Zimbabwe?

[Loosehead]

In and Ideal world, what should the West do? Is it a better case for regime change than Iraq was? Please can we dispense with the omnipresent twee oil related swipes and focus on whether a regime change, howeever unlikely, would be a valid approach here. What would you do?

[FPY]

Change it back to Rhodesia.

[Gromit]

We will continue the present policy of wait and see.

I think we are near the endgame of the policy the UK have been following for the past decade which is to let Mugabe's dictatorship implode. It has taken longer than we imagined, but I think we are nearly there.

I don't believe in Military interventions. We shouldn't intervene militarily in Zimbabwe, and we definately shouldn't have done so in Iraq and Afghanistan. Economic and political pressure will see Mugabe off.

Hope it doesn't take a humanitarian distaster before he falls.

[Loosehead]

How bad would it have to get before you would agree to intervention Gromit? I only ask because I think Mugabe is very close to wholesale slaughter of dissenters. I mean his henchmen are murdering some and generally torturing opposition leaders and supporters at the moment, it's a short step to what would amount to "ethnic cleasing", should the West stand by?

[Gromit]

3 million have escaped over the border to South Africa. I think any intervention by South Africa to stablise things in Zimbabwe would be welcomed. The UK should stay out, the former Rhodesia has nothing to do with us anymore.

If wholesale slaughter does begin to occur, there would be a case for UN forces to go in.

[Loosehead]

I pretty much agree Gromit, but what worries me is that even though it's nowt to do with us we'll be accused of standing idly by anyway. I hope SA sees fit to intervene, somthing needs to be done. The UN never react fast enough to stop these atrocities, I mena look at Rwanda!

[Gromit]

If the UK intervened, I fear it would have the opposite effect of ousting Mugabe. It would unite the country against the colonists' return, and strengthen the tyrants grip on power.

Logistically, it would be impossible to get the required man power and resources in place without a lengthy build-up.

[suffragette]

It is for the people of Zimbabwe to decide their future, not the western powers, however humanitarian that approach may seem. African nations are not as anti Mugabe as many politicians and broadcasters in Britain would like us to believe and there is not the remotest chance of South African intervention in Zimbabwe. If Mbeke seems slightly restrained in his condemnation of Mugabe, some of the other lesser known candidates for the South African presidency are supportive of his land reforms and would encourage some of Mugabes policies in South Africa if successful in their presidential campaigns. Mugabe has massive support among the poor black communities in South Africa who would like to see their own government do more to redress the imbalance of land ownership and commercial power in South Africa and no president is going to be overtly anti-Mugabe in this atmosphere.

[kwicky]

Mugabe must be approaching his 85th year and must be living on borrowed time. When he finally goes there is no natural inheritor,unlike Saddam, so hopefully the Zimbabe will revert to normal politics? The new president may even allow the farmers who were forced out to return.

[sp1814]

I absolutely think that Mugabe is the new Hitler. What is happening in Zimbabwe makes my blood boil.

As to the question - I don't know what can be done. If the UN resolved to put a peace-keeping force in place, they would need the co-operation of neighbouring African nations...and they've been pretty quiet about the situation at the moment.

It really, really, really makes me angry.

[Fingerprint]

I'm actually from Zimbabwe and am going back there in a couple of weeks. The situation is really appalling now, in fact due to inflation, for most people it now costs more to travel to work than they are earning in their jobs literally leaving them no way to survive.

The British are in a difficult position, due to colonisation any British involvement would be very inflamatory. It's also a very sensitive issue as many black South Africans have high regard for Mugabe as he defeated Smith whilst they were still oppressed, not to mention that there is also a case for land transfer in SA. But at least now some African nations such as Zambia are starting to speak out, South Africa are hosting the football world cup in 2010 and they undoubtably want the situation cleared up by then.

I think the best hope for change is internal with the Zanu PF party ousting Mugabe. Mugabe's grip is weakening as many of the police and army are becoming unwilling to inforce his policies due to the impact the economic situation is having on their own lives.

[Lonnie]

On last weeks Question Time, this was put to the Labour panelist, could be wrong, but I think it was O'Brian, he said that regardless of what Mugabe does, he was elected, so we can't interfere. Thats Labours stance anyway.

because of our imperial past in the region, we can't militarily intervene, but I think Nato as a whole, should encourage, maybe with bribes, the neighbouring countries to take action.

The one thing that is blatently clear, is that Mugabe should be deposed.

[chitchat]

As much as I think it is morally right to help the people of Zimbabwe I think recent history - Iraq and Afghanistan -have shown us that outside help is not always welcomed. I also think that we do not have the resources to have another war on our hands.

I was extremely disturbed to hear Mugabe tell the press that its OK for the police to attack his opponents. But I really dont think we an option but to sit back and let the country sort itself out. Hopefully the evil Mugabe will drop dead before too long and they can then pick up the pieces themselves.