War in Ukraine

#62,477
#62,477
LouderVol said:
right. Ukraine who was getting swept so bad by Russia they took time and resources out of their defense to blow up the civilians fleeing back towards Ukraine.

you really will believe whatever bs you are fed without applying any critical thinking.

Really curious about how these civilians knew who was shelling them. The Russian's had the city surrounded, so their attacks would have also come from behind, where "Ukraine" should have been.
Click to expand...

This wasn't the only area where citizens have complained of being targeted by Ukrainian military for leaving. Why? Because Ukraine wanted to use them as human shields.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rasputin_Vol
#62,482
#62,482
Volsdeep4 said:
Still is against “the law of war” you cannot attack hospitals, civilian infrastructure, and schools.
Click to expand...

Since when? I know we impose some idiotic rules on ourselves but war is war, if you don't want to be a target GTFO.
 
#62,487
#62,487
The ironic thing is, same as it was a year ago when you yahoos were screaming about Russia allegedly targeting civilians (they werent), is the Ukrainians have been targeting civilians for years and are still indiscriminately bombing civilian areas, not only in Donbas but at times inside of Russia, with the help of the West. So spare me the fake tears.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rasputin_Vol
#62,488
#62,488
BeardedVol said:
3/4s of NATO members didn't sign the 'Budapest Memorandum', obligating themselves to guarantee Ukraine's borders.
Click to expand...

Ohh good grief, you are drinking the Budapest Kool Aid too? Again, from the people who drafted and signed the Memo, it didn't obligate the US to anything we weren't already obligated to. Meaning, we were never obligated to help Ukraine before the Memo and we weren't after. The US would never obligate itself to such because it would mean a potential war with Russia, which people back then rightly knew would be catastrophic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rasputin_Vol
#62,491
#62,491
BeardedVol said:
How are their NATO obligations relevant to US aid given to Ukraine?
Click to expand...

How many times in this thread has it been posted "if we let Russia take Ukraine they won't stop there"? Huh? 100 maybe? Well then it's obvious that those NATO countries not meeting their NATO obligations aren't that worried about Russian aggression.
 
#62,492
#62,492
volgr said:
The ironic thing is, same as it was a year ago when you yahoos were screaming about Russia allegedly targeting civilians (they werent), is the Ukrainians have been targeting civilians for years and are still indiscriminately bombing civilian areas, not only in Donbas but at times inside of Russia, with the help of the West. So spare me the fake tears.
Click to expand...

That's as dumb as those criticizing Russia for targeting infrastructure.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LouderVol
#62,493
#62,493
volgr said:
Yeah, they target those areas because Ukrainian troops take up positions in residential areas. Russia isnt doing anything the US wouldnt do, hell they are probably doing more not to target civilians than we did in Iraq.
Click to expand...
Right, all those troops in western Ukraine in residential apartment buildings.......... Right!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rocky_Top_Vol13, AM64, Hunerwadel and 1 other person
#62,494
#62,494
hog88 said:
How many times in this thread has it been posted "if we let Russia take Ukraine they won't stop there"? Huh? 100 maybe? Well then it's obvious that those NATO countries not meeting their NATO obligations aren't that worried about Russian aggression.
Click to expand...

Are you laboring under some misconception that if a country spends the required 2% of GDP on defense, that they are automatically safe from any sort of Russian interference?

If all of NATO spent 2% of their GDP, would that somehow negate US obligations to guarantee Ukraine's borders and sovereignty?
 
#62,496
#62,496
volgr said:
This wasn't the only area where citizens have complained of being targeted by Ukrainian military for leaving. Why? Because Ukraine wanted to use them as human shields.
Click to expand...
and its not the only case where the Russian's had them surrounded so the attacks would have been coming from "Ukrainian" positions.
 
#62,497
#62,497
BeardedVol said:
Are you laboring under some misconception that if a country spends the required 2% of GDP on defense, that they are automatically safe from any sort of Russian interference?

If all of NATO spent 2% of their GDP, would that somehow negate US obligations to guarantee Ukraine's borders and sovereignty?
Click to expand...

Look I understand that you're not the sharpest knife in the drawer and your support for Ukraine comes from your blind loyalty to the current administration. But this take is just dumb.

If NATO countries refuse to meet their obligations on defense spending then they obviously are not worried about Russian expansion touching them. Which has been an excuse for the US spending billions on Ukraine. Aid to Ukraine should be primarily coming from those countries "threatened" by Russian expansion (Europe) with us filling in some gaps. If a NATO country can't even meet their military spending requirements for their own defense then f^ck 'em, let's keep our money at home.
 
#62,499
#62,499
hog88 said:
Look I understand that you're not the sharpest knife in the drawer and your support for Ukraine comes from your blind loyalty to the current administration. But this take is just dumb.

If NATO countries refuse to meet their obligations on defense spending then they obviously are not worried about Russian expansion touching them. Which has been an excuse for the US spending billions on Ukraine. Aid to Ukraine should be primarily coming from those countries "threatened" by Russian expansion (Europe) with us filling in some gaps. If a NATO country can't even meet their military spending requirements for their own defense then f^ck 'em, let's keep our money at home.
Click to expand...

Is attempting to tie US support for Ukraine to NATO defense spending by other members, part of your hyper-partisan schtick or something?

You are the one who has attempted to link the two in some way, so I'm not sure why you are getting bent out of shape that someone would ask you why you feel that they are inexorably linked in some way.
 
#62,500
#62,500
LouderVol said:
I agree its fair game, but he is claiming them as military functions, not civilian functions. he believes taking them out serves some military function.
Click to expand...

The military uses the same infrastructure as the civilians use. War is a brutal nasty business and when countries decide war is their only option they do their soldiers a disservice, actually they betray their fighting men when they tie their hands.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and McDad
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top