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

[Pekka]

no, it's not a right. Trying to make it legal, by any party like that is not a healthy trend.

Imagine yourself, that you were the size of.. one state, small state, and all the other states were your neighbour that is Russia, and they state a thing like this. Would you feel safe? I don't think you would. It was totally unnecessary statement, and it was stated because they are getting ready to make big **** ups as well, aka collateral damage and somehow make it legal.

[Pekka]

ANd you didn't answer my question, can we have that right too, legally strike anywhere in teh world when we see fit?

[Lancer]

We aren't dealing with the Soviet Union here Pekka. Russia couldn't invade Latvia and get away with it. That's just a crock of crap however, the Russian people demand action and Putin is going to give it to them. Action against the people and nations behind the massacre. You don't like it? Say it's not their right? You waste your breath. I suggest there's nothing any of us can do about it... That said, I wouldn't do anything about it if I could. I also wouldn't have tried to stop the US going after Osama, but that's just me.

[Pekka]

"Russia couldn't invade Latvia and get away with it."

Yeah because it's NATO country now. Other countries, too bad for them.

" the Russian people demand action and Putin is going to give it to them"

What about our rights? What if we demand we want to have right to strike Russia if they start messing up in here? What if we catch few agents here, can we launch few strikes in there as well?

"You don't like it? Say it's not their right? You waste your breath"

So, I ask again, can we strike in Russia?

"I also wouldn't have tried to stop the US going after Osama, but that's just me."

When did I argue against this? Or Russia goign after terrorists?

[Dinner]

Except the Russian Military can't even take Grozny without a three month long siege. I don't think anyone really has anything to worry about.

[Pekka]

They can take Grozny any day they want if they decide to step on and smash it up. They just don't want that publicity about it, but militarily, they could tore it up if they wanted to.

I should make it more clear; I think RUssia can and should strike against terrorists, even outside Russia. But this has been done in the past. There's no need to give yourself this blank cheque, making it totally legal. It violates others rights, and if no one else can strike in Russia too when ever they see fit, it's double standards.

[Lancer]

Pekka, you're right, it's not fair.I suggest the president of Finland declare his right to retake that bit of Finnish forest next to St Petersburg lost during WW2. It's only fair...

[Dinner]

They did smash it up, randomly dropped bombs on it, sent in tanks, carpeted the city with artillary, and they still couldn't take it. They just didn't have the coordination or the disipline to do it. Their military is a mess compared to WW2.

[Lancer]

Oerdin is correct. So Pekka, this is Finland's big chance. Attack!

[Pekka]

That's correct, because we need a little buffer zone, now that the political atmosphere have changed. We don't need to 'steal' it, what does that mean anyway. We only need to do re-assesment of the current situation, whcih would support our claims, and modify the border politics a bit to face that new development. It's not illegal, it's totally fair. Right?

Anyway, like said, I don't trust Putin, but I also think he wouldn't attack in here that's almost for sure. We're still friendlies, and if we had terrorists in here, say someone would come in here with a wrong passport or so and we would be unable to detect it, Russia would let us know and we would take care of it ourselves, or give those people to Russia. So there is really no need to strike in here, plus you can't actually get in here with military force, except with agents to do attacks we wouldn't give permission to do, which we wouldn't give permission because we would do it ourselves, or capture them and give them to Russia. So, we wouldnt' have any problems anyway. However, the claim still bothers me a bit, because they would have that possibility, and somehow it would be legal as well, and not many people would even question it really. SO that's disturbing. And that's why I hoped they would just keep doign what they already do, which is to go after terrorists and take them out, but in the traditional way like before.

[Whoha]

Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous
I barely trust the American government to go after the terrorists. Why on Earth would I trust Russia?!

maybe because you are a pinko godless communist

[Whoha]

Originally posted by Dissident
hmm. I support strong response to terrorism, but even I have my doubts.

I've asked if terrorism has ever worked.

Another important questions to ask is: has strong violent responses to terrorism ever worked? That is the more important question. I don't think it has. It just breeds more terrorists.

Terrorism cannot be defeated. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

It can be defeated. On the one hand the culture it is coming from can step up to the plate and crush them. On the other hand that culture can be annihilated.

[Whoha]

Originally posted by Oerdin
They did smash it up, randomly dropped bombs on it, sent in tanks, carpeted the city with artillary, and they still couldn't take it. They just didn't have the coordination or the disipline to do it. Their military is a mess compared to WW2.

I'm fairly sure that they have control of the city now. They were fighting for a different reason in 1994 then they are now.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by debeest


Geronimo, I should think your beliefs about governments not infringing on people's rights would lead you to condemn assassination, unless the victim had already been tried and convicted of a capital crime. What do you think about the U.S. government assassinating people without trial?

The blood is on the heads of those countries who are blocking the extradition and providing asylum. This is war. There were trials for the nazis in ww2, but only when the fighting had stopped. If there was a way to kidnap these guys instead of assassinating them, perhaps the the way isreal was sometimes able to do when it would track down ex-nazis, that would be much preferable. But if a trial can not conceivably be arranged then it is better to assasinate the terrorist than to let them go free.

[Giancarlo]

I still say we attack Finland and get Pekka.