Putin blasts USA on terror stance

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally posted by Daradon@Sep 7 2004, 10:39 PM
Now I'm the one who is confused but how is using artillary on city blocks that much different then flying over them and dropping bombs. Bombs with smaller bombs in them that in fact don't completely explode when they hit the ground so children can find them later.

Besides, it's been proven just how 'smart' the smart bombs are.

And I don't think the U.S. was wagging their finger solely at the Russians tactics anyway.

The American's went out of thier way in Iraq to reduce collateral damage to civilians. but in a war zone this does happen, mistakes and technological failures do happen. Sad but true.

The Russians have gone out of thier way to cause as much havoc and damage to the Chechen's as they can.

Look at the American's performance in Vietnam with thier search and destroy (er sweep and clean) missions where they would go into villages burn them to the ground and forcibly move the villagers. thats very much what the Russians are doing in Chechnya, with the exception that they're not bothering to remove the villagers and townfolks before they burn the cities to the ground

[Daradon]

Capt:

'Iraq was deemned a threat to the U.S. and thier allies in that region, and the U.S. put its own interests ahead of the U.N. or other global interests and decided to neutralize that threat. According to the UN thats a violation of international law. According to the U.S. the protection of thier own and thier allies superceded that interest.'

I understand this, what I'm asking is how the U.S. can say it's ok for them to take action for their safety, even against a sovereign nation, but pull the morality card on Russia in a situation that IS internal. You are right, they are different. But not in a way that makes the U.S. actions look more justified.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally posted by CaramonLS+Sep 7 2004, 10:43 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (CaramonLS @ Sep 7 2004, 10:43 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Daradon@Sep 7 2004, 10:25 PM
Capt:

I'm not saying anything different than what you wrote yourself.

'the fact remains that the American's perceived a threat in Iraq and decided to deal with it.

So I think it IS far comparison. Chechnya is NOT a threat to Russia? They've been fighting them for years, and as the theatre massacre in Moscow and the recent school massacre in Beslan SHOW that the Chechen's are a threat. In a much more identifiable and direct threat than the U.S. had with Iraq.

I don't see where you think it's a much different comparison.

EDIT: typos

Agree with Daradon here.

The Russians perceive Chechnya as a threat.

Infact if Putin is smart he can spin this exactly like the US spun 9/11 to meet its agenda. [/b][/quote]
you don't think that Putin's already aluded to that in his latest speech where he compared Osama Bin Laden to the Chechen terrorist threat.

By the end of the week the Russian army presence will double.

The American's perceived a threat to thier allies and to that region from both Suddam Hussein and the terrorist threat.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally posted by Daradon@Sep 7 2004, 10:44 PM
Capt:

'Iraq was deemned a threat to the U.S. and thier allies in that region, and the U.S. put its own interests ahead of the U.N. or other global interests and decided to neutralize that threat. According to the UN thats a violation of international law. According to the U.S. the protection of thier own and thier allies superceded that interest.'

I understand this, what I'm asking is how the U.S. can say it's ok for them to take action for their safety, even against a sovereign nation, but pull the morality card on Russia in a situation that IS internal. You are right, they are different. But not in a way that makes the U.S. actions look more justified.

Its an interesting debate.

The American's aren't arguing that the Russian's don't have a right to fix thier internal problems, or to quell a rebellion in thier own back yard. The American's are, were arguing that the Russian methods of doing this were and are particularly barbaric, and are causing unnecessary hardship on the Chechen's.

this isn't a debate about policy, its a debate about methods more than anyone else.

If I go back to the Texas argument.

If Texas rebelled and the American's went in and started slaughtering men woman and children, there would certainly be an international outcry, and the Russians would probably try to force peace keepers into the mix

If the American went in very gently and efficiently and solved the problem, the outcry would certainly not be there.

[Daradon]

Heh, you're not arguing that the U.S. solved or is solving the problem in Iraq 'very gently and efficiently' are you?

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally posted by Daradon@Sep 7 2004, 11:00 PM
Heh, you're not arguing that the U.S. solved or is solving the problem in Iraq 'very gently and efficiently' are you?

Not neccesarily but on the same note are you arguing that the American's are intentionally going after civilians and going out of thier way to bomb schools hospitals and orphanges?

The term gentle and efficiently goes to the same vein as trying to reduce civilian casualties.

If the American's wanted to go after a true campaign of destruction they would have leveled Iraq in 5 days without going beyond a conventional weapons platform

[Daradon]

Originally posted by CaptainCrunch+Sep 7 2004, 11:45 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (CaptainCrunch @ Sep 7 2004, 11:45 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Daradon@Sep 7 2004, 11:00 PM
Heh, you're not arguing that the U.S. solved or is solving the problem in Iraq 'very gently and efficiently' are you?

Not neccesarily but on the same note are you arguing that the American's are intentionally going after civilians and going out of thier way to bomb schools hospitals and orphanges?

The term gentle and efficiently goes to the same vein as trying to reduce civilian casualties.

If the American's wanted to go after a true campaign of destruction they would have leveled Iraq in 5 days without going beyond a conventional weapons platform [/b][/quote]
No, I'm just saying I don't think it's that much different than when Russia went into Chechnya years ago. War is war, and it will always be ugly. To give one side or nation or alliance the benefit of the doubt because they fly over in planes and the war seems less messy (which is probably only on the side that is flying the planes) seems to me like a bit of a cop out. Call a spade a spade is all I'm saying.