Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Russians being terrorized?
Topic Started: Aug 24 2004, 10:11 PM (241 Views)
captain_proton_au
Member Avatar
A Robot in Disguise

Ngagh
Aug 25 2004, 02:22 PM
captain_proton_au
Aug 25 2004, 02:18 PM
Second: Russia wouldnt care

Then why hasn't Russia nuked the hell out of Chechnya?

Waiting for an excuse like this
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Ngagh
Member Avatar
Huh?
^^^Excuses like what.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
doctortobe
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
Ngagh: They are probably waiting for a Russian 9/11 so that the rest of the world will not be able to decry their invasion of Chechnya. If the civilized world were initially behind America after 9/11, the Russians could easily make hypocrites out of anybody who questioned the invasion. And, if the Russians are true to form, they will give the collective world the finger and mop up as they please (assuming their military is capable of doing the job).
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
benetil
Unregistered

doctortobe
Aug 25 2004, 08:17 AM
When are they going to turn that area into a parking lot?

The Russian government will probably turn Chechnya into a parking lot about the same time that our (USA) political leaders (President Bush specifically) have the fortitude to either move our troops the hell away from Najaf or wipe that so called "holy place" that fanatical terrorists are using as a military base from the face of the earth.
| Quote | ^
 
doctortobe
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
So you are against Bush's use of restraint? Why do I have the feeling that you would bash Bush as irreverent to Iraqis for destroying the shrine or a coward for pulling troops back?

There is an interesting analogy that I have been chewing over in my mind for a few months now.

When everybody thought that the Russians were the bad guys (Soviet Union), they took that as a sign that they did not need to have moral superiority and did what they damned well pleased.

When everybody thought that the Americans were the bad guys, we tried our damndest to keep our moral superiority through the entire Iraqi conflict.

Would you rather America go the Russian route and just kill who city populations when a couple cry out? Why not test our chemical weapons on a random small village to see how effectively we can kill people?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
benetil
Unregistered

doctortobe
Aug 26 2004, 06:39 PM
So you are against Bush's use of restraint? Why do I have the feeling that you would bash Bush as irreverent to Iraqis for destroying the shrine or a coward for pulling troops back?

There is an interesting analogy that I have been chewing over in my mind for a few months now.

When everybody thought that the Russians were the bad guys (Soviet Union), they took that as a sign that they did not need to have moral superiority and did what they damned well pleased.

When everybody thought that the Americans were the bad guys, we tried our damndest to keep our moral superiority through the entire Iraqi conflict.

Would you rather America go the Russian route and just kill who city populations when a couple cry out? Why not test our chemical weapons on a random small village to see how effectively we can kill people?

I'm opposed to my government playing "footsie" with the lives of American kids by leaving them in a setting like we see in Najaf - if our government wants to exercise restraint in this situation, it should withdraw and get our service men and women out of a situation where their hands are tied from defending themselves. By defending themselves, I mean neutralizing the threat...decisively.

I'm ok with restraint - I'm just not sure that "restraint" in war (especially in the context of what we're seeing in Najaf) is the right approach. I'm just unsettled with what I think I've seen in Najaf for the past month+.
| Quote | ^
 
doctortobe
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
If you want to secure an area, you must have soldiers in the area. American troops would have probably wiped out Al-Sadist's militia by now if it weren't for our trying to keep the shrine undamaged. We cannot leave as the militia will just rearm and go against the government again. We cannot destroy the shrine or we will risk an Iraqi civil war. We therefore must stay and try to lay siege to the shrine.

Bush has made the correct choice, one that I suspect any educated military man would make.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus