Time to kick Iran

[Flo]

Are you having trouble understanding the difference between when something is about to happen and when it is already happening? Because you sure as hell don't seem to be able to distinguish between the two. And yes, the United States, as a nation, WAS ignorant that genocide was about to happen before it actually started to happen. That is the point at which striking at coordination centers might have been effective.

Friend Martini has proved numerous times he hasn't got a clue about Rwanda, but he's decided nevertheless that America had to be blamed, in the "Mistakes have been made, Someone else should be blamed" mode ...

The problem with France isn't simply that it didn't do what he should have done, it's that he actually made the problem worse. The French military, for example, actually escorted many of those responsible for the genocide out of the country along with their weapons when the RPF invaded, so that they could escape justice and cause further trouble to Rwanda's neighbors. Their anti-American paranoia (Tutsi opposition was largely English-speaking, whereas Hutus were French speaking) led them to effectively support the genocide. I did make one mistake, though: Mitterand was still in charge, not Chirac, at that point.

Absolutely true, and certainly not something I'm proud about my country !

 

[Flo]

Wait a second... earlier in your post, you yourself said that you agreed that people who ignored deaths prior to the invasion were wrong. But here you are, doing the exact same thing.

I do not like the fact that there are terrorist attacks in Iraq. But I also didn't like Saddam's slaughter of Kurds, Shi'ites and Marsh Arabs. By mentioning only the current terrorist activity, you're ignoring those deaths. As I said before, dead is dead... people killed by Saddam deserve to be mourned just as much as those killed by terrorist attacks.

I may not have been clear enough, I was placing myself from the point of view of the Iraqi people, who doesn't see much improvement from (the risk of) being killed by Saddam and his mob to (the risk of) being killed by an assorted lot of thugs, American soldiers, shiites/sunnis/AlQaeda militias, with the added burden of lacking even more of the basic necessities of life like regular electric supply, water and sanitation, jobs, etc.

I've heard over the years many educated Iraqi deplore the fact that Saddam wasn't taken down in 1991 already, but who were ready to welcome an American invasion in 2003, provided things really got better then, and who are now positively enraged at how things are going ...

Remember, Iraq was already lacking basic commodities as a result of years of sanctions. Those sanctions were deemed necessary to keep Saddam "in check". Those sanctions could have been lifted sooner, but Saddam chose not to cooperate with the U.N., and when Iraq was allowed to sell oil, much of the profits went to support Saddam's government rather than the people.

I do remember, but at least some of the basic infrastructure was working (water, electricity, police, jobs, etc.), there weren't dayly risks of death and/or kidnapping by merely going to shopping for food, etc.

Freedom of speech:

Freedom of Religion:

Yes, there is theoretically more freedom of speech and religion, but no, the Iraqi are in fact no more free than they were before on those counts. It's a bit like in Iran: the Iranian constitution guarantees freedom of speech and religion, but the power that be ensure there is actually none. Again, from the point of view of the Iraqis, nothing has changed much.

There may have been some valid concerns prior to the invasion, but a lot of the voices came from people who used mindless slogans like "No blood for oil". Frankly, people like that deserve to be dismissed.

I wasn't talking about the slogan-wielding-no-analysis-pacifists, but about arguments from for example Blair (before the infamous "45 minutes"), or Chirac who cautioned about haste and feasibility of regime change in that region in view of their experience ...

Look at Matteo... all the mistakes he's made, all the times faults have been exposed in his posts, all the direct challenges he's ignored. Do you really think having people like that on the anti-war side is a benefit? (Not that all the pro-war people were actually thinking rationally, and not that there weren't intelligent people who were against the war; just that the nature of the rhetoric coming from some was an embarasement.)

So what ? because you have embarrassing allies should make you renounce your position ?

Not sure what exactly you mean by 'the expected outcome was never clearly stated'. I thought it was pretty clear... removal of a dictator, dismantalling of his WMD programs, and the installation of a democratic government.

No, it was never that clear, and reasons were changing almost by the day at the time.

Put it this way, France may have been against the Iraq invasion not because it was a 'bad idea', but because some members of the government were bribed. Does that mean that if you were a citizen of France who opposed the invasion that you were automatically wrong just because your government lied to you about why it opposed the invasion?

Some people, even government members, in France may well have been (I've actually little doubt about it, although I'd like to see some evidence of it, and I'm pretty sure people all over the world have been), however "some people, even government members" isn't the whole government, which may very well have had honorable motives.

 

[Matteo Martini]

In case you hadn't noticed, not everybody who disagrees with you do it because they're American, or even because they want to "group and shelter themselves", but because they consider you're talking nonsense.

I did not say that " everybody who disagrees with me do it because he/she is American ", you are changing my words..
And, I never said that " [ I have ] decided nevertheless that America had to be blamed "
Another time, changing my words again..
The point is why America did intervene in Iraq and not in Rwanda ( about back to post no. 532, in case you do not recollect ), and I only received unsatisfactory answers, so far, such as the answer that a land operation in Rwanda was difficult, or something like that.
So, I am here asking again the same point..
Anyway, if you think I am talking " nonsense ", I suggest the best way for you would be to completely ignore my posts, and the replies to my posts, thanks.

 

[Flo]

The point is why America did intervene in Iraq and not in Rwanda ( about back to post no. 532, in case you do not recollect ), and I only received unsatisfactory answers, so far, such as the answer that a land operation in Rwanda was difficult, or something like that.
So, I am here asking again the same point..

And you'll get the same answer, with an additional advice to inform yourself about the actual conditions that prevailed in Rwanda at the time (in short, the killings were mostly door to door within neighbors, not by an organised militia or army). The only ones who could have changed things somehow would have been the French and Belgian troops, and they decided not to do anything. American troops would have been far too late.

Anyway, if you think I am talking " nonsense ", I suggest the best way for you would be to completely ignore my posts, and the replies to my posts, thanks.

Pity I'm not the only one who feel that way, and that they didn't decide to just let you keep blabbing

 

[Ziggurat]

That something was going to happen, was already known months before the atrocities.

Known to who? Kofi Annan? Indeed, as I've already proven. Known to the American public? Nope.

You can choose which roads you can bomb.

Sure you can. And how does that do any good? This wasn't a case of an invading army whose movements could be bottlenecked.

If you slow down the violence, you also give the community more time to get organized and to act

Yeah, right. Like they're acting in Darfur. It's been how many years now? And given that bombing out roads would make it much harder (and slower) for the "community" to act, or more importantly, for the RPF (the ones who ACTUALLY ended the genocide) to move in, there's simply no reason to think this would have improved anything.

I doubt, that the US agencies monitoring Africa suspected nothing about it

Really?
Ah! Ah! Ah! Ah!

Are you having a seizure? Because I didn't write that. Follow the link, you'll see that that post has never been edited, and those words don't appear in that post. YOU wrote those words. And I'm going to be generous and assume that you wrote them, jumped around in the post, forgot you wrote them, and then blocked them off with quote tags thinking I wrote them. But seeing as how I did NOT write them, I've got no idea what the hell your point here is.

Evidence?

Every major war with an air campaign. Hardly worked in Vietnam, for example.

Anti-American paranoia?
Evidence?

Journal of Modern African Studies:
http://www.jstor.org/view/0022278x/ap010143/01a00040/0
"The 1994-7 developments in Rwanda and Zaire were considered by many French politicians, diplomats and many journalists as evidence of an 'anglosaxon conspiracy', part of a plot to develop an arc of influence from Ethiopia and Eritrea via Uganda, Rwanda and Zaire to Congo and Cameroon. For them, the 'anglosaxons' (a term directed not at Britain, la perfide Albion, but at the United States) had a hidden agenda 'to oust France from Africa'." - 2nd page of article linked above

OK, so, at least, you are disappointed with his " lack of action "??
Do we agree that he could have acted, somehow, and he did not.
Regardless of what Mitterand, Kofi Annan, and the rest of the world did or not did?

Indeed I am disappointed by Clinton's lack of action. That this is a surprise to you only demonstrates that you have been engaging in the exact same false dichotomy thinking which you recently attacked others (including myself) for supposedly engaging in.

 

[Gurdur]

....Are you having a seizure?

OK, fine, THAT one was definitely justified, and also not only apt but funny.

Matteo STILL doesn't want to answer me or to back up his wildly dishonest claim that I was condoning genocide; I'm kinda disgusted at Matteo.

Indeed I am disappointed by Clinton's lack of action.

I was of course disappointed at everyone's lack of action, excepting the Tanzanians, who did what they could and more. and who always have, over 40 years whether against Portuguese genocide, SA apartheid, Idi Amin and the Hutu extremists. For a quite small, extremely poor country, Tanzania has a great deal to its moral credit.
________

--> Matteo: STILL no answer from you about your dishonest little accusation that I was condoning genocide?

 

[Matteo Martini]

And you'll get the same answer, with an additional advice to inform yourself about the actual conditions that prevailed in Rwanda at the time (in short, the killings were mostly door to door within neighbors, not by an organised militia or army).

I still have to find evidence, that the first army of the world could not stop people killing with swords..
So, the fact that the battles were door to door does not mean that nothing could be done.
Not the fact that the country is land locked
Not that the country is far
Not that the black Hutus and the black Tutsi were of the same colour, and , therefore, difficult to spot which is which.
We are talking about criminals that, mostly, did not even have guns.
I do not believe that a country that has jet fighters, tanks, chopters, machine guns, etc. etc. could do nothing to stop or, at least, slow down, the killings.

The only ones who could have changed things somehow would have been the French and Belgian troops, and they decided not to do anything. American troops would have been far too late.

Really?

The US government was reluctant to involve itself in the "local conflict" in Rwanda, and refused to even refer to it as "Genocide", a decision which President Bill Clinton later came to regret in a Frontline television interview in which he states that he believes if he had sent 5,000 US peacekeepers, more than 500,000 lives could have been saved[25]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_Genocide#Preparations_for_the_genocide

Pity I'm not the only one who feel that way, and that they didn't decide to just let you keep blabbing

I can only invite you not to reply to my posts, or, if you do, to quote me correctly

 

[Flo]

I still have to find evidence, that the first army of the world could not stop people killing with swords..
So, the fact that the battles were door to door does not mean that nothing could be done.
Not the fact that the country is land locked
Not that the country is far
Not that the black Hutus and the black Tutsi were of the same colour, and , therefore, difficult to spot which is which.
We are talking about criminals that, mostly, did not even have guns.
I do not believe that a country that has jet fighters, tanks, chopters, machine guns, etc. etc. could do nothing to stop or, at least, slow down, the killings.

At this point, I leave you to your delusion of knowledge in matters of African geopolitics and strategy ...

 

[Matteo Martini]

Known to who? Kofi Annan? Indeed, as I've already proven. Known to the American public? Nope.

To the American government?
To the United Nations?

Sure you can. And how does that do any good? This wasn't a case of an invading army whose movements could be bottlenecked.

Yeah, right. Like they're acting in Darfur. It's been how many years now? And given that bombing out roads would make it much harder (and slower) for the "community" to act, or more importantly, for the RPF (the ones who ACTUALLY ended the genocide) to move in, there's simply no reason to think this would have improved anything.

I am just giving examples.
Seeing the conditions of the killers, that mostly had no guns, even a troop assault could have slowed down/ended the killings..
The possibilities were there.

Are you having a seizure? Because I didn't write that. Follow the link, you'll see that that post has never been edited, and those words don't appear in that post. YOU wrote those words. And I'm going to be generous and assume that you wrote them, jumped around in the post, forgot you wrote them, and then blocked them off with quote tags thinking I wrote them. But seeing as how I did NOT write them, I've got no idea what the hell your point here is.

You are right, I have no idea were that sentence came from.
Probably I am posting in too many threads at one time.
Please, do not consider that comment.
Thanks

Every major war with an air campaign. Hardly worked in Vietnam, for example.

But, it worked somehow for the first Iraqi invasion..

Indeed I am disappointed by Clinton's lack of action. That this is a surprise to you only demonstrates that you have been engaging in the exact same false dichotomy thinking which you recently attacked others (including myself) for supposedly engaging in.

Which is the " false dichotomy " I am engaging in?
By the way, I ask you again, we agree that CLinton could have acted, and he did not?
After all, it is his own words..

 

[Matteo Martini]

At this point, I leave you to your delusion of knowledge in matters of African geopolitics and strategy ...

Finally!!

 

[Gurdur]

I call troll.

 

[Matteo Martini]

________

--> Matteo: STILL no answer from you about your dishonest little accusation that I was condoning genocide?

I admit that the accusation was a little too strong, I regret that.
However, you wrote:
" There is little the West could have done to stop the outbreak of the genocide ".

Even Flo, admits that the West sould have done to prevent the genocide:
" The only ones who could have changed things somehow would have been the French and Belgian troops "

 

[Matteo Martini]

--> Matteo: STILL no answer from you about your dishonest little accusation that I was condoning genocide?

Also Ziggurat wrote that the West could have done something to stop the killings:
" 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. "

 

[Darth Rotor]

The US government was reluctant to involve itself in the "local conflict" in Rwanda, and refused to even refer to it as "Genocide", a decision which President Bill Clinton later came to regret in a Frontline television interview in which he states that he believes if he had sent 5,000 US peacekeepers, more than 500,000 lives could have been saved[25]

Indeed, his speculation after the fact merits some serious consideration. He was aware of all of the factors he had to consider in choosing to add American assistance to the French and Belgians already there, or not. His numbers may or may not be correct, but I think his order of magnitude is correct. Hundreds of thousands, low end or high end. It depends on how quickly he could have gotten the force in place, and where the US, the French, and Belgians could have overlapped and shared responsibilities.

He had two political factors working against him, one in the US and one in France. The one in France has already been covered, but in the US, the non interventionist and neo isloationist sentiment had been triggered by the Somalia mess. The failure was laid at his doorstep. (Correctly, form the resourcing side. Forces cut to one third the original size, with roughly the same mission performance required. More "on the cheap" error.) That mess happened in 1993, and was fresh in the memory of his political opponents in America. The 2004 election was due in the fall, and he had to carefully walk his political path in America in order to help his party in the 2004 election. (As it worked out, his party didn't do so hot in the House. Newt Gingrich became Speaker, a GOP man. Clinton would not have known that in early 2004, late 2003.)

Had the Somalia mission been more successful under his guidance, he might have had the political capital necessary to send in a force to assist the UN, and other forces, already in Rwanda. Since it was unsuccessful, for a variety of reasons, he had to look at the combination of risks in front of him:

A successful mission to Rwanda that prevents, let us say, 300,000 deaths, but still arrives in the country in time for 200,000 to have died before the US and French and others could stop them, still gets painted in the political fight in late 2004 as "failed intervention, look how many died even though he sent troops." That easily translates into "Clinton and the Democrats bungled again." How do you prove how many deaths you prevented? It's the old problem of evidence and absence.

At the time, he was trying to overcome obstacles in the Congress to assist more in Bosnia. It wasn't until mid to late 2005 that Clinton was able to marshall support for that operation, and put US combat forces in country. We already had (IIRC, it was between 700-800) US folks working in support of the various UN peacekeeping mission activities, and US ships and planes were involved in the arms embargo versus Former Yugoslavia in NATO Operation Sharp Guard.

His regret, I think, is that his principles, a desire to help out in Africa, ran into some hard problems of domestic political infighting. He chose to try and win the latter fight first so he could use American forces to assist, in a variety of places, against Congressional resistance.

With that background, look at how his decision not to go into Rwanda helped someone else: a load of Bosniacs. His choosing not to go into Rwanda until after the fighting stopped, and do the humanitarian aid mission, allowed him to go into Bosnia later. (Note: Did you know that Kellog, Brown and Root were contracted for a lot of humanitarian aid, and support, in the aid camps along the Rwanda/Zaire(Congo) border? Ever hear of Kellog Brown and Root? Want to know where else they do a lot of contracting work? Starts with an "I." ) After the fact, that choice looks rather callous, and sort of like "I save Europeans, not Africans" (indeed, it was so spun by many bleeding heart observers) but as it works out, it is likely that going into Rwanda would have made it harder, (and the likely spin on that) not easier, to go into Bosnia once the spin machine went into action -- unless such a mission could have been packaged as a huge success. I don't think he had confidence it could be so packaged.

I have engaged in a counterfactual musing here, but you started it with Clinton's observation in hindsight. He can't know how many he might have saved, he can only estimate.

DR

 

[Ziggurat]

I am just giving examples.
Seeing the conditions of the killers, that mostly had no guns, even a troop assault could have slowed down/ended the killings..

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.

You are right, I have no idea were that sentence came from.
Probably I am posting in too many threads at one time.
Please, do not consider that comment.
Thanks

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

But, it worked somehow for the first Iraqi invasion..

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.

Which is the " false dichotomy " I am engaging in?

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

By the way, I ask you again, we agree that CLinton could have acted, and he did not?

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

 

[Segnosaur]

I may not have been clear enough, I was placing myself from the point of view of the Iraqi people, who doesn't see much improvement from (the risk of) being killed by Saddam and his mob to (the risk of) being killed by an assorted lot of thugs, American soldiers, shiites/sunnis/AlQaeda militias, with the added burden of lacking even more of the basic necessities of life like regular electric supply, water and sanitation, jobs, etc.

You're right... there is rather widespread unhappiness at this point in time. Quite understandable (and at least someof it justified). But that doesn't mean that the invasion was not a moral or justified act. People often do tend to misjudge leaders or events, often thinking that their current situation is always worse than 'before', even if facts/statistics suggest otherwise.

I do remember, but at least some of the basic infrastructure was working (water, electricity, police, jobs, etc.), there weren't dayly risks of death and/or kidnapping by merely going to shopping for food, etc.

On Water/electricity... Keep in mind that before the invasion, Iraq's water/electricity infrastructure was crumbling. Post-invasion, there has actually been an increase in generating capacity. (Insurgent activity have limited gains, but most of the country has more power now than they did before.)

Remember, when Saddam was in power, many resources (electricity, water, etc) were diverted to Baghdad, while the rest of the country suffered. Things are distrubuted a little more equally now.

From: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/30/AR2006043001037.html Before the U.S.-led invasion in 2003, Saddam Hussein's government routed power to Baghdad, which received 18 to 24 hours of electricity a day while the rest of the country received two to four hours. Since then, Iraq's electricity generation capacity has increased from 2,500 megawatts to approximately 5,000 megawatts...

As for police... Yes, the police may not be as 'effective' in stopping crime as they were under Saddam, but people don't have to worry (as much) about being arrested, tortured, and executed by the police.

As for jobs... I've already pointed out the improvements to Iraq's GDP (which had been suffering over the past decade or so.)

Yes, there is theoretically more freedom of speech and religion, but no, the Iraqi are in fact no more free than they were before on those counts. It's a bit like in Iran: the Iranian constitution guarantees freedom of speech and religion, but the power that be ensure there is actually none. Again, from the point of view of the Iraqis, nothing has changed much.

No, its not like Iran at all. There are free newspapers in Iraq. (I gave you a reference which indcated that). Religious practices which had been banned before are now allowed. This is not a case where people have freedom on paper only.

Do you have any proof that there are FEWER newspapers, and LESS religous freedom now than before?

Look at Matteo... all the mistakes he's made,

So what ? because you have embarrassing allies should make you renounce your position ?

Not at all. I was referring to the way the 'debate' prior to the invasion occured. Yes, there were well-reasoned people on both sides of the issue, but unfortunately much of that was drowned out by the slogan-chanters and various semi-trolls like Matteo.

Not sure what exactly you mean by 'the expected outcome was never clearly stated'. I thought it was pretty clear... removal of a dictator, dismantalling of his WMD programs, and the installation of a democratic government.

No, it was never that clear, and reasons were changing almost by the day at the time.

Not sure if that's exactly correct.

Remember, prior to the invasion, while the U.S. was using a lot of effort to push WMD as justification for invading Iraq, they were not exactly ignoring other issues. I can dig up speeches done by Bush (prior to the invasion) where human rights and Saddam's links to terrorism were mentioned. Perhaps the emphasis may have changed over time, but there was never a time when those issues were ignored.

Some people, even government members, in France may well have been (I've actually little doubt about it, although I'd like to see some evidence of it, and I'm pretty sure people all over the world have been), however "some people, even government members" isn't the whole government, which may very well have had honorable motives.

True, some people in France may have had honorable motives in opposing the invasion, but who knows how much of there opposion was based on 'honourable' intentions, and how much was based on plain politics or greed?

One of the more annoying things is dealing with people claiming that the U.S. was motivated by 'greed' (or some other negative aspect) by the invasion, but they ignore the fact that other countries may have had the exact same motivies for opposing the invasion.

 

[Ziggurat]

Remember, when Saddam was in power, many resources (electricity, water, etc) were diverted to Baghdad, while the rest of the country suffered. Things are distrubuted a little more equally now.

In addition, demand has surged because Iraqis can buy a lot more electrical appliances now. If you measure progress only in terms of the number of hours the electricity is on, and don't consider how much electricity is delivered while it's on, then increased demand will mask growing generation capacity.

Remember, prior to the invasion, while the U.S. was using a lot of effort to push WMD as justification for invading Iraq, they were not exactly ignoring other issues. I can dig up speeches done by Bush (prior to the invasion) where human rights and Saddam's links to terrorism were mentioned. Perhaps the emphasis may have changed over time, but there was never a time when those issues were ignored.

You don't even have to do that. Just look up the text of the congressional authorization for war, and you'll see a whole bunch of reasons listed. And that has the advantage that it's not just Bush's reasons, it's Congress' too.

 

[Ion]

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

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

 

[Ion]

Well it's online too, and I don't find anything about the UN in it at all:
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/publications/look/index.asp
I think you're a liar.

I know you are a liar.

Canada has allegiance to U.N. first -ahead of allegiance to U.S.-, as per the citizenship test that I took.
I can prove to you if I leaf thru the pamphlet and quote it for you.
But then so what?
You are not worthy anyway.
You are a liar before this issue, and you remain a liar after this issue.
If I quote it here from the Canadian brochure, that would be for honest posters only.

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

 

[Ziggurat]

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

So? The significance of that is on par with the significance of your own personal antisemitism. And we weren't talking about UN general assembly resolutions, we were talking about the IAEA. Damn, but you're clueless.

Canada has allegiance to U.N. first -ahead of allegiance to U.S.-, as per the citizenship test that I took.
I can prove to you if I leaf thru the pamphlet and quote it for you.
But then so what?

Then you would have demonstrated that you can support your claims. And you would have proven me wrong to everyone else, and admit it, you'd REALLY like to be able to do that. Both would be a first for you.

You are not worthy anyway.

Of course not. After all, you think I'm a Jew, and we all know how you feel about them.

If I quote it here from the Canadian brochure, that would be for honest posters only.

Then do it for the "honest" posters: after all, they've seen me show Canadian citizenship literature with no references to allegiance to either the US or the UN, but they've seen zero evidence from you. Who knows, if you don't back up your claim, even the "honest" posters might end up believing me.

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

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