I am a simple soul

claymore

claymore

Well-Known Member
Joined
18 Jun 2001
Messages
10,654
Location
In the far North
Visit site
So forgive me if I feel that the current debacle concerning the England Cricket tour to Zimababwe is reminiscent of the stupidity that used to go on with South Africa. There are still people saying - "We are just cricketers, just going to play cricket" Do we never learn?

<hr width=100% size=1><font color=purple>regards
Claymore<font color=purple>
/forums/images/icons/smile.gif
http://www.whoi.edu/services/facilities/CLAYMORE/
 
It is possible to arque the case for land reform, are we recieving the whole picture? A prog on radio 4 last week was conciliatory, besides which if we don't tour, you can kiss goodbye to the olympic 2012 dream.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
It seems they have learned; they are not going. Which is something I do agree with; about the only thing concerning cricket I do understand. Awfully hard ball isn't it?

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Given my recollections of the young Peter Hain and his activities I wonder what he is doing now?

Still I suppose he got the leg up for his political career then, and now he has changed parties and improved his prospects principles just don't seem that important?

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Hmm, telling us all with a straight face that we're all safer from the threat of terrorism under a labour govt!!!!

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
It's a disgrace for the game. The brinkmanship between ICC and ECB, the exposure of the players to personal moral decisions, the failure of our government to provide a lead. It now comes down to a last minute standoff between Mugabe's immigration policies and a spineless ECB.

Sad, so very sad.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Are we talking land reform, is that what its all about? Or starving half of your population to death, because they dont agree with you? Nobody should support a regime such as this, by sport or otherwise. IMHO

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
The British and American Govts. sold us down the river to Mugabe in '78 because it was the P.C thing to do. They knew what he was then and they know what he is now
No-one knows how many have died there since "independance".
What does a cricket tour matter by comparison ?
I hope Hain and Soames and Mugabe share the same boat across the Styx, 'cos it will cost more than a couple of coins to get over.
Sorry - it makes me incapable of rational thoughts.
Ken

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Amazing.. we invade Iraq but send a cricket team to Zimbabwe, perhaps Iran and S Korea would do well to take up cricket?

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Money is the root of all evil...

...and that's why nobody wanted to put their head on the block and find themselves at the wrong end of a £10 million lawsuit. Allegedly. Money takes precedence over morals for sportsmen and their governing bodies, 'twould appear. My sympathy for the players is not nonexistent, but they chose not to make a stand either.
The only solution is to re-instate the amateur status of the game at the international level. Then nobody will care who tours where. The trouble is it will be a while before that happens, as hell will have to freeze over first.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
<we invade Iraq but send a cricket team to Zimbabwe>

the minister said this morning that we in britain 'do not have state-controlled sport'. what a row there would have been if the government had stopped the tour. it's unfortunate that the cricketers can't stand up to the ICC but we can't blame the government for that.

a couple of points about the previous posts - the international pressure on zimbabwe isn't about the thugs grabbing white-owned land (that would be too non-PC) but about them starving their political opponents, i.e. other tribes, by grabbing the little food left in the country.

the UN are the only body who can 'legitimately' enter another country to intervene in disputes within its borders. the US was able to claim legitimacy and get some UN support for the invasion of iraq because of the threat to themselves. they could not cite the removal of a vicious dictator as their reason, however desirable everyone agreed that to be (we notice that no anti-war protestors are demanding the reinstatement of saddam, a clear case of having your cake and eating it).

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Must correct you there.

Mugabe is guil;ty of systematic genocide exactly the charge levelled at Saddam.

The UN did no legitimise the invasion it asked for more time for the inspectorate, instead we were told there was a grave and imminent threat.

I am sure many in Iraq would currenly welcome a return to Saddam .. amd eventually they will get another Saddam. The culture in that part of the world is not ready for western style democracy.

The English cricket board did ask the FO for advice not to go (finanancial & ICCC implications). The FO office refused to give that advice.

Looking behind the window dressing the reason for entering Iraq was regime change to ensure access to resources plain and simple. It was an illegal act with an attempted justification with spurious intelligence.


<hr width=100% size=1>
 
In fact the more cynical would suggest that BUsh did'nt want to give the inspectors more time as it would prove undisputedly that there were no WMD and remove any chance of an invasion!
I am suspicious of "messianic" leaders whether they be muslim or christian.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
things were different then .... simpler, perhaps ... we selected Basil D'Olivera and his inclusion was not welcomed by the South African government who considered it a deliberate provocation which it was whereas the current lot have trundled over there, knowing Mugabe's an affront to human decency, because commercially it is prudent to do so .....

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
indeed mugabe and saddam are from the same mould but the US could not use that as a justification for the war. the point i was making is that however repugnant the regime in zimbabwe there will be no invasion to prevent their excesses any more than there will be in darfur. the present state of international politics dictates that you can do what you like within your own borders as long as you don't threaten anyone outside.

the term 'illegal' when talking about fighting is meaningless.

we hear daily about the fighting in iraq but from time to time a journalist polls the locals and they consistently come up with around 95% of the population preferring the new situation to saddam's rule. the minority still fighting are baathists who want their power back and religious extremists from outside who want to destabilise the country for their own agenda.

you may well be right that democracy won't work in iraq but i believe it is likely to fail because votes will be cast on ethnic/religious lines giving rise to disenfranchised minorities as has happened in northern ireland, sudan and many others.

it is an unfortunate fact that the introduction of democracy so often replaces the rule of a minority group by rule of another group, considered 'democratic' and 'good' because they are in a majority. what is rarely achieved is rule 'of the people by the people'. in iraq we are likely to see sunni rule replaced by shia rule.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Och its quite easy .. you just find some intelligence claiming Mugabe is developing a weapons programme, there must be something around somewhere, and then go in.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
.. reminding us that the UN has no legitimate right to interfere internally in a country is not necessarily an error on the part of those who drafted the UN charter. We can not chose to ignore such law as it exists simply because inconvenient. I don't doubt that the invasion of Iraq was illegal. we got mightily upset by the US interfering in northern ireland ....


<hr width=100% size=1>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top