PSX5Central
Non Gaming Discussions => Off-Topic => Topic started by: fastson on September 08, 2004, 11:38:55 AM
-
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040908/ap_on_re_eu/russia_school_seizure_2
A wounded Russia threatened Wednesday to strike against terrorists "in any region of the world," offered a $10 million reward for information leading to the killing or capture of Chechnya (news - web sites)\'s top rebel leaders, and criticized the United States for its willingness to hold talks with Chechen separatists.
Hmmm.. I would not want to be THIS guy right now.
(https://psx5central.com/community/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.a.cnn.net%2Fcnn%2F2004%2FWORLD%2Feurope%2F09%2F08%2Frussia.basayev%2Flong.baseyev.jpg&hash=87015cd4c674eef1e83085768308651841fc3f96)
Annnd to round off..
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/09/07/putin.us/index.html
Putin said Russia would take its own approach to democratic reform.
"We\'ll do this at our own pace," he said. Democracy can mean different things in different countries, he said.
"In Russia, democracy is who shouts the loudest," he said. "In the U.S., it\'s who has the most money."
:D
-
Who would have guessed these kind of accusations coming from an ex KGB guy? Who is accusing whom of having a "Cold War" mentality? :rolleyes:
Seriously, it would make no logical sense for the US to hold any types of talks or have any communications with Chechnyan rebels - other than maybe to try and find out about terrorist networks.
-
Here is the problem - terrorist and the way, we the world are approaching them. When is the last time you have turned on the news and did not see something terrorist related? It\'s been along long time. If it isn\'t in the US it\'s in another country. All these "super-powers" and countries have something in common and that is terrorism, but instead of them getting together and working together, they all I have a different idea on what needs to be done. All that does is cause more problems than we need. The focus needs to be terrorist of all sorts , the countries need to work together and not be divided on such a strong issue. Until that happens, I think we will see terrorist continue to do what they do best - cause distractions and problems.
-
LIC has a point. We need to get with the other superpowers and then strike at terrorists. Form one large coalition and strike.
-
True, true. I think the UN could help make it possible. The UN could strenthen other countries trust again after Iraq.
-
I would hope that with something this severe, the world powers and the UN would realize it is going to require working together and not working alone. Will that happen? I truly doubt it. None of the leaders can agree on how to handle the matter at hand, so they will continue to lead their countries in a lone war against terrorist.
-
Isn\'t that kind of what the UN is about? A group of countries deciding what\'s best? The problem is, all these countries DO have different ideas as to what is best, and thus it will never be agreed upon.
Oh, and Titan, what other superpowers?
-
The war on terror can not be won.
-
Originally posted by Titan
LIC has a point. We need to get with the other superpowers and then strike at terrorists. Form one large coalition and strike.
What other superpowers?
-
Liechtenstein.. What did you think? :rolleyes:
;)
Maybe he meant Great Powers, like Russia, France, China (is about to become a hyperpower :p) etc?
-
Originally posted by Black Samurai
The war on terror can not be won.
I agree completely... I compare it to the war on drugs, both are failures in the making. And no i\'m not directly comparing drugs with terrorism, just the fact the both are nearly impossible to erradicate.
-
I disagree. The war against terrorism in regards to US is mainly focused on Islamic fundamentalism. They are a visible enemy and can be defeated over time. Whether it is done by force or by a change in their philosophy is their choice. If a more devastating attack occurs on US soil it will result in a more harsh response from us. It won\'t be an invasion next time - especially if the attack involves anything biological or chemical.
Comparing it to the war on drugs is leap. It is much more difficult for a terrorist to plot and carry out an attack then it is for someone to smuggle drugs into this country and sell them.
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
What other superpowers?
.....France?
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
Comparing it to the war on drugs is leap. It is much more difficult for a terrorist to plot and carry out an attack then it is for someone to smuggle drugs into this country and sell them.
The only comparison is the fact that they are both nearly impossible to fully eradicate, not how much more difficult one is to pull of than the other.
It\'s a moot point though, the war on terror is just and right... the war on drugs is/was a waste of time and money.
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
What other superpowers?
If I were a mod of this section, I\'d delete your post for asking the exact same question that I did two posts above it.
:evil:
-
How about I just delete yours ;)
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
I disagree. The war against terrorism in regards to US is mainly focused on Islamic fundamentalism. They are a visible enemy and can be defeated over time. Whether it is done by force or by a change in their philosophy is their choice. If a more devastating attack occurs on US soil it will result in a more harsh response from us. It won\'t be an invasion next time - especially if the attack involves anything biological or chemical.
How are they supposed to wipe out Islamic Fundamentalism? Do they have to kill every Moslem?
If there is another attack on US soil what response could be more harsh than bombing and shooting those responsible? Nukes?
Terrorism is a tactic. You can not have a war against a tactic. You can fight the perpetrators for ever but never wipe out terrorism. That is like having a war on Reconnaissance or Counter-Attacks
-
Nuclear weapons haven\'t been ruled out as a response to terrorists using a WMD on US soil. Bush stated this after 9/11 and I agree. Make Tehran or Damascus glow for all I care. Maybe then they will get the message, if not they will eventually annihilate themselves by attacking us if we remain prepared.
In title it may be a war on a tactic, but in reality (I have said this all along) it is a cultural war and yes I believe Islamic Fundamentalism can be eradicated to where it is no longer a major threat.
Unfortunately, it will involve using tactics that the left in this country has no stomach for. Racial profiling, deportations, deploying the military along our borders and pre emptive military strikes. The cold hard truth is most of these terrorists are Muslim and from the Middle East.
-
You cant just blow up terrorism with a bomb. The Arab majority stick together like brothers in a clan if another race is involved in a conflict. If a terrorist organization sets a nuke off on American soil, and we retaliate with a nuke.... Im afraid something like the apocalypse would come. I can see them all binding together, blind to the fact that we were attacked first, and viewing US citizens as all of Satan\'s followers.
-
excellent point viv...
-
Thanks... and thats Halberto :p
-
sheeit..i like viv better!..where the hell did you get halberto from anyway?..sounds hispanic..
-
So what if they all band together? They did the same thing to Israel didn\'t they? What was the result there? We need to take a page out of Israel\'s book on how to deal with these people. We lose a soldier - blow up ten of them. They suicide bomb us, shell a city of our choosing. Whatever they do to us - recipricate 10 fold.
-
Just a question that has been bugging me..
If, lets say Al-Q would set off a WMD in the US.. like a small nuke.. Where would the US drop its bomb? Al-Qs stronghold (Afghanistan) has already been invaded. Just bomb the hills and hope to hit someone?
-
Originally posted by Black Samurai
How are they supposed to wipe out Islamic Fundamentalism? Do they have to kill every Moslem?
If there is another attack on US soil what response could be more harsh than bombing and shooting those responsible? Nukes?
Terrorism is a tactic. You can not have a war against a tactic. You can fight the perpetrators for ever but never wipe out terrorism. That is like having a war on Reconnaissance or Counter-Attacks
The war against terrorism really is a play on words. Its not the word or tactic we are at war with but rather terror organizations. War on Terror might be a shorter way to say it (or perhaps catchy). You aren\'t thinking too much into what we are really at war against :)
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
So what if they all band together? They did the same thing to Israel didn\'t they? What was the result there? We need to take a page out of Israel\'s book on how to deal with these people. We lose a soldier - blow up ten of them. They suicide bomb us, shell a city of our choosing. Whatever they do to us - recipricate 10 fold.
The thing is the world already saw a hostile action taken by the US in the middle east. While it might not seem that way to us, it does to the majority of the world. And back when they were at war with Israel the terrorist thought they didnt have to play very dirty because their enemy was not very powerful. They know even if they all united they still would have no chance against the US, but by nuking the US and taking no responsibility it leaves a big "?" on who to nuke in retaliation. And if we do retaliate we would be doing it blindly, as if we dont care who we kill anymore. Then people would get afraid if the next one comes their way and thats when the Arab nations rise up and send all their nukes our way not through missles, but through briefcases. Then all hell breaks lose, nukes flying everywhere.
Thats what I pictured. :)
-
Originally posted by fastson
Just a question that has been bugging me..
If, lets say Al-Q would set off a WMD in the US.. like a small nuke.. Where would the US drop its bomb? Al-Qs stronghold (Afghanistan) has already been invaded. Just bomb the hills and hope to hit someone?
Again.. How are you supposed to retaliate against a people who does not fight for a nation?
-
Originally posted by fastson
Again.. How are you supposed to retaliate against a people who does not fight for a nation?
answer..you can\'t..remember that american that got beheaded in saudi arabia? well they\'ve shot & killed the person resposible,..but that person who was thought to be so ruthless was replaced immediately by someone just waiting in the wings..
i said this in another thread..just because you catch bin laden or any other high profile terrorist does not weaken them,..if anything it encourages them...
-
Answer: You can. This is a cultural war and there are certain states in the Middle East that are actively sponsoring terrorism.
Anyway we are talking extreme hypotheticals here. Fight fire with fire. Our current selective targeting is frustrating for our troops and doesn\'t gain us any moral upper hand in this fight with these people.
One could argue we could start shelling cities in states that sponsor terrorism. Syria and Iran come to mind pretty quickly. After all if Syria and Iran are encouraging Arab fighters to come across their borders into Iraq - why not give them a sample of what will happen to them if they continue?
Appeasement and pacifism are not answers to terrorism which is what you two are suggesting.
-
Iran and Syria were responsible for 9/11??!?
Damn, I must have missed that memo.
-
Hey dummy, we are talking terrorism in general and if you don\'t think those two countries have anything to do with terrorism you need your head examined.