Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Sunday, 11th May 2008 Change Date

Great Dobbies offer with Scotland on Sunday

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the Scotland On Sunday site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Mugabe's rival seeks independent count



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 04 May 2008
ZIMBABWE'S opposition yesterday held out the possibility that its leader would face Robert Mugabe in a presidential run-off, but called on the nation's neighbours to verify the vote count from the first round.
Thokozani Khupe, vice president of the Movement for Democratic Change, said the group still believed a run-off was unnecessary, maintaining that opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai won the first round outright on March 29.

The Zimbabwe Electoral C
ommission released results on Friday, giving Tsvangirai the lead, but not the clear majority needed to avoid a run-off with Mugabe.

The opposition rejected those results as fraudulent.

At a news conference yesterday, Khupe called on the Southern African Development Committee to help verify the results. "We still need to be convinced before we participate in a run-off," she said.

Opposition leaders were expected to meet this weekend to consider their next step. No run-off date has been set.

Deputy information minister Bright Matonga said the constitution requires a second round no sooner than 21 days from the announcement of the results, and no later than a year.

The opposition has consistently rejected the idea of a run-off, but its stance has appeared to soften since the official results were released and Mugabe's party said he would take part.

On Friday, Tsvangirai's deputy, Tendai Biti, acknowledged that skipping a second round could result in another term for Mugabe.

Biti told reporters in Johannesburg that the only way out of the impasse was a power-sharing government led by Tsvangirai, but with no role for Mugabe.

Biti also said a run-off would be illegal and there could not be one "for the simple and good reasons that the country is burning" amid violence and economic collapse from rampant inflation.

International observers have questioned whether a run-off would be legitimate, given the violence the opposition has faced.

The opposition's leaders, including Biti and Tsvangirai, have been staying out of Zimbabwe for fear of arrest.

The New York-based Human Rights Watch said: "The ruling Zanu-PF party, the army and so-called war veterans have conducted a brutal state-sponsored campaign of violence, torture and intimidation against (opposition] activists and supporters." The group said limits on the opposition's access to the media and questions about the impartiality of electoral officials have also not been addressed.

"The ruling party's bloody crackdown on the opposition makes a free and fair run-off vote a tragic joke," Georgette Gagnon, Human Rights Watch's Africa director, said in the statement.

In a separate statement, Unicef said there were growing reports of children fleeing their homes with their families as a result of political violence, and aid groups were finding it increasingly difficult to operate.

Mugabe's officials have denied fomenting political violence, instead accusing the opposition of being behind the widespread unrest.



The full article contains 476 words and appears in Scotland On Sunday newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 03 May 2008 10:31 PM
  • Source: Scotland On Sunday
  • Location: Scotland
  • Related Topics: Zimbabwe
 
1

Rulesbutnotrulers,

Federation, not separation 04/05/2008 06:39:05
There should also be studies to check on intimidation and reprisals against areas that vote against Mugabe.
2

KampungHighlander,

Jakarta 04/05/2008 07:15:33
#1

Yes thats whats needed lots of studies.

Study all the people that have been burned out of their homes.

Study all the people who have been beaten and killed by Zanu-PF youth militia and war veterans.

And don't forget a special study on the 18 month old child who is in a coma after being beaten unconscious by Mugabes apes.

Then we can take all our little studies to the UN so that China can veto any action.

Why is it Liberals are such pathetic w@nkers?

Nothing but half measures, consensus building and committees for milk toasts of the political world.

Sorry but the time the for spineless Liberal approach is well past. Its time to read this regime the riot act.
3

Rulesbutnotrulers,

Federation, not separation 04/05/2008 09:09:23
#2. You don't like accurate information? You don't want to collect proof that any second round of voting is corrupt? You want someone (not you I presume) to risk their lives taking on Mugabe's thugs? What a Wally!
4

Media 1,

cape town 04/05/2008 09:11:54
Harlem, Brixton, Compton, Nigeria,Rwanda, Haiti or Zimbabwe to name but a few of the many many failures on planet Earth, all have one thing in common...There is a pattern, and its real!
5

KampungHighlander,

Jakarta 04/05/2008 09:41:20
#3

So what is all this in aid of then? UN sanctions (Not with Chinas veto)

International Criminal Court referal? (More than enough evidence already.

How in the world could you even think that there is the remotest possibility that a second round could be anything but unfair when:

The Ruling Party Detains Opposition Supporters

Ruling Party beats Opposition Supporters

Ruling Party has Arrested every member of the Elections Commission that is not a ruling party member.

Who is going to carry out your study (not you I presume your to much of a snivelling w@nker)

The SADC?

The African Union?

The Old Dictators Association?

They about the only ones who are allowed in.

#4 Given your obviously low opinion of Black people, why do you chose to make your home in a predominately Black country?
6

KampungHighlander,

Jakarta 04/05/2008 09:56:58
#3

I dont want anybody to risk their lives taking on Mugabes thugs when the Zimbabweans seem unwilling to do that themselves.

Thats why I would prepose a 2 step solution.

Tell the Zimbabweans that the second round must include Western Elections Observers. If they refuse then you go to step 2.

Step 2 is 10 Stealth Bombers in the middle of the night raining 200 satelitte guided JDAM's on Mugabe and his 199 best friends houses.

If the Zimbabweans are still incapable of defeating Zanu-PF after the entire upper echelon has been removed then they don't deserve to be free.
7

oder,

Scotland 04/05/2008 10:07:27
what should be understood by now that is Mugabe only knows violence! the hope that he will voluntary hand over control is pie in the sky,wishful thinking! an excuse for doing nothing! When it was Rhodesia there was food for Africa! double the African population! and had one of the highest standards of living in all Africa (for Africans) more Africans at school 1 in 6 compared to the rest of Africa, Ethiopia 1 in 101 which was the worst, our politicians movers and shakers
like Mugabe know how to destroy! now paralyzed with fear they cannot move against him! Mugabe has to be removed by someone!
8

oder,

Scotland 04/05/2008 10:12:34
6 KampungHighlander,Jakarta

Step 2 your only viable option, now the politicians need to wake up!
9

Biker,

Ayr 04/05/2008 15:45:59
Kampung Highlander. I dont agree on your proposals. I agree however that Mugabi and his thugs need to be removed forthwith. Eventualy this will happen due to international opinion (and sanctions). But what comes after is far more serious. Tribal warfare, retaliatios against ZanuPF people and the like. Unfortunately the solution (Removing Mugabi) is only the start.
10

Dáithí,

San Jose 04/05/2008 16:40:38
#2 - KampungHighlander

>"Sorry but the time the for spineless Liberal approach is well past. Its time to read this regime the riot act."

Correct, KH, but the US/UK and their allies have been receiving an unending litany of insults, hatred and condemnation for 'acting' against a brutal mid-east dictator and a ruthless, religious extremist government. It would be any different were we to act in Darfur or Zimbabwe?

NOPE - probably worse!

I've stated my belief that we are to the point where the self-serving, navel-gazing, whining minority (and the people that listen to them) have almost completely paralyzed any effort to 'do' anything in these situations.

No, they will 'demand studies', or say that their pols should 'do something' or 'make a statement' (or worse, rationalizations that THOSE PEOPLE 'should take care of their own problems' or that 'they've always been that way, you can't change it) in MOST indignant manner:

- but no, direct action will NOT be allowed, and the Pols know that if they were to advocate actually doing something then they would undergo 'the Blair treatment' themselves.

Why - because of MONEY!

These people refuse to see any of 'their' money go to better the lives of anyone other than themselves.

That is all there is to it. Darfur, Zimbabwe, Africa, any oppressed country on earth can give up hope that the self-indulgent West will DO anything.

China, however, is more than willing to step into the void.
11

Biker,

Ayr 04/05/2008 16:50:23
Diathi. More spurious rantings eh?
12

Dáithí,

San Jose 04/05/2008 17:18:16
#11 - Biker

It's called having an opinion. If you don't have one, don't begrudge others that do.
13

Dáithí,

San Jose 04/05/2008 17:21:45
Biker -

Since you seem to be a bit weak on offering your own opinions, let be see if I can coax one out of you:

Perhaps you can forward what you believe will actually and substantially be done about Zimbabwe, and why?
14

Dáithí,

San Jose 05/05/2008 03:34:03
Biker -

Well, it's been a while Biker. Don't worry, we didn't expect anything from you.
15

Biker,

Ayr 05/05/2008 20:28:10
Perhaps Diathi its because I dont spend every moment waiting for another tome of wisdom to come down from heaven from you.
I bounce the question back, give us your pearls of unbiased opinion as non of my answers to your posts previously have been deemed good enough to answer.
You know sycophancy and wordplay only get you so far fireman.
The UN need to be given the mandate to run the country until the mess is sorted out. With propre funding and troop placements this could be undertaken to provide safety and stability to the region and people.
Now I am aware that this will raise derision from the likes of you and will come as no surprise. The US and UK being two of the worst offenders for not paying their dues, but remember Rwanda? Had the US/UK not provaricated and stalled (and even hampered)perhaps fewer people would have died. Watch Zimbabwe carefully and count the bodies.
16

Dáithí,

San Jose 05/05/2008 21:05:14
#15 - Biker

>"Perhaps Diathi its because I dont spend every moment waiting for another tome of wisdom to come down from heaven from you."

You should, it would enrich your life.

>"The UN need to be given the mandate to run the country until the mess is sorted out."

Oh, wow. That'll do it.

>"With propre funding and troop placements this could be undertaken to provide safety and stability to the region and people."

WHO'S troops? WHO'S funding? You're aware that the US/UK (and Israel) are the only ones capable of actually sending in and supporting any serious amount of troops?

>"Now I am aware that this will raise derision from the likes of you and will come as no surprise."

But they have no WMD's! Why criticize Bush/Blair for removing a murderous dictator in Iraq, a murderous far-right religious government in Afghanistan, then say 'send in the troops' to a situation where NO threat is presented to your nation?

>"The US and UK being two of the worst offenders for not paying their dues,"

So THIS is your excuse for UN inaction? Are you aware that the US withheld dues EXACTLY because the UN was
unwilling to reform? (BTW, some minimal reforms were enacted so the US has repaid 2/3 of the balance).

So if the US/UK payed all of their dues then the UN would be a forceful and effective body?

Are you kidding?

cont...
17

Dáithí,

San Jose 05/05/2008 21:13:28
#15 (cont)

>Rwanda - "Had the US/UK not provaricated and stalled (and even hampered)perhaps fewer people would have died."

Really? So, by claiming that US/UK 'prevarication' prevented anyone from helping, you prove me right when I claim that the US/UK are the only UN members capable of actually doing anything substantial.

Thanks.

From:
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200109/power-genocide

"As the terror in Rwanda had unfolded, Clinton had shown virtually no interest in stopping the genocide, and his Administration had stood by as the death toll rose into the hundreds of thousands."

Apparently Clinton felt the same way that the anti-interventionist crowd feels today:

1. They (Zimbabwe) has no WMD's
2. What is the exit strategy?
3. Why should Americans die again in some far-off country.
4. Why should we spend our money on them when we should spend it on ourselves?
5. They are tribal, they'll always be that way.

You get the idea.

Perhaps electing Bush was one way that the American people rejected the Clinton's failure to stand up in the face of injustice.

(cont...)
18

Dáithí,

San Jose 05/05/2008 21:27:00
#15 (Cont...)

>"You know sycophancy and wordplay only get you so far fireman."

Exactly, which is why I challenge you to actually stand up for something.

I take it that your answer was "UN & Troops)

Now, here's mine.

The EU needs to 'adopt' Africa. The entire continent was, at one time, colonies of Europe. Every European country that had a former colony takes it upon themselves to modernize their old colonies.

Supply police troops when needed for stabilization.
Supply expertise in infrasctucture.
Supply teachers, books, schools, computers
Supply doctors, nurses, medicine.
Supply technical schools.
Supply investment and tax incentives for business.


Every European nation takes it PERSONALLY. No more excuses like 'waiting for the UN' or 'the US didn't pay its dues.'

France steps into the void in her old colonies, Britain, Portugal, Belgium, Spain, even Germany and Italy.

Quit using the UN as an excuse to NOT do something, get your collective @sses in gear and do something!

Who would stop you, the UN?

Don't make me laugh.

So there - an original idea. It's not so tough.
19

Dáithí,

San Jose 05/05/2008 21:29:44
Correction - should be "UN and Troops" (not and end-parenthesis).

Other typos are minor.
20

Biker,

Ayr 06/05/2008 10:44:59
The US needs to Adopt Africa. Absolutely not, your adoption policies have been unhelpfull in the past.
there are many other contributers to the UN, only the US and UK have provided most of the fiscal support over the past decades. Or not as the case may be.
Clinton and the US witheld funding due to Chinese vetos and the like, NOT because they felt the situation hopeless. Simply for political expediency. Also if the finances aint there, you cant pay for the service, but I suppose the US/UK never even considered this. I suggest you read Romeo Delair's book on the subject. It may enlighten you to your mistakes.
As for who's troops and who's ability. Ask yourself how many members are there in the UN, and they all bare responsability.
Simply stating that because Zimbabwe has no WMD is no excuse, after all neither did Iraq oh but I suppose the oil had no small part to play. Mind you Zimbabwe has mineral wealth as the Chinese are discovering so perhaps the US/UK will provaricate again.
Hopefully you notice that I also include the UK in this post as I feel they are equally responsible, and unlike you I wont decend into the usual sycophancy and rant which you seem to enjoy.
21

Biker,

Ayr 06/05/2008 10:48:41
Diathi. As for your comments about the US/UK/Isreal being the only powers capable of sending troops. What about Canada, Russia, Australia, Japan, China and the rest. As I remember Canada , Belgium, and India were the only countries to send troops into Rwanda.
22

Dáithí,

San Jose 06/05/2008 16:02:34
POST #20 – Biker

>”The US needs to Adopt Africa. Absolutely not, your adoption policies have been unhelpfull in the past”.

Uh, Biker – that’s not what I said. In (post #18) I said: “The EU needs to 'adopt' Africa”.

Please review the posts more carefully, this appears to be some weak effort to avoid the point – unless you didn’t read it correctly, then it appears that you just weren’t paying attention.

>”Clinton and the US witheld funding due to Chinese vetos and the like”.

Clinton was completely unaware of the situation because he was, well, Clinton.

>” Also if the finances aint there, you cant pay for the service…”

Another argument for having the financially better-off EU post-colonialists like France and Germany take responsibility for their former ‘colonies’.

>”Ask yourself how many members are there in the UN, and they all bare responsability.

So Mexico bears responsibility for the mess in Africa? So Bolivia shares in the responsibility? No logic there Biker, try again.

>”Simply stating that because Zimbabwe has no WMD is no excuse…”

Then why is it used as one to condemn the US/UK and their allies for voiding the removal of a brutal dictator in Iraq?

>“Hopefully you notice that I also include the UK in this post as I feel they are equally responsible…

Yes - since I can clearly read and understand the written word and have no need to replace statements like “The EU needs to 'adopt' Africa” with statements like “The US needs to Adopt Africa”, as you did.

If you truly feel that the UK is equally responsible (from a position of support), then why would you hold France, Spain, Italy, Germany, Belgium or Portugal less responsible?

>...and unlike you I wont decend into the usual sycophancy and rant which you seem to enjoy.

You are in no position to look down your nose at anyone when you when you manipulate other peoples words, Biker.
23

Dáithí,

San Jose 06/05/2008 16:05:56
POST #21 – Biker

>”Diathi. As for your comments about the US/UK/Isreal being the only powers capable of sending troops..."

No, once again my actual statement was :"...the US/UK (and Israel) are the only ones capable of actually sending in AND SUPPORTING ANY SERIOUS AMOUNT OF TROOPS"

You seem to have left out the important part – at least this time you didn’t substitute different words into my statement.

>”What about Canada, Russia, Australia, Japan, China and the rest.”

Why should they pay to ‘send in and SUPPORT any SERIOUS amount of troops’ to former European colonies?

Biker, your argument here is, of course, one of money – you feel that everyone should pay!

I say NO – the EU should pay, they were their colonies to begin with.

So far, you haven’t given me any reason why not.

24

Biker,

Ayr 07/05/2008 17:03:23
Diathi. My appologies for inserting Us instead of EU.
My argument is that as we are all supposed to be members of the UN, and the UN the police, perhaps if all the dues were paid and the support offered then it would work.
Clinton was completely unaware of the situation because he was, well, Clinton.
Nonsence, Clinton was well aware as was the senate, they just chose to sweep it under the carpet after the Chinese veto'd the posible action
Another argument for having the financially better-off EU post-colonialists like France and Germany take responsibility for their former ‘colonies’.
Another argument for having the financially better-off EU post-colonialists like France and Germany take responsibility for their former ‘colonies’.
Another argument for having the financially better-off EU post-colonialists like France and Germany take responsibility for their former ‘colonies’.
I also dont agree that France and Germany (and the UK alone should take the unilateral stance of "sorting" the situation out. It has been many years since the UK and the like held sway in these regions and to attempt to inteceed would only serve to enflame the situation. This needs to be an INTERNATIONAl approach.
25

Biker,

Ayr 07/05/2008 17:12:47
Diathi. I did not say that the US/UK were the only nations who should send in troops. What I said was that If all the funding owed to the UN had been paid (and we do pay the most) perhaps the availability of other nations might have existed.
>”What about Canada, Russia, Australia, Japan, China and the rest.”

Why should they pay to ‘send in and SUPPORT any SERIOUS amount of troops’ to former European colonies?
As I previously stated, this is an international issue and should be addressed as such
It rather amazes me that you take this "unilateral" approach to Zimbabwe but were will to enter into a war on the pretext of WMD, and ask for UK help as well. I suppose when the US decides to enter Iran, you will be scrubbing around looking for help there too. It works both ways, not just what the US decides is relevant.
You are indeed correct about the money issue. You want a safer world then there is a cost. You dont pick and choose what to get involved in.
I understand that th UN is far from perfect, but in the absence of anything better perhaps reforming it and operating with its auspices is better than not.
26

Dáithí,

San Jose 08/05/2008 01:20:21
#24 - Biker:

>"Diathi. My appologies for inserting Us instead of EU."

That's OK big guy, we all do it. But it did throw me for a loop, I thought that it was an intentional slap.

>"My argument is that as we are all supposed to be members of the UN, and the UN the police, perhaps if all the dues were paid and the support offered then it would work."

I feel that the UN as currently constituted needs to implement reforms, and that the US withheld dues to get this done. When some were implemented, they US has almost caught up, I believe.

Be that as it may, I don't think that money will solve the problem - there needs to be responsibility, authority and a desire on a PERSONAL level that can only be achieved on a direct nation-to-nation level.

I have to leave for a bit (kinda' cumbersome trying to hold an international discussion due to time zones and constraints). I'll post some precise ideas in my next post.

Thanks - Dáithí
27

Dáithí,

San Jose 08/05/2008 01:35:11
cont...

I said - "Clinton was completely unaware of the situation because he was, well, Clinton"

You replied - "Nonsence, Clinton was well aware as was the senate, they just chose to sweep it under the carpet after the Chinese veto'd the posible action."

We kinda' agree here in that nothing happened - I think that it points to the weakness of the 'UN System', where if one Security-Council level country says no, then nothing can happen.

That's not right - but how could the UN stop, or sanction, once country from doing something?

Perhaps I'm not stating it well - I'm not saying that a single country can fix all of another countries problems in such cases - I'm saying that perhaps, personal involvement in a nation-to-nation level can PREVENT these situations from developing.

After all, they seem to have an ability to continue anew year after year after year. Something has to be done, independent of an ineffective or vetoed UN, to break the cycle - because the UN way isn't working.

[Off to Italian Dinner, will post again this evening]
28

Dáithí,

San Jose 08/05/2008 05:16:52
cont -

Biker, let me say it this way:

'Adopting' an African Country doesn't mean re-colonizing it, or overpowering it, or taking over. Just some steps. I'll name a few, I'll bet you can come up with a few too.

I'll use Germany and one of its old colonies as an example (nothing against the Germans) - Tanzania.

(BTW - Yes, I know that it wasn't German after WWI, but I'm trying to only use an example, and divide the load of Africa fairly between European powers. You can use any other system that you want, but this at least starts with a connection)

Germany 'Adopts' Tanzania (This is NOT to insinuate that Tanzania needs it)

Relations are built on a number of items, you can start small and build up.

cont...
29

Dáithí,

San Jose 08/05/2008 05:51:22
cont -

Biker, let me say it this way:

'Adopting' an African Country doesn't mean re-colonizing it, or overpowering it, or taking over. Just some steps. I'll name a few, I'll bet you can come up with a few too.

I'll use Germany and one of its old colonies as an example (nothing against the Germans) - Tanzania.

(BTW - Yes, I know that it wasn't German after WWI, but I'm trying to only use an example, and divide the load of Africa fairly between European powers. You can use any other system that you want, but this at least starts with a connection)

Germany 'Adopts' Tanzania (This is NOT to insinuate that Tanzania needs it)

Relations are built on a number of items, you can start small and build up.

cont...
30

Dáithí,

San Jose 08/05/2008 05:54:08
cont...

Here are some examples of what I mean:

Economy:

Since Tanzania has primarily an agricultural economy, Germany enacts 'sweetheart' deals for the production of Ag equipment and supplies. Germany provides price supports where helpful. Germany provides Ag experts where they will help.

Politics:

Germany provides interpreters and brings up (and supports) as many Tanzanians as possible (1,000?) students learning the political process, they can be assigned as interns to politicians at all levels, whatever. They return to help their country.

Education:

Germany commits to providing a large amount of teachers, (1,000+) free of charge, they could do 3-6 month internships (or something - heck, I'm just making a suggestion). Tanzanian students can attend German Universities, FREE OF CHARGE (they could sign some sort of 'return' clause so that they return to help their country).

The Environment:

Germany could provide guards for the national parks, experts for implementing 'Biodiversity action plans', they could provide fencing, bring endangered species to German Zoos, whatever would help.

Medicine:

German doctors could be required to intern 3 months (once in their life) or more and work in Tanzania. Medical students from Tanzania could go to German medical schools for free (within established limits). Some medicine could be subsidized/provided by Germany.

Sports:

Germany could start a youth transfer plan that would bring a good number (1,000+) of Tanzanian Football players to Germany, heck the German Football league could certainly afford something like this. If France, Belgium, Denmark, France and Italy all did this these kids could even play each other's team.

Security - Although some African countries would certainly require a higher level of 'security/peace-keepers' than others, the key would be the security forces of the sponsor country - in this imaginary case, Germany.

The key?
31

Dáithí,

San Jose 08/05/2008 05:57:34
The Key?

The key here is:

1. All costs to Germany are tracked and deducted from any amounts owed to the UN, call it dues or whatever.

2. UN inaction does NOT stop Tanzania from getting needed aid (or ANY other country that is a part of the 'adoption' plan'.

UN inaction doesn't matter. Security Council Veto's don't matter.

Just an idea, I'd be interested in yours, or any others.

Thanks for your time - Dáithí
32

Biker,

Ayr 09/05/2008 21:44:25
Hi Diathi. Sorry for the delay getting back to you. kinda like disscussion by installment.
I take all your points and agree with most of it, except the need for the UN. I agree again that the UN is in dire need of an overhaul, however its the best way forward when dealing with international events. I consider that the Veto rule to be very missplaced and needs to be removed, this to allow a straight vote for action. I'm almost crippled by writing to the UN and anyone else who will listen
33

Biker,

Ayr 09/05/2008 21:49:53
Diathi. Your post about a proposed way forward is well considered, but again if the finances are taken from the common pot. The pot diminishes and any actions in the future are limited. the problem is (with the UN) that it is rife with vested interest and corruption. This needs to be investigated and removed with more flexibility given to the council. If one country aint happy, too bad if the vote goes against them.
Imperfect though it is, a reformed council with proper intentions could be the answer.
Thanks and speak soon. Biker.
34

Dáithí,

San Jose 10/05/2008 01:36:59

>"Hi Diathi. Sorry for the delay getting back to you. kinda like disscussion by installment."

Yea, the time zone differences do that - It's really hell foor poor Aussies and Kiwi's.

>"The pot diminishes and any actions in the future are limited. the problem is (with the UN) that it is rife with vested interest and corruption."

I know, that's why I proposed taking the money away when it can be better spent - make the UN EARN the right to get our money.

>"Imperfect though it is, a reformed council with proper intentions could be the answer."

I'm NOT anti-UN, I agree with you - but how long should people starve and wars grow bigger while we wait for the UN to get it's act together?

Oh well, just an idea - thanks for your feedback (and patience) Biker.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

Featured Advertising



Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.