Because He Is A Fascist, And I Hate Him
You know, I can think of very little in this world that would give me more personal pleasure than Robert Mugabe's head on a pike.
Oh, and for the record? I am not being intentionally provocative. This is merely how I honestly feel. You will just have to accept it: this is who I am, this is how I feel, and I will not be lectured about it or talked out of it.
But, for those of you who think my view unhealthy, I merely refer you to my comments in this thread. Look for the comment where I say, "I have mostly stayed silent," and you will know where I stand--and that I will not be dissuaded.
Dean: I agree with you totally. I, too, hate his guts. Pig-fucker's head on a pike. Hate the bad and love the good, that's the only way for me. That's the way I am.
Actually, just getting Mugabe isn't enough. His entire regime, and pretty much all of the so-called veterans must go.
True enough for Mugabe. He can fuck pigs all he wants, though. I don't care about his man on pig activities, only his horrendous human rights record. Couldn't the same be said of some of our so-called allies? Shouldn't some Saudi heads join his on those pikes? Shouldn't the leaders of some of those Latin American juntas we've supported have pikes specially prepared for them, as long as we can indulge in the fantasy of sticking on pikes the heads of all fascists living off the blood of the people?
Libertarian,
Who cares about retired members of Latin American juntas and/or about Saudi's?
Mugabe is starving his own people into surrender, today - a much larger problem then trying to bring up alleged crimes of the past by the US or its allies.
I would add NK's Kim Il whats-his-name to the Head-on-a-Pike list. His policies have starved millions of Koreans.
That would be Kim Jung Il, son of Kim Il Sung. A rotten, reprehensible, detestable, slimy, disgusting, butt monkey. And I mean this in a bad way.
His death would be a good thing. But, as long as the PRC remains a concern his regime will survive. That fact Beijing will tolerate his behavior so long as North Korea remains as a buffer between the PRC and the USA.
Continued From Above:
...taking out NK remains on the backburner.
"True enough for Mugabe. He can fuck pigs all he wants, though. I don't care about his man on pig activities, only his horrendous human rights record."
I agree. That goes for Santorum and his dog, too. Don't get me started on the Saudi scum. If you've been reading my comments in this blog, you know by now how I feel, what I think, about them. To put it mildly: Religion of Peace, my ass.
Even before the Iraq War was started, I wondered
why Tony Blair was so eager to support Bush's mad
rush towards war.
Could it be that the quid pro quo was: Blair supports Bush on Iraq, so Bush will support Blair
on Zimbabwe?
Bill, I doubt Blair cares so much about Zimbabwe as to risk his own govts survival.
It's more likely South Africa will intervene to stop the disintegration. U.S. media is studiously ignoring the situation, but it wouldn't surprise me to learn that SA has a serious refugee problem. And that they're providing support for the anti-Mugabe rebels.
Alan,
South Africa's got its own problems - namely, about 25% of the population is likely to die over the next ten years from AIDS...and Mbeke isn't at all interested in helping the poor Zimbabweans...he's got his own plans to similarly repress his own people; one man, one vote, one time...so it goes in Africa.
Was Zimbabwe formerly a British colony? Are the
choicest farmlands still owned and operated by the
white decendants of former British colonists ?
Does Tony Blair feel the need to protect those
in Zimbawe who still bear the White Man's burden?
Would it be bad form for the UK to become directly
involved in the politics of Zimbabwe ? Has Bush
already said that Zimbabwe is in need of regime change?
Quid pro quo ?