# Russia Vows Preemptive strikes "Anywhere in the World"



## Cryozombie (Sep 9, 2004)

From a recent article regarding Russia's Response to terrorist attacks in their country:



			
				Yuri Baluyevsky said:
			
		

> ''As for carrying out preventive strikes against terrorist bases . . . we will take all measures to liquidate terrorist bases in any region of the world," he told reporters.



I pulled the story from HERE after reading his statements in my Local paper today... 

Thoughts?


----------



## MisterMike (Sep 9, 2004)

It kinda sounds like they are following suit with respect to what we are doing. Guess they finally got pissed off enough.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 9, 2004)

Would kind of scare me if I were living in Idaho. As if ATF is not enough to worry about :uhyeah:


----------



## Kane (Sep 9, 2004)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> From a recent article regarding Russia's Response to terrorist attacks in their country:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't blame them for wanting Preemptive Strikes against terrorists. Once a country gets attacked there wyes begin to open. I'm sure now Russia would of supported the war in Iraq if the war started now.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 9, 2004)

Kane said:
			
		

> I don't blame them for wanting Preemptive Strikes against terrorists. Once a country gets attacked there wyes begin to open. I'm sure now Russia would of supported the war in Iraq if the war started now.


That's and odd thing to be 'sure' of. How did you secure this direct line of communication to Moscow? Again, we need to point out that Iraq was not actively participating in any global terrorist activities in 2002 & January & February of 2003. (yes, I know about the payments to the palestinians).


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Sep 9, 2004)

Won't it be interesting if our terrorists are their freedom fighters, and vise versa?


----------



## bignick (Sep 9, 2004)

it's scary to say...but america has set a dangerious and foolish precedent when it comes to pre-emptive strikes...as the public has found out since, strikes based on no solid information at all...sometimes it feels like the the tension of global relations are wound up so tight things are about to snap...everybody's ready to attack each other...Bush has said we'll fight the terrorists wherever they are...and we'll fight you even if it turns out you're not terrorists...now russia has intentions of pre-emptive strikes...North Korea and it's nuclear buildup...not to mention the constant tension in the middle east...

this reminds of a song from the band Tool 

"Some say the end is near, some say we'll see armageddon soon...I certainly hope we will, I sure could use a vacation from this bull***...."


----------



## AaronLucia (Sep 10, 2004)

Kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out. Not really..but..


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 10, 2004)

bignick said:
			
		

> it's scary to say...but america has set a dangerious and foolish precedent when it comes to pre-emptive strikes...as the public has found out since, strikes based on no solid information at all...sometimes it feels like the the tension of global relations are wound up so tight things are about to snap...everybody's ready to attack each other...Bush has said we'll fight the terrorists wherever they are...and we'll fight you even if it turns out you're not terrorists...now russia has intentions of pre-emptive strikes...North Korea and it's nuclear buildup...not to mention the constant tension in the middle east...
> 
> this reminds of a song from the band Tool
> 
> "Some say the end is near, some say we'll see armageddon soon...I certainly hope we will, I sure could use a vacation from this bull***...."



"Iraq is act 2 in a 5 act play called WW4.  I expect it to last as long as the Cold War," Norman Podhoretz.

Conspiracy theorists across the globe just died and went to heaven.... :supcool:


----------



## Rich Parsons (Sep 10, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> "Iraq is act 2 in a 5 act play called WW4.  I expect it to last as long as the Cold War," Norman Podhoretz.
> 
> Conspiracy theorists across the globe just died and went to heaven.... :supcool:




First, What Happened to World War Three?

Second, What was Act one? Operation Dessert Shield and Storm?

Third, What are the other three acts?


As to the original thread point, Russia as a sovereign nation has the right to defend itself. Just like the USA does. In the past this meant when people came to you, you could defend and if necessary counter attack. In most of history this meant your neighbor by immediate land or with in reason of small amount of sea travel. I know the Vikings, went a lot of places, to attack, yet not many went after them, until they had a strong land and or sea base. Now in the 20th century the world fought "The Great War" or "the War to end all Wars" which set the stage for "the Second Great War" or WWII.  Now with mobility and technology it does not take months to move troops around the world, and weapons to make attacks or counter attacks. This is what makes Terrorism the modern warfare of choice by non first world nations, and or groups. They can work in cells and infiltrate and do damage without fear of having counter attacks. Only themselves are at risk. The USA, and now Russia seem to think that it is best to let people know that if you do not wish to play well with others, then we will come and knock your house down. OPPPPS!, you did not really help those bad guys who attacked us, oh well, you did not help us find them either. You did no step up and make your best effort to show us that you were on our side. For this is how it is right now. Just look at our politics. If you are not this small little in the box definition, then you must be one of them. So, yes the USA and its' government are at fault, yet, it is the American people who are at fault. We have not risen up to force re-calls, or to make our views heard to let the government know what we want. Unless of course we have told them because the government is doing what we want, in which case then not only is it our fault, we have no leg to stand on and point at others. 

As to Russia and another big / world war, it is possible we might meet then in battle, yet, they have their own problems and want to be left alone on the most part. The USA wants to be left alone in our apathy, just as long as the oil keeps flowing and people can go to work we are happy on the whole. Yet, the extremists that wish our demise see our culture through the Religous fundamentalists point of view. Our religious fundamentalists point of view, where people claim their religion is bad and their culture is bad. We tempt their young with bright lights and money and sex.  They wish for us to not to export our culture to them and enforce our way of life on them.  So, once again, the American people all think their way is the best, and do not understand why everyone does not follow it. Yet, when we meet similar mentality in response we are surprised.

Tolerance is what is needed, from everyone. If not then you will have empires, that will rise and some will be becuase of world domination designs, (* Sorry Brain you were not the first *),  others will fall into it, as the USA has.  And as long as people think they are threatened or their way of life is threatened, they will fight to defend themselves and their way of life.

More later, as I got to get back to work.
** Steps off of soapbox **


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Sep 10, 2004)

"Russia as a sovereign nation has the right to defend itself. Just like the USA does."

That is the problem.  Its all good when we're on the same page, but is going to suck royally when we aren't.  Case in point, the folks the Russians are dealing with are doing the diplomatic tango with Washington.  Russias point on comparing them to Osamas gang is very valid. 

If one defines terroristic actions as "use of violence against civilian populations to further political agendas", there are a few US allies that fit that definition perfectly. 

It's gonna be messy, either way.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Sep 10, 2004)

Kaith Rustaz said:
			
		

> "Russia as a sovereign nation has the right to defend itself. Just like the USA does."
> 
> That is the problem.  Its all good when we're on the same page, but is going to suck royally when we aren't.  Case in point, the folks the Russians are dealing with are doing the diplomatic tango with Washington.  Russias point on comparing them to Osamas gang is very valid.
> 
> ...



I agree messy, yet part of my point was, that the people need to do something about it, or accept the results.


 :asian:


----------



## nlmantis (Sep 10, 2004)

Here's a thought. If the UN doesn't agree with Russia committing genocide in Chechnya and Ingushetia, why not have a bunch of Chechnyan and Ingushetian (and 10 Arab) terrorists commit unspeakable crimes against harmless Ossetian civilians? Carte Blanche for Russia.. it worked well for Caesar and Hitler (among others). Call it a pre-emptive war on terrorism, sounds better than genocide anyday. Of course this is merely a thought, one can only guess since our networks like "the most trusted name in news" are not really objective.


----------



## parmandjack (Sep 10, 2004)

I think that Russia is simply playing the game according to the game book provided to them by those power broker financiers standing hidden in the shadows. There are a lot of things happening in the world right now, that seem to be coming together for a purpose. Russia is probably been given teh go-ahead and is right on queue.

One of those purposes I allude to above, I think, is a religious war.

WHY? well...the "War on Terrorism" is a nice euphamism(sp?)... you cannot be at war with "terrorism", as terrorism is a none entity...

While "War on Terror" sound really nice and politically correct, I believe it is just that, political correctness...

Why dont they have the guts to call it what it really is...

A "War Against Islam"... it is muslims following islam that are chopping off heads, and otherwise threatening the coming and goings of innocent people in their daily lives... look around you, it is muslims world wide doing these horrible acts ... all in the name of their moon god.

Russia is just another cog in the wheel to push us in that global move towards global governance, under a single body (UN perhaps? or some other union?)and this "war on terror", is just another tool to move us all towards that goal.

(whoops.... bet I'm gonna be lambasted and labelled now as a "conspiricy theorist for simply watching world events and drawing a conclusion).


----------



## bignick (Sep 10, 2004)

parmandjack said:
			
		

> Why dont they have the guts to call it what it really is...
> 
> A "War Against Islam"... it is muslims following islam that are chopping off heads, and otherwise threatening the coming and goings of innocent people in their daily lives... look around you, it is muslims world wide doing these horrible acts ... all in the name of their moon god.


I'm not even going to touch the deeper insults in your post...but this is not a war against Islam...it is a war against radicals that hate america for one reason or another, most who happen to be Islamic, why? Because they were born into a predominantly Islamic area...I know and am friends with many Muslims, I feel know compunctions to watch my back when they and their "moon god" are around...I can't remember the source(edit - http://www.nplusonemag.com/index_3.html), but I'll look for it, I believe the number of Al-qaeda operatives is only around 500...so much for Muslims worldwide, huh?



			
				parmandjack said:
			
		

> (whoops.... bet I'm gonna be lambasted and labelled now as a "conspiricy theorist for simply watching world events and drawing a conclusion).


when you make a post like this you better duck and cover


----------



## Tgace (Sep 10, 2004)

....

This stuff isnt new to Russia. The whole school/children aspect just threw it to a whole new level. Im waiting to see what their next step is.


----------



## parmandjack (Sep 10, 2004)

bignick said:
			
		

> I'm not even going to touch the deeper insults in your post...


hmmm... I re-read my post bignick... and I don't think I implied "any" deeper insults.... what I "did" do was explicitly state a fact.


----------



## SenseiBear (Sep 10, 2004)

We set the precedent - it will haunt us for years to come.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 10, 2004)

parmandjack said:
			
		

> I think that Russia is simply playing the game according to the game book provided to them by those power broker financiers standing hidden in the shadows. There are a lot of things happening in the world right now, that seem to be coming together for a purpose. Russia is probably been given teh go-ahead and is right on queue.
> 
> One of those purposes I allude to above, I think, is a religious war.
> 
> ...



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...


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 10, 2004)

SenseiBear said:
			
		

> We set the precedent - it will haunt us for years to come.



Agreed.  Pre-emption is big trouble...


----------



## deadhand31 (Sep 11, 2004)

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 (Sep 11, 2004)

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 (Sep 11, 2004)

deadhand31 said:
			
		

> 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 (Sep 11, 2004)

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 (Sep 11, 2004)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> 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 (Sep 11, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> 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 (Sep 11, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> 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 (Sep 11, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> 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 (Sep 11, 2004)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> 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 (Sep 11, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> 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 (Sep 11, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> 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 (Sep 11, 2004)

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 (Sep 12, 2004)

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 (Sep 12, 2004)

parmandjack said:
			
		

> 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 (Sep 12, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> http://www.newamericancentury.org/



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


----------



## Flatlander (Oct 9, 2004)

> 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.
> 
> ...


Complete article here

This is great news, if you ask me.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Oct 9, 2004)

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


----------



## Flatlander (Oct 9, 2004)

Kaith Rustaz said:
			
		

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


Who's that?


----------



## PeachMonkey (Oct 9, 2004)

Flatlander said:
			
		

> Who's that?



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


----------

