Time to kick Iran

[Gurdur]

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.

Correct. I believe Matteo missed that point in my own post to him.

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.

Correct.

France might have had a chance to step in early enough to decapitate the movement

Might have had. It's very doubtful, but certainly France could have done much more than it did.

Then what use is bombing

Correct.

Of course, stopping the genocide isn't what they got used for, but we can thank Chirac and Kofi Annan for that.

Partly wrong. Blame Chirac, but not Annan. And then thank Nyerere and Ali Hassan Mwinyi, and the Tutsis for not being vindictive, for ending the genocides. Africa at least helped itself there, where the West did not; in fact, the same thing with Idi Amin, and you can thank Nyerere and Ali Hassan Mwinyi for getting rid of Amin too.

BTW, it's genocideS; Tutsis were not the only ones targeted. In fact, moderate Hutus were the first victims, and a third ethnic group in Rwanda were wiped out at 90 % death rate.

 

[Matteo Martini]

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.

I see..
The US, in Rwanda like in Iraq, always recognize their mistakes when it is too late

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.

You are setting a lot of assumptions, which I do not even want to tackle, as my opinion is that a lot could be done by the US, UK, France, AU, etc.

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

Bombs are used to make road, bridges, any kind of installations impracticable

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

It has been done many many times in the past.
You bomb the main ways of communications of the enemy, in order to block his actions

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.

Only Chirac and Kofi Annan?
You are a little bit biased here, uh?
Not Clinton? Not the first army of the World?
Not the country of Faith and Freedom?
Where are the US, when you need them?

 

[Ziggurat]

I see..
The US, in Rwanda like in Iraq, always recognize their mistakes when it is too late

It wasn't our mistake until we understood what was happening and didn't act. It's rather unreasonable to expect anyone to do something about an issue they're ignorant of.

You are setting a lot of assumptions, which I do not even want to tackle

Because you can't.

Bombs are used to make road, bridges, any kind of installations impracticable

I assume you mean "impractical". But this still makes no sense. Unless you want to bomb pretty much every road (which you sad you didn't), people would still be able to move around. And since what a person with a machette needs to keep going is exactly the same thing as what everyone else needs (food, water), trying to bomb "installations" which might support him means wiping out civilian infrastructure completely as well. The only way to stop such low-tech mass war from the air when both sides are already occupying the same territory is to kill everyone, but that's not exactly an improvement.

It has been done many many times in the past.
You bomb the main ways of communications of the enemy, in order to block his actions

Once the genocide was underway, it didn't require any further coordination.

Only Chirac and Kofi Annan?

No, especially Chirac and Annan, and you'd know why if you understood anything about the whole sordid affair. The former helped set up the disaster (French policy in Africa has long been disastrous but largely ignored by the world) and helped the perpetrators escape justice afterwards, the latter turned a blind eye to the problem as his underlings in the country warned him of what was about to happen, and prevented UN forces already in the country from doing anything productive. And it was especially galling that he got promoted in the wake of his catastrophic failure to general secretary.

 

[RandFan]

(French policy in Africa has long been disastrous but largely ignored by the world)

At the risk of appearing to make a To Quoque argument I have to say that this is my biggest complaint. And it's not just French policy BTW. The world, by and large is one great big mess. Much of Africa, North Korea, Much of South America, corruption, mass murder, genocide, hellish conditions, interference of sovereign affairs, invasions, coups, etc. yet most people largely focus on America. As if we are the cause of so much of the world's problems.

Because of its prominence it is only reasonable to expect that America would garner much attention. However, it is not reasonable that we should be made out to be the worlds boogeyman when it is demonstrable that is not true.

Rest assured though that Oliver and company will be here every day concentrating on America nearly to the exclusion of all other nations, with the exception of course, Israel.

The fact is no one cares. At least not enough to sustain daily threads. You won't find many if any threads about North Korea because no one really cares. That people die there and suffer under the most bizarre and brutal of circumstances and that the nation has nuclear weapon capability and is a real potential for wold disaster is at best likely to cause a thread to be started a few times a year. In fact, North Korea is defended for its nuclear weapon capability. It's brought up again and again that only America has used nuclear weapons. As if that somehow makes everything ok. Bizarre.

Darfur, unless it can be blamed, at least in part, on America, or unless it can be shown that America is not doing enough to help then fagetaboutit.

 

[Matteo Martini]

It wasn't our mistake until we understood what was happening and didn't act. It's rather unreasonable to expect anyone to do something about an issue they're ignorant of.

Ah..
I see..
The US and the rest of the world were ignorant that a genocide was going to happen/was happening..
Very clever from your side

Because you can't.

Because I want to stick to the main topic

I assume you mean "impractical". But this still makes no sense. Unless you want to bomb pretty much every road (which you sad you didn't), people would still be able to move around.

With more difficulty

And since what a person with a machette needs to keep going is exactly the same thing as what everyone else needs (food, water), trying to bomb "installations" which might support him means wiping out civilian infrastructure completely as well.

If this is required in order to stop/slow down a genocide, you are welcome

The only way to stop such low-tech mass war from the air when both sides are already occupying the same territory is to kill everyone,

You are under some kind of narcotics?

Once the genocide was underway, it didn't require any further coordination.

Try to drop two or three bombs on Hutus` heads, and you will see how they calm down..

No, especially Chirac and Annan, and you'd know why if you understood anything about the whole sordid affair. The former helped set up the disaster (French policy in Africa has long been disastrous but largely ignored by the world) and helped the perpetrators escape justice afterwards, the latter turned a blind eye to the problem as his underlings in the country warned him of what was about to happen, and prevented UN forces already in the country from doing anything productive. And it was especially galling that he got promoted in the wake of his catastrophic failure to general secretary.

Well, what I do not understand why you are saying that Kofi Annan and Chirac had to do all the work, while the US could absolutely do nothing..

 

[Gurdur]

....The fact is no one cares....

On the whole, RandFan, you are right, but I would like to point out that personally I care a great deal, and I have no inhibitions of stating just what is wrong with French policy over the decades, and it has been very wrong indeed.

I disagree totally with Ziggurat over Annan; I think that was a kneejerk effort of his. There is also a great deal of sheer ignorance about Africa (and of course the UN too, as to how it functions and how it is comprised), and a lot of very stupid, arrogant, childish scorn directed at Africa by quite a few posters here (whether "left" or "right") -- none of whom have the slightest idea of what they're talking about.

But for various personal reasons, I simply want to point out I care a big deal about Africa, especially the East and the Horn; I don't bother saying much at all about it, because quite frankly there is no point in making remarks to be only greeted by puerile ignorance, let alone dealing with the likes of MaGZ.

 

[Matteo Martini]

At the risk of appearing to make a To Quoque argument I have to say that this is my biggest complaint.

No problem, Americans, when stung, they try to group and shelter themselves.
Like everybody.
An understandable reaction..

And it's not just French policy BTW. The world, by and large is one great big mess.

You are wrong.
The world, except the USA by and large is one great big mess.

Much of Africa, North Korea, Much of South America, corruption, mass murder, genocide, hellish conditions, interference of sovereign affairs, invasions, coups, etc. yet most people largely focus on America. As if we are the cause of so much of the world's problems.

????
Who is the most people you are talking to?
Not me, of course.
As I never said, nor implied, that

Because of its prominence it is only reasonable to expect that America would garner much attention. However, it is not reasonable that we should be made out to be the worlds boogeyman when it is demonstrable that is not true.

You are completely out of topic.

Rest assured though that Oliver and company will be here every day concentrating on America nearly to the exclusion of all other nations, with the exception of course, Israel.

Oliver has not even taken part in this part of the discussion.
This is called paranoia, my friend..

The fact is no one cares. At least not enough to sustain daily threads. You won't find many if any threads about North Korea because no one really cares.

" No one ", means, RandFan included?

That people die there and suffer under the most bizarre and brutal of circumstances and that the nation has nuclear weapon capability and is a real potential for wold disaster is at best likely to cause a thread to be started a few times a year. In fact, North Korea is defended for its nuclear weapon capability. It's brought up again and again that only America has used nuclear weapons. As if that somehow makes everything ok. Bizarre.

Again, competely off thread, off topic, off everything..
I do not know about what you are talking about.
I do not recollect me or anyone of the poster in this part of the thread defending North Korea.
By the way, I live in Tokyo, and I am scared as ****, that those crazy people may do something, like send a rocket like they did some time ago, but with a nuke on it, this time..

Darfur, unless it can be blamed, at least in part, on America, or unless it can be shown that America is not doing enough to help then fagetaboutit.

Not the point of discussion.
I suspect you did not even read this thread, before intervening..

 

[Gurdur]

Ah..
I see..
The US and the rest of the world were ignorant that a genocide was going to happen/was happening..
Very clever from your side

You are being ridiculous, Matteo. Most nations simply had no way of knowing what the extremist Hutus planned until it was actually underway.

There are further reasons not to want any one single nation in the position where it COULD know all such things around the globe and police them too; I don't suppose you've thought of that at all.

And you STILL have not explained just how I am supposed to be "condoning" genocide; as it is, I am willing to bet that I personally have done far more practically to try helping stopping such things than you ever have or ever will have.

You are under some kind of narcotics?

Maybe you should justify your accusations if you make them first before asking such questions.

BTW: note to Zig: Zig, you're guilty yourself of just such a remark, and as silly as Matteo's was in its own context.

Try to drop two or three bombs on Hutus` heads, and you will see how they calm down..

You really have ZERO idea about the whole situation, don't you Matteo? And don't be racist; it was NOT all Hutus, in fact many moderate Hutus were murdered too. So LEARN something about Rwanda before you make such stupid remarks.

 

[Gurdur]

No problem, Americans, when stung, they try to group and shelter themselves.
Like everybody.
An understandable reaction..

BTW, to put my remarks in context, I will point out I am not an American and I do not even live in the USA.

You are wrong.
The world, except the USA by and large is one great big mess.

Really? Amazing. Personally, I find the country where I live now to be in much better shape than the USA. Quite a few other countries are not doing too badly at all either.

 

[Matteo Martini]

At the risk of appearing to make a To Quoque argument

BTW ( by the way ), it is called a " tu quoque " argument.
" Tu ", means " you in latin, and has to be declined in nominativo singolare ( sorry for the Italian ).
There is no way, in Latin, to declinare ( sorry for the Italian ) " Tu " as " To ".
Ah, those boring Latin lessons in high school..

 

[Matteo Martini]

BTW, to put my remarks in context, I will point out I am not an American and I do not even live in the USA.

That remark was not addressed to you

Really? Amazing. Personally, I find the country where I live now to be in much better shape than the USA. Quite a few other countries are not doing too badly at all either.

Drat!!
I really have to use the [irony] [/irony] brackets, sometimes..

 

[RandFan]

BTW ( by the way ), it is called a " tu quoque " argument.
" Tu ", means " you in latin, and has to be declined in nominativo singolare ( sorry for the Italian ).
There is no way, in Latin, to declinare ( sorry for the Italian ) " Tu " as " To ".
Ah, those boring Latin lessons in high school..

You are being a jerk. If you would have done a search of the forum before accusing me of not knowing something you might have realized I made a typo. There are 69 instances of my spelling it correctly.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/search.php?searchid=1003232

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2812130&highlight=quoque#post2812130

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2718965&highlight=quoque#post2718965

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2689137&highlight=quoque#post2689137

This is a logical fallacy. It's called Tu Quoque. Most of us learn when we are children why this is wrong.

 

[Ziggurat]

Ah..
I see..
The US and the rest of the world were ignorant that a genocide was going to happen/was happening..
Very clever from your side

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.

With more difficulty

So? Victims will also have more difficulty escaping. Everything goes slower, but nothing actually stops. And since any ground forces deploying to the region to actually stop the slaughter are going to need supply lines with heavy trucks, etc, and will have to move large distances to get to where they would need to be, bombing all the roads would make it harder to stop the genocide.

Try to drop two or three bombs on Hutus` heads, and you will see how they calm down..

Yeah, because that's got a real proven track record of working. When has "two or three bombs" (other than nukes) ever dissuaded a population at war? Never. And how, pray tell, do you tell the difference between Hutus and Tutsis from the air? Or between Hutus engaged in genocide and those not engaged in genocide? And you say I'm the one on narcotics....

Well, what I do not understand why you are saying that Kofi Annan and Chirac had to do all the work, while the US could absolutely do nothing..

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.

And Kofi Annan gets special demerits because he was in charge of forces already on the ground in Rwanda, and he was directly informed, by the local UN military commander (Dallaire), of what was about to happen. Dallaire asked for permission to take actions which might have stopped or at least mitigated the coming massacre, and Kofi Annan refused that request, and instead suggested that Dallaire bring up the fact that the Hutu government was about to commit genocide... with that very same Hutu government. Clinton, much as I'm disappointed with his lack of action, never faced an equivalent decision.

 

[Matteo Martini]

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.

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

So? Victims will also have more difficulty escaping. Everything goes slower, but nothing actually stops. And since any ground forces deploying to the region to actually stop the slaughter are going to need supply lines with heavy trucks, etc, and will have to move large distances to get to where they would need to be, bombing all the roads would make it harder to stop the genocide.

You can choose which roads you can bomb.
If you slow down the violence, you also give the community more time to get organized and to act

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

Really?
Ah! Ah! Ah! Ah!

Yeah, because that's got a real proven track record of working.

Evidence?

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.

Anti-American paranoia?
Evidence?

I did make one mistake, though: Mitterand was still in charge, not Chirac, at that point.

This is not the mistake you are making.
Not the main one, at least..

And Kofi Annan gets special demerits because he was in charge of forces already on the ground in Rwanda, and he was directly informed, by the local UN military commander (Dallaire), of what was about to happen. Dallaire asked for permission to take actions which might have stopped or at least mitigated the coming massacre, and Kofi Annan refused that request, and instead suggested that Dallaire bring up the fact that the Hutu government was about to commit genocide... with that very same Hutu government. Clinton, much as I'm disappointed with his lack of action, never faced an equivalent decision.

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?

 

[Matteo Martini]

You are being a jerk. If you would have done a search of the forum before accusing me of not knowing something you might have realized I made a typo. There are 69 instances of my spelling it correctly.

The jerk ( me ), never accused you of anything.

 

[RandFan]

The jerk ( me ), never accused you of anything.

Right, you only lectured me about Tu Quoque because? What? Because you believed I knew how to spell it and simply made a mistake? Come on, please don't be insulting.

 

[Matteo Martini]

Right, you only lectured me about Tu Quoque because? What? Because you believed I knew how to spell it and simply made a mistake? Come on, please don't be insulting.

I was trying to show up a little bit, with my knowledge of Latin from high school

 

[RandFan]

I was trying to show up a little bit, with my knowledge of Latin from high school

Ok, fair enough. I've had a chip on my shoulder of late. Sorry and thanks.

 

[Matteo Martini]

Ok, fair enough. I've had a chip on my shoulder of late. Sorry and thanks.

No, no problem.
I sometimes feel angry, as I had to study a lot that language, that has no use at all, except for two quotations.
I do not know why they still keep it in the high school curricula, so you come out at 19 from high school, knowing Latin better than English.
But, I apologize, I am getting out of thread, and off topic..

 

[Flo]

No problem, Americans, when stung, they try to group and shelter themselves.
Like everybody.
An understandable reaction..

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.