The W
Views: 99974883
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
24.10.07 0207
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Russia on the rampage? Register and log in to post!
Pages: Prev 1 2(693 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (28 total)
PalpatineW
Lap cheong
Level: 77

Posts: 1243/1528
EXP: 4084925
For next: 106223

Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 2830 days
Last activity: 2673 days
AIM:  
#21 Posted on 9.9.04 2158.41
Reposted on: 9.9.11 2158.41
Jag,

I was thinking along the lines of terrorists in foreign lands, not here. Obviously we send the SWAT in to bust up a local cell. I just don't think you can do that if you're Israel, or if you're the US trying to clean up AQ on foreign soil somewhere.
StaggerLee
Scrapple
Level: 141

Posts: 1893/6335
EXP: 33459024
For next: 661074

Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 6 days
Last activity: 3 days
#22 Posted on 10.9.04 1712.01
Reposted on: 10.9.11 1712.34
    Originally posted by SKLOKAZOID
    You're an American, and you're not a part of their political process.


Well, please insert, CANADIAN, BRITISH, Etc in that American slot and remind those who seem to want to tell us here how to elect people and why we should elect them. That would be greatly appreciated.
ges7184
Lap cheong
Level: 76

Posts: 1052/1494
EXP: 3947233
For next: 58846

Since: 7.1.02
From: Birmingham, AL

Since last post: 45 days
Last activity: 7 hours
#23 Posted on 10.9.04 1831.50
Reposted on: 10.9.11 1832.42
    Originally posted by PalpatineW
    Jag,

    I was thinking along the lines of terrorists in foreign lands, not here. Obviously we send the SWAT in to bust up a local cell. I just don't think you can do that if you're Israel, or if you're the US trying to clean up AQ on foreign soil somewhere.


I think Jag's analogy is valid for Israel. When they drop a bomb on terrorists, fundamentally they ARE boming inside their own nation. Also, it's not like the Palestinians are well-armed. There's a reason why their preferred method of attack is strapping bombs to themselves and blowing themselves up.
Malarky
Bauerwurst
Level: 23

Posts: 44/104
EXP: 64666
For next: 3058

Since: 19.8.04

Since last post: 3667 days
Last activity: 3664 days
#24 Posted on 10.9.04 1832.22
Reposted on: 10.9.11 1833.25
We've kinda veered off topic these last.....2 pages.

=|
Crimedog
Boerewors
Level: 42

Posts: 67/374
EXP: 490132
For next: 31234

Since: 28.3.02
From: Ohio

Since last post: 2710 days
Last activity: 2701 days
#25 Posted on 11.9.04 0217.39
Reposted on: 11.9.11 0217.49
    Originally posted by Jaguar
    I'd be all for this if there was any proof whatsoever that bombing the shit out of terrorists *worked*. Looking back over the past forty years...

    The Vietnamese beat out the US using small force guerilla tactics.

    The fact that America tried to fight a tank war in possibly the most unhospitable terrain for tanks possible didn't help. Neither did the fact that the U.S. was there in an "advisory" role and there was no clear chain of command, leading to bad decision making and restraints on what American forces could and couldn't do. If the U.S. had fought a real war against the North Vietnamese, Ho Chi Minh City would be a parking lot.



    The Afghans beat the Russians using small force guerilla tactics.

    And $6 BILLION in U.S. aid. Meanwhile, Russia was holding its military together with spit and bailing wire.



    Russia has yet to pacify Chechnya.

    Again, the Russian military is in TERRIBLE shape. Plus, again, they're holding back. That will probably change real soon now and Checnya will be "pacified."



    Israel has yet to pacify the Palestinians.

    Restraint once again. Israel's in the unfortunate position of being surrounded by countries that hate it, so they can't take the gloves off. If they ever decide to, look out. It's hard to root out terrorists when the entire world, basically, keeps telling you to back off and "negotiate."




    You could make a case that the Brittish have managed to stamp out the Irish terrorists (for the time being).

    Britain and Ireland was never really a military action. Basically, once Britain got fed up and said they were going to start kicking the ass of every Irishman that looked at them cross-eyed, the IRA and the other groups came around real quick.




Pool-Boy
Lap cheong
Level: 81

Posts: 1568/1759
EXP: 4930311
For next: 62559

Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1316 days
Last activity: 82 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#26 Posted on 11.9.04 0335.35
Reposted on: 11.9.11 0336.36
I think the problem here is our modern Political Correctness and "values." We are fighting an enemy that has an advantage not because they are using small, guerrilla tactics, but because they can do what they feel needs to be done without fear of reprisal. They can kidnap someone and chop of their head for the world to see. Intentionally. But if we retaliate, and accidentally wound one civilian, we are decried as barbaric.

Our military action is less effective because we do more than we should to make certain that we are liked. I am not saying we should go in and resort to brutality, but I think we do more than we should to make sure that "the world" is happy with our restraint. And considering they never are, it seems pointless to me.

Take Israel. They were attacked, and ended up CONQUERING Palestine. By all rights, they should be able to do what they want with the country. But the world says they need to give it back. So they try and make peace, and a terrorist blows up a bus, killing civilians. They retaliate, minimally, and are attacked for it. They SHOULD go in and completely destroy Hamas. Arafat should be a target, for exile or assassination. They SHOULD go in there, completely dissolve the Palestinian authority, and say "sorry guys, try again. And we will KEEP doing this until you are serious about peace."

Our weakness is not the "superior" tactics of our enemy, it is the critical eye and double standard of the rest of the world. Terrorists can do whatever they want, and the world looks the other way. Sure, they pay lip service to it, but in real terms, we suffer more for every accidental death, every borderline action. Berg gets his head lopped off, and people murmur about it for a few weeks. A guard puts a pair of panties on an inmate's head, and there is MONTHS of hell-raising.

Something tells me that Russia will not get nearly the scrutiny that we do, and will care much less about it if they decide to get serious. I am curious to see how it unfolds.
Roy.
Pepperoni
Level: 63

Posts: 362/1040
EXP: 2092695
For next: 4468

Since: 25.2.04
From: Keystone State

Since last post: 2358 days
Last activity: 828 days
#27 Posted on 11.9.04 0802.46
Reposted on: 11.9.11 0802.58
    Originally posted by Pool-Boy
    Our weakness is not the "superior" tactics of our enemy, it is the critical eye and double standard of the rest of the world. Terrorists can do whatever they want, and the world looks the other way. Sure, they pay lip service to it, but in real terms, we suffer more for every accidental death, every borderline action. Berg gets his head lopped off, and people murmur about it for a few weeks. A guard puts a pair of panties on an inmate's head, and there is MONTHS of hell-raising.

    Something tells me that Russia will not get nearly the scrutiny that we do, and will care much less about it if they decide to get serious. I am curious to see how it unfolds.


Right, but there HAS to be a middle ground. I'd be much happier and feel a lot better about friends I have over there if there wasn't such a magnifying glass on the troops and what they can and can't blow up, but the Russians have been just as monsterous in Chechnya as the Chechens have been in Russia.

I think the tricky thing is that it seems to me that the Russian soldiers hate the Chechens, flat out. I don't think that the U.S. hates the Iraqis (innocent civilians, that is). When our soldiers get shot at from a town, do our soldiers go burn the entire town down and then rape old women and young children? Do our soldiers take a village into custody and kill all the men, because they might be terrorists, and all the young boys, because, in the words of one soldier "they'll grow up to be rebels"? That's another reason that the Chechens are blowing themselves up. It's such a mess over there, both sides are racing to see who can do worse things to each other, because they're all so pissed off at each other.

Putin seems unwilling to rein in his troops, and I'm not sure that the ends justify the means. I'd be very disappointed if the Russians collaborate with the U.S., simply because of what it would look like to a large part of the Muslim world. We're not exactly loved right now, and I'm not sure that we should be in league with an army with such a negative image.

I welcome taking care of the terrorists in Chechnya, but it looks to me like the Russian troops are more about killing people in new, painful ways than actually going after the leaders.

(edited by Roy. on 11.9.04 0915)
dMr
Andouille
Level: 89

Posts: 1442/2212
EXP: 6880117
For next: 35811

Since: 2.11.02
From: Edinburgh, Scotland

Since last post: 45 days
Last activity: 1 day
#28 Posted on 11.9.04 1113.40
Reposted on: 11.9.11 1114.18
    Originally posted by Crimedog
    Britain and Ireland was never really a military action.


During the troubles there were typically anywhere from 15,000 to 30,000 UK soldiers stationed in Northern Ireland. The IRA often made a point of hitting 'viable targets' relating to British military stations while at least claiming to make efforts to avoid civillian casualties. It was most certainly amilitary action.


    Basically, once Britain got fed up and said they were going to start kicking the ass of every Irishman that looked at them cross-eyed, the IRA and the other groups came around real quick.







Actually when Britain got pissed off and started taking a hard line it was in 1971 and it was called internment, whereby 'terror suspects' were held without trial. Sound familiar? It led to a huge upsurge in violence across Northern Ireland, with 22 people dying within the first 72 hours. To cut a long story short, things more or less went tits up for the next three years until Rees called an end to internment in 1975.

There were a multitude of reasons which led to the IRA downing arms, not least of which was the fact that Loyalists had shown a willingness to do so and they risked losing massive public support if they failed to follow suit. They were certainly never 'afraid' of what the UK government would do, and in fact broke the initial ceasefire in 1996. Many would argue that since the renewed ceasefire in 1997 it is the UK government who has gone out of its way to overlook certain acts by the IRA so as to keep the peace process moving forward.
ALL ORIGINAL POSTS IN THIS THREAD ARE NOW AVAILABLE
Pages: Prev 1 2Thread ahead: DNC Fundrasing Letter feat. James Carville
Next thread: Wonder what Michael Moore would say
Previous thread: Edwards: Republicans "Out Of Touch"
(693 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Russia on the rampage?Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board - 7 year recycle

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.202 seconds.