phew

from reuters

""As for launching pre-emptive strikes on terrorist bases, we will carry out all measures to liquidate terrorist bases in any region of the world," General Yuri Baluevsky, chief of Russia's general staff, said, according to Russian news agencies.
"However, this does not mean that we will launch nuclear strikes.""

silly us we all thought that india and pakistan would be the first to use the pre-emptive strike, as made popular by george and tony, but we might be wrong as russia enter the fray.
at least we can take comfort in the fact that they won't be launching a nuclear strike on those terrorist bases that they find.

i can't say i fully understand terrorists (or freedom fighters - just depends which side of the fence you are on!) but i am pretty sure the russian chest thumbing is not going to bother them, in pretty much the same way the rhetoric of the war on terror has not really made a difference to terrorist strikes.

i used to think that there was always going to be solutions to the world's problems - whether it be in the form of political intervention, military might, the call of culture and religion or just plain greed and need for financial reward (such as the reward money that russia has just offered). but now i am not so sure.
you just get the feeling that there is no wiggle room for many of the participants in the struggles/conflicts. there is no chance of clear heads prevailing, the clashes have become one of ideology rather than struggles of a practical nature.
as soon as one side makes a point, the other side says this or that and the starting point of the grievance moves back. (i was reading the other day the the quest for chechnya independence is over 100 years old - in that time russia has gone from an monachy to a communist government and now to a democracy - so there is an argument that the current government in russia can't be held to account for what has gone before.... ok in this instance it falls down as putin seems hell bent in turn chechnya into a toilet).
at some point there has to be a line drawn and say this is a bad situation and it needs to be changed.
iraq - yes america armed saddam when he was fighting iran - but can't be used as an excuse for america and the west to have done nothing while saddam and co were terrorising their population. (again i admit the nobility of the gulf war II is ruined by the lies used to get the coalition of the willing up and running.....)
(such a shame the world is grey rather than black and white).

anyway i have rambled somewhat off course here. what i was going to say (i think) was that as bad as it is when our political leaders can't find the courage to deal with these issues, it is made worse by the pandering of journalist and commentators who see an easy story and do not mind distorting the facts or to use that lovely phrase they "mis-speak" the facts.
yes melanie philips of the daily mail i am speaking of you.......
it's bad enough when academics such as samuel huntington talk about the clash of civilisations but when a jumped up jounrno does it and doesn't have clear facts in her piece well.. what hope is there! she may as well have had a headline saying those heathens want to kill us all and rape our babies!
i would provide you with a link to the article but sadly the daily mail online charges access to some of the site!

well that ended up being a less than happy rant going from nice of the russian's not to nuke us to mel is a warmongering cow.