Standard international practice

[TankGirl]

MosNews:

Russia Defends Policy of Preventive Strikes in Other Countries

Russia on Friday defended a plan to launch preventive strikes on guerrilla bases in other countries, saying it was merely following accepted international practice.

“I have said several times that we are at war. When you are at war, you act like you are at war,” Reuters quoted Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov as saying to an audience of military attaches in Moscow in response to a question about preventive strikes.

Moscow has repeated this policy in the past, more strongly so after the Beslan hostage-taking in September, when more than 350 people died after Chechen guerrillas seized a school in the Caucasus region of North Ossetia.

The policy has worried rights groups and foreign officials who fear Moscow might violate international law, but said Russia had not invented it.

“Russia is not the only country that has announced the possibility of using or carrying out preventive strikes. I would like to stress that we did not invent it,” Ivanov added, hinting that Moscow was following a U.S. lead.

“In practice, such strikes have already been used against Afghanistan, Iraq and in other regions. (The idea) already exists, it is standard international practice.”

While Russia has never specified which countries could be the target of such preventive strikes, many commentators have pointed to Georgia, which shares a mountainous border with Chechnya.

Russian warplanes have already struck alleged militant bases in remote Georgian valleys several times, and officials still accuse Russia’s southern neighbor of harboring Chechen rebels.

[floydian slip]

Next thing ya know China's gonna be doing it then everyone is gonna do it.

Maybe we should get all of the leaders together, get them stoned and pipe in some 60-70's love grooves. Then have thier talks. Or not.

[tambourine-man]

Of course this was going to happen... Most people predicted it 2 years ago, I'm just a little surprised it took so long.

Russia will milk this as long as they want - it's a no-loss situation for them... they know that the flak will always shoot in the direction of the US (simply because they were the first to advocate such a policy). The US will probably be forced to support any and all action in the short-term... actually, this is old news... I'm sure there's been a few examples of Russian aggression supported with US/UK backing...

[Sinner]

Originally Posted by tambourine-man

they know that the flak will always shoot in the direction of the US (simply because they were the first to advocate such a policy).

Negative - the USA is not the first to advocate such a policy - One example from 1981, The Israeli Attack on Osiraq Iraq. Destroying a French Nuclear Reacture or let us go back to 1941, Pearl Harbor was regarded as a preventive strike by Japan.

I had to find out the difference between pre-empted and pre-ventive, I thought they were the same thing, but they are not, for anyone who wants to know - "pre-emptive" action refers to times when states react to an imminent threat of attack. For example, when Egyptian and Syrian forces mobilized on Israel's borders, in 1967, the threat was obvious and immediate, and Israel felt justified in preemptively attacking those forces. The global community is generally tolerant of such actions, since no nation should have to suffer a certain first strike before it has the legitimacy to respond. -"preventive" military action refers to strikes that target a country before it has developed a capability that could someday become threatening. Preventive attacks have generally been condemned. For example, the 1941 sneak attack on Pearl Harbor was regarded as a preventive strike by Japan, because the Japanese were seeking to block a planned buildup by the United States in the Pacific.


There as been a few times in history when the US was thinking of using a preventive strike but did not, one example would be against Cuba in the 60's, the Bay of Pigs.

So your Blame the USA re-mark is false.

[theknife]

Originally Posted by Sinner

Negative - the USA is not the first to advocate such a policy - One example from 1981, The Israeli Attack on Osiraq Iraq. Destroying a French Nuclear Reacture or let us go back to 1941, Pearl Harbor was regarded as a preventive strike by Japan.

I had to find out the difference between pre-empted and pre-ventive, I thought they were the same thing, but they are not, for anyone who wants to know - "pre-emptive" action refers to times when states react to an imminent threat of attack. For example, when Egyptian and Syrian forces mobilized on Israel's borders, in 1967, the threat was obvious and immediate, and Israel felt justified in preemptively attacking those forces. The global community is generally tolerant of such actions, since no nation should have to suffer a certain first strike before it has the legitimacy to respond. -"preventive" military action refers to strikes that target a country before it has developed a capability that could someday become threatening. Preventive attacks have generally been condemned. For example, the 1941 sneak attack on Pearl Harbor was regarded as a preventive strike by Japan, because the Japanese were seeking to block a planned buildup by the United States in the Pacific.


There as been a few times in history when the US was thinking of using a preventive strike but did not, one example would be against Cuba in the 60's, the Bay of Pigs.

So your Blame the USA re-mark is false.

the distinction is obviously the imminence of the threat...and when the imminence of the threat is misperceived (deliberately or otherwise), the rationale can be neatly switched from pre-emptive to preventive, as we have done in Iraq. few people take the time, as you have, to discern the difference.

[albed]

You should brush up on the Bay Of Pigs Spart, you may have gotten it mixed up with the Cuban Missile Crisis. The Bay Of Pigs was a no excuses attempt at regime change.

...Ivanov added, hinting that Moscow was following a U.S. lead.

I guess it was up to the press to decide if and what he was hinting at. No suprise what they decided it would be. I wonder when they'll just write the news without consulting anyone else.

[Sinner]

Originally Posted by albed

You should brush up on the Bay Of Pigs Spart, you may have gotten it mixed up with the Cuban Missile Crisis. The Bay Of Pigs was a no excuses attempt at regime change.

Yeah I did get them mixed up, I sould have said cuban missile crisis - not the bay of pigs.

[jcmd62]

Originally Posted by TankGirl

MosNews:

Russia Defends Policy of Preventive Strikes in Other Countries

Russia on Friday defended a plan to launch preventive strikes on guerrilla bases in other countries, saying it was merely following accepted international practice.

“I have said several times that we are at war. When you are at war, you act like you are at war,” Reuters quoted Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov as saying to an audience of military attaches in Moscow in response to a question about preventive strikes.

Moscow has repeated this policy in the past, more strongly so after the Beslan hostage-taking in September, when more than 350 people died after Chechen guerrillas seized a school in the Caucasus region of North Ossetia.

The policy has worried rights groups and foreign officials who fear Moscow might violate international law, but said Russia had not invented it.

“Russia is not the only country that has announced the possibility of using or carrying out preventive strikes. I would like to stress that we did not invent it,” Ivanov added, hinting that Moscow was following a U.S. lead.

“In practice, such strikes have already been used against Afghanistan, Iraq and in other regions. (The idea) already exists, it is standard international practice.”

While Russia has never specified which countries could be the target of such preventive strikes, many commentators have pointed to Georgia, which shares a mountainous border with Chechnya.

Russian warplanes have already struck alleged militant bases in remote Georgian valleys several times, and officials still accuse Russia’s southern neighbor of harboring Chechen rebels.

Yes It's a damn shame that a country so well remembered for it's non aggressive, non violent, peaceful reputation, one that has NEVER attacked another country be it pre-emptive, pre-ventive, or just because they felt like killing a bunch of flintlock armed farmers with HIND attack helicopters, a country that has always put the wealth, well being and safety of its citizens and those of its neighbors up front and foremost, would only now be forced to go against all the World peace, love and harmonious relationships with other countries it has always fought so hard for, to now lower itself and have to emulate a horrible whoremonging Country like the USA to survive.

[albed]

"Warmongering". Your commie pinko propaganda skills are getting rusty.

[tambourine-man]

Originally Posted by Sinner

So your Blame the USA re-mark is false.

I wasn't 'blaming' the US. Read it again. I'm stating that Russia will milk this for all it's worth - from their perspective, they can do pretty much what they want and play the 'Blame-the-USA' game. You know as well as I do that the flak will fly towards the US.

You might argue that other countries had adopted a pre-emptive or preventative stance prior to the US... fair enough. However, words like 'legitimacy' and 'justified' are rather subjective terms.