1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!


Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Rusty Shackleford, Jun 29, 2008.

  1. Rusty Shackleford

    Rusty Shackleford Active Member

    Serious question here -- when it comes to despots like Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe, who seem to be almost universally despised, even by his own people, how does he not get assassinated? It seems like there would be no shortage of people he's pissed off to the breaking point within his own country -- how does one of those people not work his way into a crowd and take a few shots? Or a second-in-command who wants to take over. Or a foreign spy hired to do the job. How does this not happen much more often? The same thing is true for other despots -- Kim Jong Il, Than Shwe, etc.

    As morbid as it sounds, I'm always amazed that these kinds of rulers aren't killed much more often. What I mean is, somebody like Mugabe is assassinated, then his top general ascends to power. He rules with an iron fist for a while before somebody offs him. It really doesn't happen as often as I would think it would.
  2. He who has the biggest guns and/or biggest militia wins.
  3. Fear is a hell of a weapon.
  4. GB-Hack

    GB-Hack Active Member

    That's true, but in addition whenever Mugabe appears in public, if ever, it's in highly controlled circumstances. The man, like Mobutu before him, spends barely any time in public if he can help it.
  5. Oz

    Oz Active Member

    Fixed, only to make a point. Unpopular leaders -- including presidents with 23 percent approval ratings -- are not always subject to assassinations.
  6. Rusty Shackleford

    Rusty Shackleford Active Member

    But not liking Bush and his policies is drastically different than what Mugabe does to Zimbabweans. Sure, few people like Bush at this point, but his policies aren't leading to the widespread deaths (Iraq notwithstanding) of his people. And even in Iraq, the U.S. has lost, what, in the thousands? That's terrible, but it's a drop in the bucket compared to what has happened in Zimbabwe.

    It just seems like some despondent Zimbabwean could/would have just said 'fuck it' and taken out Mugabe, consequences be damned, by this point. I'm just surprised it doesn't happen more often in the developing world, particularly in countries ruled by despots, and I can't figure out why.
  7. deskslave

    deskslave Active Member

    Though it seems things can't get any worse, I'm not so sure that assassinating Mugabe would have such a positive effect. Are the people behind him any better, or are they in fact worse, and would his death make things even worse?
  8. three_bags_full

    three_bags_full Well-Known Member

    Sometimes, as a global community, we have to hold our noses and pick our friends.

    See the Webster entry under "election, 2004, U.S."

    Could we assassinate folks like that? Sure. In a heartbeat. And the trigger pullers'd be on their way out before the bullet hit the bone. It probably happens more often than we think, but if I recall correctly, however, I think we "don't do it."
  9. GB-Hack

    GB-Hack Active Member

    I believe that was the 'official' policy. Unofficially, hasn't it been tried numerous times.
  10. HejiraHenry

    HejiraHenry Well-Known Member

    Secret Service on line 1. They have a warrant.
  11. joe

    joe Active Member

    Well, we did a bunch of shit with leaders in South Vietnam, and look how that worked out.
  12. Oz

    Oz Active Member

    I did think about when fixing the quote, too. Took a couple minutes before I finally hit "post."
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page