I'm rather dismayed at the dialogue going on on this thread. No one in the world is more generous than the American people when it comes to helping out - - either war, fire, flood, famine.....that being said, how much should we assist a country where we know the food will go, not to the starving masses, but to the dictator, his cronies and his army?
Americans have been hoodwinked numerous times - - in our heart we don't want to know we've been screwed over time and again -- but maybe now, we're finally learning a lesson.
The people of Zim have to overturn their dictator -- any help we send until that time will not get to them -- that bastard will see to it it will rot or be sold before they get one mouthful.
But I did notice in that picture that "USA" was stamped on the sack of grain.....
I'm sure help will get to those people through private charities - - there is no stopping that if, indeed, the Zim government will allow it.
I don't think such food deployment should be done directly by the US government - - it will only serve to legitimize the government of Zimbabwe
Excellent points made ! I am in agreement with all of them.
I, too, am dismayed at the dialogue. It is out and out racist in some of the posts.
If there is a western country that has some interest in intervening militarily, it is the UK. The U.S. should not be involved in that way.
However, the best answer is to support and arm the anti-Mugabe Zimbaweans living in South Africa, to enable them to restore democracy in Zimbabwe.
As for food aid, charities should begin now to establish refugee camps in South Africa, Mozambique and Botswana to feed the thousands who will shortly begin walking there.
Again, your analysis is right on spot !