Nipate
Forum => Kenya Discussion => Topic started by: Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants on June 03, 2015, 08:06:44 PM
-
He has ruled Zimbabwe for over 35 years.
-
He has ruled Zimbabwe for over 35 years.
Nigerian negro has no shame with its bigger problems than those in zimbabwe.
Mugabe managed to single handedly free his country from the hands of western infidels and the Nigerian negro is brave enough to spite the liberator of Zimbabweans. So disgusting to watch that kind of shit happening in Africa in this century.
-
This was harassment and heckling by some crook calling herself a journalist. She asking if there are term limits in Zimbabwe. Does n't she know? Why ask?
-
This was harassment and heckling by some crook calling herself a journalist. She asking if there are term limits in Zimbabwe. Does n't she know? Why ask?
It looks like they are paid goons. Even river road trained journalists can do better than that.
-
given the euphoria that was in Nigeria (kawaida of elections in corrupt nations when one gang is taking over from another) the journo did well ...
Mugabe should have been able to defend himself as AU chair and having been elected by a clear majority....
am waiting when uhuru is confronted by hard questions on westgate, mpeketoni, alshaitan ..... I want to see his look in the foreign press when hard/awkward questions around this are thrown
-
Mugabe did the unthinkable: He dared the white farmer and took back the land they stole. The Western media has been singing "White Owned Farms" for the last 18 years. The fact that one can not own stolen property has been overlooked.
Mugabe pointed out that he first targeted land where the Africans were kicked off as late as 1978 - the year of independence - and whites settled on it. This was a question of recovering and restitution. But the white media would hear none of it.
They started stories about Mugabe enriching himself on white people land. They produced no proof of any ownership by Mugabe or his wife. But that was just a minor detail.
Then they sponsored Morgan Changirai to dislodge Bob. After Mugabe agreed to power sharing and they took over Finance, etc, they resorted to corruption and the ensuing anger saw the MDC nearly wiped out. Not that there were no claims of "rigging" this time from the BBC.
I would not be surprised therefore if the silly "reporters" were not paid by some white farmers to insult Mugabe.
given the euphoria that was in Nigeria (kawaida of elections in corrupt nations when one gang is taking over from another) the journo did well ...
Mugabe should have been able to defend himself as AU chair and having been elected by a clear majority....
am waiting when uhuru is confronted by hard questions on westgate, mpeketoni, alshaitan ..... I want to see his look in the foreign press when hard/awkward questions around this are thrown
-
Mugabe did the unthinkable: He dared the white farmer and took back the land they stole. The Western media has been singing "White Owned Farms" for the last 18 years. The fact that one can not own stolen property has been overlooked.
Mugabe pointed out that he first targeted land where the Africans were kicked off as late as 1978 - the year of independence - and whites settled on it. This was a question of recovering and restitution. But the white media would hear none of it.
They started stories about Mugabe enriching himself on white people land. They produced no proof of any ownership by Mugabe or his wife. But that was just a minor detail.
Then they sponsored Morgan Changirai to dislodge Bob. After Mugabe agreed to power sharing and they took over Finance, etc, they resorted to corruption and the ensuing anger saw the MDC nearly wiped out. Not that there were no claims of "rigging" this time from the BBC.
I would not be surprised therefore if the silly "reporters" were not paid by some white farmers to insult Mugabe.
given the euphoria that was in Nigeria (kawaida of elections in corrupt nations when one gang is taking over from another) the journo did well ...
Mugabe should have been able to defend himself as AU chair and having been elected by a clear majority....
am waiting when uhuru is confronted by hard questions on westgate, mpeketoni, alshaitan ..... I want to see his look in the foreign press when hard/awkward questions around this are thrown
Mugabe did the unthinkable in order to hang onto power. People can do the right things for the wrong reasons. As a result he ended up screwing up country.
-
I share Omollo admiration for what Mugabe managed to do in Zim.
-
I share Omollo admiration for what Mugabe managed to do in Zim.
He fumbled. He should have done it in a more organized way. But he did it to hang onto power. 3 million Zimbabweans in South Africa as a result.
Even if he had to forcefully take the land, he could have done that without killing innocent people. Doing it to bazungu showed even worse judgment.
-
Termie
By 2000 Mugabe was not at all threatened by any politician. You have to know the difference between Mugabe and any other political leader. Mugabe came to power using the age old system of communist grass roots organization. You can only get rid of Mugabe by killing him or waiting until he drops dead, becomes senile and is pushed aside etc. But a coup can't work, he can't lose an election and you can't sanction him out of office.
Mugabe did what he did to preserve his constituency. As long as his constituency understood what was happening he cared nothing about The West. The army composed of veterans guaranteed that Changirai would not govern even if he pretended to win elections. The army was not just loyal but supportive.
Look at Zim's tribal math and see just how impossible it is to dislodge a shona even using another shona as Blair did.
Mugabe did the unthinkable in order to hang onto power. People can do the right things for the wrong reasons. As a result he ended up screwing up country.
-
There was no other way. Mugabe came to power in 78 and all incoming British PMs kept lying to him and pushing the deadline. Mugabe had been patient for more than 20yrs. When Blair reneged..that broke the camel back.
In the late 1990s, Prime Minister Tony Blair terminated this arrangement when funds available from Margaret Thatcher's administration were exhausted, repudiating all commitments to land reform. Zimbabwe responded by embarking on a "fast track" redistribution campaign, forcibly confiscating white farms without compensation.[4
South Africa I believe will have to do the same....they are postponing not solving the problem.
He fumbled. He should have done it in a more organized way. But he did it to hang onto power. 3 million Zimbabweans in South Africa as a result.
Even if he had to forcefully take the land, he could have done that without killing innocent people. Doing it to bazungu showed even worse judgment.
-
Blair is entirely to blame for mess that happened in RSA. No wonder he is desperate to come to Kenya and act as his advisor. Blair terminate a deal similar to how kenyans acquired land back from British leave Mugabe with no option except to forcefully seize land. There was no way that 60% of arable land could be own by 2% of the population.
Look at Zim's tribal math and see just how impossible it is to dislodge a shona even using another shona as Blair did.
-
There was no other way. Mugabe came to power in 78 and all incoming British PMs kept lying to him and pushing the deadline. Mugabe had been patient for more than 20yrs. When Blair reneged..that broke the camel back.
It is true that the British did not stick to their end of the deal, and to that extent one may argue that something had to be done and Mugabe did it. But if the idea was to help Zimbabweans, then the final question has to be whether or not they have they have actually benefited.
Sure, they have the land. And it is being used for? Sure, it made for good "heroics" to see a "tough" black Africans tell the "imperialists", "neo-colonialists", and their "running dogs" to fwack off. And the Zimbabweans are better off how?
-
There is no way Zim could have fared any better economically considering the British influenced US and EU to enact sanctions against them. The logic that a thief who had stolen your property was using it better than your ever did is pathetic.
Maybe Zim farmers will never match the white farmer in productivity and output...but the land belong to them. Of course we know with the right tools [loans,fertilizers, training,machinery] they will.
Isn't it why we all fought for independence...despite evidence that white settlers were better managers.
Mugabe remain a hero who has transferred more than 10M acres of farms from small white elite to majority poor zim.
It is true that the British did not stick to their end of the deal, and to that extent one may argue that something had to be done and Mugabe did it. But if the idea was to help Zimbabweans, then the final question has to be whether or not they have they have actually benefited.
Sure, they have the land. And it is being used for? Sure, it made for good "heroics" to see a "tough" black Africans tell the "imperialists", "neo-colonialists", and their "running dogs" to fwack off. And the Zimbabweans are better off how?
-
Moonki
There is a misconception here. Restorative justice required that land grabbed at "midnight" by the Smith regime be handed over. Mugabe was patient and even allowed the previous owners to live in slums and reserves. Such land was never meant for commercial farming. Refer to your own treatise to me on ancestral land for greater understanding.
The whites had a different lifestyle. They were favored by age-old trade agreements with the west where they provided raw materials for value adding be it in south Africa or Europe. For example surplus milk was preferred by whites in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, UK etc. They rejected better quality milk from Kenya and Botswana. You may notice a slight tincture of racism.
Thus even if the white world hadn't imposed sanctions on Zimbabwe, the black farmers were screwed.
The matter of transfer of the farms could not sustain continuity. It was disruptive. It has however been improving slowly and may well fully recover.
The irony is that the west violated all the UN imposed sanctions as they supported fellow whites. The same countries went overboard in enforcing unilateral sanctions.
Finally as far as I am concerned stolen land was handed back to the owners. Had Kenyatta done that the constant tribal clashes over land would have been avoided. Instead he stole the land and sent off the owners to later aroundbthe country
-
There is no way Zim could have fared any better economically considering the British influenced US and EU to enact sanctions against them.
I can't say, especially given that all sanctions followed from Mugabe's being a bone-head.
But isn't Kung Fu one of their great friends? I thought that in Africa Kung Fu was supposedly more than a match for the US and the EU.
The logic that a thief who had stolen your property was using it better than your ever did is pathetic.
This shows unhelpful emotion. And it is that sort of emotion that leads people to believe that owning land that is not being put to its full use is better than benefitting from productive use of the land by others. At the end of the day, the real question out to be "how is the land benefitting the people?", not merely "who owns the land?".
Maybe Zim farmers will never match the white farmer in productivity and output...but the land belong to them. Of course we know with the right tools [loans,fertilizers, training,machinery] they will.
Why can't they match the white farmer? If it is a matter of the "right tools", why can't they get those from Kung Fu?
Isn't it why we all fought for independence...despite evidence that white settlers were better managers.
Is that so? I sometimes wonder why we fought for independence. We continue to yell that we are sovereign and independent and capable of taking care of our own affairs while at the very same time begging endlessly and insisting that the rest of the world has a moral obligation to take care of us until we are "ready".
We own the land, but we beg for food that the former colonial masters have grown on their own land.
And here's another important point: The Sovereign & Independents are willingly supporting a land-grab that is really no more that a version of colonialism. You can find some of my views here:
http://jukwaa.proboards.com/thread/7351
One of the curious aspects of that business is this: People say that they fought to get back their land. They then sign off on 99+ year leases for other people to use that land while they themselves starve. (In some cases, they are lucky that the foreigners who own the land also agree to give some food to the locals.)
The issue of African land and how its use can benefit Africans ought to be discussed without the injection of random emotions. The links I provided in the Jukwaa thread ought to give a start on the fundamental issues. We need to carefully consider the situation where others are feeding themselves on African land while we starve and brag that we fought and got back the land.
Mugabe remain a hero who has transferred more than 10M acres of farms from small white elite to majority poor zim.
To whom?
Once we get past the emotions, the basic questions can be answered objectively. For example: in exactly what concrete ways are the majority of Zimbabweans better off on the basis of Mugabe's land policies. And, presumably, the question can be answered without appeal to 1960s-1970s rhetoric that had its time and place.
-
Moonki
There is a misconception here. Restorative justice required that land grabbed at "midnight" by the Smith regime be handed over. Mugabe was patient and even allowed the previous owners to live in slums and reserves. Such land was never meant for commercial farming. Refer to your own treatise to me on ancestral land for greater understanding.
Here is the misunderstanding: I have absolutely no issues with the owners of the land getting it back. My question is whether the manner in which it was done has been beneficial to Zimbabweans. I really can't give a complete answer to that, since I am not one of them. But to the extent that anyone else claims that it was great, I think it is not unreasonable to ask for some objective basis.
Finally as far as I am concerned stolen land was handed back to the owners. Had Kenyatta done that the constant tribal clashes over land would have been avoided. Instead he stole the land and sent off the owners to later aroundbthe country
Interesting. And one has to keep in mind that Kenya is frequently held up as model of how these things ought to be done (or have been done).
Kenya is actually a good study in the problems with the "we fought to get our land back and now we have it" emotional approach, the danger of that approach being that it has no room for objectivity.
What really happened in Kenya is this:
(a) Quite a few wazungus kept whatever land they had.
(b) Some other land went from a few white wazungu to a few newly-installed black wazungu.
(Even when Kenyatta & Co were dishing out little bits of land to their "our people"--RV and Coast---it was only leftovers once they had grabbed the good stuff.)
(c) As far as land goes, the average "native" still got f**ked, if that had been his prior state.
(In the RV and at the Coast, they remained largely shafted, but did the end of colonialism really change land ownership elsewhere---Nyanza, Western, Eastern, etc.?)
So, as with Zimbabwe, when Kenyans say "we fought and got back our land", I say: really? where? how? what did the average Kenyan get out of this land transfer?
Beyond the past, there's the point of the Jukwaa thread: the real colonial land-grab is taking place right now.
The first land-grab wasn't all "here's a gun in your face; your land or else". There was plenty of con: "these shiny bits of glass for those zillions of acres of useless land". And now it's another con: people signing over land for longer periods than the colonialists had the land in the first con while smugly insisting that it is theirs because they fought for it, blah, blah, blah.
Alarm bells are going all over the place, but do the sovereign are independent care?
http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/poverty-matters/2011/jan/28/africa-land-grabs-food-security
-
P.S. to last "posting" & same article:
in 2009 Saudi Arabia received its first shipment of rice produced on land it had acquired in Ethiopia while at the same time the World Food Programme was feeding 5 million Ethiopians.
Similarly in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, China has acquired 7 million hectares for palm oil production and yet millions of people in the DRC are dependent on international aid for food.
Africans need to rethink this issue of land-ownership, and the re-thinking ought to be in terms of effective (as opposed to nominal) ownership and who really gets what from what.
-
Even if I like what Mugabe did, I can't ignore the impact on a country that was one of the most prosperous in Africa for whites, definitely. But also for blacks, including the landless.
Even if the Brits reneged on their end of the deal, Mugabe is ultimately responsible for the well being of Zimbabwe. And with due respect to Omollo's argument, he did it for short term politics.
He could have been smarter about it. But this had never really been his goal until it was too late to regain power without something drastic.
How can anyone say it's good because now even though people are starving they have land? Zimbabweans never used to leave their country in numbers until that happened.
-
Zimbabweans never used to leave their country in numbers until that happened.
You should see them in the UK. An endless number of people desperately doing anything and everything to avoid a return to Zimbabwe.
-
Even if I like what Mugabe did, ...
I too have few problems with it---but only for late-night-TV heroics. Past that, the number of Zimbabweans desperately seeking asylum elsewhere suggests that there are other, more "intimate" views of Uncle Bob's heroics.
Oddly enough, there are those who insist that Zim would have been just fine without this or that Western sanction. How ironic. To tell the West to f**k off in this and that heroic & manly way and then turn around and say that life sucks because the West has retaliated in this and that way!
-
Once you get past your stupidity..you'll understand what I post. There is nothing to debate about stolen property. The first step is to return it to the owner. Whatever else you're advocating..better farm outputs...follows.The same thing with colonialism.
Those are basic moral principles. Emotional maybe. But first return stolen land...and we can discuss how to improve productivity.
As regard to countries like Kuwait or Saudi Arabia or UAE buying land...what is the problem with that....unless your think Africa regimes are illegitimate. If GOK wants to sell public land to another country...it has the legal mandate to do so...and that can never equal to somebody invading the country and taking it's best land for it's citizen.
Once we get past the emotions, the basic questions can be answered objectively. For example: in exactly what concrete ways are the majority of Zimbabweans better off on the basis of Mugabe's land policies. And, presumably, the question can be answered without appeal to 1960s-1970s rhetoric that had its time and place.
-
The fact that Mugabe is still the president despite the economic problems there tells your Zimbwabweans understand where the problem arose. The last election especially saw opposition MDC routed completely including in parliament.
There was nothing Mugabe would have done differently if the powerful bully was determined to wreck their economy to serve as a lesson to likes to RSA with similar land problems to be careful. Zim was suppose to be an example of what the bullies can do to you if you dare them.
For 20yrs...British transferred 3m hectares of land...in few days Mugabe managed to transfer 10M hectares. South Africa is having the same exact issues...they've only transferred less than 10% of land..since they came back to power in 94 (20yrs). 5M whites not only dominate the economy in towns, they do so in mines and farms. The Africans in meantime are suffering in townships and slums..and are now killing immigrants.
Zim farmers will learn the ropes and have a more sustainable farming just like we had done in kenya for instance in tea, coffeee, horticulture and dairy.
Even if I like what Mugabe did, I can't ignore the impact on a country that was one of the most prosperous in Africa for whites, definitely. But also for blacks, including the landless.
Even if the Brits reneged on their end of the deal, Mugabe is ultimately responsible for the well being of Zimbabwe. And with due respect to Omollo's argument, he did it for short term politics.
He could have been smarter about it. But this had never really been his goal until it was too late to regain power without something drastic.
How can anyone say it's good because now even though people are starving they have land? Zimbabweans never used to leave their country in numbers until that happened.
-
Mugabe is a hero for the land grab. Nobody can ever take away that from him.
He turns out to be a poor manager but he is still a hero.
-
Manager of what?
If Raila became President today and I became Lands minister with an attitude problem; Then I cleared Kawangware, Kabete, Uthiru, all the way to Kikuyu and reach the outskirts of Njamba's Limuru - areas my attitude would determine to be "unproductively used" - and "create" farms which I then invite the best Luo farmers to run with unparalleled productivity; What would you do once Raila leaves office and you have the power to make changes? Would you keep the "farms" or hand back stolen property?
Some of those so called "farms" were people's homes and ancestral graveyards and burial sites. They were not meant to be "managed" to produce food and create "wealth"!
Mugabe is a hero for the land grab. Nobody can ever take away that from him.
He turns out to be a poor manager but he is still a hero.
-
When did he suddenly turned into bad manager if he was good manager all the way from 80s till the farm invasion. Zim was not messed up by Mugabe. But by Blair, George Bush and EU.
Mugabe is a hero for the land grab. Nobody can ever take away that from him.
He turns out to be a poor manager but he is still a hero.
-
Once you get past your stupidity..you'll understand what I post.
Once again: please try to keep your emotions in check.
Those are basic moral principles. Emotional maybe. But first return stolen land...and we can discuss how to improve productivity.
As I have stated, I have no issue with people getting back their land. My questions have to do with how it was done. One consequence of how Mugabe does things is that millions of his people have now fled that very land and are refugees in other countries. That is somewhat ironic.
As regard to countries like Kuwait or Saudi Arabia or UAE buying land...what is the problem with that
What is the problem? Read the following again, but this time also think about it.
in 2009 Saudi Arabia received its first shipment of rice produced on land it had acquired in Ethiopia while at the same time the World Food Programme was feeding 5 million Ethiopians.
Similarly in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, China has acquired 7 million hectares for palm oil production and yet millions of people in the DRC are dependent on international aid for food.
-
There is no way Zim could have fared any better economically considering the British influenced US and EU to enact sanctions against them.
...
Zim was not messed up by Mugabe. But by Blair, George Bush and EU.
The US embassy has a website on what it says are facts and myths in this sanctions matter:
"U.S. targeted sanctions apply to only 113 Zimbabwean individuals and 70 entities (mostly farms and legal entities owned by the 113 individuals)"
"Certain persons have been targeted for sanctions on the basis of their connection to the Government of Zimbabwe. However, U.S. sanctions do not block the Government of Zimbabwe as a whole, nor do they prohibit all business with the country of Zimbabwe or transactions involving that jurisdiction. The United States has imported good from Zimbabwe and Zimbabwe has imported goods from the United States on an ongoing basis both before and after the targeted sanctions commenced."
http://harare.usembassy.gov/sanctions_facts_myths.html
-
Sanctions targeted Zimbwaweans and affected them. Whether they intended to target Mugabe and his allies..is irrelevant considering...as you said..they ended up sending 3m folks out as refugees..while Mugabe has won 3 times since then and his wife is set to win.
Targeted sanctions is moronic diplomacy. The reality is any sanctions end up affecting the poorest.
Are zimbwabwean happy with Mugabe...hell YES.
There is no way Zim could have fared any better economically considering the British influenced US and EU to enact sanctions against them.
...
Zim was not messed up by Mugabe. But by Blair, George Bush and EU.
The US embassy has a website on what it says are facts and myths in this sanctions matter:
"U.S. targeted sanctions apply to only 113 Zimbabwean individuals and 70 entities (mostly farms and legal entities owned by the 113 individuals)"
"Certain persons have been targeted for sanctions on the basis of their connection to the Government of Zimbabwe. However, U.S. sanctions do not block the Government of Zimbabwe as a whole, nor do they prohibit all business with the country of Zimbabwe or transactions involving that jurisdiction. The United States has imported good from Zimbabwe and Zimbabwe has imported goods from the United States on an ongoing basis both before and after the targeted sanctions commenced."
http://harare.usembassy.gov/sanctions_facts_myths.html
-
MoonKi
I will leave the other issues to Pundit. I will address one: The Manner in which Mugabe took the land.
1. Britain undertook to pay the farmers for the land and Zim to repay the loan - as was the case of Kenya.
2. It went on throughout the Conservative regime. However the farmers refused to surrender the land, opting not to sell
3. The first ten years (1980 - 90) were governed by Willing Seller Dictate. Mugabe could not acquire any land compulsorily
4. At the end of the first ten years, the farmers came and pretended to be willing to surrender land. They however only gave up unproductive pieces and not those farms identified by Zim. They were bluffing and stalling for time;
5. Britain asked for an extension of the time and another 10n years were granted by Bob. He would not seize the land and would instead follow the voluntary sell and acquisition under the Lancaster agreements now extended to 2000.
6. 1997 Blair comes to power and immediately starts politics. He misrepresents the agreement saying Britain was paying to "dispossess" white people in Zimbabwe. The biggest trouble maker was Claire Short. She wrote one of the rudest letters in modern times (see below)
7. Mugabe seeing that Britain had abrogated a treaty went ahead to act as he did.
You can read the summary in the Guardian here: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2003/aug/11/freedomofinformation.zimbabwe
(http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Politics/Pix/pictures/2003/08/08/short512b.jpg)
-
The biatch Clare Short is anal when it come to Africa land. He came to Kericho's Unilver tea around 2004 [as Chair of Uniliver] by then Unilver Tea was considering selling the tea plantation given it wasn't making money. After Clare short visit...she reportedly said they can't sell their most beautiful asset.
6. 1997 Blair comes to power and immediately starts politics. He misrepresents the agreement saying Britain was paying to "dispossess" white people in Zimbabwe. The biggest trouble maker was Claire Short. She wrote one of the rudest letters in modern times (see below)
-
Sorry that was her predecessor Baroness Lydia Chalker.
-
Sanctions targeted Zimbwaweans and affected them. Whether they intended to target Mugabe and his allies..is irrelevant considering...as you said..they ended up sending 3m folks out as refugees..while Mugabe has won 3 times since then and his wife is set to win.
Targeted sanctions is moronic diplomacy. The reality is any sanctions ended up affecting the poorest.
The US embassy has laid out an objective case on the myths of the sanctions matter, with specifics. If you have an objective response, with specifics, then let's have it. "Sanctions affecting the poorest" is the standard but vague NGO-speak.
On a matter of logic: one must not assume that because 3 million+ people left during a period of sanctions, it necessarily follows that their leaving is related to do with sanctions. That is because:
(a) People do manage to ruin economies even without sanctions and consequently their people leave.
(b) Following from (a), one would have to start with an argument that the sanctions, rather than economic bungling, are what has turned Zimbabwe into an economic basket case.
(c) In (b), one should include a huge drop in agricultural output, hundreds of millions spent a military adventure in the DRC, etc.
-
MoonKi
I will leave the other issues to Pundit. I will address one: The Manner in which Mugabe took the land.
I am unclear as to what I am supposed to get from that; I do know the general history. Is it that Mugabe was justified in acting as he did? Perhaps he was, and perhaps he was not. My point, however, is a basic one: the manner in which he went about it has led to many unhappy consequences for his people, and that ought to be taken into account even as he is lauded for his "heroic" deeds.
-
Trust me I can find better things to do than to read US embassy propaganda. Debunking the myth. When did it become a myth. The fact that US has to refute it should tell you something.
The US embassy has laid out an objective case on the myths of the sanctions matter, with specifics. If you have an objective response, with specifics, then let's have it. "Sanctions affecting the poorest" is the standard but vague NGO-speak.
On a matter of logic: one must not assume that because 3 million+ people left during a period of sanctions, it necessarily follows that their leaving is related to do with sanctions. That is because:
(a) People do manage to ruin economies even without sanctions and consequently their people leave.
(b) Following from (a), one would have to start with an argument that the sanctions, rather than economic bungling, are what has turned Zimbabwe into an economic basket case.
(c) In (b), one should include a huge drop in agricultural output, hundreds of millions spent a military adventure in the DRC, etc.
-
Trust me I can find better things to do than to read US embassy propaganda. Debunking the myth. When did it become a myth. The fact that US has to refute it should tell you something.
:D :D :D :D :D :D :D
-
How did you want Mugabe to get back the land?
I am unclear as to what I am supposed to get from that; I do know the general history. Is it that Mugabe was justified in acting as he did? Perhaps he was, and perhaps he was not. My point, however, is a basic one: the manner in which he went about it has led to many unhappy consequences for his people, and that ought to be taken into account even as he is lauded for his "heroic" deeds.
-
I would be happy to engage. Please feel free to bring it out for airing.
Sanctions targeted Zimbwaweans and affected them. Whether they intended to target Mugabe and his allies..is irrelevant considering...as you said..they ended up sending 3m folks out as refugees..while Mugabe has won 3 times since then and his wife is set to win.
Targeted sanctions is moronic diplomacy. The reality is any sanctions ended up affecting the poorest.
The US embassy has laid out an objective case on the myths of the sanctions matter, with specifics. If you have an objective response, with specifics, then let's have it. "Sanctions affecting the poorest" is the standard but vague NGO-speak.
On a matter of logic: one must not assume that because 3 million+ people left during a period of sanctions, it necessarily follows that their leaving is related to do with sanctions. That is because:
(a) People do manage to ruin economies even without sanctions and consequently their people leave.
(b) Following from (a), one would have to start with an argument that the sanctions, rather than economic bungling, are what has turned Zimbabwe into an economic basket case.
(c) In (b), one should include a huge drop in agricultural output, hundreds of millions spent a military adventure in the DRC, etc.
-
Trust me I can find better things to do than to read US embassy propaganda. Debunking the myth. When did it become a myth. The fact that US has to refute it should tell you something.
OK, let's stick with the myth.
By the way, will Hero Bob be thanking the US or railing against the imperialists on this one:
HARARE (Reuters) - Zimbabweans will start exchanging 'quadrillions' of local dollars for a few U.S. dollars next week, as President Robert Mugabe's government discards its virtually worthless national currency, the central bank said on Thursday.
...
The process will legally end the local currency. Zimbabweans have until September to turn in their old bank notes, which some people sell as souvenirs to tourists.
http://news.yahoo.com/currency-dies-zimbabweans-5-175-quadrillion-local-dollars-153844646.html
-
Thanking them for what. US dollars are global currency. They do not belong to US as soon as it leaves the printing press. They are recognized globally.
You keep saying Mugabe should have done it differently. Ignoring he had done it differently for 20 yrs with little progress (ala RSA NOW) and finally Tony Blaire took away the little hope left.
There were only two options 1) leave some 40,000 whites to own the 60% of the land forever or 2) forcefully evict them and risk white world sanction working in solidarity with white farmers.
What other options were on the table.
Bob had been dealt two bad cards and he played them deftly...and Zim is still standing. And Mugabe is still PORK, admired and loved by many including yours truly.
OK, let's stick with the myth.
By the way, will Hero Bob be thanking the US or railing against the imperialists on this one:
-
How did you want Mugabe to get back the land?
It has nothing to do with what I "want". That said, to my mind, a more sensible approach would have been to buy the whites out, using borrowed money if necessary. After pissing on such an idea, it seems that someone is finally thinking about it:
Government intends to compensate farmers whose farms were compulsorily acquired under the land reform programme as the country seeks to restore confidence in the property sector and normalize ties with the international community, finance minister Patrick Chinamasa has said.
http://source.co.zw/2015/03/zimbabwe-acknowledges-debt-to-white-farmers-for-property-seizures-chinamasa-tells-imf/
The Zimbabwean government has invited over 1000 white farmers to collect compensation for farms that were seized under President Robert Mugabe's directives. Secretary of lands, Ngoni Masoka, issued a statement in state-run newspaper The Herald calling for dispossessed farmers to contact the lands ministry.
http://www.cfuzim.org/index.php/newspaper-articles-2/land-issues/2600-zimbabwean-government-to-compensate-white-farmers
-
Did you offer to lend them money and they refused. Brits who had overseen settlers take over native land bore responsibility. The responsibility they accepted before some moron came round and overturned it. Mugabe had to bend over and bend over...until when.
The person to blame remain one Tony Blair and George bush. The same fools who wrecked Iraq looking for imaginary WDM.
It has nothing to do with what I "want". That said, to my mind, a more sensible approach would have been to buy the whites out, using borrowed money if necessary. After pissing on such an idea, it seems that someone is finally thinking about it:
-
Bob had been dealt two bad cards and he played them deftly...and Zim is still standing. And Mugabe is still PORK, admired and loved by many including yours truly.
Do the many include the millions of his people who are running away because the place is a mess? Does "deftly" including finally waking up to the fact that compensation for the land would have been a better approach? (I noted you comment on his bending over; looks like The Hero is at it again!)
-
The fact that Mugabe is still popular means Zim including those in exile understand cost-benefit of losing a mainly white economy and gaining their land back is obvious.The proposal for Zim to pay back those farmers is ridiculous unless they are paying for property and development on the land. Mugabe should fire such a minister.
In any case those are probably IMF conditionalities by the same EU and US.
I had rather sleep hungry and be poor than bend over.
Zim economy is slowly rebounding. They'll be back. This time unlike RSA for example; they'll have dealt with land problem forever.
Do the many include the millions of his people who are running away because the place is a mess? Does "deftly" including finally waking up to the fact that compensation for the land would have been a better approach? (I noted you comment on his bending over; looks like he's at it again!)
-
Chalker was broke and got a job to peddle her influence. She had not been exactly friendly to Commonwealth heads of state but she thought she could come back and behave like the old style headmistress and get deals for Unilever.
It was silly of the Mzungu not to sell at that time. The County does not need to pay anything when the lease expires.
Sorry that was her predecessor Baroness Lydia Chalker.
-
The fact that Mugabe is still popular means Zim including those in exile understand cost-benefit of losing a mainly white economy and gaining their land back is obvious.The proposal for Zim to pay back those farmers is ridiculous unless they are paying for property and development on the land. Mugabe should fire such a minister.
Yes, he certainly is "popular". How many times has he "won" elections and by what margins? What a man.
Yes, Mugabe should certainly consider it ridiculous to pay compensation and should fire the minister. Sadly, it does not look like Hero Bob sees it that way.
In any case those are probably IMF conditional by the same EU and US.
That could be so. And that would be the same lot he has been telling to f**k off.
I had rather sleep hungry and be poor than bend over.
A most admirable attitude. Still, it looks like our brothers down in Zim are beginning to have their doubts on that one.
they'll have dealt with land problem forever.
That is certainly true. But they could have dealt with it forever back then by doing what they now plan to do: pay for the land.
-
The fact that Mugabe is still popular means Zim including those in exile understand cost-benefit of losing a mainly white economy and gaining their land back is obvious.The proposal for Zim to pay back those farmers is ridiculous unless they are paying for property and development on the land. Mugabe should fire such a minister.
In any case those are probably IMF conditionalities by the same EU and US.
I had rather sleep hungry and be poor than bend over.
Zim economy is slowly rebounding. They'll be back. This time unlike RSA for example; they'll have dealt with land problem forever.
Do the many include the millions of his people who are running away because the place is a mess? Does "deftly" including finally waking up to the fact that compensation for the land would have been a better approach? (I noted you comment on his bending over; looks like he's at it again!)
I fully sympathize with the state of land distribution in Zim at the time. But Zim is messed up because Mugabe chose personal self preservation over the interests of the country.
Yes, the bazungu played a major role. And he would have known they would. While I value independence, one can't be stupid about it.
I recognize it is popular among some Africans when an African leader thumbs his nose at the west.
Even if the price is surviving on food aid from the same hated fellows for the next decade. While the leader continues to celebrate $2 million birthdays.
I don't know the current state of Zim's political environment. Whether it's free and open or just another charade. So I can't comment on his popularity at home.
-
Really? Nothing to do with you? I only read your opinions.
It has nothing to do with what I "want". That said, to my mind, a more sensible approach would have been to buy the whites out, using borrowed money if necessary. After pissing on such an idea, it seems that someone is finally thinking about it
I tried to give you the historical perspective which you dismissed as "general".
Mugabe was BUYING out the whites between 1980 - 2000. There was money BORROWED from Britain to pay for the land. The white farmers REFUSED to sell the land. They no longer wanted to leave Zim in droves as they had indicated earlier. They only surrendered desolate unproductive land and would react angrily when the GOZ insisted on restorative surrender to cater for people still living who were deprived of their land by the whites without compensation.
Bob never pissed on the idea of compensation.
Government intends to compensate farmers whose farms were compulsorily acquired under the land reform programme as the country seeks to restore confidence in the property sector and normalize ties with the international community, finance minister Patrick Chinamasa has said.
There you go. You fell for white man's propaganda. At no time did Zim say would not compensate the farmers. Once Britain refused to lend the money; UNDP which was administering the cash also refused as did other international institutions, Zim was issuing IoUs to the farmers - a detail deliberately ignored by the media. The idea was always to pay the farmers once Zim could afford it.
The Zimbabwean government has invited over 1000 white farmers to collect compensation for farms that were seized under President Robert Mugabe's directives. Secretary of lands, Ngoni Masoka, issued a statement in state-run newspaper The Herald calling for dispossessed farmers to contact the lands ministry.
Ditto
-
On contrary Africans admire the west except when they are enslaving, colonizing and neo-colonizing them. That is where I draw the line. Otherwise we welcome west as tourist,donors, investors and friends. But they should come with clean hands.
I do not see any shame in welcoming donations, business and western friendship.Mugabe is one smart fellow who clearly understands that. But if the choice is for some 6,000 folks to own 60% of the land acquired thro' dubious mean..then it an easy choice..damn the consequences.
When you talk about self-preservation....what political threat was mugabe facing during Tony Blaire time?
I recognize it is popular among some Africans when an African leader thumbs his nose at the west.
-
Bob is only keeping his word.
He agreed to pay the farmers for any improvements and developments on the land. But vowed never to pay for the land. The farmers were granted IOUs which some refused to collect. The idea was that since sanctions had made it impossible to raise funds to pay them, Zim would pay when she can afford it. However the Land Reform program was to go ahead without British Money.
The fact that Mugabe is still popular means Zim including those in exile understand cost-benefit of losing a mainly white economy and gaining their land back is obvious.The proposal for Zim to pay back those farmers is ridiculous unless they are paying for property and development on the land. Mugabe should fire such a minister.
In any case those are probably IMF conditionalities by the same EU and US.
I had rather sleep hungry and be poor than bend over.
Zim economy is slowly rebounding. They'll be back. This time unlike RSA for example; they'll have dealt with land problem forever.
Do the many include the millions of his people who are running away because the place is a mess? Does "deftly" including finally waking up to the fact that compensation for the land would have been a better approach? (I noted you comment on his bending over; looks like he's at it again!)
-
Really? Nothing to do with you? I only read your opinions.
My opinions certainly have to do with me. But what I "want"---and that was your word---is irrelevant, and for a very simple reason: there is nothing I want in the matter.
-
That is admirable from Bob. Zim was messed by Western World. Not Mugabe. History will be very fair to Mugabe.
Bob is only keeping his word.
He agreed to pay the farmers for any improvements and developments on the land. But vowed never to pay for the land. The farmers were granted IOUs which some refused to collect. The idea was that since sanctions had made it impossible to raise funds to pay them, Zim would pay when she can afford it. However the Land Reform program was to go ahead without British Money.
-
Bob is only keeping his word.
He agreed to pay the farmers for any improvements and developments on the land. But vowed never to pay for the land. The farmers were granted IOUs which some refused to collect. The idea was that since sanctions had made it impossible to raise funds to pay them, Zim would pay when she can afford it. However the Land Reform program was to go ahead without British Money.
My guess is that real money is going to be paid for that land if Hero Bob wants certain problems solved. This will have to be done, regardless of any tough talk and other heroics by Hero Bob.
By the way, if this is true, then it is amusing that black farmers will be paying rent for the land that was reclaimed for them:
"In a bid to make amends for his controversial land reform policy, Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe is set to collect land rentals from new black farmers to help compensate white farmers whose land was seized by his government.
...
Zimbabwe's Lands and Rural Resettlement Minister Douglas Mombeshora said commercial and communal land reform farm beneficiaries will - from this year - start paying rentals, with funds being channelled towards compensating former white farmers.
...
Mombeshora told the Masvingo provincial lands committee on Thursday that black commercial farmers would pay US$3 land rental per hectare and US$2 unit tax per hectare annually."
http://www.timeslive.co.za/sundaytimes/stnews/2015/05/10/mugabe-to-compensate-white-farmers-for-land-grabs
So. Hero Bob got them back their land, but they must now pay rent so that the whites can get paid for the land. What irony.
-
I fully sympathize with the state of land distribution in Zim at the time. But Zim is messed up because Mugabe chose personal self preservation over the interests of the country.
Yes, the bazungu played a major role. And he would have known they would. While I value independence, one can't be stupid about it.
I recognize it is popular among some Africans when an African leader thumbs his nose at the west.
Even if the price is surviving on food aid from the same hated fellows for the next decade. While the leader continues to celebrate $2 million birthdays.
I don't know the current state of Zim's political environment. Whether it's free and open or just another charade. So I can't comment on his popularity at home.
Bob is the least pretentious of the African presidents.
He earns the lowest salary and insists on spending the money he earns. He saves unlike other big men.
Mugabe was not preserving himself but doing what his people fought for. He did not wish to become a traitor and stooge like Kenyatta.
BTW has Uganda repaid the Indians (other than the Madhvani Brothers)?
-
Bob has a bad press and it is not about to change now.
Does Uhuru Kenyatta collect rent from Lease Holders in Nairobi or are they Rates mandated by law? One can choose to twist and bend any fact to create the image of a mad man.
And yes, I consider Bob an African hero. I think he has resisted the urge to betray his own people.
On a personal level, I can never match him. He is a teetotaler, does not smoke and eschews all the debauchery that characterizes our leaders. Uhuru Kenyatta needs ten years of serious detoxification to reach Bob's level of mental tranquility. He is an avid reader and writer (who never publishes). I admire him. One of my proudest moments was to meet him in 2004.
Bob is only keeping his word.
He agreed to pay the farmers for any improvements and developments on the land. But vowed never to pay for the land. The farmers were granted IOUs which some refused to collect. The idea was that since sanctions had made it impossible to raise funds to pay them, Zim would pay when she can afford it. However the Land Reform program was to go ahead without British Money.
My guess is that real money is going to be paid for that land if Hero Bob wants certain problems solved. This will have to be done, regardless of any tough talk and other heroics by Hero Bob.
By the way, if this is true, then it is amusing that black farmers will be paying rent for the land that was reclaimed for them:
"In a bid to make amends for his controversial land reform policy, Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe is set to collect land rentals from new black farmers to help compensate white farmers whose land was seized by his government.
...
Zimbabwe's Lands and Rural Resettlement Minister Douglas Mombeshora said commercial and communal land reform farm beneficiaries will - from this year - start paying rentals, with funds being channelled towards compensating former white farmers.
...
Mombeshora told the Masvingo provincial lands committee on Thursday that black commercial farmers would pay US$3 land rental per hectare and US$2 unit tax per hectare annually."
http://www.timeslive.co.za/sundaytimes/stnews/2015/05/10/mugabe-to-compensate-white-farmers-for-land-grabs
So. Hero Bob got them back their land, but they must now pay rent so that the whites can get paid for the land. What irony.
-
There you go. You fell for white man's propaganda.
No, I did not. Here is what you wrote above:
He agreed to pay the farmers for any improvements and developments on the land.
That idea was never going to work. We can go back and forth on this one, but here it is: Zim is going to end up paying real money for that land, and it won't be on Mugabe's terms.
-
Does Uhuru Kenyatta collect rent from Lease Holders in Nairobi or are they Rates mandated by law? One can choose to twist and bend any fact to create the image of a mad man.
Sorry, you lost me somewhere. Here is what I see: Comrade Bob manfully reclaimed land and gave it back to the people, as their land. Their land to own. And for that Bob has been declared a Hero, loved and admired by many. But now the folks in Zim must pay rent on this their land that they own.
-
Bob has a bad press and it is not about to change now.
Does Uhuru Kenyatta collect rent from Lease Holders in Nairobi or are they Rates mandated by law? One can choose to twist and bend any fact to create the image of a mad man.
And yes, I consider Bob an African hero. I think he has resisted the urge to betray his own people.
On a personal level, I can never match him. He is a teetotaler, does not smoke and eschews all the debauchery that characterizes our leaders. Uhuru Kenyatta needs ten years of serious detoxification to reach Bob's level of mental tranquility. He is an avid reader and writer (who never publishes). I admire him. One of my proudest moments was to meet him in 2004.
Bob is only keeping his word.
He agreed to pay the farmers for any improvements and developments on the land. But vowed never to pay for the land. The farmers were granted IOUs which some refused to collect. The idea was that since sanctions had made it impossible to raise funds to pay them, Zim would pay when she can afford it. However the Land Reform program was to go ahead without British Money.
My guess is that real money is going to be paid for that land if Hero Bob wants certain problems solved. This will have to be done, regardless of any tough talk and other heroics by Hero Bob.
By the way, if this is true, then it is amusing that black farmers will be paying rent for the land that was reclaimed for them:
"In a bid to make amends for his controversial land reform policy, Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe is set to collect land rentals from new black farmers to help compensate white farmers whose land was seized by his government.
...
Zimbabwe's Lands and Rural Resettlement Minister Douglas Mombeshora said commercial and communal land reform farm beneficiaries will - from this year - start paying rentals, with funds being channelled towards compensating former white farmers.
...
Mombeshora told the Masvingo provincial lands committee on Thursday that black commercial farmers would pay US$3 land rental per hectare and US$2 unit tax per hectare annually."
http://www.timeslive.co.za/sundaytimes/stnews/2015/05/10/mugabe-to-compensate-white-farmers-for-land-grabs
So. Hero Bob got them back their land, but they must now pay rent so that the whites can get paid for the land. What irony.
-
On contrary Africans admire the west except when they are enslaving, colonizing and neo-colonizing them. That is where I draw the line. Otherwise we welcome west as tourist,donors, investors and friends. But they should come with clean hands.
I do not see any shame in welcoming donations, business and western friendship.Mugabe is one smart fellow who clearly understands that. But if the choice is for some 6,000 folks to own 60% of the land acquired thro' dubious mean..then it an easy choice..damn the consequences.
When you talk about self-preservation....what political threat was mugabe facing during Tony Blaire time?
I recognize it is popular among some Africans when an African leader thumbs his nose at the west.
During that period Mugabe was under serious threat from Morgan Tsvangirai and MDC. The fog of time may make that seem incredible. But he was on the brink of being ousted.
-
No. I will answer you generally as I need to go.
There is land that was restored to the owners. I can't remember the cut off date but its from 1978 backwards to perhaps UDI, which would be around 1965.
There is land taken to ease the resettlement of peasants who may not have had land before.
There are commercial farms (mostly stolen communal and grazing lands) which have been leased to Africans. There are farms still owned and run by white farmers.
Sorry, you lost me somewhere. Here is what I see: Comrade Bob manfully reclaimed land and gave it back to the people, as their land. Their land to own. And for that Bob has been declared a Hero, loved and admired by many. But now the folks in Zim must pay rent on this their land that they own.
-
During that period Mugabe was under serious threat from Morgan Tsvangirai and MDC. The fog of time may make that seem incredible. But he was on the brink of being ousted.
It was a massive setback for Blair. The money used by his intelligence services assisted by others - I suspect the CIA - was enormous. And they didn't overthrow Bob!
-
Omollo:
At the time Zimbabwe became independent, I used to think very highly of Mugabe. I heard him talk numerous times. I observed how he deftly handled Lord Soames during those negotiations.
My views changed when it soon became clear that he was going to go the standard African way: the Ndebele massacres. And, true to form, Comrade Bob hasn't looked back since then.
A top official of President Robert Mugabe’s party has issued an unprecedented condemnation of the massacres of up to 20 000 civilians of Zimbabwe’s minority Ndebele people three decades ago.
Jonathan Moyo, a member of the powerful politburo of the Zanu-PF party that came to power in 1980, was quoted in the party-controlled Sunday Mail newspaper saying that the massacres were “a dark point in our history.”
http://mg.co.za/article/2011-08-14-top-mugabe-official-raises-ghost-of-tribal-massacres
That's Hero Bob for you.
-
Omollo:
At the time Zimbabwe became independent, I used to think very highly of Mugabe. I heard him talk numerous times. I observed how he deftly handled Lord Soames during those negotiations.
My views changed when it soon became clear that he was going to go the standard African way: the Ndebele massacres. And, true to form, Comrade Bob hasn't looked back since then.
A top official of President Robert Mugabe’s party has issued an unprecedented condemnation of the massacres of up to 20 000 civilians of Zimbabwe’s minority Ndebele people three decades ago.
Jonathan Moyo, a member of the powerful politburo of the Zanu-PF party that came to power in 1980, was quoted in the party-controlled Sunday Mail newspaper saying that the massacres were “a dark point in our history.”
http://mg.co.za/article/2011-08-14-top-mugabe-official-raises-ghost-of-tribal-massacres (http://mg.co.za/article/2011-08-14-top-mugabe-official-raises-ghost-of-tribal-massacres)
That's Hero Bob for you.
Matabeleland was something for the ages. Very early in Mugabe's rule too. It's not surprising that Ndebele's hate the man, even without factoring in the African's tribal biases.
Most Shonas thought the Ndebele deserved what they got. There was one guy would not tire of talking about the 5th brigade and how they disciplined "those' people. Today, he cannot stand Mugabe.
-
No. I will answer you generally as I need to go.
There is land that was restored to the owners. I can't remember the cut off date but its from 1978 backwards to perhaps UDI, which would be around 1965.
There is land taken to ease the resettlement of peasants who may not have had land before.
There are commercial farms (mostly stolen communal and grazing lands) which have been leased to Africans. There are farms still owned and run by white farmers.
As far as I can tell, the "rental tax" is new (May 2015) and so would be separate from the existing lease etc. No matter, my basic points remain:
* There will be major compensation for the heroic reclamation of the land.
* The compensation will not be on Mugabe's terms, e.g. "we only pay for development and improvements".
* After all the heroics, major change in Zimbabwe will depend on the very "villains" Comrade Bob has been denouncing, with so much vitriol.
How about Kung Fu, Saviour of Africa?
Look at Zim's attempts to get money from there, especially the major efforts in 2014. There was plenty of talk from Zim ministers on how they would wrap up arrangements for almost $30 billion from Kung Fu. In the end? Here is how some reported in from down there:
"China puts screws on Zim"
http://mg.co.za/article/2015-01-23-china-puts-screws-on-zim
-
During that period Mugabe was under serious threat from Morgan Tsvangirai and MDC. The fog of time may make that seem incredible. But he was on the brink of being ousted.
It was a massive setback for Blair. The money used by his intelligence services assisted by others - I suspect the CIA - was enormous. And they didn't overthrow Bob!
I don't have the details about who backed whom in financial terms.
But it's fair to say Tsvangirai enjoyed goodwill in the West and from the white farmers - but interestingly also from a large portion of the population.
Mugabe had the popular chimurenga veterans on his side many of whom were landless . Overall it was widely acknowledged that the election was going to be close.
In a period when African big men were falling, Mugabe panicked. Having ruled virtually unchallenged. he was predisposed to do anything, including irrational acts, to avoid defeat.
That is the prism through which I see his actions on land. It is possible to do the right thing, in the wrong way, at the wrong time, for the wrong reasons.
-
Thanking them for what. US dollars are global currency. They do not belong to US as soon as it leaves the printing press. They are recognized globally.
The US $ is not a currency that has been created by some UN body. It is a currency that the US has created largely for its own benefit; that is sometimes understood the hard way when the US takes actions on domestic interests, and people elsewhere feel the pain. So Zim should thank the US for providing the world with a currency that people can rely on even after they have f**ked up their own.
Here is some Dollar 101 for you:
"Companies, consumers and central banks around the world prefer the dollar to other currencies, including the euro and yen, because they trust the Federal Reserve and the U.S. government to back it."
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-07-15/dollar-dominance-intact-as-u-s-fines-on-banks-raise-ire
Zim has simply (and wisely) decided that, in money matters, Uncle Sam is more trustworthy than Uncle Bob.
It is also amusing to hear Zim rail against the US, tell the world that they can do this and that on their own, and then say "oh, we need to use their currency".
-
Thanking them for what. US dollars are global currency. They do not belong to US as soon as it leaves the printing press. They are recognized globally.
The US $ is not a currency that has been created by some UN body. It is a currency that the US has created largely for its own benefit; that is sometimes understood the hard way when the US takes actions on domestic interests, and people elsewhere feel the pain. So Zim should thank the US for providing the world with a currency that people can rely on even after they have f**ked up their own.
Here is some Dollar 101 for you:
"Companies, consumers and central banks around the world prefer the dollar to other currencies, including the euro and yen, because they trust the Federal Reserve and the U.S. government to back it."
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-07-15/dollar-dominance-intact-as-u-s-fines-on-banks-raise-ire
It is also amusing to hear Zim rail against the US, tell the world that they can do this and that on their own, and then say "oh, we need to use their currency".
You don't need US permission to use USD. The very Talibans who bloodied America in Afghanistan have been using it for years and closer home, al shabaab and even Boko Haram who hate anything West except ammo.
-
He earns the lowest salary and insists on spending the money he earns. He saves unlike other big men.
This sort of thing never impresses me. Even if he did not earn a single cent, I'm sure he would live in whatever style he wished for, as he now does, and with Zimbabweans still footing the bill.
-
You don't need US permission to use USD.
No, you don't. And the point?
That said, it is important to remember that almost all dollar transactions end up being cleared by a handful of places in the US. Those who use the dollar when the US has issues with them inevitably run into uhappy times:
“It will be more and more difficult because of sanctions and the events. We will have to tighten our belts,” said Adib Mayaleh, the governor of Syria’s Central Bank
...
US sanctions had forced Syria to stop all transactions in US dollars since Tuesday, and the country had turned completely to euro deals, Mr. Mayaleh said
http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2011/08/26/164140.html
The very Talibans who bloodied America in Afghanistan have been using it for years and closer home, al shabaab and even Boko Haram who hate anything West except ammo.
Indeed. They profess to hate the people who create the currency and whose backing makes it what it is. They might rail even against America's "ungodly" capitalism. But still they use that currency.
-
Moonki is predictably running on empty...when land reforms didn't work out...now let talk about massacre in ndebeleland...when that doesn't work let talk about USD and ohoo glutch at the straw that Mugabe will pay eventually.
When will white farmers and colonoliast pay?
And when will US pay for slavery.
Mugabe remain a hero that stood against the bullies and has prevailed. An African hero if there was one.
Some folks have so much low self esteem they would gladly welcome slavery and coloniliasm.
African farmer can and will be as good as European farmer....as has been demonstrated here in Kenya.
-
When will white farmers and colonoliast pay?
And when will US pay for slavery.
These are good questions. Should they pay? I think there's any number of arguments that can be made to the effect that they should. But the critical question, in the world of real realities, is this: is there even the slightest chance that they will ever pay?
In the meantime, Mugabe & Co Heroes are moving towards paying for the land that was reclaimed. Perhaps they should deduct what they think they are owed?
Mugabe remain a hero that stood against the bullies and has prevailed. An African hero if there was one.
What a man. We should all have our leaders emulate Mugabe and have African countries turned into Zimbabwes.
Some folks have so much low self esteem they would gladly welcome slavery and coloniliasm.
Yes. What do you suggest we do about, or to, or with them?
African farmer can and will be as good as European farmer....as has been demonstrated here in Kenya.
The issue is not whether or not African farmers are or can be as good as European farmers; the issue is one of African feeding themselves. So, I am not particularly interested in such comparisons. I am more interested in, say, why it is that Kenyan farmers are supposedly quite capable, but Kenya's begging for food aid is regular and seemingly endless.
(It is, of course, "amusing" that we have countries growing food on African land, taking it back to their homes, and then turning around to give food aid to starving Africans who go begging.)
-
You don't need US permission to use USD.
No, you don't. And the point?
That said, it is important to remember that almost all dollar transactions end up being cleared by a handful of places in the US. Those who use the dollar when the US has issues with them inevitably run into uhappy times:
“It will be more and more difficult because of sanctions and the events. We will have to tighten our belts,” said Adib Mayaleh, the governor of Syria’s Central Bank
...
US sanctions had forced Syria to stop all transactions in US dollars since Tuesday, and the country had turned completely to euro deals, Mr. Mayaleh said
http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2011/08/26/164140.html
The very Talibans who bloodied America in Afghanistan have been using it for years and closer home, al shabaab and even Boko Haram who hate anything West except ammo.
Indeed. They profess to hate the people who create the currency and whose backing makes it what it is. They might rail even against America's "ungodly" capitalism. But still they use that currency.
Point is you don't use USD when you agree with US policies. There is zero contradiction in Zim adopting USD while railing against US. So get something more creative to show Mugabe's duplicity if you really have to.
Zim is adopting USD as its currency which is very different from using USD in international trade. Just about all countries use USD on their international trade. Sanctions would affect these and that was the case in Syria. The dollar still is king in ISIS strongholds. Polish your economics 100 &101
-
Point is you don't use USD when you agree with US policies. There is zero contradiction in Zim adopting USD while railing against US. So get something more creative to show Mugabe's duplicity if you really have to.
Yes, that is the point, isn't it. If it is. I have nothing to show for "Mugabe's duplicity", for the very simple reason that I have not claimed any in this regard. My point was simply that I find it amusing, and I still do.
Zim is adopting USD as its currency which is very different from using USD in international trade.
That is actually the bit I find especially amusing. Using it as Zim currency. But if I may ask: where does Zimbabwe get the dollars from and by what means?
Polish your economics 100 &101
Excellent suggestion. I shall promptly get to work.
-
Point is you don't use USD when you agree with US policies. There is zero contradiction in Zim adopting USD while railing against US. So get something more creative to show Mugabe's duplicity if you really have to.
Yes, that is the point, isn't it. If it is. I have nothing to show for "Mugabe's duplicity", for the very simple reason that I have not claimed any in this regard. My point was simply that I find it amusing, and I still do.
Zim is adopting USD as its currency which is very different from using USD in international trade.
That is actually the bit I find especially amusing. Using it as Zim currency. But if I may ask: where does Zimbabwe get the dollars from and by what means?
Polish your economics 100 &101
Excellent suggestion. I shall promptly get to work.
There is nothing amusing about Zim adopting USD while cursing US.
-
These are two different issues:
1. Productivity of the Farms Under African Ownership
2. National Food Security
Number one can help achieve number two. But is it is not mandatory. Not all countries with Food Security produce all the food domestically.
We can discuss the reasons why individual countries suffer Food insecurity despite having highly productive farms and farmers. There is no uniform explanation covering all African countries unless one buys in to the usual smear of Laziness and Dependency on "a few whites".
Apart from 1979 - 80 food shortages in Kenya have been largely artificial. The food has been on side of the country while needed on another. That spells a problem unrelated to classic food "shortage".
The issue is not whether or not African farmers are or can be as good as European farmers; the issue is one of African feeding themselves. So, I am not particularly interested in such comparisons. I am more interested in, say, why it is that Kenyan farmers are supposedly quite capable, but Kenya's begging for food aid is regular and seemingly endless.
(It is, of course, "amusing" that we have countries growing food on African land, taking it back to their homes, and then turning around to give food aid to starving Africans who go begging.)
-
There is nothing amusing about Zim adopting USD while cursing US.
Zim took an economic decision. It was not based on love or hate.
Personally, I think it was genius. It rendered all the MI6 and CIA printed Zim dollars useless. Of course I was disappointed that they did not dump USD in the slums to create "inflation".
-
Something for you at last! We will keep trying until we find something to "impress" you! :D
He does not need to live in a hovel. There is a house for the Head of State which has been there for decades. He is entitled to what the state lawfully provides.
The difference is that Bob is scrupulously fastidious in the avoidance of excesses. That is why despite all the rumours of stashed wealth etc, there has never been any substantiation. Zero.
What I may ask is this lifestyle that Zimbabweans are paying for?
He earns the lowest salary and insists on spending the money he earns. He saves unlike other big men.
This sort of thing never impresses me. Even if he did not earn a single cent, I'm sure he would live in whatever style he wished for, as he now does, and with Zimbabweans still footing the bill.
-
I am glad that Zim ministers have now learned the power of spin. They are using the same tools used by white settlers to destroy Mugabe's reputation and almost overturn the Land Reform in Zimbabwe to salvage the country.
-
Next Moonki will want Mugabe to abandon using anything american. USD is just like the computer I'm using. It US manufactured but I bought it. The same with USD. No one has beef with American people and it's product. The beef remain with PARTICULAR LEADERSHIP of US.
There is nothing amusing about Zim adopting USD while cursing US.
Zim took an economic decision. It was not based on love or hate.
Personally, I think it was genius. It rendered all the MI6 and CIA printed Zim dollars useless. Of course I was disappointed that they did not dump USD in the slums to create "inflation".
-
They have tried with every trip he makes to hospital or the wife makes...but clearly Bob is not Moi or Kenyatta...with billions stashed. The man is not only brilliant but also brave. The man fought white settlers in the bush and when he won..he generously gave them 20yrs...and when that wasn't enough..surely surely..what was Bob to do. Bend over for another 50yrs.
History will be kind to Mugabe..the real hero in Africa.
Something for you at last! We will keep trying until we find something to "impress" you! :D
He does not need to live in a hovel. There is a house for the Head of State which has been there for decades. He is entitled to what the state lawfully provides.
The difference is that Bob is scrupulously fastidious in the avoidance of excesses. That is why despite all the rumours of stashed wealth etc, there has never been any substantiation. Zero.
What I may ask is this lifestyle that Zimbabweans are paying for?
-
I thought the US benefits from more countries using the dollar? It is a currency not backed by any collateral and only depends on itself.
About US leadership: In the case of Zim, the US acted in solidarity with UK. However when the black caucus got involved and understood the issues, the matter became complicated. I am grateful to Mbeki. He stood firm and refused to respond to emotions, even calming Mandela who had become susceptible to certain influences. All these forces helped to dampen US support for Blairite sanctions.
The AU may be a talking shop but Mugabe explained his case and apart from a few countries, the majority understood.
I cannot forget the Vatican. The Vatican repeatedly invited Mugabe to Europe much to the chagrin of Blair.
Lastly on a personal note: If it were not for work, I would never set foot in UK.
Next Moonki will want Mugabe to abandon using anything american. USD is just like the computer I'm using. It US manufactured but I bought it. The same with USD. No one has beef with American people and it's product. The beef remain with PARTICULAR LEADERSHIP of US.
There is nothing amusing about Zim adopting USD while cursing US.
Zim took an economic decision. It was not based on love or hate.
Personally, I think it was genius. It rendered all the MI6 and CIA printed Zim dollars useless. Of course I was disappointed that they did not dump USD in the slums to create "inflation".
-
I see that positions are entrenched. While Mugabe has presided over Zim as it went from a bread basket to basket case. He remains popular at least to those of his countrymen who haven't left. And things are looking up, according to others. vooke just calls it that Negro enigma.
I have also read reports that they also used the Rand and Pula. I am just curious about how a country goes about adopting a foreign denomination as its currency? How that works for the regular joe. An employee for instance. Do they get paid a few pennies and dimes at the end of the month?
Meanwhile, Zimbabwe offers new exchange rate: $1 for 35,000,000,000,000,000 old dollars. Is there a name for that kind of number?
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/12/zimbabwe-offers-new-exchange-rate-1-for-35000000000000000-old-dollars (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/12/zimbabwe-offers-new-exchange-rate-1-for-35000000000000000-old-dollars)
-
Termie: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Currency_substitution
Kenya Shilling is freely used in Somalia. It can buy goods in TZ but change is given in TZS.
If you miss USD in South Sudan, KES do just fine!
-
Termie: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Currency_substitution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Currency_substitution)
Kenya Shilling is freely used in Somalia. It can buy goods in TZ but change is given in TZS.
If you miss USD in South Sudan, KES do just fine!
Ok. Those seem like situations where foreign currencies are freely accepted. Zim's situation sounds like something more drastic. Where the foreign currency completely replaces the local one.
I guess the story I linked to kind of shines a light on how it works. But what if the dollar denominations are just too big?
-
Omollo,
I just read link thanks. I think Panama uses the US dollar alongside it's own coins. I guess the Zimbabweans will probably do the same.
-
We are good.
Omollo,
I just read link thanks. I think Panama uses the US dollar alongside it's own coins. I guess the Zimbabweans will probably do the same.