Jump to content

War In Ukraine


Recommended Posts

46 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

don't get me wrong, I still loves me some Tucker Carlson

but proving a negative is a fool's errand by logical deduction

Tucker knows

Explain to me how proving or disproving Tucker's Ukraine in NATO contention by simply declaring the Ukraine will not be accepted into NATO is "proving a negative." Putin will either withdraw or he won't. If he does, Tucker is right. Right? How would that prove or disprove a negative? Tucker is implying a positive effect from an action. He's either right or he isn't.

Biden and the NATO nations could even sign something. Why not see if that works?

Edited by Infidel Dog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Infidel Dog said:

Explain to me how proving or disproving Tucker's Ukraine in NATO contention by simply declaring the Ukraine will not be accepted into NATO is "proving a negative." Putin will either withdraw or he won't. If he does, Tucker is right. Right? How would that prove a negative?

Biden and the NATO nations could even sign something. Why not see if that works?

don't know what your point is here

I can't explain to you what you are on about, because I am not sure what it is

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Dougie93 said:

don't know what your point is here

I can't explain to you what you are on about, because I am not sure what it is

My point is clear. Tucker suggests there would be no invasion  without the danger of the Ukraine joining NATO.

It would be easy to prove him wrong by convincing Putin that is not going to happen and if the invasion continues he's wrong.

So do that and Tucker is either right or he's wrong. 

It has nothing to do with "proving a negative." You were incorrect in stating it did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Infidel Dog said:

My point is clear. Tucker suggests there would be no invasion  without the danger of the Ukraine joining NATO.

It would be easy to prove him wrong by convincing Putin that is not going to happen and if the invasion continues he's wrong.

So do that and Tucker is either right or he's wrong. 

It has nothing to do with "proving a negative." You were incorrect in stating it did.

Ukraine joining NATO was never a serious proposal

George W. Bush floated it way back in 2006

but NATO never followed through

Putin already won that fight in Georgia

so it's just a rubric the Kremlin is invoking to justify their revnachism against America for winning the Cold War

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

Ukraine joining NATO was never a serious proposal

See here we run into the problem I often have in discussing something with progressives. 

You're dismissing a claim without viewing the evidence in the reference.

My claim was Tucker made a good case for the idea the Biden regime was convincing the Russians there was support for a new Ukraine in NATO push. That evidence of a push could also be seen as coming from the neo-cons in the Republican party. 

Watch the video then tell me why he's wrong.

Edited by Infidel Dog
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

 

You're dismissing a claiming without viewing the evidence in the reference.

I dismissed nothing

I was a Cold Warrior

I was there when the Cold War was won

I was there through the entire aftermath

I am fully aware of the context

none the less, the Kremlin has crossed the Rubicon

when it is preemptive aggressive war by the Nuremberg Principles in contravention of Hague & Geneva

when they are bombarding population centers indiscriminately

when they are sending Chechen mercenaries to mass murder Christians in Europe

when their concept of operations is genocidal total war of annihilation

when they are imposing Soviet totalitarianism in Russia itself

while engaging in nuclear blackmail against NATO SHAPE & NORAD National Command Authority

nothing can justify their actions

at this juncture, we are at the threshold of the Third World War

so I am choosing to side against the Kremlin, now

as I say tho, I have no quarrel with you therein

Edited by Dougie93
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

real war = snipers shooting civilians 

Your moral compass fell overboard, man.  You have zero credibility.

It's a real war. This was not a surprise attack. Zelensky had many direct and unmistakeable warnings. Like it or lump it.

In case you forgot, Zelensky told his civilian population to fight. When they do, and when they get shot, by snipers or anyone else, it's not Putin's fault. Your moral compass is set to 'obey propaganda': you never had any credibility when this thread started and yet somehow you're still going downhill. 

You're a little puppet man, driven this way and that by the MSM. You have no ability to think for yourself or to make sense of what's happening around you. You hear the MSM narrative and, regardless of whether or not that conflicts all of the facts that you've been exposed to, you just instantly absorb that narrative and start regurgitating it as if it's the key to your existence.

FYI Russian soldiers are in Ukraine because Zelensky felt like Putin wasn't serious about what would happen if Zelensky kept pushing closer to NATO.

FYI Russian soldiers are getting shot at by civilians because Zelensky told his citizens to shoot at them. Now Zelensy's citizens are getting killed because they listened to Zelensky. FYI Russian soldiers are allowed to fight back when they're attacked.

If the Russians/RCMP/Chinese/FBI surround your house and your family is in there with you, do you start shooting at them, oblivious to the consequences? Are you as stupid as the Ukrainians? 

Go find me something in the Geneva Conventions that says that civilians can shoot at soldiers without recourse. Do you know what you'll actually find out? Uniformed soldiers actually have more protections from the GCs than unlawful combatants. Shooting at soldiers when you're not wearing a uniform (a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance) is a war crime. Zelensky is asking his civilians to commit war crimes. Russia is abiding by the laws of war. 

Sometimes you gotta choose to live to fight another day. If that means that you have to accept the rule of a foreign power then so be it. The only time that you fight with your family right there is if they're gonna be attacked. Then it's blaze of glory time. 

Sorry MH but you're way off base here. Stupidly so. It's like you came from a planet where there was no such thing as war, rolled out of bed, watched twenty seconds of "the news", and started running your mouth. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

All I'm saying is maybe there doesn't have to be a third world war.

as I said, this is threhold

but this is war now in any case

the theater war is already in progress

so in the event of war

you start at worst case scenario

then prepare your way from there

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Ukrainian stooges - for your edification:

Quote
“Lawful enemy combatant” means a person who is:
(A) a member of the regular forces of a State party engaged in hostilities;
(B) a member of a militia, volunteer corps, or organized resistance movement belonging to a State party engaged in such hostilities, which are under responsible command, wear a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, carry their arms openly, and abide by the law of war; or
(C) a member of a regular armed force who professes allegiance to a government engaged in such hostilities, 

Any civilian who isn't in some kind of a uniform, who shoots at Russians, is an unlawful combatant and not protected by the Geneva Conventions. 

They can shoot at Russians if they want to, anyone has the right to self defence, but the Russians absolutely have the right, under the codified laws of war, to shoot back with lethal force. They can snipe them, strafe them with MG fire, whatever they want. Soldiers also have the right to self defence. 

If SAMs or LAWs are being fired from any type of building it's well within the laws of war to return fire with a barrage/bombardment. 

The Ukrainians could play this relatively safely for their people, but they're not. Their civilians are shooting at soldiers. Their soldiers are mustering inside of schools as cover. They're going low. They have no honour. Now they're facing some shelling. Oh well: it sucks to suck. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

@Ukrainian stooges - for your edification:

Any civilian who isn't in some kind of a uniform, who shoots at Russians, is an unlawful combatant and not protected by the Geneva Conventions. 

They can shoot at Russians if they want to, anyone has the right to self defence, but the Russians absolutely have the right, under the codified laws of war, to shoot back with lethal force. They can snipe them, strafe them with MG fire, whatever they want. Soldiers also have the right to self defence. 

If SAMs or LAWs are being fired from any type of building it's well within the laws of war to return fire with a barrage/bombardment. 

The Ukrainians could play this relatively safely for their people, but they're not. Their civilians are shooting at soldiers. Their soldiers are mustering inside of schools as cover. They're going low. They have no honour. Now they're facing some shelling. Oh well: it sucks to suck. 

the Russians aren't signatory to the Geneva Convention nor do they offer the protection of it

so the Geneva Convention is moot on this battlefield

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

the Russians aren't signatory to the Geneva Convention nor do they offer the protection of it

so the Geneva Convention is moot on this battlefield

That doesn't change the fact that they're still abiding by the laws of war and the Ukraine isn't.

Accusations of war crimes are serious, I'm merely clearing up some misconceptions that people here have about what constitutes a 'war crime'. I didn't even bring the topic of war crimes into this thread, MH did.

If we're keeping score, Zelenski was committing a war crime by urging his citizens to commit war crimes en masse (attacking Russian soldiers while not in uniform). 

The Russians stated their reasons to attack, they gave fair warning, they're attacking like a professional army with reasonable, established, acceptable methods, and the Ukrainians are fighting like war criminals.

That's fine, I'm not the one bitching about this topic, but when it comes up I'm definitely going to set the record straight. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

That doesn't change the fact that they're still abiding by the laws of war and the Ukraine isn't.

Accusations of war crimes are serious, I'm merely clearing up some misconceptions that people here have about what constitutes a 'war crime'. I didn't even bring the topic of war crimes into this thread, MH did.

If we're keeping score, Zelenski was committing a war crime by urging his citizens to commit war crimes en masse (attacking Russian soldiers while not in uniform). 

The Russians stated their reasons to attack, they gave fair warning, they're attacking like a professional army with reasonable, established, acceptable methods, and the Ukrainians are fighting like war criminals.

That's fine, I'm not the one bitching about this topic, but when it comes up I'm definitely going to set the record straight. 

no comment, see my above /shrugs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

furthermore, in this event of Russia launching an aggressive war by the Nuremberg Principles

This war wasn't aggressive at all by the Nuremberg Principles.

Ukraine was bringing an aggressive military force (NATO is not living up to it's charter as a defensive treaty) right to Russia's border, complete with nuclear weapons, biological warfare agents, chemical weapons, cruise missiles, stealth fighters, bombers, artillery, etc.

Quote

civilians within the invaded country are fully within their rights to resist by any means neccesary

by international law & the laws of armed conflict, to include Hague & Geneva

Your idea of what the laws are doesn't match up with the actual laws:

Quote

 

“Lawful enemy combatant” means a person who is:

.....a member of a militia, volunteer corps, or organized resistance movement belonging to a State party engaged in such hostilities, which are under responsible command, wear a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, carry their arms openly, and abide by the law of war;

 

Omar Khadr was well within his rights to throw a grenade at uniformed soldiers while he dressed as a civilian by your standards. You don't get to have it both ways. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

This war wasn't aggressive at all by the Nuremberg Principles.

Ukraine was bringing an aggressive military force (NATO is not living up to it's charter as a defensive treaty) right to Russia's border, complete with nuclear weapons, biological warfare agents, chemical weapons, cruise missiles, stealth fighters, bombers, artillery, etc.

Your idea of what the laws are doesn't match up with the actual laws:

Omar Khadr was well within his rights to throw a grenade at uniformed soldiers while he dressed as a civilian by your standards. You don't get to have it both ways. 

so you say

in any case, I could care less about the law at this point

it's total war for national survival

so the gloves are off

Slava Ukraini

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Dougie93 said:

so you say

in any case, I could care less about the law at this point

it's total war for national survival

so the gloves are off

Slava Ukraini

That's fine. Dog eat dog.

I'm just not entertaining conversations about "Russian war crimes against people who are shooting at them." 

If someone shots at a uniformed soldier then gets their head taken clean off IDGAF if they're pregnant. They're just a deceased combatant. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

the rules based international order has clearly broken down

no sense following laws which do not protect us

let NATO come in and enforce the law anytime now, please do

That's a "1 billion deaths" scenario. Not the ideal outcome. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

That's a "1 billion deaths" scenario. Not the ideal outcome. 

ah yes, the illusion of control and Article V being some sort of shield protecting us

the Poles are transferring their MiG-29's to Ramstein AFB in Germany now

preparing to hand them over to the Ukrainians

so that's NATO fighters crossing the Article V line going the other way

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

ah yes, the illusion of control and Article V being some sort of shield protecting us

the Poles are transferring their MiG-29's to Ramstein AFB in Germany now

preparing to hand them over to the Ukrainians

so that's NATO fighters crossing the Article V line going the other way

Yeah, the illusion of NATO being a defensive alliance is out the window now, and Poland is a co-belligerant in this war. 

If those planes hit Russian targets in Ukraine that's bad, if they hit a target on Russia's side of the border that will be a massive escalation. 

I hope their planes don't last a day. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Yeah, the illusion of NATO being a defensive alliance is out the window now, and Poland is a co-belligerant in this war. 

If those planes hit Russian targets in Ukraine that's bad, if they hit a target on Russia's side of the border that will be a massive escalation. 

I hope their planes don't last a day. 

ah well, quite sure the Russian submarines have crossed the G-I-UK Gap by now

there's no Article V line in the ocean after all

and its not like Russian tanks are the threat to North America

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,538
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    mercurygermes
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...