Russian minister: Military should be allowed to strike terrorists outside borders

Associated Press ^ | 3-28-03

[Oldeconomybuyer]

MOSCOW (AP) -- Russia should revise its military doctrine to counter threats from terrorism, the defense minister said in an interview published Friday, suggesting the military be allowed to strike terror facilities in other countries.

The remarks by Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov were similar to those made by President Vladimir Putin after Chechen gunmen seized a Moscow theater last year.

[Oldeconomybuyer]

...And yet, Russia sided with France on Iraq.

[camle]

not without UN approval! be consistant Ivan.

[anobjectivist]

The hypocrisy of the axis of idiots strikes again.

[Stavka2]

Yup, Saudi Arabia should start girding itself for Regime Change and getting rid of its Pakistani aquired WMD...not to mention, freeing of its people from a repressive regime that uses slave (indentured) labor.

[Stavka2]

Why? The US used the UN to block Russia's 2000 bid to bomb the Taliban. Welcome to the new precident, no UN. You think other nations are watching and aren't going to do the same thing the US is doing to "protect" themselves from future threats? This is the new reality, to late to complain now, its here to stay and the US is not the only one who's going to be practicing it.

[Kadric]

Actually there already is a UNSC resolution that covers this very thing. It is the one that we went into Afghanistan under.

[BrooklynGOP]

Welcome to the new precident, no UN

New precedent? That's a stretch.

[JudgemAll]

I think terrorist over there is code word for USA. Anyways, given the excrements that have emanated from the "higher" levels of the leadership there, this is cause for concern.

[hchutch]

Different adminsitration then. One that was headed by someone more interested in scoring chicks than solving the very real problems out there.

Quite a shame - it could have saved the world a lot of trouble.

[mabelkitty]

So, they are copying our strategy?

They don't have the gutts to do it.

[kevao]

Welcome to the new precident, no UN.

Since the UN's inception in 1945, there have been nearly 300 wars/armed conflicts throughout the world. Only two of them -- Korea and Gulf War I -- had UN approval. UN approval of an armed conflict is the exception, not the rule.

[Kadric]

" Only two of them -- Korea and Gulf War I -- had UN approval."

The Military action in Afghanistan since 9/11/2001 is also approved by UNSC Res 1368.

[Porterville]

You must use a Swede and an Egyptian before any preemptive action.

[Porterville]

You must use a Swede and an Egyptian before any preemptive action.

[OneVike]

I don't see where they believe that the UN Security Council should approve it first. Just a tad bit hippocritical.

[Stavka2]

Yes, but the vast majority of those were internal civil wars and those are not covered by the UN anyways. Since WW2, most nations have tried not to invade each other, the frequency of external wars has actually been very low for the last 50 years....things are changing now.

[McGavin999]

Stavka, the French sent their military to intervine in the Ivory Coast while the UN was waffeling over Iraq. Putin sent his military into Chechnya (which I totally approve of) without UN authorization. The only problem I have with Russia's stance now is their hypocracy. They stood with the french against our freeing Iraq.

To me it was a foolish choice. Russia could and would have been among the partners rebuilding Iraq. They would have profited handsomely, they would have strengthened the friendship with the US, and they would have come out far ahead. I don't understand their position.

[njmaugbill]

If this article is to illustrate that Russia is now willing to go after terrorists in other countries, ala what we've accomplished in Afghanistan, and currently in Iraq, they are sadly mistaken.

1) They do not have the capabliity to project power as the US.
2) They do not have the necessary Air power as the US.
3) They do not have the weapons to accomplish this.

They are blowing smoke.