Why We Must Act(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Why We Must Act
http://www.nytimes.com/1999/11/14/opinion/why-we-must-act.html?pagewanted=all
5 comments
I believe so, and it did so superbly.
Are you saying the following?
Russia : Chechnya :: USA : Syria
Because that would indicate an impressive level of geographic, cultural, and political ignorance. Congratulations!
Russia : Chechnya :: USA : Syria
Because that would indicate an impressive level of geographic, cultural, and political ignorance. Congratulations!
Both thoughts came to my mind as well. As aside, I really enjoyed the article
Chechnya is a republic of Russia. Seems legit for him to exercise some authority over it and try to keep peace there and in other parts of his own country.
I assume this has been posted to highlight some contradictory stance he is taking on Syria which is a sovereign country. Chechnya to Russia is not the the same as Syria to the USA.
I assume this has been posted to highlight some contradictory stance he is taking on Syria which is a sovereign country. Chechnya to Russia is not the the same as Syria to the USA.
In 1999, Chechnya was its own republic. It was in 1999 that Russia launched a military campaign known as the Second Chechen War and took Chechnya back as a Russian state. Civillian casualty estimates during that war range from 25,000 to 50,000. It's all very complicated, of course.
Actually in 1999 Chechnya was an independent republic
Political, mainstream news: this is pretty much by definition something that is supposed to be off topic here.
Let's let the upvotes decide, isn't that what we've been told about that Other Topic Which Shall Not Be Named? If enough people agree with you maybe this story will be flagged into oblivion.
But I think it's a very interesting riposte to Mr. Putin's essay in the NYT from this week.
But I think it's a very interesting riposte to Mr. Putin's essay in the NYT from this week.
> Then, in a flash, hundreds perish in explosions at the Watergate, or at an apartment complex on Manhattan's West Side. Thousands are injured, some horribly disfigured. Panic engulfs a neighborhood, then a nation.
It's remarkable that he is arguing for strong military action as a result of terrorist attacks using this hypothetical scenario, which is eerily similar to 9/11. In retrospect, he was right - we took strong military action as a result as well.
It's remarkable that he is arguing for strong military action as a result of terrorist attacks using this hypothetical scenario, which is eerily similar to 9/11. In retrospect, he was right - we took strong military action as a result as well.
Wait, if this was published in 1999, then how could he mention 9/11?
He didn't mention 9/11 - he mentioned the WTC "bombing"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_World_Trade_Center_bombing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_World_Trade_Center_bombing
Second, Why was this submitted? Was it an attempt to draw comparisons with Putin's plea for us not to bomb Syria?