Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe tells white farmers 'to go'

A forum to discuss local issues in Asia, Africa, and the rest of the world.
Bruv
Posts: 12181
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 3:05 pm

Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe tells white farmers 'to go'

Post by Bruv »

"Don't be too kind to white farmers. Land is yours, not theirs," Mr Mugabe said at a rally in Mashonaland West province.

.......Mr Mugabe, 90, has governed Zimbabwe since independence in 1980.

Am I the only one that sees politicians of all flavours telling the electorate what they want to hear when times get hard ?
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
User avatar
FourPart
Posts: 6402
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 3:12 am

Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe tells white farmers 'to go'

Post by FourPart »

A black friend of mine from South Africa told me that since the downfall of Appartheid, and land was taken back from the whites, the land has become unworked, desolate & barren, making it virtually impossible to work at any time in the future, consequently taking away employment from entire black communities.

It's one thing to hand over the land to the 'true' national's ownership, but the majority of the white owners were born & raised in S.A. & have bought their farms in the same way that anyone else might have done, and regardless of who owns them, they will always need someone to administer & manage the land, be they black or white.
recovering conservative
Posts: 529
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:28 pm

Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe tells white farmers 'to go'

Post by recovering conservative »

FourPart;1459252 wrote: A black friend of mine from South Africa told me that since the downfall of Appartheid, and land was taken back from the whites, the land has become unworked, desolate & barren, making it virtually impossible to work at any time in the future, consequently taking away employment from entire black communities.

It's one thing to hand over the land to the 'true' national's ownership, but the majority of the white owners were born & raised in S.A. & have bought their farms in the same way that anyone else might have done, and regardless of who owns them, they will always need someone to administer & manage the land, be they black or white.


As little as I know about Zimbabwe, I do know that it is not South Africa. Back when I was young, and there was a long-running civil war going on between the black majority, and the small contingent of British landowners who controlled all of the wealth, while using blacks as near-slave labour (similar to South Africa); it was called Rhodesia - named after the British opportunist and adventurer Cecil Rhodes, and included Zambia...which had to be given up decades before the Ian Smith Government had to quit.

Through the 70's, there would be the odd report on our news, about Smith, and his hold-out supporters still trying to maintain a whites-only government and segregation laws as unrest steadily grew worse year by year. The one striking recollection I have is that the South African Apartheid Government kept advising Smith to fold, and make a deal with the natives -which the South Africans weren't willing to do themselves at the time!

So, what happened, it seems to me, is that by the time the British colonists were willing to make an honest deal with the locals, it was too late! The equivalent of a 'Nelson Mandela,' - Bishop Abel Muzurewa, quickly lost support among blacks for agreeing to a sham peace agreement that gave blacks some political power/but no economic power...something that Mandela did in actual fact in South Africa...but that's another story.

The takeaway point for me, is that all of the bleating and whining about Mugabe and what the blacks have done since then could have been avoided if the British colonists weren't so stubborn, arrogant and greedy...but, that's typically what happens to colonial empires that are about to fall. They don't show any interest in making deals early on, and by the time they fall, after a long, bloody battle, they fall much further and harder than they would have otherwise! As it turned out...if I'm not mistaken...except for Smith and similar a**holes, most of the British headed for the exit soon after Mugabe took power. I don't think there are that many white farmers to worry about today, one way or another.
User avatar
AnneBoleyn
Posts: 6627
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 3:17 pm

Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe tells white farmers 'to go'

Post by AnneBoleyn »

JJ IS S.African, I hope he sees this thread.
Bruv
Posts: 12181
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 3:05 pm

Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe tells white farmers 'to go'

Post by Bruv »

recovering conservative;1459607 wrote: As little as I know about Zimbabwe, I do know that it is not South Africa. Back when I was young, and there was a long-running civil war going on between the black majority, and the small contingent of British landowners who controlled all of the wealth, while using blacks as near-slave labour (similar to South Africa); it was called Rhodesia - named after the British opportunist and adventurer Cecil Rhodes, and included Zambia...which had to be given up decades before the Ian Smith Government had to quit.

Through the 70's, there would be the odd report on our news, about Smith, and his hold-out supporters still trying to maintain a whites-only government and segregation laws as unrest steadily grew worse year by year. The one striking recollection I have is that the South African Apartheid Government kept advising Smith to fold, and make a deal with the natives -which the South Africans weren't willing to do themselves at the time!

So, what happened, it seems to me, is that by the time the British colonists were willing to make an honest deal with the locals, it was too late! The equivalent of a 'Nelson Mandela,' - Bishop Abel Muzurewa, quickly lost support among blacks for agreeing to a sham peace agreement that gave blacks some political power/but no economic power...something that Mandela did in actual fact in South Africa...but that's another story.

The takeaway point for me, is that all of the bleating and whining about Mugabe and what the blacks have done since then could have been avoided if the British colonists weren't so stubborn, arrogant and greedy...but, that's typically what happens to colonial empires that are about to fall. They don't show any interest in making deals early on, and by the time they fall, after a long, bloody battle, they fall much further and harder than they would have otherwise! As it turned out...if I'm not mistaken...except for Smith and similar a**holes, most of the British headed for the exit soon after Mugabe took power. I don't think there are that many white farmers to worry about today, one way or another.


Nearly right........Smith and his cronies declared Unilateral Declaration of Independence breaking away from direct rule from London, setting themselves up along the lines of another South Africa.

It was then that the UK government negotiated a deal that basically gave one man one vote and the promise to fund the sale of land back into African hands when the land became available, under the understanding 'willing seller willing buyer'

Funding the transfer of land was reneged on by the UK, and over time pressure from the veterans who were promised land during the conflict boiled over into seizures of land and violence. Mugabe......so I understand was manoeuvred into power by UK slight of hand, he led the country well for many years, making it the best educated country in Africa. Unfortunately power has corrupted his original idealism, and the political setup is such that the electorate are bribed or cowed into submission to re-elect the man year ofter year. The place is plaqued by nepotism, patronage and corruption that stands in the way of advancement politically or economically.
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
Bruv
Posts: 12181
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 3:05 pm

Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe tells white farmers 'to go'

Post by Bruv »

AnneBoleyn;1459614 wrote: JJ IS S.African, I hope he sees this thread.


I thought he had a strop and left................again.
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe tells white farmers 'to go'

Post by gmc »

In zimbabwe the whites took the land quite literally at the point of a gun, indeed machine guns by that time. Why should the descendants of invading warlords expect to keep what was taken by force. Any white farmer with half a brain could work out what was going to happen sooner or later, they either fight to keep what they have, compromise or get out.

In the uk our land laws are based on feudal law imposed on us by conquerors - why should we let the royal family and the descendants of their hangers on keep their estates?

Take colour out of the picture it's as basic as the strong take what they want then bleat about injustice when it gets taken back when they are too weak to hold it or have failed to convince the locals they have a legitimte claim.
User avatar
High Threshold
Posts: 2856
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am

Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe tells white farmers 'to go'

Post by High Threshold »

FourPart;1459252 wrote: A black friend of mine from South Africa told me that since the downfall of Appartheid, and land was taken back from the whites, the land has become unworked, desolate & barren, making it virtually impossible to work at any time in the future, consequently taking away employment from entire black communities.




I am a former resident of Rhodesia (Zimbabwe today) and the economy wasn't all that strong even then. It did mean that the few whites had everythying and the Africans had nothing, justified by what the white population generally deemed as traditional African "needs". Any more skimming of resources just had to result in the situation found in Zimbabwe today - but Mugabe doesn't seem to care.
User avatar
High Threshold
Posts: 2856
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am

Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe tells white farmers 'to go'

Post by High Threshold »

recovering conservative;1459607 wrote: As little as I know about Zimbabwe, I do know that it is not South Africa.


Yes, but similarities existed. I lived in Rhodesia between the periods of "Southern Rhodesia" and "Zimbabwe". Coming up from the RSA, Rhodesia was billed as a non-racist nation. I had both of the white South African population tell me that Rhodesia had "not a speck of racism". Well, the Apartheid signs were missing but there were still four toilets in place, suggesting that segregation had been present. Anyway, I lived in the capital city of Salisbury. Today it is called Harare but back then Harare was the black township, out past the edge of town ...... and I can honestly say that I do not recall seeing a single African living within Salisbury city.

I also travelled with the Rhodesian Army on occasion and the 2 black soldiers in the unit were compelled to position themselves at the back corners of the trailing military vehicle, suggesting to me that they were to take the most obvious point of fire in case of a rear, convoy ambush ....... the preferred tactic of the enemy for obvious reasons. I saw also white soldiers taking mock aim at small African children along the road-side who waved at the convoy, as children often do. That disgusted me more than anything else.



recovering conservative;1459607 wrote: ... by the time the British colonists were willing to make an honest deal with the locals, it was too late! ... what the blacks have done since then could have been avoided if the British colonists weren't so stubborn ... most of the British headed for the exit soon after Mugabe took power ...


It may not seem like much of a point to you .... but, ahem ...... I really must protest of your use of the term "British" and "the British colonists". This is both politically and culturally incorrect and it burns my eyes to see it. The people you refer to are not British any more than you are French, or whatever ethnic ancestry your surname "Conservative" represents.
User avatar
High Threshold
Posts: 2856
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am

Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe tells white farmers 'to go'

Post by High Threshold »

gmc;1459624 wrote: In zimbabwe ..... Any white farmer with half a brain could work out what was going to happen sooner or later, they either fight to keep what they have, compromise or get out.


That is only easy for a foreigner to say. Having lived there myself I can tell you that there were many reasons why the white Rhodesian thought he could hold on to power forever. He told the UK to go hang (for one thing) and actually got away with it! Despite the RSA exibiting little support for Rhodesia's unilateral independence the Rhodesian was fairly certain that South Africa would lend a hand when the chips were down, and really, South Africa seemed an invincible force in Africa. Then it was certainly assumed that the white failure to hold Mocambique and Angola was simply the inability of the comparably primitive Portuguese, not the sort of gritty stuff the South African and Rhodesian was made of. No, the Rhodesian really never thought it would end like this.
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe tells white farmers 'to go'

Post by gmc »

High Threshold;1459672 wrote: That is only easy for a foreigner to say. Having lived there myself I can tell you that there were many reasons why the white Rhodesian thought he could hold on to power forever. He told the UK to go hang (for one thing) and actually got away with it! Despite the RSA exibiting little support for Rhodesia's unilateral independence the Rhodesian was fairly certain that South Africa would lend a hand when the chips were down, and really, South Africa seemed an invincible force in Africa. Then it was certainly assumed that the white failure to hold Mocambique and Angola was simply the inability of the comparably primitive Portuguese, not the sort of gritty stuff the South African and Rhodesian was made of. No, the Rhodesian really never thought it would end like this.


Hear what you are saying but I think the key words are "hold on to power" you either do it by force or by having your authority accepted as legitimate. The blacks didn't accept white power as legitimate and the whites didn't have enough enough force on their side.
User avatar
High Threshold
Posts: 2856
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am

Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe tells white farmers 'to go'

Post by High Threshold »

gmc;1459717 wrote: Hear what you are saying but I think the key words are "hold on to power" you either do it by force or by having your authority accepted as legitimate. The blacks didn't accept white power as legitimate and the whites didn't have enough enough force on their side.


Well, you're right of course, and I knew that the day's of the Smith regime were numbered as soon as I crossed the Limpopo - BUT your statement was something about how obvious it ought to have been to the white Rhodesian. I merely responded that it was far from obvious, for the reasons I gave.

The Rhodesian saw himself as superior to the Portuguese, "less" racist than the RSA's apartheid (and even righteous by mislead notion), sturdy as a Grey's & Selous Scout, and able to call on assistance from the almighty RSA, if the need arose.
recovering conservative
Posts: 529
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:28 pm

Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe tells white farmers 'to go'

Post by recovering conservative »

Bruv;1459621 wrote: Nearly right........Smith and his cronies declared Unilateral Declaration of Independence breaking away from direct rule from London, setting themselves up along the lines of another South Africa.

It was then that the UK government negotiated a deal that basically gave one man one vote and the promise to fund the sale of land back into African hands when the land became available, under the understanding 'willing seller willing buyer'
You have reminded me of some of the nuances of the long-running civil war in Rhodesia that I lost track of....largely I suppose because the issue was a sideshow in North American media....and looking back, it was likely only in the news for a few reasons: the minority were white...providing a much greater sense of attachment for the North American audience than a story about revolutions and civil wars in post-colonial Africa, and

-the Rhodesian War was useful for both pro-segregation and pro-integration advocates in American media.

If your version of events...which closely follows the brief public line at the time...that Smith was a white rebel who wouldn't listen to the Mother country is accurate, later evidence indicated that he had the tacit support of successive U.S. governments...if he had in fact lost support of England! Otherwise, his government would have been frozen out of trading relationships, and it would have been difficult for white rhodesia to try to go to the Soviet Union looking for support.



Funding the transfer of land was reneged on by the UK, and over time pressure from the veterans who were promised land during the conflict boiled over into seizures of land and violence. Mugabe......so I understand was manoeuvred into power by UK slight of hand, he led the country well for many years, making it the best educated country in Africa. Unfortunately power has corrupted his original idealism, and the political setup is such that the electorate are bribed or cowed into submission to re-elect the man year ofter year. The place is plaqued by nepotism, patronage and corruption that stands in the way of advancement politically or economically.


I noticed prior to posting, that others close to the situation there take issue with the notion that Mugabe had any outside support from England or the U.S.. I recall at the time, that Mugabe was portrayed in the west as a marxist revolutionary, and the positive buzz that came with articles on the obvious choice of the west - Bishop Abel Muzorewa, gave the strong impression that he was their man in Zimbabwe, and the one they were hoping would be elected president (which he was, when he accepted that first constitution that Smith offered). It seems pretty hard to believe that England was backing Mugabe, when Margaret Thatcher was already Prime Minister of England, and fighting against sanctions against South Africa.
recovering conservative
Posts: 529
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:28 pm

Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe tells white farmers 'to go'

Post by recovering conservative »

High Threshold;1459672 wrote: That is only easy for a foreigner to say. Having lived there myself I can tell you that there were many reasons why the white Rhodesian thought he could hold on to power forever. He told the UK to go hang (for one thing) and actually got away with it! Despite the RSA exibiting little support for Rhodesia's unilateral independence the Rhodesian was fairly certain that South Africa would lend a hand when the chips were down, and really, South Africa seemed an invincible force in Africa. Then it was certainly assumed that the white failure to hold Mocambique and Angola was simply the inability of the comparably primitive Portuguese, not the sort of gritty stuff the South African and Rhodesian was made of. No, the Rhodesian really never thought it would end like this.


Before the fall of Mozambique, Smith knew that the South Africans were fully aware that Rhodesia was the frontline, and without them, the guns that had overrun Mozambique would turn on South Africa.
recovering conservative
Posts: 529
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:28 pm

Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe tells white farmers 'to go'

Post by recovering conservative »

High Threshold;1459669 wrote: Yes, but similarities existed. I lived in Rhodesia between the periods of "Southern Rhodesia" and "Zimbabwe". Coming up from the RSA, Rhodesia was billed as a non-racist nation. I had both of the white South African population tell me that Rhodesia had "not a speck of racism". Well, the Apartheid signs were missing but there were still four toilets in place, suggesting that segregation had been present. Anyway, I lived in the capital city of Salisbury. Today it is called Harare but back then Harare was the black township, out past the edge of town ...... and I can honestly say that I do not recall seeing a single African living within Salisbury city.
Reminds me of how most of my uncles from Michigan didn't see why blacks felt disadvantaged in America...even in the deep south. Although one of my aunts did, and was a strong civil rights supporter. Her viewpoint came from being a teacher at a school with increasing black student population, and unlike my uncles...who's factory shop floors were even informally segregated (even the cafeteria segregated between white and black tables), my aunt was in close contact with the students and their parents.

I also travelled with the Rhodesian Army on occasion and the 2 black soldiers in the unit were compelled to position themselves at the back corners of the trailing military vehicle, suggesting to me that they were to take the most obvious point of fire in case of a rear, convoy ambush ....... the preferred tactic of the enemy for obvious reasons. I saw also white soldiers taking mock aim at small African children along the road-side who waved at the convoy, as children often do. That disgusted me more than anything else.






It may not seem like much of a point to you .... but, ahem ...... I really must protest of your use of the term "British" and "the British colonists". This is both politically and culturally incorrect and it burns my eyes to see it. The people you refer to are not British any more than you are French, or whatever ethnic ancestry your surname "Conservative" represents.
I was under the impression at the time, that the white Rhodesians were almost all from England, and therefore still connected to British culture, even if separated for a couple or more generations. Whereas the Afrikaanders of South Africa really saw themselves as separate and unique, and only vaguely aware of their origins in Holland. I discovered long afterword, that they even crafted their own mythology of manifest destiny...similar to U.S. and Israeli versions of being some sort of chosen people by God and having divine right to force out natives/or enslave them.
User avatar
High Threshold
Posts: 2856
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am

Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe tells white farmers 'to go'

Post by High Threshold »

recovering conservative;1459735 wrote: Before the fall of Mozambique, Smith knew that the South Africans were fully aware that Rhodesia was the frontline, and without them, the guns that had overrun Mozambique would turn on South Africa.


I don't really think Rhodesia was considered "the front-line" but rather the "last line" of defence as far as the RSA was concerned. The UK, France, Belgium, and Portugal had all fallen - some by armed conflict, some by political decision. Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Kenya still did have a friendly post-colonial face intact (at that time) but really it looked very much like the domino effect, from north to south so Rhodesia was thought of as the last hurdle before the "real struggle" in South Africa. The fact that the RSA fell so quickly was a shock to me, and I assume many others, but I doubt if there were those who predicted it. Even the AWB went silently.

Anyway, South Africa wasn't openly very supportive of Rhodesia after UDI and most Rhodesians were bitter about that. But what went on behind the scenes I have no idea.

BTW: South Africa sent armed forces to South-West Africa but nothing (as far as I am aware) to Rhodesia.
User avatar
High Threshold
Posts: 2856
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am

Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe tells white farmers 'to go'

Post by High Threshold »

recovering conservative;1459737 wrote: Reminds me of how most of my uncles from Michigan didn't see why blacks felt disadvantaged in America ...


Then you understand the problem very well. That's it really. A deep-felt conviction that apartheid (and similar segregated philosophy) is just, and aside from any percentage of simple hatred for blacks ...... a sense of such a system being God's will. The dilemma is in seeing what is acceptable and what isn't. For example: Travelling through Africa and Asia I was often confounded by the misuse of "western" (sit) toilets. Squatting over a porcelain hole in the floor is the indigenous method, and when given no choice, well ......... you do what you've got to do to get the job done. But "western" toilets can be perched upon with the result being a turd left on the rim. Now it is un-useable. So -"white" and "non-white" segregated toilets in the RSA were actually logical. I can't say that I saw any sense in two separate entrances to the post office however!







recovering conservative;1459737 wrote: I was under the impression at the time, that the white Rhodesians were almost all from England, and therefore still connected to British culture, even if separated for a couple or more generations.


I'm sure that I won't explain this adequately, but I'll try. There were many different ethnic descendants that made up Rhodesia, and England was not thought of in a very positive light, so even those who had English "roots" might never have said so.

Your own Canada might be the best example to use. The Quèbècois might call you "English" (in a similar way the Boer described the English, native-speaking Rhodesian and South African) - (and the Amish of the U.S. call the native-speaking American "English") but you're not English, are you. Nor were the Rhodesians.

recovering conservative;1459737 wrote: Whereas the Afrikaanders of South Africa really saw themselves as separate and unique, and only vaguely aware of their origins in Holland.


The Afrikaner is a mix of Protestant Europeans - German and Dutch Lutherans as well as French Huguenots. You say they are from Holland but that isn't exactly correct. It was the Dutch East Indian Company that traded with India and Indonesia and their sailing ships had to navigate the long route round the Cape so when they decided to establish a quasi-temporary port at the Cape of Good Hope (from which their ships could replenish) the refugee Lutherans and Huguenots (who were given asylum in Holland) were offered an opportunity to start a new life founded upon their religious belief. What happened after that is a long story and if you're interested I can tell you. Furthermore, the language of Afrikaans is actually a mix of French, Bantu, Indonesian (the only slaves in South Africa) and Flemish, rather than Dutch.
recovering conservative
Posts: 529
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:28 pm

Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe tells white farmers 'to go'

Post by recovering conservative »

High Threshold;1459742 wrote:

Anyway, South Africa wasn't openly very supportive of Rhodesia after UDI and most Rhodesians were bitter about that. But what went on behind the scenes I have no idea.
I'll assume it was a matter of cutting their losses and not wasting money and soldiers on Rhodesia.



BTW: South Africa sent armed forces to South-West Africa but nothing (as far as I am aware) to Rhodesia.
South Africa annexed Namibia (Southwest Africa) and added it to their territories. It was one of the few colonies that Germany had acquired during their brief foray into becoming a colonial power in the late 19th century. Not only did South Africa try to hold on to it and fight a long-running civil war to keep it, but they also sent troops in to Angola after the Portuguese gave up all of their colonies virtually overnight....leaving chaos behind in cases where their were divided rebel groups (Angola) and neighbouring nations seizing former colonies (East Timor).
User avatar
High Threshold
Posts: 2856
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am

Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe tells white farmers 'to go'

Post by High Threshold »

recovering conservative;1459800 wrote: South Africa annexed Namibia (Southwest Africa) and added it to their territories. It was one of the few colonies that Germany had acquired during their brief foray into becoming a colonial power in the late 19th century.


Yes. Dahomey (Togo), Cameroon and Tanganyika (Tanzania) were the others.
Bruv
Posts: 12181
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 3:05 pm

Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe tells white farmers 'to go'

Post by Bruv »

“I am Resigning in December 2014″ – Robert Mugabe

I wonder if he will.
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
User avatar
Snowfire
Posts: 4835
Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2009 9:34 am

Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe tells white farmers 'to go'

Post by Snowfire »

Well I'm not sure I recognise Mugabe from his quotes in that piece

We want people to be free to elect whoever they want to represent them


Do you respect the freedom of others and refrain from interfering with them?


Do you think he believes what he says or has he just had an epiphany. In the process of getting rid of the great evil that is white farmers - rightly or wrongly - he has burdened his people with great hardships not least an appalling human rights record, reckless economic suicide, bulldozing of urban reserves which have left thousands homeless and nothing replaced all these years later.

Its time Zimbabwe gets the leader it deserves. Political and economic stability they didnt havent had for some years and certainly didnt receive from Mugabe. So much has been lost

I don't know who is in the background, politically but I do hope they get to elect the future leaders freely
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."

Winston Churchill
User avatar
High Threshold
Posts: 2856
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am

Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe tells white farmers 'to go'

Post by High Threshold »

Bruv;1462162 wrote: -“I am Resigning ... ″ – Robert Mugabe.


So did Vlado in Moscow.

Bruv;1462162 wrote: I wonder if he will.


This is a rhetorical question, isn't it. I see you're already coiling - getting ready to strike.:sneaky:
User avatar
High Threshold
Posts: 2856
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am

Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe tells white farmers 'to go'

Post by High Threshold »

Snowfire;1462163 wrote: Its time Zimbabwe gets the leader it deserves.


No, not just yet. There's still about 15 dollars left in the country that Bob hasn't nicked yet.

Return to “Other Regions”