Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on Hot Air Hillary

1

"She has authorized the use of force against another dictator, why not this one?"

Dunno. Do they have oil or anything else I can use over there?

Posted by El Seven | April 4, 2008 12:36 PM
2

From the CIA world factbook:

Iraq
Oil - production: 2.11 million bbl/day (2007 est.)
Oil - proved reserves: 115 billion bbl (1 January 2007 est.)

Iran
Oil - production: 4.15 million bbl/day (2006 est.)
Oil - proved reserves: 132.5 billion bbl based on Iranian claims (1 January 2006 est.)

Zimbabwe
Oil - production: 0 bbl/day (2005 est.)
Oil - proved reserves: 0 bbl (1 January 2006 est.)

Posted by jamier | April 4, 2008 12:38 PM
3

Also, unlike South Africa, Zimbabwe pretty much has no natural resources. They have lots of fertile land and labor, and that's about it.

Posted by keshmeshi | April 4, 2008 12:53 PM
4

A: they have no oil.

B: unlike the Bosnians, the Zimbabwians are not white, and therefore, nobody gives a fuck.

What I want to know is why many other leaders in Africa are so leery to condemn Mugabe?

Posted by Westside forever | April 4, 2008 12:54 PM
5

there you go, trying to make sense again. Haven't you learned by now?

Posted by Mike in MO | April 4, 2008 1:00 PM
6

Hmm. No oil.

So, do they have Malaria or TB or HIV/AIDS?

Maybe Bill Gates could do something ...

Posted by Will in Seattle | April 4, 2008 1:03 PM
7

Because Iraq wasn't enough fun, we've got to open a branch office in Africa?

Posted by Will/HA | April 4, 2008 1:10 PM
8

I thought you supported Mugabe's violent and murderous expulsion of white farmers in the name of black nationalism?

Doesn't Marxism and Nationalism go hand in hand?

Posted by ecce homo | April 4, 2008 1:11 PM
9

wow for some reason my keyboArd wont let me type my name or e-mail address with a lower case I or A...wierd


there were whites in zimbabwe....we're called rhodesians and we left twenty years ago when the pc community sold my mothers country to a bunch of thugz....if we shot mugabe would it really change african politics for the better...I say we do it but there's no gurantee that that country will be anymore but another musical dictator baskiet case of a country

Posted by LINUS | April 4, 2008 1:15 PM
10

How would doing so be in our interest?

Posted by You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me | April 4, 2008 1:23 PM
11

"She has authorized the use of force against another dictator, why not this one?"

Probably because the American public generally doesn't give a fuck. If there was a popular sentiment that we should be intervening, you can bet she'd be leading the charge.

Posted by AMB | April 4, 2008 1:40 PM
12

I asked this same question in February 2003.

Posted by Fnarf | April 4, 2008 1:41 PM
13

@9,

The "pc" community doesn't like virtual genocide. Assuming you have any connection to Zimbabwe*, formerly Rhodesia, your family deserved to get booted out.


*Of course, you are becoming well known for posting complete fabrications on Slog. I'll believe it when I see it.

Posted by keshmeshi | April 4, 2008 1:53 PM
14

Do they at least have some mining interests? Precious metals? That might warrant a Cruise missile or two.

Posted by tsm | April 4, 2008 2:34 PM
15

"Doesn't Marxism and Nationalism go hand in hand?"

No.

(This has been another edition of simple answers to stupid questions)

Posted by w7ngman | April 4, 2008 2:37 PM
16

"Probably because the American public generally doesn't give a fuck. If there was a popular sentiment that we should be intervening, you can bet she'd be leading the charge."

I don't like this assumption for two reasons.

First, popular sentiment is not always reliable, and we trust politicians to overrule it where appropriate. The public can be coerced. See: Iraq war.

Second, this is sort of the same idea, but she isn't exactly leading the charge to end that war now that public sentiment has turned against it.

Posted by w7ngman | April 4, 2008 2:50 PM
17

@16 - the public wasn't coerced, just duped. It's a straightforward thing: if Bush wanted to invade Zimbabwe, he'd have just invented some semblance of a link to Osama bin Laden, and Bill Kristol & co. would repeat it over and over and over until it became truthy.

As for why Hillary isn't ending the war, that would be because (1) among her base is a particular constituency that actually still likes the war; and (2) she's afraid to take a strong stance that could later be used by right-wingers to say she "sold us out". (Which is kind of related to the cowardice that led her to vote yes on it in the first place).

Posted by tsm | April 4, 2008 2:56 PM
18

what the hell are you talking about #13....genocide? first off the majority of the armned forces were black and opposed robert mugabes zanu party! the fighting was largly confned to the borders...power was transfred to a moderate black party WHO WON THE ELECTION in 79. but the international community REFUSED to recognize any result where mugabe was not the victor

and whats all this about fabrications...I think you have me confused with someone else

Posted by linus | April 4, 2008 2:59 PM
19

Have you lost your mind? At this point, our army is probably stretched too thin to respond even to actual threats to our national security. There's no way in hell we could put enough troops on the ground in Zimbabwe to make any kind of positive difference.

I'm in the Army, and I'm so tired of hearing idiots who have never served and will never serve go on about how the U.S. should use our troops to solve human rights problems in this country or that country. You want to send U.S. soldiers to Zimbabwe? Why don't you enlist, do a couple of tours in Iraq, and then tell me about how you think the U.S. should get involved in another nightmarish foreign quagmire?

Posted by Lydia | April 4, 2008 3:41 PM
20

Lydia@19-

Charles wasn't serious. This was just reminder number 356,915,231 that Clinton voted for the war authorization. Obama supporters keep repeating it the way devout Catholics repeat their Hail Marys. It helps them ignore the fact their candidate has peaked already and will be way down the far slope by the time of the convention.

Thank you for volunteering to serve our country, by the way. There are many of us who think that patriotism and liberalism aren't mutually exclusive. We just don't normally have the loudest voices around here.

Posted by Big Sven | April 4, 2008 4:35 PM
21

dont we have our own problems with corrupt kleptocrats? why cant we focus on dealing with our own before getting into others busness

Posted by LINUS | April 4, 2008 5:19 PM
22

Lydia @19: the point Charles is making isn't that we should use military force to topple this dictator; it's that we shouldn't have used it to topple THAT one, either.

The oil justification is stupid. We could have had all the Iraqi oil we wanted -- much more than we will ever see now, and at a much lower price -- if we'd left the godforsaken country alone.

Posted by Fnarf | April 4, 2008 6:50 PM
23

Sorry, I guess I've just gotten to have a knee-jerk bad reaction to this kind of rhetoric, after all the civilians I've heard going on about how we should send troops to Darfur, or Burma, or Palestine, or wherever.

Posted by Lydia | April 5, 2008 11:37 AM
24

You are the greatist!
http://www.newfxlive.com/forex-made-easy-software.html " target="_top">forex made easy software

Posted by Kabuto pnmkw | April 7, 2008 11:52 PM
25

You are the greatist!
http://www.newfxlive.com/forex-made-easy-software.html " target="_top">forex made easy software

Posted by Kabuto pnmkw | April 7, 2008 11:52 PM
26

You are the greatist!
http://www.newfxlive.com/forex-made-easy-software.html " target="_top">forex made easy software

Posted by Kabuto pnmkw | April 7, 2008 11:53 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).