Russia Vows Preemptive strikes "Anywhere in the World"

[deadhand31]

Preemption is always a scary issue. There are disadvantages to both sides. On one side, by not taking action, we could be allowing the next 9/11 to happen. On the other, we could be attacking someone who had no ill intentions whatsoever. The question is this, do we sit, or do we go? If we sit, we have to make sure we aren't growing complacent. If we go, we have to tread carefully.

 

[Makalakumu]

If we actively work to build peace, then we don't have to attack anyone. If someone attacks us, then we defend ourselves and go back to building peace so no one attacks us again.

 

[michaeledward]

Preemption is always a scary issue. There are disadvantages to both sides. On one side, by not taking action, we could be allowing the next 9/11 to happen. On the other, we could be attacking someone who had no ill intentions whatsoever. The question is this, do we sit, or do we go? If we sit, we have to make sure we aren't growing complacent. If we go, we have to tread carefully.

If we look at the actions of our current Administration, it seems that we were not able to tread carefully enough, don't you think? So many of our beliefs about Iraq were wrong, even though we were prevented 'evidence' by some very high authorities.

Is there any reason to believe that the Russian Administration is going to be able to tread more carefully, and or thoughtfully? I actually think the reverse is true, they are less careful.

Mike

 

[PeachMonkey]

Sadly, even a kindergartener should be able to see through these declarations of preemption, and the resultant blunders for what they really are:

Playing directly into the strategy of Osama bin Laden.

 

[michaeledward]

Sadly, even a kindergartener should be able to see through these declarations of preemption, and the resultant blunders for what they really are:

Playing directly into the strategy of Osama bin Laden.

This may be true, or it may not. However, we who do see it as you describe, need to be cautious when we describe these actions generally. The people who have put together the doctrine of pre-emption and the, occassionally referred to here, 'Plan for a New American Century' are very smart men. To describe their propositions as understandable by a kindergartener, is to casually dismiss them. In doing so, we weaken our argument, and strengthen their ability to counter.

We should be more thoughtful when describing the ambitions and plans. We certainly can be a bit more agressive when disputing actual false statements from those believers (see my responses to deadhand, for instance).

Mike

 

[PeachMonkey]

To describe their propositions as understandable by a kindergartener, is to casually dismiss them. In doing so, we weaken our argument, and strengthen their ability to counter.

You're right, of course. I know the neoconservative doctrine was generated by some pretty smart dudes; it predates the attacks on 9/11, and any attempts to sell their agenda as part of the "War on Terror".

However, I think it casts a pretty dark shadow on their intellectual powers that they are unable to see how their crusades play directly into the hands of Islamic extremists.

 

[Tgace]

If we actively work to build peace, then we don't have to attack anyone. If someone attacks us, then we defend ourselves and go back to building peace so no one attacks us again.

That sounds reasonable, but what do we do to "defend" ourselves in a situation like this Al-Queda mess? Send Spec-Op's teams into foreign nations to take them out? Declare conventional war on nations that harbor them a la Afganistan? Or just "take it" and try to figure out why this group dosent like us and try to appease them?

 

[PeachMonkey]

That sounds reasonable, but what do we do to "defend" ourselves in a situation like this Al-Queda mess? Send Spec-Op's teams into foreign nations to take them out? Declare conventional war on nations that harbor them a la Afganistan? Or just "take it" and try to figure out why this group dosent like us and try to appease them?

Personally, I think we were on our way to having the "right idea" in Afghanistan. Special Forces and air support to take out the Taliban, combined with Special and conventional forces to chase Al-Qaeda down.

Unfortunately, as many feared and predicted, we screwed things up in Afghanistan. I think it's too early to fully evaluate our successes or failures against Al-Qaeda there, but we have definitely left the nation itself in bad shape.

 

[Tgace]

Personally, I think we were on our way to having the "right idea" in Afghanistan. Special Forces and air support to take out the Taliban, combined with Special and conventional forces to chase Al-Qaeda down.

Agreed. That worked in a little @#$% nation like Afganistan. What do you think the solution would be if the terrorists are being harbored in nations like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan? Or, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Palestine etc.

 

[bignick]

Agreed. That worked in a little @#$% nation like Afganistan. What do you think the solution would be if the terrorists are being harbored in nations like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan? Or, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Palestine etc.

Which is why we aren't attacking nations like them(except Iraq of course)...I can feel pretty confidend that there are terrorists in those countries...the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi's in the first place...

i hate to say it...but this really comes down to oil...if saudi arabia wasn't one of the biggest suppliers of oil we probably would have attacked them...but, wait...if we gain control of Iraq's oil reserves we won't need saudi arabia...and then they are fair game...unfortunately, i can see how this might stop for a while...

 

[Rich Parsons]

Not to incite, but..."Iraq is act 2 in a 5 act play called WW4. I expect it to last as long as the cold war."

Norman Podhoretz

Russia is attempted desperately to tie the chechneans to the "war on terror." They see this plan to reform Islam by force and hope to get America on board with reforming Chechnea. At the very least I smell lucrative weapons deals...

Once again I ask what the heck happened to WW3?

Once again I ask, what was ACT 1?

What are the other five acts?

 

[Makalakumu]

Sorry Rich

I've been really busy as of late. Your question is the same question I have. Norman Podhoretz is part of a group called the Plan for the New American Century. Dick Cheney is part of this group. So is Don Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and Richard Perle. These are the guys who are setting our foriegn policy.

According to their writings, WW3 was the Cold War. WW4 is the "War on Terror" whose express purpose is to reform Islam by force. Act 1 was Afghanistan. Act 2 is Iraq. Act 3 and 4? In four more years we just may find out. The Plan indicates that these acts are Syria and Iran. Act 5? The entire middle east.

WW4 indeed.

 

[parmandjack]

hmmm...

I never heard of that group before, thats very interesting.... its also of interest to note that these same people also belong to groups such as the Bilderbergers etc...

 

[michaeledward]

hmmm...

I never heard of that group before, thats very interesting.... its also of interest to note that these same people also belong to groups such as the Bilderbergers etc...

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

 

[Makalakumu]

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

This is the most important peice of information in this election.

 

[Flatlander]

United Nations — The UN Security Council voted unanimously Friday to step up the global campaign against terrorism, calling on all nations to prosecute or extradite anyone supporting, financing or participating in terrorist acts.

The 15-0 vote culminated weeks of negotiations by Russia, which introduced the resolution after militants staged a series of attacks there, including the suicide hijacking of two planes and the hostage-taking of a school in Beslan. It was adopted a day after several car bombings targeted Israelis at Egyptian resorts in Sinai.


“We think these events stressed even more the urgency to take further practical steps in the fight against terrorism and we consider the UN is the best coordinator in this fight,” Russia's deputy UN ambassador Alexander Konuzin said.

Complete article here

This is great news, if you ask me.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

It would definately suck though if they go after the worlds largest producer of bio-warfare agents.

 

[Flatlander]

It would definately suck though if they go after the worlds largest producer of bio-warfare agents.

Who's that?

 

[PeachMonkey]

Who's that?

Here's a hint: you live just north of them.