I wont line myself with either side just as I refuse to do with other political conflicts. Often times there is immense justification for both sides and often times actions come outside the bounds of diplomacy and rationality.

 

I just get irked by how naive those who desire to continue to fight, without considering the context with which they fight, the "war on terror" are. Bush demands the world united against terror. People got fervently behind him and people here still cite the war on terror for numerous political purposes. I think thats as proper as citing the need to fight "badness." Like Shamrock said, things are more complex. Nobody supports terror or "badness" but when someone in America asks the mob to slow down and think before acting with emotion, they are attacked as supporters of terror and "badness." The Checnya saga shows that such notions are simply silly. Fighting terror and badness is simply not how rational people should see the world. Yes fighting people who would act as criminals is proper. But not going beyond that scope is important under such justification, especially when you yourself ask otehrs not to.

 

It reminds of a Simpsons episode Im sure we are all familiar with. Marge protesting against Itchy and Scratchy. Without thinking about what the effects of censorship might be, she blindly fights against the show. Then when Michelangelo's David comes to town, the Mob she blindly created works against her.

the part that's sad about this is that the russian state has been as cruel, or maybe even more, than those they are now calling terrorists and the world is crying out for. yet, when the russians murder the chechens you only hear silence. whoever said that history is written by the winners is right.

547116[/snapback]

 

 

This does not justify what is being done by the TERRORISTS in chechnya (sp?). The US calls for diplomacy IMO are absurd, BUT in a way it seems like a political retaliation for Russia's anti-U.S. stance up until now on our terrorist fighting policies.

in a way it seems like a political retaliation for Russia's anti-U.S. stance up until now on our terrorist fighting policies.

 

When did Russia say we shouldnt fight terrorists after 9-11? I ask you this legacy, if Russia one year from now said it had links that Pakistan had something to do with it, would be be absolutley ok with Russia invading Pakistan? I guarentee the Bush admin would not.

in a way it seems like a political retaliation for Russia's anti-U.S. stance up until now on our terrorist fighting policies.

 

When did Russia say we shouldnt fight terrorists after 9-11? I ask you this legacy, if Russia one year from now said it had links that Pakistan had something to do with it, would be be absolutley ok with Russia invading Pakistan? I guarentee the Bush admin would not.

547141[/snapback]

 

Pakistan in russian foreign policy does not equal iraq in terms of US foreign policy. The way you set up your example was to make it seem like Russia and pakistan's relations with one and another are similar to the US with Iraq which is untrue. Russia does not have an Iraq equivalent in its foreign policy so this is a comparison of apples and oranges. Furthermore the chechens and russians have been going at it for years, so this incident is not the russian 9/11 as bad as it is. Different situation, different reasons why the terrorists are doing what theyre doing. And in fact the former Red Army can roll over chechnya in a day and a half, whereas a global terror network like al qaeda cannot be fought conventionally.

the part that's sad about this is that the russian state has been as cruel, or maybe even more, than those they are now calling terrorists and the world is crying out for. yet, when the russians murder the chechens you only hear silence. whoever said that history is written by the winners is right.

547116[/snapback]

 

 

This does not justify what is being done by the TERRORISTS in chechnya (sp?). The US calls for diplomacy IMO are absurd, BUT in a way it seems like a political retaliation for Russia's anti-U.S. stance up until now on our terrorist fighting policies.

547137[/snapback]

 

I'm not saying it justifies anything. but it's a situation the russians themselves have created. hwo can a terrorist state (russia) say they are fighting against terrorism. the truth is both sides are queally terrorist (russians and chechens) and diplomacy is the only way out, otherwise it will never end.

in a way it seems like a political retaliation for Russia's anti-U.S. stance up until now on our terrorist fighting policies.

 

When did Russia say we shouldnt fight terrorists after 9-11? I ask you this legacy, if Russia one year from now said it had links that Pakistan had something to do with it, would be be absolutley ok with Russia invading Pakistan? I guarentee the Bush admin would not.

547141[/snapback]

 

Pakistan in russian foreign policy does not equal iraq in terms of US foreign policy. The way you set up your example was to make it seem like Russia and pakistan's relations with one and another are similar to the US with Iraq which is untrue. Russia does not have an Iraq equivalent in its foreign policy so this is a comparison of apples and oranges. Furthermore the chechens and russians have been going at it for years, so this incident is not the russian 9/11 as bad as it is. Different situation, different reasons why the terrorists are doing what theyre doing. And in fact the former Red Army can roll over chechnya in a day and a half, whereas a global terror network like al qaeda cannot be fought conventionally.

547153[/snapback]

 

 

Subjectivity can be a bitch. Im sure there is a version of you in Russia saying the same thing in a fierce attempt to distinguish the situations in a light favorable to him. Thats why the devil lies in the details.

in a way it seems like a political retaliation for Russia's anti-U.S. stance up until now on our terrorist fighting policies.

 

When did Russia say we shouldnt fight terrorists after 9-11? I ask you this legacy, if Russia one year from now said it had links that Pakistan had something to do with it, would be be absolutley ok with Russia invading Pakistan? I guarentee the Bush admin would not.

547141[/snapback]

 

Pakistan in russian foreign policy does not equal iraq in terms of US foreign policy. The way you set up your example was to make it seem like Russia and pakistan's relations with one and another are similar to the US with Iraq which is untrue. Russia does not have an Iraq equivalent in its foreign policy so this is a comparison of apples and oranges. Furthermore the chechens and russians have been going at it for years, so this incident is not the russian 9/11 as bad as it is. Different situation, different reasons why the terrorists are doing what theyre doing. And in fact the former Red Army can roll over chechnya in a day and a half, whereas a global terror network like al qaeda cannot be fought conventionally.

547153[/snapback]

 

 

Subjectivity can be a bitch. Im sure there is a version of you in Russia saying the same thing in a fierce attempt to distinguish the situations in a light favorable to him. Thats why the devil lies in the details.

547193[/snapback]

 

That same argument can be reversed to you and is equally valid by your statements

I can only imagine the furor here if Russia tried to tell us how to react after 9-11.

546794[/snapback]

 

 

 

we're doing exactly what you would like the US to do....encourage diplomacy and peace talks with MURDERERS!

 

(i.e. Iraq)

546932[/snapback]

I just vomited in my mouth because of that. Read a book every now and then and you might (probably not) realize the immense complexity of the world. American Idol kills brains.

547044[/snapback]

 

 

I have to read SEVERAL books to get by in my University....

I dont care if your school is considered a good business school. The simple way in which you express opinions tells me all I need to know. Wharton or not.

what would you guess the median age and education level on the board to be?

what would you guess the median age and education level on the board to be?

549946[/snapback]

 

15-17, still in high school

549959[/snapback]

 

 

I think the majority of people in here are a little older than that. On the political board the median age (i believe is) 20-23

I dont care if your school is considered a good business school.? The simple way in which you express opinions tells me all I need to know.? Wharton or not.

547270[/snapback]

 

The medium and audience require simplistic distillations. Consider the median age and education of people on this forum.

 

We're not talking post-grad level here in most cases. It doesn't mean these people are dumb, just that they're not currently equipped to understand much complexity and their historical perspective is necessarily limited to what a high school education provides these days (i.e. pretty pathetic)

549852[/snapback]

He was trying to show off his fancy business school and I was telling him it doesn't show in his comments. My comment was directed at him.