War in Ukraine

#45,127
#45,127
hog88 said:
Why would they?
Click to expand...
They were leading the way in stopping the Ukrainians from negotiating a deal back in April and have been one of the most hardcore with regards to Russian sanctions. Lastly, the British have nearly 200 years of history behind them where they have gone against Russia for various reasons.

I put the UK at the top of the list ahead of the US. I don't think even the US would be that provocative because all fingers would look at either them or Russia.
 
#45,129
#45,129
Rasputin_Vol said:
They were leading the way in stopping the Ukrainians from negotiating a deal back in April and have been one of the most hardcore with regards to Russian sanctions. Lastly, the British have nearly 200 years of history behind them where they have gone against Russia for various reasons.

I put the UK at the top of the list ahead of the US. I don't think even the US would be that provocative because all fingers would look at either them or Russia.
Click to expand...
I actually assumed the UK used the same European gas supply routes as the rest but that isn’t the case. Their number 1 supplier is Norway and Russia is around a distant 5th. But again this would be tat amount to an act of war.

(Edit: Whoops)
4915D8EA-B6A1-485D-AD36-296AB2CC8CC4.jpeg
 
Last edited:
#45,130
#45,130
bcmbvol said:
I gave you a specific reason. Plus we are already acting as a co-belligerent.
Click to expand...
And I laughed at your reason as it is “there is no Carol in HR” level of rationale behind it. Next.

And no we are not a “co-belligerent” I realize you’re going to claim that but no we are not fighting there.
 
#45,131
#45,131
NorthDallas40 said:
And I laughed at your reason as it is “there is no Carol in HR” level of rationale behind it. Next.

And no we are not a “co-belligerent” I realize you’re going to claim that but no we are not fighting there.
Click to expand...
You laughing is not an argument, obviously. I had to look up your reference there, and it doesn’t map onto this situation so I guess that would be a non sequitur. By the UN’s definition, we are indeed a co-belligerent.
 
#45,132
#45,132
bcmbvol said:
You laughing is not an argument, obviously. I had to look up your reference there, and it doesn’t map onto this situation so I guess that would be a non sequitur. By the UN’s definition, we are indeed a co-belligerent.
Click to expand...
We are not an active combat participant so prove we are or GTFO. To prove that we are not go review the reasoning Russia could treat US and UK citizens participating in the war as unlawful combatants which they could lawfully do according to the Geneva Convention. That rationale comes from the fact that the countries they are citizens of are NOT active belligerents in this war.

No it was open mocking, not a non sequitur
 
Last edited:
#45,133
#45,133
Rasputin_Vol said:
I put the UK at the top of the list ahead of the US. I don't think even the US would be that provocative because all fingers would look at either them or Russia.
Click to expand...

Germany can't back out now, Europe is screwed. Who needs enemies when you sleep with these bitches? LoL You would think at some point someone would learn something.

Germany is just another poor country in Europe now.
 
#45,135
#45,135
bcmbvol said:
The US has provided money, weapons, communication, and intelligence to one side of the conflict. That makes us a co-belligerent.

Mocking… not an argument
Click to expand...
Go read the rest of the edit. Your claim does not pass the bar of belligerent. Period.

To prove that we are not go review the reasoning Russia could treat US and UK citizens participating in the war as unlawful combatants which they could lawfully do according to the Geneva Convention. That rationale comes from the fact that the countries they are citizens of are NOT active belligerents in this war.
Click to expand...


No ****.
 
#45,137
#45,137
bcmbvol said:
The US has provided money, weapons, communication, and intelligence to one side of the conflict. That makes us a co-belligerent.

Mocking… not an argument
Click to expand...

I hate to say it but I told you so... you are going to be warn out by the nonsense. Save yourself. LoL
 
#45,140
#45,140
Burhead said:
Click to expand...

We are already seeing the EU governments downplay that narrative as once that Rubicon is passed there’s no going back.

I do think you could label it an act of war, an attack against those countries receiving gas from it. But Russia is an owner in the pipeline also so I’d submit it isn’t as cut and dry.

Now if WE were to conduct that sabotage then I think it’s a clear act of war as we are not party to the pipeline at all
 
#45,148
#45,148
bcmbvol said:
The main cause of our conflict I think is that you don’t think the US government materially contributed to causing this situation, and I do.
Click to expand...
I can't bring myself to believe the US actually did this because it would be too damn obvious. Now, if you ask me if I think they may have been aware that this was going to happen by a proxy or ally??? I can believe that.
 
#45,149
#45,149
bcmbvol said:
The main cause of our conflict I think is that you don’t think the US government materially contributed to causing this situation, and I do.
Click to expand...
Oh no. We are materially involved no doubt as to the level of equipment and aid we are providing. And we should have kept our pie holes shut in 1994. That’s not deniable. But you went over the edge claiming belligerent which has specific meaning… which you don’t get to redefine for convenience. Even Russia doesn’t consider us a belligerent based on the dialog of how the US citizens captured were going to be treated.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top