Time to kick Iran

[Segnosaur]

No, actually, Israel doesn't flout IAEA rules,...

There are more U.N. Resolutions against Israel than Iraq plus Iran.

First of all, Ziggurat specifically mentioned 'IAEA' rules... Since Israel did not sign the NPT, it is not obligated to follow the IAEA rules. U.N. resoultions have nothing to do with it.

Secondly, while there are many U.N. resolutions against Israel, many of those resoultions are 'chapter 6' resolutions. These are different than the 'chapter 7' resolutions that were made against Iraq. I'd suggest doing a little research on the differences between the 2 of them.I know you are a liar.

This allegiance to U.N. must be why Canada didn't join U.S. in Iraq.

While the Canadian government did claim that they would go to Iraq only if the U.N. approved, that wasn't the real reason. (After all, Canada has gotten into conflicts without UN approval before.)

The real reason is that there was a provincial election at the time, and the federal Liberal party at the time didn't want to negatively influence the results in a part of the country that had relatively strong attitudes against the war. It was crass politics.

 

[Ion]

First of all, Ziggurat specifically mentioned 'IAEA' rules...

But I don't care about Ziggurat specifying I.A.E.A. rules.

I started the issue that Israel doesn't comply with U.N. more than Iraq and Iran.

 

[Segnosaur]

Is that why they're in Afghanistan? That invasion wasn't UN authorized. Hmmm....

Canada also was involved in Kosovo, another military mission that did not have the backing of the U.N.

 

[Ion]

So? The significance of that is on par with the significance of your own personal antisemitism.
blah blah blah

To ZigguRat stein antisemitism means exposing Israel.

 

[Ion]

Canada also was involved in Kosovo, another military mission that did not have the backing of the U.N.

Right.

I speculate that in Iraq, allegiance to U.N. played.

But I don't know.

It might be that allegiance to U.N. didn't play, but the fact that Bush's case was flimsy played.

 

[Segnosaur]

But I don't care about Ziggurat specifying I.A.E.A. rules.

Well, you should... your post was a direct response to somethign Ziggurat posted. Your attempt to bring general UN resoultions into it does nothing but hide the fact that you're point is wrong.

I started the issue that Israel doesn't comply with U.N. more than Iraq and Iran.

Except you seem to lack an understanding of the difference between Chapter 6 (non-enforcable) resoultions, such as the type passed against Israel, and Chapter 7 (enforcable) resoultions passed against Iraq.

Chapter 6 resolutions are basically recommendations, with no solid demands, and have no prescribed punishment. They also frequently call on more than 1 party to act (such as resolutions that call for both Israel and the Arab countries to do something.

Chapter 7 resolutons are ones that (in theory) must be followed. They are unilateral, and any country that does not follow them risks punishment.

Its rather like the difference between a traffic violation and an actual criminal charge.

 

[Segnosaur]

Right.

I speculate that in Iraq, allegiance to U.N. played.

But I don't know.

You're right.. you don't know.

I am Canadian. I am familiar with the politics that goes on around here. The decision not to go into Iraq was basically a political one that had more to do with federal and provincial politics.

As you've been shown... Canada DOES do things not approved by the U.N. Admit it, you were wrong and it was well demonstrated.

 

[Matteo Martini]

By troop assault, do you mean ground troops? If so, I'd agree that they could have done something, but that's not the claim you made before (namely, that air power could have stopped it). Too bad the troops who were on the ground already (and not American either) didn't do anything. Which brings us back to Kofi Annan. But if you mean something other than ground troops, then your claim makes no sense.

I do not recollect to have said that " air power could have stopped it ", exactly.
I recollect to have said that air power, for example, could have been an option to stop or slow down the killings

It didn't make enough sense to be malicious, so I'll gladly consider it an innocent mistake.

So it was.
Thanks

Well, no. First off, while the air offensive was perhaps the best-remembered part of that war, there WAS a ground offensive, and we didn't get the Iraqis out of Kuwait until that ground offensive took place. Second, even to the degree that air power was useful in the first gulf war, it simply wasn't an equivalent problem to Rwanda. In the first Iraq war (and that's a better label, since much of the fighting happened on Kuwaiti soil), there were lots of easily identifiable targets: namely, all those Iraqi tanks. It's much harder to distinguish who to target when it's just un-uniformed people walking around. The Iraqi army also tried to maneouver out in the open desert, away from any cover (urban or natural), making them easy targets for air power. No such luck in Rwanda.

Many different wars, many different conditions.
You were pointing out the example of Vietnam, I pointed out that of Iraq.
Comparisons between places and times so different does not make that sense.
My opinion is that air power could contribute to slow down, of course, I do not recollect to have said that only air power should have been used

Thinking that I either agree or disagree with all your opinions on the topic.

I try to pinpoint your comments, as precisely as possible, notwithstanding some errors, of course.

What part of my last response did you not understand? Yes, Clinton could have done something, he did not, and that is regrettable.

Well, I do not think that is it only regrettable not to have helped about one million people.
And, it was not only Clinton.
But, I am happy to have reached that conclusion.
Now, I would like to go back to the main point.
It is regrettable that Clinton did nothing.
It is regrettable that Bush invaded Iraq ( I mean, Bush son ), if you agree on this.
So, why did the US invade Iraq and did not help Rwanda?

 

[Ion]

You're right.. you don't know.

I am Canadian. I am familiar with the politics that goes on around here. The decision not to go into Iraq was basically a political one that had more to do with federal and provincial politics.

As you've been shown... Canada DOES do things not approved by the U.N. Admit it, you were wrong and it was well demonstrated.

There is nothing wrong by me to admit.

Canada might have avoided Iraq because of U.N..
I speculate.
But I know how important U.N. is to Canada, more important than U.S..

I remind you I know Canada better than you.

You even didn't know how to spell Jean Chretien in 2004.
You don't know French, a Canadian official language.
You are illiterate in Canada.
I remember you being a Jew in Ottawa who deplored in 2003 that Canada didn't fight Iraq.

 

[Ziggurat]

Now, I would like to go back to the main point.
It is regrettable that Clinton did nothing.

Agreed.

It is regrettable that Bush invaded Iraq ( I mean, Bush son ), if you agree on this.

I do not agree, though my answer to the next question doesn't actually depend on my position on this.

So, why did the US invade Iraq and did not help Rwanda?

On the most basic level, because what goes on in the middle east is vital to the interests of the United States and the global economy (we're not the only ones who lose out if things go terribly wrong), but what happens in Rwanda is not. Clinton could afford to do nothing about Rwanda, because it had no direct effect on our interests, but he could not afford to do nothing about Iraq. Do not forget that while Clinton may never have thought invasion was justified (despite having made regime change official US policy), he did attack Iraq in 1998. So you don't even have to compare Clinton/Rwanda to Bush/Iraq to figure it out: all you need to do is look at Clinton/Rwanda and Clinton/Iraq to note the difference.

 

[Ion]

Breaking news:




I apologize if this qualifies for a new thread but my guess is it's still in topic.

Bush and about 200,000,000 Americans need to be locked, and banned from the earth.

 

[Matteo Martini]

Bush and about 200,000,000 Americans need to be locked, and banned from the earth.

Come on??
You really are on narcotics..
Why saying something like this??

 

[Ion]

Read the thread Oliver this is America.

I told there why.

 

[Ziggurat]

Come on??
You really are on narcotics..
Why saying something like this??

If you haven't had the pleasure before, this sort of thing is standard fare for Ion. He regularly alienates even people he nominally agrees with on a topic because they don't adopt whatever extreme position he happens to take on the issue of the day. It's kind of sad, really.

 

[Ion]

...He regularly alienates even people he nominally agrees with on a topic because they don't adopt whatever extreme position he happens to take on the issue of the day...

Suuuure.

And Americans like you are angels to make war in Iraq...

 

[Matteo Martini]

Read the thread Oliver this is America.

I told there why.

Really, I have no time to read another thread.
Just asking, where your positions are different from those of Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot or Julius Caesar?

 

[Matteo Martini]

Suuuure.

And Americans like you are angels to make war in Iraq...

I do not want to invervene, but, may that be a reason for saying that Americans should be " banned from the earth "?
Do you realize what you are saying?
Not even the worst Ahmadinajiad said that..

 

[Ion]

Read that thread.

It's beyond Iraq.

 

[Ion]

...Just asking, where your positions are different from those of Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot or Julius Caesar?

Include Bush in the list.

 

[Ion]

Read that thread.

It's beyond Iraq.

Matteo,

the thread is here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=84158&page=5&highlight=Knoxville

My first post there is:

I didn't want to see your post:

But I saw it.

So much for your "...Sadly people see what they want to see...".

To answer the thread's opening post, I have lived in:

.) Redwood City (Ca.) and read The San Jose Mercury News,

.) Baltimore (Md.) and read The Washington Post,

.) Chicago (Il.) and read The Chicago Tribune;

.) New York (N.Y.) and read The Star Ledger,

.) Knoxville (Tn.) and read something there, The Knoxville Sentinel maybe, I am not sure,

.) San Diego (Ca.) and read The San Diego Union Tribune.

I don't watch T.V., I consider it a waste.

My experience with U.S. is based on living in these places and reading the local papers.

I thought that U.S. is Michael Jordan in basketball, and Rowdy Gaines and Matt Biondi in competitive swimming.
I went to Chicago.
People weren't Michael Jordans.
They were obese, and inept in mathematics, science, culture and looks.
At work it took me great skills to qualify to come to U.S., but what I found on the ground was sub-par skills, teamwork, and ethics.
In Tennessee, an Engineering manager publicly said he was going to teach me LabVIEW because it's easier than me learning it alone, privately told me that a company like that has no time to teach and promptly took a hypocrite two-week vacation, during which I solved the LabVIEW assignment but still didn't get credit for, and I thought that's not the way I was brought up.
Many more such experiences in U.S. taught me of money greed and back stabbing over people's well being.
When Bush lied to start the war in Iraq in 2003, I understood that U.S. is made of millions of Bush-lite who don't have Bush's social power but are alike.
In the streets, locals were lecturing me about 'God' without scientific evidence, but ironically U.S. needs to import more scientific-minded people like me than people like the locals who lecture me.
The U.S. Departement of Labor considers people like me to be professionally skilled, and the people lecturing me about 'God' to be unskilled.
Still, I get lectured in the streets about this imaginary 'God'.

Reading the U.S. newspapers I observed that the Americans don't know sports.
Americans believe that golf and baseball are sports.
Golf and baseball are games.
They believe that distances are measured in yards, feet and miles instead of meters.
They believe that people are weighed in pounds, instead of kilograms.
They believe that temperatures are in Fahrenheit instead of Celsius.
Like in Europe, circa 1600.
In Tennessee, the newspaper stated in tiny print that Thorpe (no country) broke the world record in swimming in 200 free in 45 seconds.
It should have said 1:45.35 instead.
In California, the newspaper stated how many lovers an average man gets in a lifetime.
I thought "What? When I was a student in France I was getting this many in two years. Are the Americans living repressed in hospitals and monasteries, or what?"

I was born in Romania, lived in France, Canada and U.S..
The most advanced culturally is France.
I learned that I am not a Capitalist like in U.S. most people are -with consequences of being repressed-, but a liberal like in France.

I am in U.S. now, in San Diego -the city of surfers-, imposing my lifestyle on Americans.