Thread: Russia's Involvment with the war on terrorism

Hi!!! I am completely lost on Russia's involvement with what involvment Russia has with this so called "war on terrorism." I am up to date with USA's involvement. I hear nothing about foreign relations between Russia and the USA. I would appreciate any information anyone would like to share. Спасибо!

Russia has been doing its so called war on terrorism in Chechnya (since 1999). As for Iraq, Russian leaders don’t think this war was necessary.

Thanx. I know that Putin will not send troops. Good decision on his behalf. What else is up with Russia and their military and such?

http://www.mil.ru/

Thanx Al!! I hope that will fill me in on something. American newspapers are so one-sided.

Originally Posted by Carczarina

Thanx Al!! I hope that will fill me in on something. American newspapers are so one-sided.

As well as most of others, including Russian ones Never forget that.

I have a list of about 8 online news papers I go to. Between them all, somewhere is the truth.

Chechnya is good enough for me. Those guys are Al Quedas bed buddies.
Personally, if you wana know what I think Russia should do to them, watch the movie: The Sum of all Fears.
As bad as the Nazis were, they had a good idea of how to deal with the Chechens.

Thanx Al!! I hope that will fill me in on something. American newspapers are so one-sided.

HERE,HERE!!

Actually, Fox News and CNN are pretty good media, since they are all raw material based and often report news to you live as it's happening. Unfortunately, their are limits in keeping up with them.
They are not very popular ( particularly Fox News ) being that they do show things to you as they are, usually as their happening, and often have political debates on their station as well.
Both stations imbedded some reporters in with the Military during the invasion of Iraq with Satellite cameras which they used to monitor the war live ( as it was happening ) on TV.
You have to have special Cable or satellite TV to get them. Because they do live shows ( if someone gets their head blown off, you'll see it ) they can't operate as normal TV stations.

I watched most of the War and Recall Trials LIVE ( as it was happening ) on CNN and Fox News.
ALLOT happened in both cases that the mainstream media deliberately covered up, and 80% of the people I have run in to on these forums, buys it.

As for Iraq, Russian leaders don’t think this war was necessary.

Iraq is a separate conflict. Some people have tried to tie the two together, others do out of ignorance.
This war with Iraq was a continuation of the Gulf War in 1990. Bush allowed Saddam to stay in power if he disarmed WMD.
Cliton TRIED to ignore it.
When Bush Jr. came in to office, he told Saddam to show our weapon inspectors that he didn't have WMD.
He let them in but intimidated them, refused to take them to important places ( places where they were likely to be ) and Gave the US a run-around. The UN fell for his trick and wanted to let him keep tinkering around, so we told the UN that their diplomacy practices failed ( which they did ) and went in.
Osama Bin Laden admitted himself that he does not like Saddam Hussein and considers him an enemy, but did order the Al Queda to set their differences aside for the time being and unite with the Iraqi Regime for the time being to fight the greater enemy. You CAN say that that was the only friendly relationship between Saddam and Al Queda.

Originally Posted by 44 Canon

Iraq is a separate conflict. Some people have tried to tie the two together, others do out of ignorance.
This war with Iraq was a continuation of the Gulf War in 1990. Bush allowed Saddam to stay in power if he disarmed WMD.
Cliton TRIED to ignore it.
When Bush Jr. came in to office, he told Saddam to show our weapon inspectors that he didn't have WMD.
He let them in but intimidated them, refused to take them to important places ( places where they were likely to be ) and Gave the US a run-around. The UN fell for his trick and wanted to let him keep tinkering around, so we told the UN that their diplomacy practices failed ( which they did ) and went in.

Something wrong with this version. Nobody has found WMD yet, even today. So, try to explain this war by another reasons.

Weather or not he had WMD at the time of invasion is not important. We didn't invade under the circumstances of him having them, we invaded under the circumstances that he refused to show that he didn't have them. If he did disarm, then he should have shown us that.
This, on a large scale, is like a cop stopping a thug who was known to have had a firearm the previous day, asking him if he has a gun, the thug saying no, then refusing to show it, and the cop tackling him to find out for himself.

Originally Posted by 44 Canon

Weather or not he had WMD at the time of invasion is not important.

Indeed it isn't. Unable to think up even the most feeble of excuses you may as well just say that you don't need any. There's a proverb in Russian (in fact a quote from Krylov's fables) - ты виноват уж тем, что хочется мне кушать.

We didn't invade under the circumstances of him having them, we invaded under the circumstances that he refused to show that he didn't have them.

He did. The UN inspectors never found anything.

If he did disarm, then he should have shown us that.

You? And who the hell are you? He answers to the UN, not you.

This, on a large scale, is like a cop stopping a thug who was known to have had a firearm the previous day, asking him if he has a gun, the thug saying no, then refusing to show it, and the cop tackling him to find out for himself.

Indeed. And did anyone have any doubts that the US were playing the sheriff of the universe game?

Originally Posted by 44 Canon

Weather or not he had WMD at the time of invasion is not important.

Cool! I've impressed at american logic. We have to invade into Iraq to disarm Saddam's WMD but it is not important weather or not he has it.

We didn't invade under the circumstances of him having them, we invaded under the circumstances that he refused to show that he didn't have them. If he did disarm, then he should have shown us that.

It has no sence. It's absolutely impossible to prove absence of something, it's possible to prove presence only.

This, on a large scale, is like a cop stopping a thug who was known to have had a firearm the previous day, asking him if he has a gun, the thug saying no, then refusing to show it, and the cop tackling him to find out for himself.

LOL!!! "the thug saying no then refusing to show it" LOL!!! He refused to show nothing, right? Imagine, I say - 'you have a billion buks' you say 'no, I don't' then I say 'show me' What are you going to show? Nothing? I wonder how are you going to do it?

Originally Posted by 44 Canon

If he did disarm, then he should have shown us that.

I would agree that Saddam was portrayed as fairly elusive in the media, before (and after) the invasion.

What I don't get about the whole "why didn't he show us" thing is that, well, how do you show the existence of something that doesn't exist?

Originally Posted by "VendingMachine

We didn't invade under the circumstances of him having them, we invaded under the circumstances that he refused to show that he didn't have them.

He did. The UN inspectors never found anything.

His bomb making equipment is rolling around on eighteen-wheelers and in Recreational Vehicles.......
Personally, I am not opposed to the war. We have eradicated an oppressive and dangerous regime, and freed millions from its reign of terror. Also, we have made Iraq safe for democracy! w00t!