Top Russian General Says They Have A Right For Premptive Strike Anywhere In The World.

[Drift3r]

What would happen if Russia decides to strike at nations that have broken away from it which have large populations of muslims and juicy resources like Georgia ? What could we do and should do if they decide to attack terrorism at it's source and attack countries like Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, or Pakistan ? Have we unleashed a pre-emptive strike genie from it's bottle for other nations to abuse ? We all know that other nations have different needs and agendas which are at odds with our own. History has also shown us that Russia has used "pre-emptive strikes" to widen it's borders or suppress political decent. How should we react if they decide to nuke Chechnya or other some muslim nation which we are friendly with or depend on for intelligence and support ?

MOSCOW - Russia's top general threatened on Wednesday to strike terrorists "in any region of the world," and the Kremlin offered a $10 million reward for information leading to the killing or capture of Chechnya (news - web sites)'s top rebel leaders.

Russian officials also expressed growing anger with critics of the Kremlin's policy in Chechnya and criticized the United States for its willingness to hold talks with Chechen separatists.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/ne.../russia_school_seizure

READ THE REST OF THE ARTICLE PLEASE BEFORE POSTING.

 

[ntdz]

i say let them do it, they will be fighting our enemies anyway. I doubt they will be attacking arab countries however, I dont think they have the means or money to do that effectively. Good luck to them, they are now fighting the same war we are.

 

[daveshel]

On the other hand, will the fight anainst terrorism (continue to) be used as an excuse for world powers to pursue other agendas?

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: daveshel
On the other hand, will the fight anainst terrorism (continue to) be used as an excuse for world powers to pursue other agendas?

That's kind of the question I am asking. I mean we all know how Stalin used the fear of NAZI sympathizers in Poland at the end of WW2 to crush any pro-democracy movement in Poland and other Eastern European nations. Much to the dismay of Mr. Churchill who was not fooled at all by Stalin's fake charm. I don't see how this "pre-emptive doctrine" cannot be used by nations with ulterior motives. Also to assume that muslims nations will always be the only nations with terrorist is fool hardy IMHO.

 

[her209]

Can we say China and Taiwan?

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: her209
Can we say China and Taiwan?

<shudder> Not a pretty thought is it!

 

[CycloWizard]

The only good thing is that no other country has nearly the resources that we do to wage this sort of war. The drawback is that probably no other country is nearly concerned with the loss of human life, both friendly and civilian. I'd say at most Russia might go after one country. They might also become our ally again, now that the financial benefits of Iraq are gone and terrorism has struck them.

 

[raildogg]

This is BS, Russia does not have the forward bases nor the personnel to do what we did. Lets not even go to the funding issue ...

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: raildogg
This is BS, Russia does not have the forward bases nor the personnel to do what we did. Lets not even go to the funding issue ...

But does Russia have the right to pre-emptively strike Chechnya?

 

[raildogg]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: raildogg
This is BS, Russia does not have the forward bases nor the personnel to do what we did. Lets not even go to the funding issue ...

But does Russia have the right to pre-emptively strike Chechnya?

Russia has been attacking Chechnya for decades, whats new??

This post is about Russia attacking countries that harbor terrorists, which is a load of major BS.

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: raildogg
This is BS, Russia does not have the forward bases nor the personnel to do what we did. Lets not even go to the funding issue ...

But does Russia have the right to pre-emptively strike Chechnya?

Russia has been attacking Chechnya for decades, whats new??

This post is about Russia attacking countries that harbor terrorists, which is a load of major BS.

Russia has made claims that Georgia is a terrorist hotspot for Chechnen rebels. They have made previous threats of moving in troops into Georgia but backed off because we asked them too. In the border regions they have clashed with Georgian Army, and Chechen rebels running into Georgia. I say that Russia does have the strength to invade nations near their borders and the abiltiy to nuke those outside their reach. I don't think that this is BS at all. Just because they can't launch a full scale invasion of the US or some nation half way across the globe does not mean they can't further extend their attacks from Chechnya into Georgia and other muslim dominated break away states near their borders.

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
The only good thing is that no other country has nearly the resources that we do to wage this sort of war. The drawback is that probably no other country is nearly concerned with the loss of human life, both friendly and civilian. I'd say at most Russia might go after one country. They might also become our ally again, now that the financial benefits of Iraq are gone and terrorism has struck them.

What does Iraq have to do with their problems in Chechnya ? Thats a stretch if I ever saw one.

 

[raildogg]

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: raildogg
This is BS, Russia does not have the forward bases nor the personnel to do what we did. Lets not even go to the funding issue ...

But does Russia have the right to pre-emptively strike Chechnya?

Russia has been attacking Chechnya for decades, whats new??

This post is about Russia attacking countries that harbor terrorists, which is a load of major BS.

Russia has made claims that Georgia is a terrorist hotspot for Chechnen rebels. They have made previous threats of moving in troops into Georgia but backed off because we asked them too. In the border regions they have clashed with Georgian Army, and Chechen rebels running into Georgia. I say that Russia does have the strength to invade nations near their borders and the abiltiy to nuke those outside their reach. I don't think that this is BS at all. Just because they can't launch a full scale invasion of the US or some nation half way across the globe does not mean they can't further extend their attacks from Chechnya into Georgia and other muslim dominated break away states near their borders.

You mean Russia can invade Georgie?? sure, Georgia has no military to speak of. Chechnya is close to two muslim countries, Azerbaijan and Georgia and I dont think Russia will attack these nations. My point is that the Russian military has weakened to a point that Russia is middle of the pack in terms of conventional arms. Its troops are about 400,000 now, used to be 4 million.

And about those nukes ... Russia is so economically strapped that about 100 "pieces" of nuclear bombs or nuke bombs themselves are missing. Most of these are suitcase bombs.

Did you know that the US pays Russia a certain about of money to safeguard its nuke stock and to maintain it?

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
The only good thing is that no other country has nearly the resources that we do to wage this sort of war. The drawback is that probably no other country is nearly concerned with the loss of human life, both friendly and civilian. I'd say at most Russia might go after one country. They might also become our ally again, now that the financial benefits of Iraq are gone and terrorism has struck them.

What does Iraq have to do with their problems in Chechnya ? Thats a stretch if I ever saw one.

I never made any connection there. Russia was financially involved with Iraq, which is one (if not THE) reason they weren't our ally in Iraq. I stated that they might become our ally again, now that Iraq is no longer writing them a paycheck every month.

 

[raildogg]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
The only good thing is that no other country has nearly the resources that we do to wage this sort of war. The drawback is that probably no other country is nearly concerned with the loss of human life, both friendly and civilian. I'd say at most Russia might go after one country. They might also become our ally again, now that the financial benefits of Iraq are gone and terrorism has struck them.

What does Iraq have to do with their problems in Chechnya ? Thats a stretch if I ever saw one.

I never made any connection there. Russia was financially involved with Iraq, which is one (if not THE) reason they weren't our ally in Iraq. I stated that they might become our ally again, now that Iraq is no longer writing them a paycheck every month.

During the first few days of war, a Russian convoy was shot by the USA during a "hot pursuit". Not many of you remember that. It was said by some defense officials that Russia was getting some Iraqi officials out of Iraq to Russia or some other countries. Some rogue Russian ex military generals were helping coordinate the Iraqi army during Operation Iraq Freedom.

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
The only good thing is that no other country has nearly the resources that we do to wage this sort of war. The drawback is that probably no other country is nearly concerned with the loss of human life, both friendly and civilian. I'd say at most Russia might go after one country. They might also become our ally again, now that the financial benefits of Iraq are gone and terrorism has struck them.

What does Iraq have to do with their problems in Chechnya ? Thats a stretch if I ever saw one.

I never made any connection there. Russia was financially involved with Iraq, which is one (if not THE) reason they weren't our ally in Iraq. I stated that they might become our ally again, now that Iraq is no longer writing them a paycheck every month.

The Russian public barely supports the Chechnen conflict despite the previous waves of terror strikes. Why would they support Putin putting troops into a shooting gallery known as Iraq for cash ? Not to mention giving up exclusive oil contracts inIraq to the Russians will never ever be allowed to happen with this current adminstration. Sorry but we would rather do without Russia's help in Iraq. In fact if anything Russian military tactics if they are anything like what they are in Chechnya would lead to a massive revolt and increase in the ranks of the insurgency in Iraq.

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
The only good thing is that no other country has nearly the resources that we do to wage this sort of war. The drawback is that probably no other country is nearly concerned with the loss of human life, both friendly and civilian. I'd say at most Russia might go after one country. They might also become our ally again, now that the financial benefits of Iraq are gone and terrorism has struck them.

What does Iraq have to do with their problems in Chechnya ? Thats a stretch if I ever saw one.

I never made any connection there. Russia was financially involved with Iraq, which is one (if not THE) reason they weren't our ally in Iraq. I stated that they might become our ally again, now that Iraq is no longer writing them a paycheck every month.

During the first few days of war, a Russian convoy was shot by the USA during a "hot pursuit". Not many of you remember that. It was said by some defense officials that Russia was getting some Iraqi officials out of Iraq to Russia or some other countries. Some rogue Russian ex military generals were helping coordinate the Iraqi army during Operation Iraq Freedom.

Russia always had diplomats and a embassy in Iraq even when Saddam was in control and even with the sanctions. That doesn't really amount to a hill of beans IMHO.

 

[MidasKnight]

Originally posted by: ntdz
i say let them do it, they will be fighting our enemies anyway. I doubt they will be attacking arab countries however, I dont think they have the means or money to do that effectively. Good luck to them, they are now fighting the same war we are.

 

[arsbanned]

i say let them do it, they will be fighting our enemies anyway.

You do realize the U.S. has a close relationship with Russia's terrorists, right? Better study up before you start the war cheerleading.

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: Drift3r
What would happen if Russia decides to strike at nations that have broken away from it which have large populations of muslims and juicy resources like Georgia ? What could we do and should do if they decide to attack terrorism at it's source and attack countries like Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, or Pakistan ? Have we unleashed a pre-emptive strike genie from it's bottle for other nations to abuse ? We all know that other nations have different needs and agendas which are at odds with our own. History has also shown us that Russia has used "pre-emptive strikes" to widen it's borders or suppress political decent. How should we react if they decide to nuke Chechnya or other some muslim nation which we are friendly with or depend on for intelligence and support ?

MOSCOW - Russia's top general threatened on Wednesday to strike terrorists "in any region of the world," and the Kremlin offered a $10 million reward for information leading to the killing or capture of Chechnya (news - web sites)'s top rebel leaders.

Russian officials also expressed growing anger with critics of the Kremlin's policy in Chechnya and criticized the United States for its willingness to hold talks with Chechen separatists.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/ne.../russia_school_seizure

READ THE REST OF THE ARTICLE PLEASE BEFORE POSTING.

Ok, did YOU read the rest of the article before posting that subtitle? Let me quote in case you missed these very relevent parts. You have a future with the New York Times for selective reporting.

Russian officials have been particularly angered by Britain's granting of asylum to Akhmed Zakayev, an envoy for Chechen rebel leader Aslan Maskhadov, and the United States' granting of asylum to Ilyas Akhmadov, who was foreign minister under Maskhadov during Chechnya's de-facto independence in the late 1990s.

News of the reward offer came as Russia's top military commander, Col.-Gen. Yuri Baluyevsky, said that "we will take all measures to liquidate terrorist bases in any region of the world," including launching pre-emptive strikes.

"We are far from accusing the leaders of major countries ...

Nowhere in that article or in that Russian general's statements do they accuse the United States of "being friendly with Chechen separatists". The criticism at the beginning of the article referencing Western nations also includes the Dutch who either hosted or almost hosted some Chechen rebels for a conference of some sort a year or so ago (cannot recall if they called off the Chechen participation because of Russian pressure or not). Contrary to what some idiots on this board have said, the Russians have not said they'll attack the US since we aren't hosting Chechen training camps on our soil. If those same idiots knew anything about the region, they'd know that the Russians are referring to Georgia and the Pankisi (sp?) Gorge.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: arsbanned

i say let them do it, they will be fighting our enemies anyway.

You do realize the U.S. has a close relationship with Russia's terrorists, right? Better study up before you start the war cheerleading.

True, the US has invited the Chechenyan rebels numerous times and gave Putin the finger when he asked them not to.

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: raildogg
This is BS, Russia does not have the forward bases nor the personnel to do what we did. Lets not even go to the funding issue ...

But does Russia have the right to pre-emptively strike Chechnya?

You do know that Russian Army and Internal Ministry troops are STATIONED in Chechnya, right?

 

[Jhhnn]

The Russians are just following the bush Admin's lead. If it's good for the US, then it must be good for them, too.

This is most likely an attempt to get the Georgians to tighten up their act wrt Chechen separatists using some remote parts of Georgia as a safe haven and staging area... similar to the actions of the US wrt the Taliban and Al Qaeda...

Basically, if you want to run your own country, fine, do it in a way that allows us to stay out of your business...

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Originally posted by: Drift3r
What would happen if Russia decides to strike at nations that have broken away from it which have large populations of muslims and juicy resources like Georgia ? What could we do and should do if they decide to attack terrorism at it's source and attack countries like Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, or Pakistan ? Have we unleashed a pre-emptive strike genie from it's bottle for other nations to abuse ? We all know that other nations have different needs and agendas which are at odds with our own. History has also shown us that Russia has used "pre-emptive strikes" to widen it's borders or suppress political decent. How should we react if they decide to nuke Chechnya or other some muslim nation which we are friendly with or depend on for intelligence and support ?

MOSCOW - Russia's top general threatened on Wednesday to strike terrorists "in any region of the world," and the Kremlin offered a $10 million reward for information leading to the killing or capture of Chechnya (news - web sites)'s top rebel leaders.

Russian officials also expressed growing anger with critics of the Kremlin's policy in Chechnya and criticized the United States for its willingness to hold talks with Chechen separatists.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/ne.../russia_school_seizure

READ THE REST OF THE ARTICLE PLEASE BEFORE POSTING.

Ok, did YOU read the rest of the article before posting that subtitle? Let me quote in case you missed these very relevent parts. You have a future with the New York Times for selective reporting.

Russian officials have been particularly angered by Britain's granting of asylum to Akhmed Zakayev, an envoy for Chechen rebel leader Aslan Maskhadov, and the United States' granting of asylum to Ilyas Akhmadov, who was foreign minister under Maskhadov during Chechnya's de-facto independence in the late 1990s.

News of the reward offer came as Russia's top military commander, Col.-Gen. Yuri Baluyevsky, said that "we will take all measures to liquidate terrorist bases in any region of the world," including launching pre-emptive strikes.

"We are far from accusing the leaders of major countries ...

Nowhere in that article or in that Russian general's statements do they accuse the United States of "being friendly with Chechen separatists". The criticism at the beginning of the article referencing Western nations also includes the Dutch who either hosted or almost hosted some Chechen rebels for a conference of some sort a year or so ago (cannot recall if they called off the Chechen participation because of Russian pressure or not). Contrary to what some idiots on this board have said, the Russians have not said they'll attack the US since we aren't hosting Chechen training camps on our soil. If those same idiots knew anything about the region, they'd know that the Russians are referring to Georgia and the Pankisi (sp?) Gorge.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/...07/putin.us/index.html

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Originally posted by: Drift3r
Nowhere in that article or in that Russian general's statements do they accuse the United States of "being friendly with Chechen separatists". The criticism at the beginning of the article referencing Western nations also includes the Dutch who either hosted or almost hosted some Chechen rebels for a conference of some sort a year or so ago (cannot recall if they called off the Chechen participation because of Russian pressure or not). Contrary to what some idiots on this board have said, the Russians have not said they'll attack the US since we aren't hosting Chechen training camps on our soil. If those same idiots knew anything about the region, they'd know that the Russians are referring to Georgia and the Pankisi (sp?) Gorge.

They blame us to a larger degree IMHO. Sure they blame the Dutch and British as well but I suspect that they have more blame on us to heap then you would like to give them credit.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/...07/putin.us/index.html

IMHO Putin blaming mid-level US officials is just him being diplomatic and using it to try to gauge the response of his statement at the Whitehouse who has responded by urging restraint.