User not logged in - login - register
Home Calendar Books School Tool Photo Gallery Message Boards Users Statistics Advertise Site Info
go to bottom | |
 Message Boards » » War with Syria/Iran/Russia Page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10, Prev Next  
bbehe
Burn it all down.
18095 Posts
user info
edit post

Like I'm really trying to understand the sequence of events in your head, you think the US caused the anti-Russian sentiment? You don't think the Euromadien protests show that the sentiment was there for a long time? Do you think the US government was really able to spur hundreds of thousands of people to suddenly hate Russia?

3/1/2022 7:59:51 PM

bbehe
Burn it all down.
18095 Posts
user info
edit post

Also, you haven't answered my question, would you stop the military aid currently pouring into Ukraine?

3/1/2022 8:10:05 PM

daaave
Suspended
1331 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"So this "US backed coup" helped install a legitimate candidate to president? "


The coup was in 2014. Zelensky was elected in 2019.

Quote :
"Did Rada not have the power to remove Yanukovych from president?"


No, they didn't. They violated the impeachment process following a violent fascist uprising that forced Yanukovych and most of his ministers out of the capital.

Quote :
"you think the US caused the anti-Russian sentiment? You don't think the Euromadien protests show that the sentiment was there for a long time? "


Both things are true. There was anti-Russian sentiment, but it wasn't the predominant attitude. Remember that only 28% of Ukrainians wanted to join NATO prior to the coup, shooting up to something like 70% in the years after.

Quote :
"Do you think the US government was really able to spur hundreds of thousands of people to suddenly hate Russia?"


No, the US government took advantage of a protest movement in order to manipulate it into a situation that was more favorable to the west, as they have done many times before.

Quote :
"Also, you haven't answered my question, would you stop the military aid currently pouring into Ukraine?"


I didn't answer this because it's a complicated and loaded question that I don't care to dive into. I'm more interested in what got us to this point. Otherwise I'm happy to continue this conversation if you can be nice.

3/1/2022 10:14:58 PM

StTexan
All American
2796 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
" prior to the coup"


Que paso, comrade

3/1/2022 10:44:13 PM

bbehe
Burn it all down.
18095 Posts
user info
edit post

^^
For the very last time, the Euromaiden protests were about Yanukovych not pursing a relationship with the EU, not NATO.

Further, saying something like "Well prior to 'the coup' only 28% wanted to join NATO" with the implication that the US was responsible for the increase without acknowledging that maybe, just maybe Russian actions/policies including the annexation of Crimea and funding of separatists helped just a bit is willfully ignorant. Further, how legitimate can that number even be with a corrupt government or a populace living in fear? Surely you don't think Kim down in DPRK has 100% approval rate?

Also, you said you liked the DSA's statement saying that the US should stop military aid, so I'm going to assume that's your opinion. It's really not a complicated question.

[Edited on March 1, 2022 at 10:54 PM. Reason : A]

3/1/2022 10:52:46 PM

bbehe
Burn it all down.
18095 Posts
user info
edit post

Also, you can absolutely hate Russia but still not want to join NATO, see Finland as example.

3/1/2022 11:25:15 PM

HaLo
All American
13655 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
" It's really not a complicated question."


It is if you have no idea what you actually believe

3/2/2022 12:02:25 AM

GrumpyGOP
yovo yovo bonsoir
18064 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"Do you think Crimea would have been seized had the US not helped overthrow Yanukovych?"


1) I don't think it's a given that without U.S. assistance, Yanukovych stays in power. I won't argue the point that we backed the revolution, because I don't know enough about our activities. But I know we did not call a large-scale movement into existence out of thin air. Our historical coup-backing style is more of a "assist a handful of military leaders in throwing a putsch" thing.
2) I think that Yanukovych or no, the end result is that Russia ends up controlling Crimea against the will of a majority of Ukrainians. They didn't take Crimea to punish Ukraine, they took it because they wanted Crimea. Either they take it through invasion, as happened, or they take it by interfering in Ukrainian democracy and propping up puppets who effectively give it to them. The first one definitely involves violence, and the second one probably does, because protests would have been inevitable.

You've repeatedly said that only a minority of Ukrainians wanted into NATO prior to Crimea; I'll assume that's true. I don't know what percentage wanted to be in the EU; probably higher, since that comes with more benefits. But "I don't want into NATO" is not the same as "I love Russia." I'm positive that it was a small minority indeed who would have said, "We should be part of Russia" or "We should give territory to Russia" or "Russia should be more involved in our government."

3/2/2022 8:47:45 AM

bbehe
Burn it all down.
18095 Posts
user info
edit post

Actually, just to follow up, daaave, do you consider the EU to be an expansionist offensive force that is a threat to Russia, ie the same way you view NATO?

3/2/2022 9:10:33 AM

Bullet
All American
26751 Posts
user info
edit post

Interesting: https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/02/28/world-war-iii-already-there-00012340

3/2/2022 10:01:04 AM

bbehe
Burn it all down.
18095 Posts
user info
edit post

https://twitter.com/SamRamani2/status/1499038375382298624

3/2/2022 10:50:48 AM

daaave
Suspended
1331 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"^^
For the very last time, the Euromaiden protests were about Yanukovych not pursing a relationship with the EU, not NATO."


Right. The EU offered a raw deal filled with austerity measures that didn't even grant full membership - it would give them associate status. The point is that a shift in public opinion began when the US interfered.

Quote :
"Further, saying something like "Well prior to 'the coup' only 28% wanted to join NATO" with the implication that the US was responsible for the increase without acknowledging that maybe, just maybe Russian actions/policies including the annexation of Crimea and funding of separatists helped just a bit is willfully ignorant."


Definitely agree that the annexation of Crimea contributed to anti-Russian sentiment, along with banning the Russian language and allowing fascist militias to terrorize eastern Ukraine. But the annexation likely would not have happened without the coup. There was no strategic reason for it to happen.

Quote :
"Further, how legitimate can that number even be with a corrupt government or a populace living in fear? Surely you don't think Kim down in DPRK has 100% approval rate?"


It was a Pew Research poll.

https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2010/03/29/ukraine-says-no-to-nato/

Quote :
"Also, you said you liked the DSA's statement saying that the US should stop military aid, so I'm going to assume that's your opinion. It's really not a complicated question."


Ok. No, I don't think the US should aid Ukraine militarily because the US is an evil empire that has never had the best interests of the civilian population of other countries in mind, let alone its own population. It also only serves to prolong the conflict, increase the death toll, and further destabilize Ukraine. But hey, they have some wonderful IMF loans to look forward to.

Quote :
"1) I don't think it's a given that without U.S. assistance, Yanukovych stays in power. I won't argue the point that we backed the revolution, because I don't know enough about our activities. But I know we did not call a large-scale movement into existence out of thin air. Our historical coup-backing style is more of a "assist a handful of military leaders in throwing a putsch" thing."


Well nothing is a given, but the US meddled, and Yanukovych was gone. The US pumped billions of dollars into Ukraine since the fall of the Soviet Unon. We don't know for sure how much of that was in the years prior to 2014, but we do know that a number of NGOs were active. McCain and Nuland were in Ukraine during the protests doing photo ops and handing out cookies (literally). Nuland is on record in a leaked phone call discussing who they would like to take the reins of Ukraine.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957

Quote :
"2) I think that Yanukovych or no, the end result is that Russia ends up controlling Crimea against the will of a majority of Ukrainians. They didn't take Crimea to punish Ukraine, they took it because they wanted Crimea. Either they take it through invasion, as happened, or they take it by interfering in Ukrainian democracy and propping up puppets who effectively give it to them. The first one definitely involves violence, and the second one probably does, because protests would have been inevitable."


But why would Russia seize Crimea if Ukraine was in the process of entering an economic agreement with them? There wouldn't have been any point.

Quote :
"You've repeatedly said that only a minority of Ukrainians wanted into NATO prior to Crimea; I'll assume that's true. I don't know what percentage wanted to be in the EU; probably higher, since that comes with more benefits. But "I don't want into NATO" is not the same as "I love Russia." I'm positive that it was a small minority indeed who would have said, "We should be part of Russia" or "We should give territory to Russia" or "Russia should be more involved in our government.""


Here's the polling I could find. Even in 2014 they seemed to want equal relations with Russia and the west. But yes, they never wanted to be annexed into Russia.

https://www.dw.com/en/ukrainian-support-for-eu-association-agreement-declines/a-17189085
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/03/06/regional-polls-show-few-ukrainians-russians-want-a-united-single-state/

[Edited on March 2, 2022 at 11:41 AM. Reason : .]

3/2/2022 11:36:13 AM

bbehe
Burn it all down.
18095 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"Right. The EU offered a raw deal filled with austerity measures that didn't even grant full membership - it would give them associate status. The point is that a shift in public opinion began when the US interfered.
"


Because it was essentially the first step in the process? Full EU membership has loads of stipulations and requirements. Why do you think it's a raw deal? The shift in public opinion also began before this, a solid point would probably be in 2013 when Russia changed their export rules from Ukraine. I'm not going to argue that the US didn't have a pony in the race, but saying that the shift public opinion BEGAN with US interference is simply incorrect.

Quote :
"along with banning the Russian language"

Oh come on mate, you need to clarify the hell out of that statement. Regardless of your feelings on the bill, it wasn't an attempt to ban the language, but steps to make Ukranian the official language by requiring civil servants to know it.

Quote :
"But the annexation likely would not have happened without the coup. There was no strategic reason for it to happen."


No argument, if Putin was allowed to have a puppet government installed in Ukraine, he wouldn't have invaded. Not sure what that argument buys you though

Quote :
"No, I don't think the US should aid Ukraine militarily because the US is an evil empire that has never had the best interests of the civilian population of other countries in mind, let alone its own population. It also only serves to prolong the conflict, increase the death toll, and further destabilize Ukraine."


Yes, if Russia had been allowed to steamroll through Ukraine, the death toll would probably be lower, especially among the invading army. Very Neville Chamberlain of you.

3/2/2022 12:27:53 PM

GrumpyGOP
yovo yovo bonsoir
18064 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"But why would Russia seize Crimea if Ukraine was in the process of entering an economic agreement with them? There wouldn't have been any point."


Uh...what?

There's a whole host of reasons for Russia and Putin to want Ukraine, none of which have anything to do with economic agreements. Naval access, ethnic unification, shoring up domestic support, historical inclination, and Putin-fascism revanchism. Just off the top of my head.

Besides, a customs union was not and never has been Russia's endgame. What they want is for Ukraine to be reincorporated into Russia, either directly through annexation or indirectly as a client state that is independent in name only.

Quote :
"Well nothing is a given, but the US meddled, and Yanukovych was gone."


Post hoc, ergo propter hoc. Well done.

Quote :
"No, I don't think the US should aid Ukraine militarily because the US is an evil empire that has never had the best interests of the civilian population of other countries in mind, let alone its own population. It also only serves to prolong the conflict, increase the death toll, and further destabilize Ukraine."


I don't even know where to begin with this.

We're an "evil empire," and Putin's Russia isn't?
It's impossible for our interests to align with Ukraine's, even though they may be different?
And that last sentence, my God. You're right, nobody would die if everyone just lay down and let Russia just have it. That's true. And Ukraine would be stable after Putin came in and arrested/shot/poisoned everybody who dissented. Also true. The fact that you think these outcomes are preferable to arming a country defending itself is insane. Bonkers. Bugnuts fucking crazy. I've tried to stay coolheaded about most of this conversation with you, but Jesus tapdancing Christ on a bicycle.

3/2/2022 12:47:43 PM

daaave
Suspended
1331 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"Because it was essentially the first step in the process? Full EU membership has loads of stipulations and requirements. Why do you think it's a raw deal?"


Ukraine was in catastrophic economic conditions, and the EU didn't offer enough funding to compensate for the loss of trade with Russia. Yanukovych wanted to join the EU, but Russia offered a much better deal.

Quote :
"Oh come on mate, you need to clarify the hell out of that statement. Regardless of your feelings on the bill, it wasn't an attempt to ban the language, but steps to make Ukranian the official language by requiring civil servants to know it. "


They repealed the policy that allowed Russian to be spoken in government institutions (incl schools) in areas where ethnic Russians have high representation. Then in 2017, they codified it into law that all schools much teach in Ukrainian. At the time, 29% of schools were teaching in Russian, along with various other languages depending on the local population.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Ukraine#Languages_used_in_Educational_Establishments

Quote :
"No argument, if Putin was allowed to have a puppet government installed in Ukraine, he wouldn't have invaded. Not sure what that argument buys you though"


What do you mean by this? Yanukovych was neutral, if not favorable to the EU.

^
Appreciate your perspective but I think we're just going to have to disagree at this point.

[Edited on March 2, 2022 at 12:57 PM. Reason : .]

3/2/2022 12:53:31 PM

bbehe
Burn it all down.
18095 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"EU didn't offer enough funding to compensate for the loss of trade with Russia"


Wait, let me get this straight

the EU and Ukraine wanted to strengthen relationship with the European Union–Ukraine Association Agreement

Russia gets pissy and cuts off their trade with Ukraine

And it's the EU's fault for not giving the Ukraine a significantly better deal to cope with Russia cutting off imports?

3/2/2022 12:58:44 PM

daaave
Suspended
1331 Posts
user info
edit post

There was pressure on both sides.

https://www.kyivpost.com/article/content/eu-ukraine-relations/eu-to-ukraine-reforms-necessary-for-trade-pact-320910.html

Quote :
" Leaders of the European Union had a blunt message Monday for the president of Ukraine: Choose between a customs union with Russia and a free-trade agreement with us. You can't have both.

“One country cannot at the same time be a member of a customs union and be in a deep common free-trade area with the European Union,” said Jose Manuel Barroso, president of the European Commission, the EU’s executive arm. “This is not possible.”"

3/2/2022 1:11:24 PM

bbehe
Burn it all down.
18095 Posts
user info
edit post

Actually, can you answer Grumpy's question. Is Putin's Russia evil? Do they have the best interest of their citizens and the citizens of Ukraine at heart?

3/2/2022 1:17:21 PM

daaave
Suspended
1331 Posts
user info
edit post

I think I've been pretty clear that I don't like Russia either.

3/2/2022 1:23:34 PM

bbehe
Burn it all down.
18095 Posts
user info
edit post

Not the question, you can not like someone but don't think they're evil.

Is Putin's Russia evil?

Is the US providing military supplies to Ukraine more or less evil that the invasion itself? Or the same scale?

3/2/2022 1:26:17 PM

daaave
Suspended
1331 Posts
user info
edit post

Yes, Putin's government is also evil and ill-willed.

Quote :
"Is the US providing military supplies to Ukraine more or less evil that the invasion itself? Or the same scale?"


I don't understand why this matters or what the implication is you're getting at. I don't support US involvement in eastern Europe. It's unfortunate it got to this point, but sending in weapons doesn't fix it.

3/2/2022 1:36:27 PM

bbehe
Burn it all down.
18095 Posts
user info
edit post

I think we can all agree that the situation is horrible, however, sending in weapons allows the Ukrainian people to defend themselves, does it not?

If the US, or any other country, has the ability to send aid to prevent Russian invasion, your argument here is that they shouldn't? They should simply let Russia invade and claim the territory to minimize loss of life and be 'more stable'? Sending in weapons doesn't fix the root issue, but is allows them to fight for their right of self-determination. It allows them to destroy the morale of the invading army, to discourage them to fight, to make them think twice about doing this again.

The argument that they should simply capitulate to a foreign power, which you admit is evil, is simply stunning.

3/2/2022 1:52:22 PM

daaave
Suspended
1331 Posts
user info
edit post

The solution is and was diplomacy.

[Edited on March 2, 2022 at 1:57 PM. Reason : v sounds good. nice talking with you.]

3/2/2022 1:54:04 PM

bbehe
Burn it all down.
18095 Posts
user info
edit post

And there it is, the single most ignorant statement in this thread.

They're being invaded. Civilian targets are being hit. Convoys of armor that are miles long are rolling down the highways towards their major cities.

Yes, diplomacy would be great, but the Ukrainians need to be in a position to engage in those discussions and that means continuing to fight.

[Edited on March 2, 2022 at 2:23 PM. Reason : a]

3/2/2022 1:56:37 PM

bbehe
Burn it all down.
18095 Posts
user info
edit post

So who has everyone been getting their news from? Any good people to follow on twitter?


https://twitter.com/terrelljstarr comes recommended from Malcolm Nance (https://twitter.com/MalcolmNance)

[Edited on March 2, 2022 at 3:24 PM. Reason : a]

3/2/2022 3:24:32 PM

UJustWait84
All American
25620 Posts
user info
edit post

Tbh, cable news (excluding Fox obv) is probably a lot better for actual news/updates than Twitter or social media given all the fake stuff/propaganda that people are inadvertently sharing.

3/2/2022 3:48:41 PM

GrumpyGOP
yovo yovo bonsoir
18064 Posts
user info
edit post

@KofmanMichael
@wc_quinn
@wellerstein

They aren't news sources per se, but they're a Russian studies expert and foreign policy historian who have done a pretty good job filtering out the noise and providing good analysis of the facts available. Wellerstein is good for the nuclear angle.

3/2/2022 4:11:32 PM

afripino
All American
10910 Posts
user info
edit post

these news outlets really need to start putting the "real" people of Ukraine in interviews. the ones that are like "f**k Russia! those b**ches are f**kin p***ies!". everyone they talk to seems unnaturally calm and articulate.

3/2/2022 4:31:34 PM

bbehe
Burn it all down.
18095 Posts
user info
edit post

^^^ For sure on BBC, Reuters, etc being more accurate, but it is interesting seeing policy folks weighing in or what propaganda is being shared (like that photoshopped sign)

3/2/2022 6:06:46 PM

bbehe
Burn it all down.
18095 Posts
user info
edit post

https://mobile.twitter.com/TrentTelenko/status/1499164245250002944

An interesting thread

3/2/2022 8:31:35 PM

afripino
All American
10910 Posts
user info
edit post

^that was a good read.

3/2/2022 10:05:58 PM

GrumpyGOP
yovo yovo bonsoir
18064 Posts
user info
edit post

Good read, and it brought up something that's been on my mind a lot with this ridiculously long convoy. One of my niche areas of interest is the Soviet-Finland "Winter War" over 1939-1940, which obviously seems to have a lot of parallels to the current conflict. But during the early days, when the Finns had a shocking series of successes, one of the main tactics was the "motti tactic." Due to Finland's topography, with lots of lakes and dense forests, Soviet forces were road-bound -- much as they appear to be in Ukraine, per that thread. The Finns performed small assaults at various points along these columns, which both halted their progress and broke them into more manageable segments that could then be destroyed piecemeal.

I haven't heard about similar tactics being used in Ukraine, and even that thread seems to suggest "blow up the vehicles in front and then they're stuck," which is a good delaying tactic but doesn't actually inflict much damage. There's no doubt in my mind that Ukrainian military leaders are familiar with the Winter War because of those obvious similarities, so I keep hoping that we'll see some of those successful tactics employed. But maybe there's some other obstacle at play I'm not aware of.

One thing that is clear is that Ukraine doesn't feel confident deploying its air forces to attack that 40-mile-long sitting duck. What's less clear is why they've used their drones so sparingly. We know they have them.

3/3/2022 9:54:38 AM

The Coz
Tempus Fugitive
20284 Posts
user info
edit post

Take 'em out!

3/3/2022 9:57:23 AM

bbehe
Burn it all down.
18095 Posts
user info
edit post

^^ I've seen reports that they're increasing drone strikes on the convo since Turkey provided them more TB-2. I can't blame Ukraine from not wanting to attack a convo though, Russian anti-air assets are no joke, and there isn't any reason to think the launcher part of their mobile platforms aren't working just because the mobile part isn't.

3/3/2022 10:37:27 AM

moron
All American
33189 Posts
user info
edit post

https://www.militarytimes.com/flashpoints/ukraine/2022/03/02/ukraine-jets-hit-russian-column-russia-has-used-thermobarics-ukraine-military-says/

They started hitting the columns

3/3/2022 10:47:05 AM

daaave
Suspended
1331 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"“They are not illegal, even though their effects can be pretty horrific because of … creating a vacuum and sucking the air out of the lungs of defenders,” Marcus Hellyer, senior analyst at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, told The Guardian.

Linda Thomas-Greenfield, the U.S. envoy to the United Nations, confirmed the Russians have used thermobaric weapons, also known as vacuum bombs.

“We have seen videos of Russian forces moving exceptionally lethal weaponry into Ukraine which has no place on the battlefield,” the U.S. envoy to the U.N., Linda Thomas-Greenfield, told the General Assembly, according to The Hill.

“That includes cluster munitions and vacuum bombs, which are banned under the Geneva Convention.”"


I think we can all agree that any country using these types of weapons should be subject to war crimes tribunals.

3/3/2022 11:07:38 AM

The Coz
Tempus Fugitive
20284 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"Russian anti-air assets are no joke"

True. Just ask the passengers and crew of flight MH17.

3/3/2022 11:26:54 AM

bbehe
Burn it all down.
18095 Posts
user info
edit post

I'm sort of surprised (but not really) they haven't deployed a single one of their SU-57s just for training purposes. I know they only have a dozen or so, but still

3/3/2022 11:30:52 AM

moron
All American
33189 Posts
user info
edit post

^^^ i vaguely recall the US deploying fuel-air bombs which sound just like the vacuum bombs, to clear out caves in afghanistan/iraq??

3/3/2022 11:38:04 AM

HaLo
All American
13655 Posts
user info
edit post

We did

3/3/2022 11:45:27 AM

The Coz
Tempus Fugitive
20284 Posts
user info
edit post

Yes, all those innocent civilians living in remote caves. Not like we dropped MOAB on Kabul or Kandahar neighborhoods.

3/3/2022 12:02:20 PM

daaave
Suspended
1331 Posts
user info
edit post

We also used them in Fallujah, as well as Libya, and our allies (including the UK) have used them in Yemen and Syria.

We also regularly use cluster munitions, and Ukraine itself used them in 2014, in Donetsk.

https://www.hrw.org/news/2014/10/20/ukraine-widespread-use-cluster-munitions

[Edited on March 3, 2022 at 12:07 PM. Reason : .]

3/3/2022 12:03:44 PM

bbehe
Burn it all down.
18095 Posts
user info
edit post

We haven't used cluster munitions in years. Regular use stopped in 2003ish.

3/3/2022 12:11:50 PM

bbehe
Burn it all down.
18095 Posts
user info
edit post

Also, it should be noted that the ones we did drop were fitted with WCMD tailkits that turn cluster bombs into precision guided munitions.

Oh, and obviously, not all cluster munitions are inherently 'bad' as far as munitions go.

[Edited on March 3, 2022 at 12:19 PM. Reason : a]

3/3/2022 12:14:19 PM

daaave
Suspended
1331 Posts
user info
edit post

HRW disagrees.

https://www.hrw.org/legacy/backgrounder/arms/clustermunitions/5.htm

Quote :
"The WCMD can reduce humanitarian harm by making it less likely civilians will be hit by a cluster bomb that goes astray (a significant problem in Afghanistan where the older CBU-87 was used widely). It does not make cluster bombs precision munitions that are safe to use in populated areas, nor does it eliminate the duds that endanger civilians after strikes."


And we used them in Yemen in 2009 - results were not great.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/04/magazine/cluster-munitions-history.html

Quote :
"In December 2009, when President Barack Obama ordered attacks on two suspected terrorist camps in Yemen, at least one Tomahawk missile fired from a warship accompanying the U.S.S. Nimitz dumped BLU-97 bomblets onto the village of al-Ma’jalah. The Navy made an almost comical play for plausible deniability of America’s role. The ships steamed near shore so their cruise missiles would have sufficient fuel to fly beyond the target, turn back in the direction of the sea, release their payload onto al-Ma’jalah and then continue over the beach and fall into blue water, hiding evidence on the ocean floor.

The attack reportedly killed 55 people, including 14 people suspected of being Qaeda members, 14 women and 21 children. The empty cruise missiles fell into the sea. But at least one dud was left behind at the strike scene. Before long, photos of Tomahawk missile parts appeared in news reports from Yemen, along with one clearly showing an unexploded BLU-97 — distinctive bright yellow and made in the United States. In keeping with United States policy of concealing American involvement in the Yemen conflict, the government of Yemen lied about the strike, claiming the village was attacked by Yemeni forces. Along with the accidental civilian casualties, the bungled attack had another unintended effect: Diplomatic cables exposed by WikiLeaks show that President Ali Abdullah Saleh of Yemen and Gen. David Petraeus decided to forgo future cruise missile attacks in favor of airstrikes — evidently a concession to BLU-97 unreliability and public mood."


I'm just saying, let's maintain this outrage when we do it. Consistently amazed by our government's hypocrisy.

[Edited on March 3, 2022 at 12:30 PM. Reason : .]

3/3/2022 12:29:57 PM

bbehe
Burn it all down.
18095 Posts
user info
edit post

Your statement was we regularly use them. It's incorrect.

You argue in gross generalizations to make your point and leave out tons of info.

Yes, cluster bombs have significant issues and most shouldn't be used around civilian targets. There are notable examples, for example the CBU-107 which saw use in Iraq and also used in Syria among other places. Rather than using bomblets, it's filled with tungsten rods, the use of it is to knock out chemical facilities/radar dishes/fuel depots/etc with no significant explosives.

Yes, we have used thermobaric weapons during OIF/OEF. They were typically one off and used to hit caves/heavily fortified areas. There are also smaller munitions (hellfire missiles and smaller) that were used with the same selection criteria.

Russia has also used thermobaric weapons before and cluster bombs. They appear to be attacking civilian areas with them. As you note in the Times article, Petraeus went "hey this is fucking bad, we need to switch tactics", is there any evidence the Russians are doing the same?

3/3/2022 12:40:42 PM

daaave
Suspended
1331 Posts
user info
edit post

I gave you an instance in 2009 where we used bomblets in a civilian area, resulting in civilian deaths. You can't ignore the facts. It's great that Petraeus walked back their use, but it doesn't mean all that much when the next administration reverses policy.

https://www.newsweek.com/why-has-mattis-made-it-easier-drop-cluster-bombs-743945

Biden should reverse Trump's policy, and also join most of the rest of the world in signing the Convention on Cluster Munitions.

[Edited on March 3, 2022 at 12:55 PM. Reason : .]

3/3/2022 12:53:43 PM

bbehe
Burn it all down.
18095 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"We also regularly use cluster munitions"


Remains incorrect.

like shit, your article even says that

Quote :
"Even though the United States very rarely used cluster munitions under the 2008 policy, the government has continuously maintained that cluster munitions have military utility, especially in traditional warfare involving an invasion where they "would be very effective in terms of stopping the rapid advance of an army onto your territory or against your position.""


[Edited on March 3, 2022 at 12:58 PM. Reason : a]

3/3/2022 12:56:35 PM

bbehe
Burn it all down.
18095 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"The U.S. clings to its cluster munitions, but the last time it used them was in Iraq in 2003, with the exception of a single attack with cruise missiles equipped with cluster munition warheads in Yemen in 2009. As yet, there is no evidence to indicate the U.S. has restarted production or new transfers of cluster munitions."


https://www.justsecurity.org/71756/treaty-banning-cluster-munitions-turns-10-but-without-the-us/

3/3/2022 1:00:46 PM

daaave
Suspended
1331 Posts
user info
edit post

I guess my definition of "regular" is a little different! As far as I can tell we used them in every major conflict until 2009, not very long ago, and then very specifically left the door open to their production and use in the years after. You do a really great job of picking one thing you disagree with and then ignoring the entire rest of the argument.

Very simple ask of the Biden admin: reverse Trump's policy and join the treaty on cluster munitions.

3/3/2022 1:09:26 PM

 Message Boards » The Soap Box » War with Syria/Iran/Russia Page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10, Prev Next  
go to top | |
Admin Options : move topic | lock topic

© 2022 by The Wolf Web - All Rights Reserved.
The material located at this site is not endorsed, sponsored or provided by or on behalf of North Carolina State University.
Powered by CrazyWeb v2.38 - our disclaimer.