Time to kick Iran

Ziggurat said:
And was that actually on the test? Or was that just this one judge passing off his personal political opinions on you? And frankly, I don't find you a very credible source.
Click to expand...
That was on the test.

The citizenship judge who gave me the test orally, was surprised that I knew the correct answer.
She arched her brow, then smiled approvingly.

I also have the Canadian brochure for citizehship test at home.
It states allegiance to U.N. first.
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
You have GOT to be kidding me. Iran has been flouting IAEA rules for years now, and has faced NO real consequences from the UN as a result of that...
Click to expand...
So does Israel with an even bigger frequency.

But this means that U.N. -while good- needs improvement.
 
Originally Posted by Darth Rotor
What, you wanted the US to bomb Rwandans to stop the war? Bombing would not have stopped that war, sorry, you really are out to lunch.

You want to tell me, that the mighty U.S. Air Force can not stop guys from fighting each other?
With sticks and swords?
Gee....
 
Matteo Martini said:
Originally Posted by Darth Rotor
What, you wanted the US to bomb Rwandans to stop the war? Bombing would not have stopped that war, sorry, you really are out to lunch.
Click to expand...

You want to tell me, that the mighty U.S. Air Force can not stop guys from fighting each other? With sticks and swords?
Gee....[/QUOTE]
Yes. You will tend to find that peacekeeping and peace enforcement take boots on the ground. Where have you been for the past 15 years?

Bombing is very destructive. If you bomb Kigali, how does that stop death squads from wandering around and killing people? It doesn't. Bombing in that case merely adds to the devestation caused by a civil war and inter faction fighting that had been going on for some time.

If you want to see a successful peace keeping operation, note Cyprus and the Sinai. Note: no bombers used.

DR
 
Ion said:
So does Israel with an even bigger frequency.

But this means that U.N. -while good- needs improvement.
Click to expand...

No, actually, Israel doesn't flout IAEA rules, because they (along with Pakistan and India) never agreed to be covered by the rules in the first place. They have no obligations under the non-proliferation treaty because they aren't signatories. But Iran is a signatory, and unless and until it withdraws from the treaty (which it hasn't done, but which North Korea has), it is legally obliged to follow those rules. Does it take a lot of effort to be so consistently wrong, or does it just come naturally?
 
Matteo Martini said:
The majority of the killings did not happen in Kigali.
Click to expand...

So let's say we've got a tiny village out in the boonies, where Hutus are hacking Tutsis to pieces with machettes. What, exactly, do you propose to bomb? And what, exactly, do you think that would do to discourage further limb-chopping? You're clueless, Matteo.
 
Matteo Martini said:
The majority of the killings did not happen in Kigali.
Click to expand...
Correct. Kigali was one of the few places where bombing targets, in the form of buildings and radio stations the Hutus were using to exercise such command and control of the slaughter as they could, or did.

The rest is as Zig pointed out. Bombing is not a one size fits all tool.

DR
 
Ziggurat said:
So let's say we've got a tiny village out in the boonies, where Hutus are hacking Tutsis to pieces with machettes. What, exactly, do you propose to bomb?
Click to expand...

Drops some bombs on the head quarters of the Hutus.
On the street used by the Hutus, to attack Tutsi
On the streets used to get refurbishments by the Hutus
etcetera..
[..]
 
Last edited:
Matteo Martini said:
The genocide was oganized not spontaneous
Click to expand...
Actually both. There was a great deal of organization at the beginnning but many spontaneous efforts in the middle and end.
What about food, shelter, ..
Click to expand...
What you completely fail to recognise is that to organize bombing to such a degree of precision as to hit the militias, you would need a good deal of observers in every town and almost every street to act as spotters for the bombing.

And if you're going to have that many on the ground, why not simply make it an infantry policing effort in the first place? Far better than air campaigns.

There is little the West could have done to stop the outbreak of the genocide (though France and Belgium have some blame for doing even less than they easily could have); as it is, you can thank Tanzania, for harbouring the Tutsi guerilla/army-in-training, and for helping the Tutsi go back into Rwanda and stop the genocides.
 
Gurdur said:
Actually both. There was a great deal of organization at the beginnning but many spontaneous efforts in the middle and end.

What you completely fail to recognise is that to organize bombing to such a degree of precision as to hit the militias, you would need a good deal of observers in every town and almost every street to act as spotters for the bombing.

And if you're going to have that many on the ground, why not simply make it an infantry policing effort in the first place? Far better than air campaigns.
Click to expand...

Both, infantry and air attack.
Infantry may have taken some allies lives too..

Gurdur said:
There is little the West could have done to stop the outbreak of the genocide (though France and Belgium have some blame for doing even less than they easily could have)
Click to expand...

Ah! Ah! Ah! Ah! Ah! Ah! Ah! Ah! Ah! Ah!
You are condoning a genocide, congratulations!!
 
Gurdur said:
What you completely fail to recognise is that to organize bombing to such a degree of precision as to hit the militias, you would need a good deal of observers in every town and almost every street to act as spotters for the bombing.
Click to expand...

I do not fail to recognize that.
My point is, that some strategic bombing would have helped the genocide to slow down, at least, let some of the Tutsi escape.
But, what did the West do? Nothing.
 
Matteo Martini said:
The genocide was organized not spontaneous
Click to expand...

The point at which the US became sufficiently aware of the problem that we even might have done something, the killing had already become self-sustaining. The perpetrators were not going to stop even if we took out any central organization, because the more of their potential victims which survived, the more danger they would be in afterwards. France might have had a chance to step in early enough to decapitate the movement (which they didn't do in no small part because their fear of growing Anglo-American influence in the region led them to side with the perpetrators), but we never did.

No
Click to expand...

Then what use is bombing streets? And we don't have any bombs which can make a road impassable to people on foot anyways.

What about food, shelter, ..
Click to expand...

In other words, just start bombing people's homes? Try to starve them to death? Seriously, what the hell are you talking about?

I see that in your opinion the international community could do little, to prevent this genocide.
I see..
Click to expand...

I never said anything of the sort. What I said was that, contrary to your claim, air power could do very little. It takes boots on the ground to stop a genocide. Strangely enough, there were western military boots on the ground early on. Of course, stopping the genocide isn't what they got used for, but we can thank Chirac and Kofi Annan for that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom