Ironic that Russia has gone all in with the same WMD lie that brought the West into Iraq, and all the conspiracy theorists are lapping it up like God's truth with a topping of whipped cream despite being the same people who rightly rejected the same lie when Iraq was involved.
Ukraine Invasion - Please do not post videos showing attacks/similar
- Thread starter areksnumbr1sxylady
- Start date
- Status
Ironic that Russia has gone all in with the same WMD lie that brought the West into Iraq, and all the conspiracy theorists are lapping it up like God's truth with a topping of whipped cream despite being the same people who rightly rejected the same lie when Iraq was involved.
Whilst you may think it’s a breach, it’s not. Showing identifiable prisoners, naked, being tortured, etc would be a breach. Showing pictures of soldiers who have simply surrender is not. It’s not a breach of their ‘honour’. It’s widely accepted that there is a provision of public interest and free speech/media. Showing a picture of a surrendered soldier in uniform reading a newspaper would not be a breach. Because where is the breach of honour? Showing a picture of a prisoner being stripped naked and beaten with a newspaper would be.
Take this as a thought. A journalist takes a picture of a POW in a prison. The picture shows them malnourished, and meak. This picture is published. Is that a breach?
Context is everything and internal legal scholars (and I, albeit in an undergrad position) argue about this a lot. What’s undoubtably is that context is everything and simply taking a photographs of a prisoner certainly does not create a breach.
Nato won't give the planes, it is in my view one step too far, all nations need to be pushing Putin to talk and to actually acknowledge his worries and concerns but on the basis he calls an immediate ceasefire and no more troops or supplies amass in Ukraine or on the border, but retreating would be an option if he wishes to pull that convoy out but with a big if you pull a dirty on us and don't pull out there will be severe consequences as he has proven he also cannot be trusted.
Tricky times but WW3 gets nobody anywhere, Russia will be finished, if it goes nuclear the world ends for the human race as we know it, so nobody wins.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 11 Mar 2005
- Posts
- 32,247
- Location
- Leafy Cheshire
From the frying pan and into the fire.
Going to be very interesting to see how the global approach to China shifts in the coming years.
Associate
- Joined
- 25 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 1,932
Yes.
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 22,397
- Location
- Wilds of suffolk
The issue with food security is that people assume bringing everything on shore is best
It raises other issues, availability of a varied diet, risk of localised bad weather (too wet,dry etc), and lastly efficiency as if your trying to grow inefficient for our climate crops then they will cost more
Does everyone want to add some hefty food price inflation (above what we are already seeing) on top of all the other increasing costs
Having a somewhat balanced import/export food balance is probably a better target. Plus of course people actually need to want to work in the sector.
Would be a good debate in its own thread to be honest.
It raises other issues, availability of a varied diet, risk of localised bad weather (too wet,dry etc), and lastly efficiency as if your trying to grow inefficient for our climate crops then they will cost more
Does everyone want to add some hefty food price inflation (above what we are already seeing) on top of all the other increasing costs
Having a somewhat balanced import/export food balance is probably a better target. Plus of course people actually need to want to work in the sector.
Would be a good debate in its own thread to be honest.
I am surprised Russia isn't more concerned about this considering how close the plant is to the Belarus and Russian borders.
Plenty, I suspect. And it's not just what they can get, it's how much. China can't provide Russia with everything she needs.
Australia exported $723 million of goods to Russia in 2019-2020 alone. A lot of that was stuff like ores, live animals, specialised machinery, and meat. China can't pick up the slack for every nation that cuts Russia off, she just doesn't have the capacity and in some cases she doesn't even have the products.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 58,663
- Location
- Surrey
How is giving planes any different to thousands of weapons 
It's just another piece of equipment.
It's just another piece of equipment.
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 22,397
- Location
- Wilds of suffolk
How is giving planes any different to thousands of weapons
Offensive vs defensive I guess, sure the line is blurred but I think generally fighters are classified as on offensive weapon
Im guessing Poland just looking for clarification that should they give the jets that the whole of NATO agrees its acceptable risk that Putin may seek to hit Poland for doing it and trigger full NATO response.
You may want to read the conversation next time as that link you provided has nothing to do with whether western nations are sharing intelligence with Ukraine, in fact posting a link to the very same thread you're replying to is pretty much a waste of everyone's time.
How is giving planes any different to thousands of weapons
Optics, politics... things aren't always analysed rationally.
Yep
*Ukraine Foreign Minister Kuleba Says He Has Limited Expectations from Talks with Russia’s Lavrov
https://twitter.com/ForexLive/status/1501518688817758209
https://twitter.com/GiovaQuez/status/1501518740512456707
https://twitter.com/ForexLive/status/1501518688817758209
https://twitter.com/GiovaQuez/status/1501518740512456707
How is giving planes any different to thousands of weapons
Well the most important fact about fighter planes is they can be flown into Russian airspace and target civilians or government buildings etc.. Basically giving them a "piece of equipment" that maybe used to target Russian targets (all you need is one pilot to go rogue and try get revenge on Russia and we have WW3 with a fighter given to them by Poland (NATO) ).
The equipment given to them so far can only be used in their country and can't target Russia, basically what we have given them is defensive weapons only that can only be used on their land. When they said fighter planes I knew it wouldn't happen and Poland has lost the plot and has no idea what they were doing.
How is giving planes any different to thousands of weapons
It would be obvious where they came from and planes are far more offensive rather than defensive potentially. It is just a total mess the longer it goes on the potential risk of WW3 is greater.
While I tend to agree with you, the International Committee of the Red Cross does not:
Honestly, things are so different now from when the convention was written that it probably needs to be revisited. In '49 pictures would have been distributed by the warring parties through newspapers, now a random citizen with a phone can share them to the world on Twitter. Whatever your view on where the line sits regarding photos I would think we can all surely agree that there's a world of difference between sharing a photo of a PoW phoning their mum and drinking tea and bombing civilian targets.
How is giving planes any different to thousands of weapons
I guess a lot of aircraft could turn the tide, or at the very least inflict massive damage to Russia's army.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 58,663
- Location
- Surrey
Well yeah but I'm pretty sure the Stingers and NLAW's have been doing significant damage to their army. I could understand if we'd just been sending armour and humanitarian aid up to now but it feels like a weird thing to suddenly be unacceptable.
You ask for info. I gave it to you
The link is this thread
It's a great read at a night\morning time
- Status