[Spliffdaddy]

Things is about to turn ugly.

The (western) world always takes note of such situations as these.

Mostly because, obviously, these here folks is white. I mean, if white folks are capable of this sort of behaviour - then, exactly, who in the hell *is* civilized? But that's a topic for another thread. This one is about the hell that is about to break loose about five minutes after the 'mourning period' is over.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe...ool/index.html

[lil'babykitten]

Such a turn of events is to be expected, sadly.

[yakkiebah]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Things is about to turn ugly.

The (western) world always takes note of such situations as these.

Mostly because, obviously, these here folks is white. I mean, if white folks are capable of this sort of behaviour - then, exactly, who in the hell *is* civilized? But that's a topic for another thread. This one is about the hell that is about to break loose about five minutes after the 'mourning period' is over.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe...ool/index.html

It has turned ugly 15 years ago. You might want to look into the history of this conflict.

[phoenixboy70]

"If I see a Chechen or an Ingush, I will kill him, or his mother, or his son,"

hasn't this been the russian foreign policy concerning chechnya since 1994?

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by yakkiebah:
It has turned ugly 15 years ago. You might want to look into the history of this conflict.

Nah, things were merely 'bad' until now.

[yakkiebah]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Nah, things were merely 'bad' until now.

A school has been blown up, that's bad. It's nothing compared to what the russians have done in Chechnya though.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Things is about to turn ugly.

The (western) world always takes note of such situations as these.

Mostly because, obviously, these here folks is white. I mean, if white folks are capable of this sort of behaviour - then, exactly, who in the hell *is* civilized? But that's a topic for another thread. This one is about the hell that is about to break loose about five minutes after the 'mourning period' is over.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe...ool/index.html

This isn't a unique situation.

How many individuals made a statement like that in front of a news camera post 9/11?

I can think of someone living not to far from me in a neighboring town... ultimately, the guy was being harassed by everyone to such an extent that the guy packed up and apparantly left the state. Because he said 'so help me god', apparantly a church group saw to it to make sure it's not in the name of god, and followed him to make sure he didn't discrace the name of god.

Two sides to every story. You have the morons, and the ones who counteract it.

[OldManMac]

Originally posted by yakkiebah:
It has turned ugly 15 years ago. You might want to look into the history of this conflict.

Exactly. You're falling for the emotional trap that was set in this incident. If the Russians truly want to hang on to Chechnya, they'll have to pay the price.

[TETENAL]

Originally posted by KarlG:
If the Russians truly want to hang on to Chechnya, they'll have to pay the price.

And if they don't they will as well.

If they let Chechenya go, this will incite segregation longings of other republics too, possibly including terrorism since that proved to be a successful tactic. The result might be the disintegration of Russia.

The Russians are in a dilemma here that doesn't seem to have an easy way out.

[angaq0k]

Of course, that will never explain the dynamic of terrorism elsewhere.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Things is about to turn ugly.

The (western) world always takes note of such situations as these.

Mostly because, obviously, these here folks is white. I mean, if white folks are capable of this sort of behaviour - then, exactly, who in the hell *is* civilized? But that's a topic for another thread. This one is about the hell that is about to break loose about five minutes after the 'mourning period' is over.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe...ool/index.html

In America this is called, "Tit for Tat." Among those who look to their religion to justify bloodlust, it's called, "Eye for an Eye." Where I grew up it was called, "Payback." And you all know that "payback is a BITCH!"

Terrorism grows with each act of violence.

"If I see a Chechen or an Ingush, I will kill him, or his mother, or his son," Reuters quoted one young man as saying. The man, who declined to be named, was searching for a sister who was missing following the siege."

It would be great to remove that impulse from the human psyche. But who wouldn't feel, like that young man does, a desire for vengeance, retribution...justice(?)!

I remember a Star Trek (TV) episode where Kirk and crew went to a planet where the inhabitants had moved beyond the limitations and problems caused by emotions. But our heroes proved that emotions were good things to have. So, I guess we just try and master our negative impulses and enjoy the others.

But who's to say which is positive...which negative?

Anyway, 56 years of the Israeli conflict shows us just how futile responding to violence with violence is.

Some say the right thing to do is to meet each terrorist attack with an equal measure of retribution. Justice.

Others say meet each act with a GREATER level of violence. Deterence.

I believe the better way is to respond to the pain of loss is the way Don Vito Corleone did in the film, The Godfather. He made a peace with his enemies so he could save his son, Michael, from attack.

Using their righteous anger to force the Russian government to find a peaceful agreement is the best thing the griving Russians can do.

Does this mean negotiating with those responsible for such barbarous acts?

"If you want to make peace, you don't talk to your friends. You talk to your enemies."
- _Moshe Dayan

[phoenixboy70]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
..."If you want to make peace, you don't talk to your friends. You talk to your enemies."
- _Moshe Dayan

esxcellent post.

[Spoogepieces]

The Russians have been too soft and too lenient in Chechnya thus far. I predict no more Mr. Nice Putin from now on.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Spoogepieces:
The Russians have been too soft and too lenient in Chechnya thus far. I predict no more Mr. Nice Putin from now on.

"soft and lenient"?

[Logic]

Originally posted by Spoogepieces:
The Russians have been too soft and too lenient in Chechnya thus far. I predict no more Mr. Nice Putin from now on.

Do you have the slightest clue about what is happening and has happened in Chechnia?

[phoenixboy70]

Originally posted by Spoogepieces:
The Russians have been too soft and too lenient in Chechnya thus far. I predict no more Mr. Nice Putin from now on.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by phoenixboy70:
esxcellent post.

Thank you phoenixboy70!

But considering the nature of some of the respondents and responses here, I wouldn't be surprised if someone suggested the Valley heat had 'gotten to you' because you liked my post.

Nonetheless, I appreciate your compliment very much.

Yet, I find myself wondering if I'm wasting my time writing in any reader forum. I have yet to see evidence that minds are changed or that learning takes place.

It seems that people post their thoughts, ideas and positions and other folks just take sides and they take turns attacking or defending their or the other side.

I began reading a very detailed and thoughtful response to one of my posts and made a mental note to check the facts he/she
brought to my attention. Then, I was going to dig through the various sources I read to subtantiate some of my facts which that person questioned.

However, I started reading some of the different threads and topics and posts here at MacNN -- which seems to have an intelligent membership and is well run, but then again, how would I know? This is the first and ONLY place I've really done this! LOL -- and noticed some people often post the same sentiments, yet no one seems to be persuaded to a different point of view.

Then I began wondering if I was going to get sucked into a pointless kind of exchange of written volleys with nothing to be gained but the thrill of the exchange.

Sigh!

Thanks again.

[Spoogepieces]

Originally posted by Logic:
Do you have the slightest clue about what is happening and has happened in Chechnia?

Yes and it's a Russian internal affair just as the attempt of the South to break from the Union was an internal American affair.

[Logic]

Originally posted by Spoogepieces:
Yes and it's a Russian internal affair just as the attempt of the South to break from the Union was an internal American affair.

So Iraq's treatment of the Kurds and the Shia's after GWI was non of the worlds business?

[Logic]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
Then I began wondering if I was going to get sucked into a pointless kind of exchange of written volleys with nothing to be gained but the thrill of the exchange.

Sigh!

Thanks again.

Sometimes the exchange can get very good and enlightening. So stay in there

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Logic:
Sometimes the exchange can get very good and enlightening. So stay in there

You might be right. At the risk of appearing to flip-flop, maybe I will follow your advice. If I look to thers to learn from me, I will be disappointed. If I stay because I might learn, that can be good.

But, I admit it IS tempting to weigh in on various topics.

I suppose it should be like getting ones' "rocks off."

We do it for OUR OWN pleasure and only hope the other person gets something from it, too. LOL

Thanks, Logic!

[Spoogepieces]

Originally posted by Logic:
So Iraq's treatment of the Kurds and the Shia's after GWI was non of the worlds business?

What does that have to do with Chechnya?

[Logic]

Originally posted by Spoogepieces:
What does that have to do with Chechnya?

Just checking if you are consistent in that we shouldn't interfere in "internal affairs" or if it is only when it suits you.

Both are "internal affairs" and that means we shouldn't have intervened in either situation.

[Spoogepieces]

Originally posted by Logic:
Just checking if you are consistent in that we shouldn't interfere in "internal affairs" or if it is only when it suits you.

Both are "internal affairs" and that means we shouldn't have intervened in either situation.

But interfering in Iraq was directed by the UN. Had Saddam not invaded Kuwait and lost I doubt we or anyone would have done much to protect the Kurds.

It's a different situation and circumstances.

[aberdeenwriter]

nally posted by Spoogepieces:
But interfering in Iraq was directed by the UN. Had Saddam not invaded Kuwait and lost I doubt we or anyone would have done much to protect the Kurds.

It's a different situation and circumstances. [/QUOTE]

Wait a minute Spooge. YOU DOUBT WE WOULD HAVE DONE MUCH TO PROTECT THE KURDS?????

What about the President?

After listening to the RNC trumpeting the rightness of his invasion and the pure & selfless humanitarianism of the incursion, one gets a DIFFERENT impression.

CERTAINLY "BUSHY" would have invaded Iraq (with OR without the nasty ol' UN's counsel or approval!) and saved the Kurds as well as ALL the people of Iraq!

Wouldn't he?

That's what a SUPER BUSHY DOES!

He goes on crusades to bring God and democracy to oppressed people in every nation!

(Bush Advisor: Shhhh! Mr. President, IXS-NAY on the word, "usade-cra!" It brings up the wrong image.

Bushy: Ok, but I don't wanna be a flipper!

Bush Advisor: Mr. President, sometimes in the face of new information you have to change your mind or go back and revise...it's just human nature. Only an idiot never changes his mind!

Bushy: Oh, well ok. I won't call it a crusade. You happy now?

Bush Advisor: Yes, Mr. Flip- er, yes Mr. President.)

Make that, he's on a MISSION to do good by saving ALL the people of the world from oppressive regimes.

He just HAPPENS to start this mission with the one which has lots and lots of oil.

The one his buddy, BANDAR "BUSH" suggested might be the most profitable (snicker, snicker) for all concerned.

And it's just a COINCIDENCE that the country chosen for liberation was headed by a thug who unsuccessfully tried to kill his family a few years ago.

Hmmm...

Now that you mention it, Spooge, maybe you are right.

What if Bushy's REAL reasons for waging war on Iraq wasn't to just rescue the Kurds and free an oppressed people.

What if Bushy's motivations for invading and occupying Iraq weren't so noble, after all?

(Ooops, it's not called an occupation...ooops again (sorry bout the flip-flop...I know you hate that sort of thing!) Bushy already called it an occupation so we'll just remain steadfast in calling it an OCCUPATION...)

Nah, Bushy rescued the Kurds because he wanted to do good.

Let's leave it at that.

And that means we should get ready for his next war of liberation!

Eh?

[The Oracle]

Originally posted by KarlG:
Exactly. You're falling for the emotional trap that was set in this incident. If the Russians truly want to hang on to Chechnya, they'll have to pay the price.

and if it goes, it turns into another Taliban Afghanistan where terrorists are free to train, plot, organise, and finance operations without intervention.
Didn't any of you see where, of the 10 terrorist bodies initially found, 9 were Arab? And that they are finding connections to Queda types?

It's not Russia that can't afford to lose Chechnya--it's the free world.

[Spoogepieces]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
....snip....

Dude, get over yourself. Were it not for the original Gulf War not ending in a peace treaty then the conclusion would not have taken place.

This business about it being for the oil doesn't wash. If that were true we would have invaded Canada and Venezuela instead.

[PacHead]

Originally posted by The Oracle:
Didn't any of you see where, of the 10 terrorist bodies initially found, 9 were Arab? And that they are finding connections to Queda types?

It's not Russia that can't afford to lose Chechnya--it's the free world.

I saw it, and I agree with your second point also. The whole world (the civilized world anyhow) should unite in eliminating these terrorists.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Spoogepieces:
Dude, get over yourself. Were it not for the original Gulf War not ending in a peace treaty then the conclusion would not have taken place.

This business about it being for the oil doesn't wash. If that were true we would have invaded Canada and Venezuela instead.

DUDE! The FINEST military and political minds of the US predicted what is now happening and THEY chose to demure.

"Were it not for the original Gulf War not ending in a peace treaty then the conclusion would not have taken place."

???????

You write like Bushy speaks!

And to your second point, (I'm only SORTA kidding about this) it would be too hard to hood-wink the 'murican public into supporting an invasion of Canada and Venezuela!

[Spoogepieces]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
"Were it not for the original Gulf War not ending in a peace treaty then the conclusion would not have taken place."

???????

You write like Bushy speaks!

And to your second point, (I'm only SORTA kidding about this) it would be too hard to hood-wink the 'murican public into supporting an invasion of Canada and Venezuela!

Did the Gulf War end with a peace treaty? No, it did not. Even the war on the Korean peninsula isn't over. There's just a ceasefire.

Invading Canada and Venezuela would have been much easier if the goal was to steal oil.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Spoogepieces:
Did the Gulf War end with a peace treaty? No, it did not. Even the war on the Korean peninsula isn't over. There's just a ceasefire.

Invading Canada and Venezuela would have been much easier if the goal was to steal oil.

Well, the gullible American public ate the bullsh*t about Saddam-terrorist links, but how the hell do you figure Bush and Rummsfeld would have sold an invasion of Canada to their voters?

People are obviously ignorant, but if you look at the propagandistic preparation even Iraq took (remember, it was only the paranoid left that saw it coming a year in advance), it would take a decade of lies and deceptive rhetoric to get the ignorant public riled up against Canada.

-s*

[voodoo]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
Thank you phoenixboy70!

But considering the nature of some of the respondents and responses here, I wouldn't be surprised if someone suggested the Valley heat had 'gotten to you' because you liked my post.

Nonetheless, I appreciate your compliment very much.

Yet, I find myself wondering if I'm wasting my time writing in any reader forum. I have yet to see evidence that minds are changed or that learning takes place.

It seems that people post their thoughts, ideas and positions and other folks just take sides and they take turns attacking or defending their or the other side.

I began reading a very detailed and thoughtful response to one of my posts and made a mental note to check the facts he/she
brought to my attention. Then, I was going to dig through the various sources I read to subtantiate some of my facts which that person questioned.

However, I started reading some of the different threads and topics and posts here at MacNN -- which seems to have an intelligent membership and is well run, but then again, how would I know? This is the first and ONLY place I've really done this! LOL -- and noticed some people often post the same sentiments, yet no one seems to be persuaded to a different point of view.

Then I began wondering if I was going to get sucked into a pointless kind of exchange of written volleys with nothing to be gained but the thrill of the exchange.

Sigh!

Thanks again.

WOW

You just summed up the political lounge in one post! Neato.

[spiky_dog]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
And if they don't they will as well.

If they let Chechenya go, this will incite segregation longings of other republics too, possibly including terrorism since that proved to be a successful tactic. The result might be the disintegration of Russia.

The Russians are in a dilemma here that doesn't seem to have an easy way out.

and this dilemma is EXACTLY what the u.s. has brought upon itself by its attempts at nation building in afghanistan and iraq.

[Spliffdaddy]

but this thread isn't about America-bashing.

It's about Russia and Chechnya and other stuff.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by voodoo:
WOW

You just summed up the political lounge in one post! Neato.

lol

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by spiky_dog:
and this dilemma is EXACTLY what the u.s. has brought upon itself by its attempts at nation building in afghanistan and iraq.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by PacHead:
I saw it, and I agree with your second point also. The whole world (the civilized world anyhow) should unite in eliminating these terrorists.

Pac, I agree with your view that the whole world should unite to eliminate...

But I would suggest eliminating terror-ISM (after we get those responsible for 9/11).

The main difference between our very similar sentiments is that you can kill all the cockroaches you want but they keep multiplying.

However, if you stop leaving food out and keep your house clean, the roaches will go elsewhere.

We need to apply the same standards of justice, freedom, equality and fairness to those who might become terorists so they will go elsewhere with their message of violence.

Once our foreign relations actually reflect the national values we so love, THEN, the terrorism directed at the US will decrease.

Semper Fi.

[lurkalot]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
but this thread isn't about America-bashing.

It's about Russia and Chechnya and other stuff.

I agree. There are perhaps some valid comparisons to be made -and pointing those out may not necessarily be America-bashing- but there are many differences as well with the specific Russia/Chechnya situation and U.S/Iraq/Aghanistan. So... to keep this thread on topic it would be best if people interested in discussing tangents start their own threads to discuss those questions that arise from reading a thread but which are not directly related to the main topic the thread starter wanted to explore.

That only works, though, if the tangents do then indeed get addressed in the other thread. Not participating after suggesting that a new thread might be a better place to discuss something might otherwise encourage people interested in the tangent to pursue answers in the original thread, I think. Not replying even if the whole thing could be based on a mere misunderstanding might lead people to jump to conclusions and it could set a bad example that could in turn lead to future derailment of other threads.

[Spoogepieces]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Well, the gullible American public ate the bullsh*t about Saddam-terrorist links, but how the hell do you figure Bush and Rummsfeld would have sold an invasion of Canada to their voters?

People are obviously ignorant, but if you look at the propagandistic preparation even Iraq took (remember, it was only the paranoid left that saw it coming a year in advance), it would take a decade of lies and deceptive rhetoric to get the ignorant public riled up against Canada.

-s*

I'm just suggesting that if the war was about oil then it would have made more logical sense to invade a weak neighbor than attack the world's 5th largest military, wouldn't you agree?

Given how much energy we get from Canada annexing or invading Canada would make much more sense from a logistical and military point of view.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Spoogepieces:
I'm just suggesting that if the war was about oil then it would have made more logical sense to invade a weak neighbor than attack the world's 5th largest military, wouldn't you agree?

Also: we could have bought all the oil in Iraq for a fraction of the cost of the war.

[lurkalot]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Also: we could have bought all the oil in Iraq for a fraction of the cost of the war.

Perhaps the "cost" of war was miscalculated and perhaps those who pay are not necessarily those who profit from the "investment".

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Spoogepieces:
I'm just suggesting that if the war was about oil then it would have made more logical sense to invade a weak neighbor than attack the world's 5th largest military, wouldn't you agree?

Given how much energy we get from Canada annexing or invading Canada would make much more sense from a logistical and military point of view.

The point is securing LONG-TERM spheres of influence. Canada is your next-door neighbour. It is rather unlikely that relations between your two countries would ever deteriorate to the point where Canada wouldn't give the US what it wants, if it justs asks nicely enough.

The middle east is *slightly* less stable than that.

Also, as I mentioned above, no amount of lies and spin would justify invading Canada to the voting population the way the massive deception-campaign appears to have the invasion of Iraq.

So: no, invading Canada would not make any strategereric sense, whatsoever.

-s*

[Spoogepieces]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
The point is securing LONG-TERM spheres of influence. Canada is your next-door neighbour. It is rather unlikely that relations between your two countries would ever deteriorate to the point where Canada wouldn't give the US what it wants, if it justs asks nicely enough.

The middle east is *slightly* less stable than that.

Also, as I mentioned above, no amount of lies and spin would justify invading Canada to the voting population the way the massive deception-campaign appears to have the invasion of Iraq.

So: no, invading Canada would not make any strategereric sense, whatsoever.

-s*

If it's long term influence that we seek then so more the better reason to invade Canada and Venezuela. Then we sit on the oil on this hemisphere while we consume all of it in the Middle East.

Really, if someone wanted to manufacture a crisis to justify invanding either one of these nations it makes more sense to do so rather than lie about Iraq, doesn't it?

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Spoogepieces:
Really, if someone wanted to manufacture a crisis to justify invanding either one of these nations it makes more sense to do so rather than lie about Iraq, doesn't it?

Not if it endangered re-election.

[yakkiebah]

Originally posted by Spoogepieces:
If it's long term influence that we seek then so more the better reason to invade Canada and Venezuela. Then we sit on the oil on this hemisphere while we consume all of it in the Middle East.

Really, if someone wanted to manufacture a crisis to justify invanding either one of these nations it makes more sense to do so rather than lie about Iraq, doesn't it?

No it doesn't.

China. Same reason why Sudan is in the spotlights all of a sudden.

[Spoogepieces]

Nobody cares about Sudan.

[PacHead]

Originally posted by Spoogepieces:
Nobody cares about Sudan.

That is true, least of all the impotent, corrupt UN.

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by Spoogepieces:
If it's long term influence that we seek then so more the better reason to invade Canada and Venezuela. Then we sit on the oil on this hemisphere while we consume all of it in the Middle East.

Really, if someone wanted to manufacture a crisis to justify invanding either one of these nations it makes more sense to do so rather than lie about Iraq, doesn't it?

Well, on that matter, I feel safe.

After you took careful time to describe your own compatriots almost as headless morons who can't figure the exact amout of change to give back (except yourself), I guess that at this rate, Canada will invade you.

But rest assure, we have better things to do.

[Spoogepieces]

Who needs Canada anyways? It must suck being the bastard stepchild of North America.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Spoogepieces:
Who needs Canada anyways? It must suck being the bastard stepchild of North America.

If that ain't jealousy, I don't know what is.