Ukraine Invasion - Please do not post videos showing attacks/similar

Status
Not open for further replies.

Roar87

Roar87

Roar87

Soldato
Joined
10 May 2012
Posts
10,062
Location
Leeds
Sankari said:
Yes. But that's not what I said.

Now back to my original statement, which I still stand by: I can't think of a single Australian Prime Minsiter who's given an order for someone to be killed.

Can you?
Click to expand...

Australia obviously has sent troops into combat on operations, the Prime Minister deployed them and signed off on the rules of engagement which allow soldiers, airmen and sailors to kill on behalf of the Australian government.
 

Sankari

Sankari

Sankari

Caporegime
Joined
29 Dec 2007
Posts
31,996
Location
Adelaide, South Australia
Roar87 said:
Australia obviously has sent troops into combat on operations, the Prime Minister deployed them and signed off on the rules of engagement which allow soldiers, airmen and sailors to kill on behalf of the Australian government.
Click to expand...

Again, that is not even remotely close to what we are talking about. We are talking about a situation in which a government leader gives an order to kill a specific person. Following the example of Navalny, we're talking about a killing ordered arbitrarily, without reference to the rule of law.

The Australian PM didn't give Australian troops an order saying, 'Kill Ahmed Mohammed M'jahmed, a Tajik shepherd in the Afghan province of Bumgoatuzgan.'

So you don't have a single example. Thanks for making that clear.
 
Last edited:

Roar87

Roar87

Roar87

Soldato
Joined
10 May 2012
Posts
10,062
Location
Leeds
Sankari said:
Again, that is not even remotely close to what we are talking about. We are talking about a situation in which a government leader gives an order to kill a specific person. Following the example of Navalny, we're talking about a killing ordered arbitrarily, without reference to the rule of law.

The Australian PM didn't give Australian troops an order saying, 'Kill Ahmed Mohammed M'jahmed, a Tajik shepherd in the Afghan province of Bumgoatuzgan.'

So you don't have a single example. Thanks for making that clear.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter what you've decided you are now are talking about, the initial discussion was around Tucker Carlson stating that leaders have to give orders to kill, which a lot of you acted as it was outrageous and wrong, yet every world leader has issued orders to kill. Period. Of course Navalny being killed is wrong, yet there's a long list of people who've been killed wrongly, I don't make too much distinction because a human life is a human life, to me it doesn't matter if it's a teenager in Gaza or a bloke in a Russian prison who said mean things about Putin.
 
Last edited:

ubersonic

ubersonic

ubersonic

Soldato
Joined
26 May 2009
Posts
22,101
jigger said:
Artillery and Smerch rocket attacks are one thing, but gliding 1500kg bombs and phosphorus are a whole different level.

Ukraine desperately need those F16s, GLSDB and 155 shells.
Click to expand...
It's a real shame the USA was so cavalier with white phosphorous bombs in the middle east or we would be able to properly challenge Russia on using them :(


brendy said:
I can't imagine there's much of the place left now.
Click to expand...
Russia's advancement tactic is basically "level it with artillery, they can't take up a defensive position in a pile of rubble" :(


Sankari said:
But Trump didn't wreck any of Putin's plans. He was the perfect useful idiot.
Click to expand...
Incorrect.

People love to tout the line about Trump loving Putin, and it's quote true he has praised him many times, however it didn't stop him screwing Putin over hard when the opportunity came up as pwning the strong man made him look like a super strong man.

One example is when Putin decided to go into Syria and be a badass, and Trump decided to blow up a Syrian base full of Russians so told Putin to get his guys out but not to warn the Syrians/Iranians or he wouldn't get a warning next time. It made Putin look like a total wimp in the eyes of the Syrians/Iranians who he was tring to flex to.

Another example is when Putin convinced Erdoğan to buy S-400 SAMs (a decision I'm sure he is in no way regretting now lol), and Trump threatened to eject Turkey from the F-35 program if they went through with it, they called his bluff and he followed through. Destroying Putin's plans for increasing/expanding his weapons industries reach as it was now written in stone that you can't be a US customer and a Russian customer, you have to pick and most of the countries Putin had been courting decided to go/stick with team USA.

And then of course you have the huge example that Trump was president for four years and in those four years Putin didn't invade Ukraine, yet the first chance he got under the Biden administration he was straight in there, and it wasn't because he was busy preparing as the time favoured Kiev more than Moscow.

So yeah, I stand by my opinion that there's a quite considerable chance Putin would rather spend the next four years dealing with an adversarial yet consistent Biden than having a loose cannon wrecking his plans again.
 

StriderX

StriderX

StriderX

Caporegime
Joined
18 Mar 2008
Posts
32,755
alchal said:
For all the moaning about trump and maga, we had years to arm and ensure a Ukrainian victory, we dithered and drip fed token gestures and cast offs.

Biden and the other western leaders are just as bad.
Click to expand...
You're assuming the 'West' want a victory when that has always been an uncertainty in terms of motivation and whatever the bigger picture they have (or don't because it's simply incompetence and years of cutting our capabilities that have made it functionally impossible to gift much more without critically damaging ourselves).
 

Sankari

Sankari

Sankari

Caporegime
Joined
29 Dec 2007
Posts
31,996
Location
Adelaide, South Australia
Roar87 said:
It doesn't matter what you've decided you are now are talking about, the initial discussion was around Tucker Carlson stating that leaders have to give orders to kill, which a lot of you acted as it was outrageous and wrong, yet every world leader has issued orders to kill.
Click to expand...

You're still dishonestly avoiding the context. The extrajudicial killing of a political opponent is outrageous and wrong. That's what we're talking about, not a general order to kill.

You still haven't named a single Australian Prime Minister who has given the order to kill someone.
 

Sankari

Sankari

Sankari

Caporegime
Joined
29 Dec 2007
Posts
31,996
Location
Adelaide, South Australia
ubersonic said:
Incorrect.

People love to tout the line about Trump loving Putin
Click to expand...

I've never claimed that. I might have said he admires him, but that's obvious to anyone.

ubersonic said:
One example is when Putin decided to go into Syria and be a badass, and Trump decided to blow up a Syrian base full of Russians so told Putin to get his guys out but not to warn the Syrians/Iranians or he wouldn't get a warning next time. It made Putin look like a total wimp in the eyes of the Syrians/Iranians who he was tring to flex to.
Click to expand...

Which plan did that wreck? Is Russia now out of Syria? No. Was Assad defeated? No.

ubersonic said:
Another example is when Putin convinced Erdoğan to buy S-400 SAMs (a decision I'm sure he is in no way regretting now lol), and Trump threatened to eject Turkey from the F-35 program if they went through with it, they called his bluff and he followed through.
Click to expand...

...and then Turkey BOUGHT THE DAMN THINGS ANYWAY, and announced plans to buy even more just last year. Whoops! No plans wrecked there.

ubersonic said:
And then of course you have the huge example that Trump was president for four years and in those four years Putin didn't invade Ukraine
Click to expand...

Are you mental? Putin had already invaded Ukraine, he spent those years consolidating his military force in Crimea and Sevastopol. Trump did nothing abut this. Instead, he phoned Zelensky and tried to pressure him for dirt on Biden.

ubersonic said:
yet the first chance he got under the Biden administration he was straight in there
Click to expand...

He pushed further into Ukraine a full two years after Biden became POTUS. It had nothing to do with who was in the White House. So how is this an example of Trump ruining Putin's plans? And what plan, specifically?

ubersonic said:
So yeah, I stand by my opinion that there's a quite considerable chance Putin would rather spend the next four years dealing with an adversarial yet consistent Biden than having a loose cannon wrecking his plans again.
Click to expand...

You haven't given a single example of this.
 
Last edited:

Colonel_Klinck

Colonel_Klinck

Colonel_Klinck

Soldato
Joined
3 Oct 2007
Posts
12,102
Location
London, UK
Tefal said:
Both projections are dishonest really. Much of that war was extrajudicial killings and assassinations via drone strike rather than open combat. Where leaders made the decision "yes we will kill civilians but this is when we know where the target is so yes blow up the wedding".

To say its different because its a war, a war you started when you're the invading army killing people who have zero capacity to ever reach you or your army if you just stayed home is pushing it.

Afganistan didn't attack america on 9/11, america did not need "defending" and our decade long war left the taliban better armed, equiped and empowered than when we started.
Click to expand...

War doesn't need to be fair, in fact you want it to be as unfair as possible with the advantage to your side.

Collateral damage always has been and sadly in many cases always will be a part of war. If a bad guy needs to be taken out and you have your chance and in the long run many lives will be saved its just the harsh reality.

No Afghanistan didn't but they sheltered the man and organisation that did. There is no way 9/11 could go unanswered. if they had given up Bin Laden and kicked out al-Qaeda maybe things would have gone differently.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom