Saving UKRAINE is NOT Worth a War Between the USA and RUSSIA.

a reply to: Boadicea

"And the answer is as soon as they take up arms and use them aggressively."

"Aggressively"?

You mean "defensively ".

Russia is the aggressor.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Boadicea

"And the answer is as soon as they take up arms and use them aggressively."

"Aggressively"?

You mean "defensively ".

Russia is the aggressor.

Nope. At least not in terms of rules of engagement regarding civilians. I understand your greater point, in the sense that Russia escalated from skirmishes and isolated incidents in specific border regions to a military invasion -- definitely. But if Russian forces are not attacking civilians, and civilians attack Russian forces, that is an act of aggression.

These rules of engagement were developed and accepted to protect civilians. If we just throw these rules out the door, then there will be no protection for any civilians in any conflict or war going forward.

a reply to: Boadicea

"But if Russian forces are not attacking civilians, and civilians attack Russian forces, that is an act of aggression."

But they are attacking civilians.

A lot.

Russia is invading Ukraine, or trying to and it's not going to plan because Ukrainians are not the pushover Putin was counting on.

So, if your country was invaded, wouldn't you fight back?

With everything?

a reply to: Boadicea

"If we just throw these rules out the door, then there will be no protection for any civilians in any conflict or war going forward."

Those rules have already been thrown out the door, by Russia.

Do you think that their Grad rockets, mortars, artillery and unguided munitions are in some way programmed not to harm civilians?

a reply to: Boadicea

What your trying to do if gloss over the war crimes committed by Russia, there is no valid reason to attack civilians and civilians homes and civilian institutions and the scale currently carried out by Russia. How many schools and hospitals destroyed by Russia since the start of its unprovoked invasion?

a reply to: Boadicea

What your trying to do if gloss over the war crimes committed by Russia, there is no valid reason to attack civilians and civilians homes and civilian institutions and the scale currently carried out by Russia. How many schools and hospitals destroyed by Russia since the start of its unprovoked invasion?

a reply to: Boadicea

What your trying to do if gloss over the war crimes committed by Russia, there is no valid reason to attack civilians and civilians homes and civilian institutions and the scale currently carried out by Russia. How many schools and hospitals destroyed by Russia since the start of its unprovoked invasion?

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Boadicea

"But if Russian forces are not attacking civilians, and civilians attack Russian forces, that is an act of aggression."

But they are attacking civilians.

A lot.

If Russians are attacking innocent unarmed civilians with no provocation and no attacks upon them, then they are breaking the established rules of engagement. Period. Let 'em rot in hell.

But let's turn this around. For the same exact reason, if Ukrainian Russian-sympathizing civilians attacked the Ukrainian military forces, would you likewise condemn the Ukrainian forces for fighting back against these armed civilians? Or would you consider them armed combatants in a war zone? I would consider them to be armed combatants for the same reasons. (To be clear, I have not seen such claims or reports, but law of averages says it's probably happened.)

Russia is invading Ukraine, or trying to and it's not going to plan because Ukrainians are not the pushover Putin was counting on.

So we've been told.

So, if your country was invaded, wouldn't you fight back?

With everything?

LOL! I have no military experience whatsoever -- there are much better people for the job than me! And this is why we have standing armies, eh?

But of course I would do whatever was within my power to protect myself and my neighbors. And if that meant taking up arms, I'd give it my best effort. But I would also understand that my actions would make me an armed combatant, and that I would be treated as such. I would also be very very careful not to put other unarmed civilians in harm's way. Such as attacking the invaders from my apartment building where countless women and children are sheltering, thus drawing enemy fire.

a reply to: Boadicea

"If Russians are attacking innocent unarmed civilians with no provocation and no attacks upon them, then they are breaking the established rules of engagement. Period. Let 'em rot in hell"


They are.

24x7

Not paying attention?

a reply to: Boadicea

You seem to have a very detached and dogmatic attitude to this war.

War is Hell.

Pedantic niceties are irrelevant to what is actually happening.

These armed civilians have little or no military training but you don't see them throwing up their hands and saying they'll just leave it up to the military.

They are ballsy and have courage.

They also have their backs to the wall.

Your lofty criticisms of them are....misplaced.

Putting it mildly.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Boadicea

"But if Russian forces are not attacking civilians, and civilians attack Russian forces, that is an act of aggression."

But they are attacking civilians.

A lot.

Russia is invading Ukraine, or trying to and it's not going to plan because Ukrainians are not the pushover Putin was counting on.

So, if your country was invaded, wouldn't you fight back?

With everything?

Why don't you go sign up and fight on the front line?

Or are you just here to be a keyboard warrior ?

a reply to: v1rtu0s0

Oh, please.....grow up!

a reply to: Boadicea

It’s been reported that if China would attack Twain, 70 percent of the population would pickup arms to attack the invading Chinese forces. Is 70 percent of the Twain population now a military target?

a reply to: Boadicea

"Such as attacking the invaders from my apartment building where countless women and children are sheltering, thus drawing enemy fire."

Russia is already attacking their apartments.

a reply to: Boadicea

if Ukrainian Russian-sympathizing civilians attacked the Ukrainian military forces, would you likewise condemn the Ukrainian forces for fighting back against these armed civilians? Or would you consider them armed combatants in a war zone?

I would consider them to be treasonous traitors that should be treated as enemy combatants, either killed in combat or taken in as prisoners of war.

a reply to: carewemustThey have good point to not listening. While they are negotiating, russians keep attacking civilians, shooting at journalists, keep bombing cities and civilian houses, lying about agreeing opening humanitarian corridors in cities but continuing gunfire, making impossible for evacuation, putting mines on escape zones "Evacuation route out of Mariupol was mined, Red Cross says", possibly using forbidden thermobaric weapons etc.

So providing ukrainians with defending weapons to shoot down russian air force with their attacking missiles that shoots as well to civilian objects, is bad? Providing anti tank missiles to stop attacks is bad? Really? Ukrainians wanted to talk when russians started attack but Putin refused because he thought occupation will be fast and ukrainian government with their army will fall down and give up in the first days. He even made his victory speach, a bit too early... Well, how wrong they were. Turned out, all ukrainian people side by side are fighting against russian occupants and defending their country. And now russians want talk.

What was "The Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances" about again?

"The memorandum prohibited the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States from threatening or using military force or economic coercion against Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan. As a result of other agreements and the memorandum, between 1993 and 1996, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons." Have not Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons, the russians would not attack them today. It's pretty clear. They didn't have enough resources back then to maintain the nuclear weapons so the desition was made that, I believe, most Ukrainians regret now.

Thank God we - the Europians, ARE supplying weapons to ukrainian military, including my country, to defend their territory. If we did not do that, maybe the Ukraine's biggest cities would be occupied by now by the russian aggressor army and Ukraine would lost their dream about free independent country. As I was born in one of the countries that has suffered from Soviet Union occupation, I know what it is all about and that Putin's and his followers dream is to rebuild Soviet Union, that is the only reason he wants to take the Ukraine. Not his lies about 'defending' ukrainian or russian people or that ukrainian government is "run by fascists" (simply because they refuse to accept russian occupied territories and conditions...

All russian media is government controlled and based on lies, made up stories and war propaganda. Everything that is not supporting russian government, is beeing silienced, threatened, shut down, people taken in custody. Everyone that is not supporting lies, there is even made up a recent law that the Russian war against Ukraine is not to be called a War but a 'special operation' or you will end up in 15 years in prison...

Putin is fearing that if too many russian people will know about truth, about the war in Ukraine, russian forces bombarded cities, attacked nuclear plants with killed workers, thouthands of already killed russian soldiers and ukrainians, they will start to protest against war. Against government. Russian people will go in streets. He fears that the most. Because then his evil rule and dreams about restoring Soviet Union by invading weaker contries with their own culture and history will be over.

The day will come. The question is, how much deaths and lives it will take. He has nothing to loose. He has already lost war mentally and he has doomed the russian people in deep regress.Only sad thing is that it may take more time because the ordinary russian people thinking is 'yes, it will be hard to survive but we will manage, europe dislike us but that is ok, yes, putin is attacking Ukraine but he knows what he is doing, he is smarter than me, so it must be done to prevent them attacking to us etc.'

I feel sorry for ordinary russian people that do not want war but to live in piece but absolutely NOT for the russian government where Germany has already officially opened an investigation into suspected Russian War Crimes in Ukraine and crimes against humanity.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Boadicea

"If we just throw these rules out the door, then there will be no protection for any civilians in any conflict or war going forward."

Those rules have already been thrown out the door, by Russia.

Yes, so we've been told... ad nauseum... ad infinitum.

Do you think that their Grad rockets, mortars, artillery and unguided munitions are in some way programmed not to harm civilians?

Of course not.

And it is exactly because implements of war do not discriminate that we have rules of engagement to protect innocent civilians from acts of war.

If you and/or anyone wants to ignore the safeguards and protections put in place in order to protect civilians, and then cry about civilian deaths, you can obviously do so. I won't. Obviously.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Boadicea

What your trying to do if gloss over the war crimes committed by Russia...

I'm not glossing over anything by anyone including Ukraine. That seems to be the problem. At least for those who do want to gloss over the war crimes committed by Ukrainians.

...there is no valid reason to attack civilians and civilians homes and civilian institutions and the scale currently carried out by Russia.

Let me fix that for you: There is no valid reason to attack UNARMED AND UNAGGRESSIVE civilians and civilians homes and so on and so forth.

How many schools and hospitals destroyed by Russia since the start of its unprovoked invasion?

I have no idea. And of those schools and hospitals which have been destroyed, how many were used to attack the Russians? How many Ukrainian forces his in those buildings to attack the Russians and draw their fire? How many armed civilians used those buildings to attack Russian forces?

If the answer is zero, then Russia bears the burden of war crimes. If the answer is one or more, then those forces using those buildings to wage war bear the burden of war crimes.

a reply to: Boadicea

No, I'm not the one ignoring safeguards and protection of civilians in a war zone.

Russia is. By using indiscriminate munitions against civilian targets.

And that's a war crime.

Which you seem to want to desperately try to justify and defend.

I have no idea why, but it's pretty sickening.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

I would consider them to be treasonous traitors that should be treated as enemy combatants, either killed in combat or taken in as prisoners of war.

Exactly. If they did not engage in acts of war, there would be no problem.

It is only when they do engage in acts of war that they become armed combatants and subject to the rules of engagement for armed combatants.