Russia prepared for pre-emptive strikes on 'terror bases' worldwide

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Lancer
"Putin is really hugely pissed, the Russians are marching in the streets for action. It would be great if the US and Russia could combine to kick Iran's tail. The US supplying the mobile forces and air while the Russians did the heavy ground work."

I agree. Only a combined effort on the part of the US and Russians could work. The US heavy stuff is tied up right now but our airforce and air mobile forces could be cut loose to give the heavy Russian forces a high tech edge.

You want to invite Russia into an are they've had their eyes own since the 18th Century, Persia, giving them a warm water port and all that oil? And how do you think we'll ever get them out again?

[Lancer]

Who said I want them out?

[Dis]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


You want to invite Russia into an are they've had their eyes own since the 18th Century, Persia, giving them a warm water port and all that oil? And how do you think we'll ever get them out again?

they don't have the capability of keeping it. just like the U.S. does not have the capability of keeping Iraq.

[Pekka]

@ this thread. Do you actually believe, that US and Russia will now do joint-operations and strike terrorists and bases US also wants to hit? And that the level of cooperation and sharing of information will never get to be there? A little naive..

Well anyway. My point is. The argument about pre-emptive strikes has usually lead to 'well aren't you glad that the US is the one doing that, because US is good?'. To where I reply, yeah, thank God US is good, because if it was someone else, it could be really bad.

This is more a response to expanding NATO than anything else. Russia is stepping up a little, as NATO was choking the borders of Russia with new members.

Do you trust them so much, that you want to turn a blind eye and accept what ever is said and *BOOM* somewhere, allegedly 19 terrorists killed in some other country? A little naive.

They just gave themselves a blank cheque. And we are supposed to believe, that it will never get abused? The information flow has never exactly been THAT good from there anyway, nto to mention Putin OWNS the media, excluding some of the newspapers, but then again they will get in line if slapped. I'm not saying they shouldn't strike the terrorists that are plaguing Russia now. Maybe this is the only way they can defend themselves against these school hostage takers and other bastards. But I never knew it has connection to statement 'anywhere in the world, but no nukes'. That means, everything goes basically.

Can we do strikes in there too? I don't think so. Why not? Why can't we do that too? Why can't everyone just have that blank cheque? This is just a new form of weapons race, where some people see opportunity to fight terrorism, I see a new opportunity for Cold War.

It amazes me how some peopel trust their own president to a degree, but it amazes me even more when they actually trust Putin the same way.

[Giancarlo]

The world is an unpredictable place, pekka. It is best you don't predict and wait and see what happens. Chances are Russia is going to go on its own on removing terrorists.

[Pekka]

Chances are, yes. Guarantees? No. And since we live next to it, I say we need to step up too. I have trust, but not that much trust.

I have a problem with 'anywhere in the world' part. The terrorist problem they are facing is very regional now. Saying we don't use nukes means they are not also going to be very soft handed when executing plans.

It also gives a great chance for agents etc to completely **** up places. Say I don't like .. Latvia or something. All I need is one doubleagent, to create huge tensions claiming and 'providing evidence' that there are some aiding from Latvia directly to the terrorists and that some of them are hiding in there. Now, they can strike Latvia.
In fact, they only have to be enemies and not terrorist, we can claim they were terrorists afterwards. Or how about the scenario of terrorists spreading into other countries, so they are not in danger of getting hit in their own countries, because there should be collateral damage?

I think waiting and seeing what will happen is a bad idea, because if something bad should happen, it's too late already. I trust Russia, but do I trust this much? Absolutely not. And we're even giving our landmines away. A little naive from our part as well.

[Giancarlo]

Heheheh, is Pekka scared? Don't worry Russia already had a war with Finland in the past. It didn't go too well.. did it?

[Pekka]

No, but it shouldn't mean history will repeat itself. Besides, I don't even want to think about that possibility. THat's not realistic anyway. And it's unrealistic at this point that they would have something to do in here. What is realistic is, that there will be action in other countries though. How do we know this action was OK and against terrorists? We can't.

[Lancer]

So, what should Putin do? Harsh language?

[Pekka]

Do what everyone else is doing. If we declare that we have the same 'rights' too everywhere in the world, do you agree that our new rights are justified?

[Lancer]

Hundreds of dead kids Pekka, what should Putin do?

[Pekka]

Do what everyone else does. Have intelligence, and then going after them, just like before. You don't think there's difference? There's huge difference.

So, can we claim the same right or not? Why should we wait and have hundreds of kids dead too possibly, why should we wait? I think we should have the same right too, and so with Germany too. How about that? And Japan as well. And China.

[Lancer]

"going after them"

See, we agree.

[Pekka]

No we don't. They have been doing that already. And some countries do that too anyway, like.. agencies and stuff.

However, this is stated, so there can be big **** ups in the future. Going after terrorists anywhere in the world is different than stating to have the right to strike anywehre in the world against terrorist and no using nukes. Theres a huge difference.

[Lancer]

Terrorists have that right, but you would deny it to those they attack?