Fortunately for Mugabe, Zimbabwe doesn't have oil so he doesn't have to worry about an invasion to liberate it's oil, er-uhm, people.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/africa/article4116638.ece
Steve,
That is truly horrific. You still believe that it would be wrong for any government not claiming jurisdiction over Zimbabwe to send troops or use military force to stop such things from happening, even if no diplomatic solution appears likely, correct?
((( starchild )))
If it would result in the sort of peaceful utopia we now find in Iraq after the US invasion (following Iraq's oil nationalization), or the idyllic theocracy we see in Iran after Operation Ajax (following Mossadegh's nationalization of Iran's oil), how could I not support invasion?
It would be more correct to say that I feel that history shows that the problems of the third world are in large part the result external meddling.
Steve & Starchild,
It's interesting that the writer of this article chose to use the words "Robert Mugabe's militia." This choice of words gives the false impression to Western readers that a private sector, pro-second amendment group committed this horrific act. The true is the Zimbabwe government committed this act. My guess is that the reporter, probably a leftist, can't fathom the reality that public servants, more often than not, turn out to be butchers, or, at the very least, looters.
All the best,
Don Fields