. Perhaps you're confusing SADC with the African Development Bank, which is a branch of the World Bank and the least said about that, the soonest mended. As for loans from China, India or Russia, again this is news to me. If you're talking about supply finance (financing of goods provided by these countries) then we should be clear that is what you mean. Such loans will be underpinned by business forecasts and if business forecasts are impacted by new sanctions it is reasonable for lenders to be wary as the ability to repay any such loans is directly affected.

So, I take you back to your main point and mines, that the government of Zimbabwe and their detractors stop living in the past and live in the now but on a level playing field.

Zimbabwe has not been dependent on either the World Bank or the IMF for six years or so. Relations are seriously damaged. Six years without IMF assistance is enough to deduce Zimbabwe survives without the IMF.

"...what increased sanctions? - the only one that has any economic effect is the withdrawal of balance of payments support which, for the reasons discussed in my previous post, has been there for some time".

You could not be more wrong. If the revised, increased and new sanctions you claim are not impactful then remove them. But after all they are politically motivated and deliberately designed to stymie economic stability and growth and restrict international trade.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080727/wl_africa_afp/zimbabwepoliticseconomyu ssanctions

The latest US sanctions deliberately target some of Zimbabwe's largest companies and few remaining sources of, essentially needed, foreign currency.

http://www.treas.gov/offices/enforcement/ofac/legal/eo/13469.pdf

Whilst the Executive Order claims to be sanctions against "persons" it goes on in its three short pages to incorporate "entities" which it defines as "a partnerships, associations, corporations, organisations"...etc.

Some of these large companies (seventeen by name) are publicly listed on Zimbabwe's stock exchange (ie owned by private investors) so the sanctions undermine noble attempts at self-sufficiency and economic stability.

IMF, World Bank and other international financial institutions aside, the EU and the UK aside, America aside...Zimbabwe like any country seeks, nay needs, private investment. That investment forthcoming, albeit in trickles to start with, is cut off at the wrist by a mixture of revised and newly imposed sanctions.

As for Zimbabwe thriving as Rhodesia, 1) The world economy was not global thirty years ago, 2) Rhodesian sanctions were sanctions in name only, her biggest trading partner, sanctioned (sic), nuclear-armed world-providing gold, diamond and platinum producer, apartheid South Africa saw to it that sanctions were meaningless.

Rhodesia didn't thrive for majority blacks, it thrived for minority whites.

So again, forget the IMF, for the World Bank (their terms are unacceptable), forget the EU, forget the UK and forget the US. Allow global market forces to dictate whether Zim's economy can recover or not which necessarily entails the removal of politically motivated economic and trade sanctions.

Once the "Movement" against Zimbabwe is out of the way, I am confident that international investors, with their lust for high risks and high rewards will start to re-invest in Zimbabwe just as they did so immediately after the June 29th run-off. But have quickly been scared off from doing by new sanctions.

SHOOT!! I must stop using spell checker on links:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080727/wl_africa_afp/zimbabwepoliticseconomyu ssanctions

Selector - Thank you for your comprehensive and informative response. It is a pleasure seeing well backed up arguments posted here.

Regarding your comments:

I suppose that I mentioned Cuba as it seems to me the closest analogy to Zimbabwe ie small and no particular source of wealth. The point remains the same however.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I recall that at a SADC summit last year it was resolved to send a team to Zimbabwe to investigate what SADC as a regional organisation could contribute to rebuilding the Zimbabwean economy. I have yet to see anything tangible come of this.

No; I am not refering to trade finance from China, Russia or India. I am refering to investment and aid, and the lack thereof.

I, and I suspect the overwhelming majority of people around the world, would not agree with you that 'it is enough to deduce Zimbabwe survives without the IMF' unless your definition of survives excludes complete economic collapse and a virtual civil war.

I did follow your link to yahoo news; unfortunately it had expired and I have not got the time to allow me to trawl through the archives looking for it. However, here is a question for you; if the organisations which you believe are the source of trade sanctions are being targeted by virtue of their ties to zanu-pf identities, why don't those identities sever their ties in the national interest?

Your statement about sanctions against Rhodesia as being meaningless is wrong, full stop.

Actually the Rhodesian economy did thrive for blacks as well as whites.There was a high level of employment and living was affordable.The denial of political and basic human rights by a myopic racist regime is another issue which should not be confused with the economy.

By the way, in trying to find your link to Yahoo news an article appeared on the first page from which I have extracted the following:

"The relationship between the peoples of Zimbabwe and the United States goes back to the founding of the nation in 1980.

Since then, over US$1,3 billion of US taxpayer assistance has strengthened this relationship, underscoring its importance to us.

Since 2002, the US government has provided more than US$600 million in humanitarian assistance in Zimbabwe, and US$150 million for the fight against HIV-AIDS since 2000.

We also have maintained our trade relations with Zimbabwe.

From 2002-2006, Zimbabwe exported more to the United States than it imported.

In 2006, total trade between our nations was just over US$150 million, with Zimbabwe having nearly a US$56 million trade surplus.

In 2007, total trade increased to US$177 million with Zimbabwe importing US$33,5 million more than it exported to the US.

While we support the people of Zimbabwe through humanitarian assistance and trade, the US has implemented travel and financial sanctions against certain designated Zimbabweans who formulate, implement or benefit from policies that undermine Zimbabwe's democratic institutions or impede the transition to multiparty democracy.

These targeted sanctions focus on 135 people and 30 corporate entities, including Robert Mugabe, members of his government and inner circle, and their family members.

The point of these restrictions is to send a strong message that the United States will not allow individuals who are responsible for abuses perpetrated against the Zimbabwean people the freedom to operate in our financial markets."

katz, right back at you. It's interesting and informative to learn the opinions and views of others. Whilst I know the subject of Zimbabwe can be emotive, I find it easier to debate without the passion - although I'd be the first to admit I am susceptible to failure on this occasionally.

You're right about the SADC initiative and sending a team to report on the situation in Zim. Feedback in May of this year was for sanctions to be dropped to help economic stability and recovery.

http://www.newzimbabwe.com/pages/sadc11.16189.html

http://www.newzimbabwe.com/pages/inflation156.16659.html

As for Zimbabwe surviving without the IMF, I hope you will appreciate my deliberate use of the word "survive". I'm not suggesting the country thrives without IMF assistance, it doesn't, but it does survive. As Phiri pointed out early on in this thread, the IMF is now, and has been for many years been the bane of developing countries the world over who have complained about IMF bullying, intrusion, political motivation and unfair, oppressive practice. The IMF, is increasing recognised for what it is, a fund from Western countries to affect and impose sympathetic political change across the world, imo.

Shall we agree to disagree on the Rhodesian question?

Moving on, the Yahoo News link was not pivotal to my post but thanks for trying and your own find is of interest as the spin is a fine demonstration of the adage that there are lies, damned lies and statistics.

I am sure you accept the substantial and absolute difference between humanitarian and other aid and trade. It is therefore inappropriate to consider aid in the same breath as discussions on economy and trade, I'd argue.

So putting aside US aid, there is a suggestion that Zim's trade surplus with the US was US$56million in 2006. Most would call that a balance of trade but lets follow that for a while. Also, the surplus is said, from your quote, to have become a deficit of US$33.5million the following year. Again, in the grand scheme of things, most would call this a trade balance.

Now here's the rub; trade surplus/balance/deficit must allow for Zim's runaway inflation to have any meaning. To achieve even a trade balance, those statistics show that Zim exported a vast amount to the US relative to what they imported. But allowing for Zim's runaway inflation, Zim's exports are dirt cheap in comparison to the price paid/cost for imports.

This is one of Zimbabwe's primary binds, unless inflation can be brought under control and the currency stabilised, what Zimbabwe exports, they export not at market prices but lower than market prices (whatever the prevailing rate of inflation - now in the millions of percentage) because of the weak/near literally worthless currency.

To fully explain my economic theory would take a morning but I hope you, at least, get my gist.

Ultimately, the talks, this thread and our exchanges are about finding a resolution to Zimbabwe’s various problems. I accept that Mugabe and, when the talk is the economy, Gono have failed. There's no disputing this. If resolution is the true goal, however, I believe it's time that non-African, third parties equally accept their role in the constrictions and damage to the economy and cease such destructive activities forthwith - something they have already declared they will do (and more) should Mugabe leave office.

Selector - as you say lets agree to disagree. I am sure that we, like most of the posters on this site, feel passionately about Zimbabwe and in our own way wish the country nothing but the best, and most certainly a move away from the awful predicament that the country currently finds itself in for whatever reasons that may be.

Selector, if apartheid South Africa could make Rhodesia's sanctions meaningless, why can't independent South Africa make Zimbabwe's sanctions meaningless? Because there are no sanctions against Zimbabwe or Mbeki would also have come to Mugabe's rescue.

Rambo is definitely a ZANU-PF sympathiser that is why he has lost all his reasoning power.Don't you know that Morgan won the March polls and it was rigged by the electoral commission so that people like you can sit later and say Morgan did not win outright.

Rambo;I really think that you got a big lack of intelligents by utterring such diabolic insulance and that from someone who seems to be familiar with the current events in Zimbabwe,Wake up or shut up.

Rambo: how do you know that no one got more than 50% of the results in March 2008? Would you tell us why the results were not released for more than one month? Do you seriously think Mugabe's 43% represent 43% of the will of the voters; if yoou say yes then how did he double this vote to 85% in June 2008? Rambo: elections in Zimbabwe have never been free and fair even in 1980. The only difference between elections now and before 2000 is that before we did not have as strong opposition as we have now. But even given the paltry votes PF ZAPU was getting in the 1980s, Mugabe was prepared to butcher 20,000 Ndebeles to completely wipe out any opposition to his rule. I tell you the majority of the first 43% Mugabe got came through fraudulent means. I am also almost 100% sure Tsvangirai (like he did in 2002) got more than 50% of the votes but the controls in place to prevent vote fraud were stringent this time around compared to 2002. Mugabe and his fraudsters at ZEC must have found it difficulty though not impossible to reduce Tsvangirai's vote to less than 50%. Most people think they played around with Makoni's vote. If you look at Makoni's 8%, most of it came from the opposition stronghold of Matebeleland. I do not think the people of Matebeleland were not reasonable enough to realise than any reduction in Tsvangirai's vote could make Mugabe win and that Makoni was not strong enough to win the presidency. I think ZANU (PF) fraudsters using the fact that MDC Mutambara had a strong showing in Matebeleland and the fact that Mutambara had endorsed Makoni had the nerve to throw some of Tsvangirai's Matebele vote to Makoni. My suspicion is arosed when I realise that outside Matebeleland, Tsvangirai was getting votes from both his MDC and the Mutambara MDC. Why would Matebeleland be so different? If you have an analysis of presidential reults by constituency, you will realise in the other seven provinces, Tsvangirai won against Mugabe in the constituencies which his MDC had lost the vote to ZANU (PF) due to vote splitting between his MDC and Mutambara's MDC. The constituencies I refer to include Chirumanzu, Chiwundura, Vungu, Gokwe, Wedza South, Magunje etc. If Makoni was getting the Mutambara vote, Tsvangirai would not win against Mugabe in the constituencies his MDC MPs had lost to ZANU (PF) due to the split effect of Mutambara.

Comments by rambo1 are not only unfortunate but pathetic. It appears that he is blinkered and does not see things for himself but rather waits to believe the propaganda he reads from the herald and lies from mugabe and his cronies. It does not take a genius to deduce why so many people which he calls economic emigrants left the country. He is not being honest ewven to himself to believe that he does not see the plain truth about the outcome of the march 29 elections.Where else in the would has it taken five weeks to announce the results of the small size of the voter population that voted in the march presidential election. Let me shed light for this blind rambo to see. the reason for the delay in annoucing the results was to give time to mugabe's thugs to cook the vote so as to make it appear as there was no clear winner and to fool people like rambo. The economic situation in zimbabwe is a result of misrule by noone other than mugabe and his blind ministers and supporters. We saw this coming as far back as 1985 there was no sanctions then which mugabe wants to use for bling peaple like rambo to believe. I say to rambo open your eyes and see for yourself and analise situations and not believe everything at face value. We saw it coming and we jumped from the sinking ship into a more reliable ship captained by Morgan Tsvangirai. Rambo Chinja maitire now and join the thinking elite.We don't hate mugabe for the sake of it but for taking away food and our freedom from us.

President Thabo Mbeki and the Chief Mediator in the Zimbabwe have the agony and suffering of millions of Zimbabweans. He fears Mugabe more than he does to God. Zimbabwe’s solution as stands now has to be solved by concerned neighbours. To me Mugabe is very weak man given circumstances him and his country are faced with.

Mbeki takes the blame foe Zimbabwe suffering, simply because he has been negotiating the Zimbabwe solution now for 10 years. He has never acknowledged that there was and that there is still a crisis in until yesterday before SADC heads of state in Sandton. He must admit the fact that he has failed. He will not be impeached just like President Musharaf of Pakistan who resigned the same day Mugabe should have resigned days when he was supposed to be impeached.

I agree Tsvangrai never won the March 29th elections, but I pity those include President Thabo Mbeki of South Africa and the newly crowned Chairman of SADC, who recognise that Mugabe won the June 27 election.

My modest submission to the Zimbabwe solution is that Mbeki should accept the truth by telling Mugabe that he lost both March 29th presidential and parliamentary polls, the June 27th runoff elections and that therefore, he should sanctify the country and preserve the democracy he fought for by resigning. Mbeki and Mugabe will be judged harshly by history if they do not listen to the looming and scary agony of Zimbabweans.

Those who think Mugabe won the june 27th elections are agents of trouble nuisance.

For God and my Country.

In future may I suggest that when rambo.t writes anything, he writes it for himslef because he is not speaking for normal thinking folk. The sanctions lie has been dealt with on here so please take it and stick it where the sun dont shine! there are no sanctions against zimbabwe and you know that. it suits your lying agenda to pretend and try to convince gullible fools there are sanctions when the opposite is true. So spare us your bilge and write comics or something but stay out of grown up debates please. your shallow understanding of the truth is plain for all to see!! If you still believe mugabe is not responsible for the state zimbabwe is in today you need your head checked big time!!

At least old, tired, ineffective Mbeki has handed over to the Troika on defence. What that means is the defence body must move in there and remove the bad army and police chiefs who have told everyone that it's Mugabe or else. They may also defend the starved rural folk and ensure food gets to them. Then perhaps we may still have a few bodies left to have another election in future.

People like rambo, djoser, muzukuru and their likes are trying their best to defend the undefendable. They,like their masters are trying to force to agree that the problems in Zimbabwe are a result of economic sanctions implemented by the west after mugabe initiated land reform. We need to remind them of why we, the majority of zimbabweans do not support Mugabe.....Willovale, War Victims Compensation Fund(a police commisioner who is 45%disabled and vice president who was 89% disabled) Broke parastatals, remember the pay for your house scheme, dead patriots like Chris Ushewhekunze, Governor Rukarwa. 225 farms leased or sold to underseving people while we lived in shacks in the backyards of Mbare. Remeber E.S.A.P. If Zimbabwe's economy was healthy then why was ESAP introduced.remember 17 june 2000 when only 3000 people turned up for mugabes rally in fio and Tsvangirai filled Rufaro Stadium the very next day. Remember when we rejected the draft constitution as it sought to maintain Mugabe in power. Its corruption,incompetence and mismanagement that we are against.You have managed to fool some people with the land issue but you havent managed to fool all of us.Oh by the way if Mugabe is anti gay then why did he protect Banan.Remember Muzenda's tetimony in court"I TOOK IT TO THE HIGHEST OFFICE IN THE LAND" If he is an Africanist why did he have to disinfect Harare when the Queen of England visited and did not do it for Machel,Nyerere or Kaunda. The homeless people rounded up during Elizabeths and John Pauls visit were promised resettlement but they are still there by that sewage tank in Norton, I could go on and on

Gore, you have hit home. Notice, silence is the loud reply from those Mugabe stooges.