War in Ukraine

#62,153
#62,153
evillawyer said:
Can someone explain the purpose of camouflaging the top side of a fighter jet?

Click to expand...


2 guesses. Messing with satellite imagery in defeating targeting information as you disperse your assets. Both sides do a lot of training where they operate off highways. They have repainted sections of highway all over the country where they could land. No overpasses and no transmission lines crossing those highways.

You basically park them for servicing wherever you can pull off so you are part of the countryside. The Saab Viggen (a 3rd generation fighter) was all about being able to operate off of 2 lane roads since the Swedes knew their airfields would be toast in the first 6 hours.

We've trained with them for decades now.

Alternatively, look down camo to inhibit higher altitude adersaries from seeing you (that dog don't hunt so if it's not the first I give up).
 
#62,154
#62,154
AM64 said:
Unfortunately the ICC like obama doesn't quite get that wars are not civil matters, and lack of civility in wartime isn't a matter to be dealt with in a civil courtroom. In fact, it really elevates a war criminal to the status of a thug who knocks off the corner liquor store. Just shoot the POS and get on with it.
Click to expand...

When you say "civil trials" I don't think you are using that in the normal terminology. In American jurisprudence "civil" means matters like lawsuits for some perceived economic injury versus criminal proceedings.

If you are trying to call this a 'civil war' that doesn't fit. Even while part of the Soviet Union, ethnic Ukrainians saw themselves as Ukrainian and the Russians would refer to them that way. They were a vassal state. But even if you call this a civil rebellion, war crimes charges can still be brought.

Serbian Genocide.

Seems to have worked before. Milosevic could testify to that.
 
#62,156
#62,156
WBO said:
When you say "civil trials" I don't think you are using that in the normal terminology. In American jurisprudence "civil" means matters like lawsuits for some perceived economic injury versus criminal proceedings.

If you are trying to call this a 'civil war' that doesn't fit. Even while part of the Soviet Union, ethnic Ukrainians saw themselves as Ukrainian and the Russians would refer to them that way. They were a vassal state. But even if you call this a civil rebellion, war crimes charges can still be brought.

Serbian Genocide.

Seems to have worked before. Milosevic could testify to that.
Click to expand...

You are correct on that. I intended something more like a military court ending in death than a criminal trial run by civilians. While there are differences in terrorists and militaries, it's the consequences of terrorist actions or totalitarian actions as viewed in relation to military actions that are important. Kidnapping and incarceration or other atrocities committed against innocents runs right up there with the indiscriminate targeting and killing of innocents. In this day and age we don't have to resort to targeting civilian population centers to wage war, and genocide/slavery is no longer considered appropriate. People who do these kinds of things don't deserve the niceties that law affords a common thief or murderer. My use of "civil" was meant more along the line of decent human behavior, and I really meant thugs like Putin or an Idi Amin don't deserve civil courtroom antics. Their actions prove them guilty unless by some unlikely extenuating circumstance they can prove themselves innocent.
 
#62,162
#62,162
Orangeburst said:
I know how it works..it is an attack on a country article.
Click to expand...
If a NATO country is attacked we are obligated to help. So he wouldn't be speaking out of turn. That's literally what NATO is all about. I believe he was saying Poland would attack Russia if Russia succeeds in Ukraine. That would be an offensive move. Something we are not obligated to support.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Paper_Towel, LouderVol and InVOLuntary
#62,163
#62,163
volfanhill said:
If a NATO country is attacked we are obligated to help. So he wouldn't be speaking out of turn. That's literally what NATO is all about. I believe he was saying Poland would attack Russia if Russia succeeds in Ukraine. That would be an offensive move. Something we are not obligated to support.
Click to expand...

Naive...what if Russia counterattacked Poland which would inevitably happen..you think NATO just sits there?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#62,169
#62,169
BeardedVol said:
That's not how Article 5 works.
Click to expand...

I graduated with a Political Science degree 35 years ago..so don't need your opinion on my knowledge of NATO

If you guys think just because Poland is a direct military supporter that NATO would not become involved, then your a fool.
 
#62,170
#62,170
Orangeburst said:
I graduated with a Political Science degree 35 years ago..so don't need your opinion on my knowledge of NATO

If you guys think just because Poland is a direct military supporter that NATO would not become involved, then your a fool.
Click to expand...

Then you should feel bad that you don't know the circumstances in which Article 5 can be invoked by a NATO member for collective defense.

Maybe a refresher course or two is in order?

Collective defence and Article 5
 
#62,172
#62,172
Orangeburst said:
You gotta think beyond what is paper and the reality of an escalation.
Click to expand...
Your heads up your bleep hole if you think the US is going to do anything it doesn't want to do here. We are in no obligation to do **** if Poland attacks and Russia responds. You seemed to not know that. I am not saying we wouldn't. I don't know what this admin would do. But to act as though it means direct conflict is laughable.


Even calling article 5 doesn't guarantee military support. We can say here's a best of luck post card and some intel. We met our requirement.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BeardedVol
#62,173
#62,173
volfanhill said:
Your heads up your bleep hole if you think the US is going to do anything it doesn't want to do here. We are in no obligation to do **** if Poland attacks and Russia responds. You seemed to not know that. I am not saying we wouldn't. I don't know what this admin would do. But to act as though it means direct conflict is laughable.


Even calling article 5 doesn't guarantee military support. We can say here's a best of luck post card and some intel. We met our requirement.
Click to expand...

Ok cowboy. You assume Poland would not get hit or be counterattacked. Lets possibly watch Warsaw fall
Naive as hell...but keep the faith
 
#62,174
#62,174
Orangeburst said:
Ok cowboy. You assume Poland would not get hit or be counterattacked. Lets possibly watch Warsaw fall
Naive as hell...but keep the faith
Click to expand...
You, once again, are struggling. We have zero obligation in this scenario to do shat. It's a choice. Man this is like the bank situation. You are screaming about something you are ignorant about.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tvolsfan
#62,175
#62,175
volfanhill said:
You, once again, are struggling. We have zero obligation in this scenario to do shat.
Click to expand...

Are you new to geopolitics?

And struggling once again is that about FDIC? Because I know what FDIC is and does and wanted to know the mechanics of it all, not the freking concept. So back OFF.

Been following geopolitics a lot longer than your ass.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top