Should the Rooskies NUKE Chechnia? - Page 3

Az · December 21, 2003, 14:34

Quote:

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

Not on a per soldier basis you ain't, AFAIK.

most Israeli casualties aren't soldiers, anyway. only some 20% of them are.

KrazyHorse · December 21, 2003, 14:44

What's the percentage for Pals?

Lord Merciless · December 21, 2003, 16:06

"When danger reels its ugly head, Euros bravely turned their tails and fled, brave brave Euros...."

Sadly, the predominant mindset of European people today is to cave in to suicide bombers and blame on themselves for being too rich. Of course, there are still some with a spine, such as Pekka.

However, Russians have to learn more about counterinsurgency operations. Since they can no longer to send everyone into gulags, they have to move away from their traditional methods. Artillery bombardements a la WW2 can turn even your most loyal sympathizers into suicide bombers.

Az · December 21, 2003, 16:10

Quote:

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
What's the percentage for Pals?

I honestly don't know.

The Vagabond · December 21, 2003, 17:29

Quote:

Originally posted by DanS
Russia had a respite in Chechnya because of this. We wiped out wholesale most of the jihadists from other Central Asia countries.

True, Russia certainly benefited from the US action in Afganistan.

Whaleboy · December 21, 2003, 17:39

OF COURSE THEY SHOULDN'T YOU STRANGE PEOPLE

Jesus Christ what a dumb question! Thousands/tens of thousands of dead, land polluted for centuries, global international tension and economic consequences. To abuse a former secretary of the US navy, it gives me great hope that the world has a weapon it hasn't used for 58 years.

[Insert Whaleboy's standard terrorism argument here]

Does this thread really require further serious refutation, because I don't know if it's just me, its just a plain ridiculous proposition, though having said that, as is the use of any nuke.

The Vagabond · December 21, 2003, 17:41

Quote:

Originally posted by Lord Merciless
However, Russians have to learn more about counterinsurgency operations. Since they can no longer to send everyone into gulags, they have to move away from their traditional methods. Artillery bombardements a la WW2 can turn even your most loyal sympathizers into suicide bombers.

Of course it would be great to learn that. But I wonder what are the modern methods of taking a city that offers a fierce resistance? In fact, there have been no good examples to follow thus far. Baghdad surrendered without a fight. What would you do if they put up determined resistance?

Pekka · December 21, 2003, 17:42

DanS, I never said there are no terrorists in there.. there are.. there are some patterns that are simular to other cases, but still they are separate cases. For example, we need to look at the motivation of terrorist part of the fighting forces. Are they attacking Russia, because they represent all the freedom and democracy in the world? Are they freedom haters? Are they the richest nation in the world? I don't know if Jihad and Mujahideens makes difference between Russian civilization etc, European and American ones. Because Russia is not usually included in the 'western world'. So what's the deal? I think, this alone makes it unique and separate case. But yes it has some same patterns, and especially when it comes to terrorists and their actions.

All I'm saying is that we need to be careful with these, so that we won't make mistakes. So we can make the right decisions. What decisions those might be, I don't know. I have no idea, and I don't try to say like I would know crap about it. Just that we need to study these hard, and the whole situation, so we can call it right or wrong. I think what is happening now is not perhaps the best, I think we should approve the action, or condemn the action. If we approve it, we should then think about ways supporting it.

Or we can do what we do now, which is see what's happening, not approving all the actions from both sides, and because of terrorist attacks against Russia we don't want to condemn the Russian action either, because that would be in conflict with the current war on terrorism, and thus we give the blind eye, whispering approval but not full support.

Is this the way we should go, or take a stronger standpoint? I don't know, it's a touchy subject and difficult one, but what I do want us to do is study it and avoid generalisations like we usually do at least try that, and base our action on that.

At the very least we can do is study it, if we don't like what Russia does, then give the blind eye. Or we will be on conflict because of the terrorist attacks. Or, we should support Russia in thsi one stronger. I'm getting confused in my words..

But this is Europes matter too, as it is close to us, we shouldn't keep quiet about it, either we show support, or shut up about it. Maybe we have shut up about it? I don't know.. but even if Russia was not to blame on any counts, I just can't see us helping them either. So.. tough to say. Maybe we should try to be negotioator between the two? I know we can't negotiate with the terrorists, it's not like they care about agreements, but maybe the other part.... and get them both fighting the terrorists and root them out of their bastions? I see that possible, if the other Chechnyan forces unify and are ready to manhandle the terrorist scum out of their lands..

And it is so strange, that even when they have common enemy, they can't seem to unify properly. I guess that shows, that not everyone there condones the terrorists.. otherwise they would have unified stronger. Or, we should study hard to determine who are the terrorists in Chechnya exactly, call it cease fire for a moment and get there and fight them, with or without the help of Chechnya or Russia. Though I think Russia is more thna happy to participate that hunt. I don't know..

.. but we need to look into options here, I see this war going for a long time and casualties pileing up like there's no tomorrow and it worries me.

The Vagabond · December 21, 2003, 17:46

Quote:

Originally posted by Whaleboy
land polluted for centuries,

Not if the neutron bomb is used.

Pekka · December 21, 2003, 17:51

Also it is danger here.. which Russia knows and is one reason they fight, the reason I fully support. That the terrorist scums try to turn the Chechnya into their control so they can install super strict laws and basically second coming of Taliban type of leading. Naturally it harbours terrorists and gives birth to a whole group of brainwashed Russia hating suicide bombers. I wouldn't want that next to me either.

It's a power struggle there now between Chechnyan forces.. it's a mess.

The Vagabond · December 21, 2003, 17:52

Quote:

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Does this thread really require further serious refutation, because I don't know if it's just me, its just a plain ridiculous proposition, though having said that, as is the use of any nuke.

... says a guy who has a nuke as his avatar.

Pekka · December 21, 2003, 17:56

The Vagabond, well I'll ask you for better information. What do you think should be done with the terrorists? Surely catch them and delived justice, but how do we do that exactly? We can't control them by occupying, that's pretty clear without the support of locals. IMO we need to establish the support between Russia and locals, and fight the terrorists together. With the war and all, there's not a big support I'd assume, so how about calling it quits for a moment to root out them? Is it doable? Or would it have been done if it was... I don't know. What do you think?

Whaleboy · December 21, 2003, 18:14

Quote:

... says a guy who has a nuke as his avatar

Its a saturn V!! I'm a space nut!!

The Vagabond · December 21, 2003, 18:26

Quote:

Originally posted by Pekka
We can't control them by occupying, that's pretty clear without the support of locals.

Occupation can certainly help in controlling them. First, they don't have a safe haven to consolidate their forces. Second, the more energy they spend fighting Russian troops inside Chechnya, the less energy remains to stage attacks outside Chechnya.

Support of the locals is of course crucial. Unfortunately it has been a very dirty war, a lot of civilians suffered, the locals have been largely alienated. But still Russia works actively with the locals. There is a pro-Russian Chechen administration in place with its own militia. There has been an attempt of political settlement: referendum and elections have been held (although I was rather disappointed by the latter).

Quote:

IMO we need to establish the support between Russia and locals, and fight the terrorists together. With the war and all, there's not a big support I'd assume, so how about calling it quits for a moment to root out them? Is it doable? Or would it have been done if it was... I don't know. What do you think?

To call quits with whom?? There is the pro-Russian Chechen administration. Other than that, the Chechens don't have any consolidated center of power. No one in particular is in control all the rebels, terrorists, etc.

The Vagabond · December 21, 2003, 18:34

Quote:

Originally posted by Whaleboy

Its a saturn V!! I'm a space nut!!

Oops, sorry. But it looks pretty much like a nuke in Civ games. I'd say you are at a high risk of being misinterpreted.

Pekka · December 21, 2003, 18:35

Yeah that's another problem, no real power, who can you even negotiate with...

I party agree with the rest what you said.
Basically I run out of anything to say. I hope the terrorism stops, then after that, that the war stops. That's all.

Ned · December 21, 2003, 18:43

Pekka, the Islamic radicals are not fighting only the west. They are fighting everywhere, including the Muslim countries of central Asia and in China's Sinkiang province. They want to drive out the non Islamic elements and to impose Wahhabi Islamic Republics in all countries of Islam. The continued invasion of Dagestan are for this purpose.

This is truly a World War as the entire world is involved.

Combat Ingrid · December 21, 2003, 18:56

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned
the Islamic radicals are not fighting only the west. They are fighting everywhere, including the Muslim countries of central Asia and in China's Sinkiang province.

As far as Xinjiang is concerned, it's more about the native people objecting to the oppression and ethnic cleansing/dilution China is performing there. More info here: http://www.google.com/search?domains...O.x=23&GO.y=11

Ned · December 21, 2003, 19:52

Quote:

Originally posted by Combat Ingrid

As far as Xinjiang is concerned, it's more about the native people objecting to the oppression and ethnic cleansing/dilution China is performing there. More info here: http://www.google.com/search?domains...O.x=23&GO.y=11

Combat Ingrid, the migration of Han Chinese into province is the kind of enthic cleansing California experienced during the gold rush.

Admittedly, though, China is a communist state and, as do all communist states, they are somewhat ruthless in suppressing dissent.

Whoha · December 21, 2003, 21:20

Russia has neutron weapons?

:) Smiley · December 22, 2003, 00:28

Shhh.. nobody told you that.

DanS · December 22, 2003, 01:50

Yes, Russia has the neutron bomb.

Regarding whether Russia should withdraw, I think there could be a case made for it, with the thought that it's a tactical withdrawal. Centralizing your enemy might seem like a bad idea, but sometimes it makes them a lot more vulnerable. Fill Chechnya to the brim with spies and assassins and then withdraw your troops. See if the Chechen rebels can even turn on the lights under these circumstances.

Mr. President · December 22, 2003, 04:21

Quote:

Originally posted by Whaleboy

Its a saturn V!! I'm a space nut!!

You're a nut, period.

Whaleboy · December 22, 2003, 08:14

DanS:

Quote:

You're a nut, period.

I think I need a nuke to crack them! And its not even a hard nut, its a pistacio!!! Why wont the bloody thing open?!?!?!?!

Lancer · December 23, 2003, 23:29

"OF COURSE THEY SHOULDN'T YOU STRANGE PEOPLE

Jesus Christ what a dumb question! Thousands/tens of thousands of dead, land polluted for centuries, global international tension and economic consequences. To abuse a former secretary of the US navy, it gives me great hope that the world has a weapon it hasn't used for 58 years.
[Insert Whaleboy's standard terrorism argument here]
Does this thread really require further serious refutation, because I don't know if it's just me, its just a plain ridiculous proposition, though having said that, as is the use of any nuke."

Nuke the gay black whales.

"Pekka, the Islamic radicals are not fighting only the west. They are fighting everywhere, including the Muslim countries of central Asia and in China's Sinkiang province. They want to drive out the non Islamic elements and to impose Wahhabi Islamic Republics in all countries of Islam. The continued invasion of Dagestan are for this purpose.

This is truly a World War as the entire world is involved."

-Somebody gets it!

Cudos to Ned.

Rather fight this odd world war than the cold war. Little threat today of swarms of nuke missiles wiping out civilization, that's good. We find ourselves in a world war in the global sense, but not one to beat the plowshares over or take much butter off tables. Indeed, should it turn into the jihad that the terrorists seek, it will be over in a matter of hours and Israel will have a shitload of additional parking.

World war it may be, but eh.