The ethics of a real life Rainbow Six

[Nancy Allen``]

This is from a post I made on another forum a long time ago. This is from the November 1998 issue of PC Gamer, when they ran a huge article on Rainbow Six. Among the things they featured in the twenty page article they had a lot of details on the research that went into the game, the first chapter of the Rainbow Six novel and an interview with Tom Clancy. At the beginning of the feature PC Gamer harked back to a May 1997 interview they had with Clancy and he was talking about how much terrorism will grow. His exact words were "I think that large-scale conventional military operations, on the order of Desert Storm, are largely a thing of the past. The cost of such warfare that none of the Cold War adversaries-with the exception of the United States-can afford to use it as an instrument of policy." He goes on to say "Russia is an economic basket-case and all of it's Third World cliant states are forced to buy yard-sale equipment on the open market, so even those nasty little regional wars, such as the Bosnian conflict, will eventually become too expensive." What Tom Clancy is getting at here is how terrorism will rise in the 21st century and the specture of nuclear, chemical and biological attacks. He even makes a case for a real life multinational special forces team like Rainbow. The article says "At present, a terrorist threat mounted in one country can only be countered by the security forces in that country, which may or may not be able to deal with it. Some will say these threats should be met by rapid, decisive counter-measures from the entire international community, acting in concert against rogue states that sponser the ideological fanantics who cause trouble.

"That kind of action is fraught with problems though. Matters of national pride, diplomatic protocols and international law throw up a host of obstacles that make it very difficult to mount a unified and decisive response. What is needed-in the opinion of many experts-is a multi-national, rapid response force. It's units should be drawn from the elite units of participating nations, free to act without constraint across boarders, independant of any burreaucracy and beholden to no regional agendas. A kind of "Foreign Legion", if you will.

"This is the basic premise underlying "Rainbow Six" The term "rainbow" symbolises the multi-national make-up of the force. Its primary loyalties would be to the overriding values of law and order, it would be free to mount a swift and deadly response, without first having to cut through red tape and without having to waste weeks of precious time cobbling together ad-hoc "coalitions."

 

In the war against terrorism (not Iraq, terrorism) the world could greatly benefit were such an idea to become reality. A multinational team working in the interests of the international community and given the blessing of the UN would not only be able to handle terrorism on a scale that maybe the nation where the incident takes place cannot but because of the multinational makeup and service to every nationality such a team cannot be accused of lashing out American Imperialism.

[Windu Chi]

"This is the basic premise underlying "Rainbow Six" The term "rainbow" symbolises the multi-national make-up of the force. Its primary loyalties would be to the overriding values of law and order, it would be free to mount a swift and deadly response, without first having to cut through red tape and without having to waste weeks of precious time cobbling together ad-hoc "coalitions."

 

In the war against terrorism (not Iraq, terrorism) the world could greatly benefit were such an idea to become reality. A multinational team working in the interests of the international community and given the blessing of the UN would not only be able to handle terrorism on a scale that maybe the nation where the incident takes place cannot but because of the multinational makeup and service to every nationality such a team cannot be accused of lashing out American Imperialism.

Yes, Nancy that will be a great thing to occur, it is NOW about time NATO get off there but.

And participate in maintaining peace on this rock.

But this world don't want to work in cooperation like that.

To many preceptions, to much pride(U.S.A) and arrogance and what else I can come up with latter.

[TK-8252]

Not going to happen. Why? Because other countries, unlike us, realize that you can't "fight terrorism" any more than you can "fight drugs" or "fight poverty." Because terrorism is any time that some crazy **** stands up and says "hey, I'm gonna kill some people until they adopt my personal religious/political/social/economic/etc. ideology."

 

All you can do is give extremists reasons why resorting to terrorism is not the answer to what they see as the problem. For example, not only did the U.S. help fund al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden during the Cold War, but we gave them the reason why they hate us today; our stationing of troops in the Middle East, specifically in Saudi Arabia after our former Iraqi puppet dictator, the late Saddam Hussein, invaded Kuwait.

 

You see... al-Qaeda is OUR problem. WE helped create al-Qaeda and WE pissed them off. Other countries really have no reason why they should even get involved. It has been shown that when they get involved, they are then attacked (Britain, Spain). Is this appeasing?

 

Perhaps it is. But usually when you have a danger threatening you, such as a hooded guy with a gun in a dark alley, you USUALLY would give him what he wants. Is that appeasing the criminal? I guess it is, and every non-suicidal person would do it. So instead of saying "no, mister bad guy, I will NOT give you my wallet, and you will be forced to shoot my brains out," just give him your ****ing wallet, or learn to avoid getting into **** like that to begin with. Like, don't walk in a dark alley at night for ****'s sake. That's what the U.S. has been doing. Walking around in places we don't belong ****ing with crazy people. Commies, fundies, fascists, you name them.

 

If we didn't get involved in **** that's not our business to begin with, we wouldn't have problems. Since WWII, a lot of European countries have learned that lesson. However, since we were victorious in WWII, and then also in the Cold War, we haven't learned that yet. Europe, for the most part, has figured out that if you just don't disturb a beehive, you won't get stung. That's why Europe has mostly had a "hands-off" approach to "fighting terrorism." That's why they will never help, and why they shouldn't help us either.

[MasterRoss08]

Here here I would support an end to poverty and drugs(plus terrorism)

but sadly there isnt enough support to actually do any of these things.

A force of righteousness is a good dream but to bad Power and Greed

get in the way of these ideals.

 

A question to TK is there any reason why USA aided al-Qaeda back in the

cold war? My first thought would be that al-Qaeda was on the right side

so to speak and have thus changed positions to do there own

ideals.

[Nancy Allen``]

Here's another reason why a real life Rainbow Six wouldn't work. Most of the time they are called in to deal with hostage rescue where terrorists are making demands or bomb defusal. Sometimes they do recon and wet works jobs, ala Sam Fisher. Occasionally they do assaults on terrorists. Never, in reading the novel or going through the series of games, have they ever been involved in terrorism as we have seen it in the 21st century, and with all fairness they wouldn't be able to combat this type of terrorism. They would have done well in the Russian siege but preventing September 11, the Bali bombings, ect are more the work of intelligence agencies.

 

Now to reply to specific points...

 

Not going to happen. Why? Because other countries, unlike us, realize that you can't "fight terrorism" any more than you can "fight drugs" or "fight poverty." Because terrorism is any time that some crazy **** stands up and says "hey, I'm gonna kill some people until they adopt my personal religious/political/social/economic/etc. ideology."

 

Which is exactly the reason why terrorism should be fought in the first place. Just on what you said, to an extent we are fighting drugs when we fight terrorism, the drug trade is part of how people such as Al Qaeda fund themselves. As for poverty, that's easy, the rich countries help the poor get on their feet. It'll never happen but the answer is easy enough.

 

You see... al-Qaeda is OUR problem. WE helped create al-Qaeda and WE pissed them off. Other countries really have no reason why they should even get involved. It has been shown that when they get involved, they are then attacked (Britain, Spain). Is this appeasing?

 

It is very logical to draw the conclusion that because of their involvement in fighting against terrorism they are targets. That is why, as you pointed out, America is a large terrorist target, because they have taken measures against terrorism. Would Spain and Britain have been terrorist targets had they not been involved in Iraq, had they actively supported terrorism? I would venture to say yes, but there is no way I can state that as a fact. On the topic, France and Germany have been very much opposed to America and no threats had been made against them.

 

That's what the U.S. has been doing. Walking around in places we don't belong ****ing with crazy people. Commies, fundies, fascists, you name them.

 

If you have the capacity to stop someone who intends to do you harm, do you? How about if it would mean it would prevent them from harming others. Should people, such as America, be allowed to stop people from harming others? Part of the difficulty I see here is that America, for example, would see one thing, and someone else, someone who is entitled to voice their opposition to America's actions (by this I mean Osama Bin Laden has no right to scream about laws against terrorism) might see things completely diffirently.

 

With communism, specifically with the former Soviet Union, a large part of the blame can be layed on McCarthism. If you don't know what McCarthism is Joe McCarthy whipped America up into a Soviet fearing frenzy and undoubtably the fears America imagined (I remember hearing old radio broadcasts when Russian spies were caught, there were fears the Soviets joined the Martians and they were going to eat our brains) only served to add heat to the Cold War. Is it fair to say we are seeing the same thing today? Perhaps, but we have seen evidence of terrorism on September 11, with the Bali bombings, when Al Qaeda attacked Egypt and Saudi Arabia, with Spain and Britain.

 

If we didn't get involved in **** that's not our business to begin with, we wouldn't have problems. Since WWII, a lot of European countries have learned that lesson.

 

I might need to reread my history but didn't the Nazis just take over with no resistence to European countries? My understanding is it was only when Britain was threatened that the push against Hitler began.

 

A question to TK is there any reason why USA aided al-Qaeda back in the cold war? My first thought would be that al-Qaeda was on the right side

so to speak and have thus changed positions to do there own ideals.

 

I think I can answer this. It is my understanding that when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan the CIA trained and armed Al Qaeda and the Taliban to fight them. So why have they turned now? There are a few reasons, all BS in my view but they include American bases on their land (one has to ask if their complain about this is because a military presence prevents them from committing acts of terrorism), they see the West as currupt and evil, their interpretation of their belief demands Jihad (their view if Islam is, most charitbly, extreme) or they are sick and tired of being ignored. All these reasons and more have been here at one time or another, plus more. I think it's just hatred and jealousy, but maybe they have legitimate complaints. Not legitimate enough, however, to target civillians.

[TK-8252]

I might need to reread my history but didn't the Nazis just take over with no resistence to European countries? My understanding is it was only when Britain was threatened that the push against Hitler began.

 

But why did Nazis take power in Germany to begin with? The answer is that they were democratically elected by a very pissed off country. Why were the Germans so pissed? Well, because the rest of the world after WWI forced Germany to take all the blame for the war, and forced them to pay for damages from the war, despite their country being in ruins, their people killed, and their economy and infastructure ruined.

 

So then this guy Adolf Hitler comes along and starts making patriotic speeches, and gains Germany's loyalty. He said that the reason why Germany was destroyed was not their fault like the world says, but that it's Europe's fault, and the Jews' fault (of course!), which allowed him and his people to take power. He was a strong leader who delivered results for Germany when the rest of the world told the Germans to go **** themselves.

 

The lesson learned is that you cannot destroy a country and leave its people in ruin, and on top of that, force them to pay for everything, despite them having to rebuild their own country from scratch.

 

I think I can answer this. It is my understanding that when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan the CIA trained and armed Al Qaeda and the Taliban to fight them.

 

That's correct.

[Windu Chi]

But why did Nazis take power in Germany to begin with? The answer is that they were democratically elected by a very pissed off country.

Democratically elected come on, what are you smoking?

Those pieces of sh*t took power because of threats of voters lives and intimations of the voters in Germany.

[Nancy Allen``]

But why did Nazis take power in Germany to begin with? The answer is that they were democratically elected by a very pissed off country.

 

Going by Hitler: The Rise of Evil I'd go with windu in saying that the Nazi party manipulated the vote, specifically they walked out of Parliment all the time which, I'll need to look again to tell you how, led to a change in policy or an election or whatever walking out all the time did, from memory it was a statement of no confidence in the serving government.

 

He said that the reason why Germany was destroyed was not their fault like the world says, but that it's Europe's fault, and the Jews' fault (of course!), which allowed him and his people to take power.

 

That's right, I remember. Hitler blamed the Jews for Germany's economic hardships, for taking employment away from Germans.

[TK-8252]

Those f**kers took power because of threats of voters lives and intimations of the voters in Germany.

 

Well, going by this, you can say that Bush wasn't "democratically elected" EITHER time!

[Windu Chi]

Well, going by this, you can say that Bush wasn't "democratically elected" EITHER time!

Well, they are still debating that.

But the Nazis were pure evil, no comparison with Bush.