[CaptainCrunch]

Originally posted by Daradon+Sep 7 2004, 10:02 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Daradon @ Sep 7 2004, 10:02 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

You've hit the central point.

Putin is upset the USA is talking with them. By talking with them, he is presuming that is some level of support.

But he didn't say they were giving them Stinger missiles like the USA did for "freedom fighters" in Afghanistan in the 1980's.

Is he arguing about "moral support?"

Cowperson

I was wondering when this would come out. The U.S. was decrying Russia's actions against the Chechens for years, and they are still technically part of the country. Yet the American's believe it's ok to unilaterally attack a sovereign naiton halfway across the world for their own safety. The whole thing smacks of hypocracy.

I don't know if the support was anything beyond moral, but I know that by decrying it the way the American's did through the world government channels, it made thigs a lot harder for the Russians.

It's another classic case of the U.S. 'do as I say not as I do' policy that angers the rest of the world so much. Sorry to all the American's and Bush supporters, but it's true, and the reason is right there.

Not that I agree with it totally but expect it to get even worse if Bush wins again. [/b][/quote]
I think your comparing Apples to Oranges here. If your going after the hypocrisy argument, you could argue the point that the American's while providing moral support to the Kurds didn't step in and militarily support them when Hussein decided to attempt to wipe them out.

The fact remains that the American invasion into Iraq is a whole other fish then the question of the Russian's squashing Chechnya. Whether you believe in some kind of evil facist government theory or whether you sbscribe that the American were after Oil or whatever the fact remains that the American's perceived a threat in Iraq and decided to deal with it.

I don't know if the support was anything beyond moral, but I know that by decrying it the way the American's did through the world government channels, it made thigs a lot harder for the Russians.

Actually thats not true, the Russians made it a lot harder for themselves. This is the second time that the Russians have gotten themselves buried in a Vietnam type scenario, and both times they've tried to use the same methods which is to use brute force to make the rebels bend to thier will.

It dosen't work. the American offering of moral support and the request for the use of peacekeepers was the right thing to do. In essence they were offering the Russians an easy way out, and the Russians failed to take it.

Until the investigation is released and the identities of these butchers is verified the whole terrorist issue has become a lot more nebulous. But if in fact Al Queda was involved on this, the American's are going to end up not only fighting Al Queda, but they'll end up fighting an enraged and vengenceful Russia as well.

It's another classic case of the U.S. 'do as I say not as I do' policy that angers the rest of the world so much. Sorry to all the American's and Bush supporters, but it's true, and the reason is right there

I must be dense because I don't see any similarities between the U.S. possibly offering moral support in Chechnya and the American's invasion of Iraq.