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

a reply to: Sookiechacha

I didn't agree that citizens who find themselves living in a war zone and taking up arms against invading aggressors are engaged in "acts of war". They are engaging in self-defense.

Even if its true, I support their acts of war (self defense by my estimate too)

If someone invaded this country, they would get no peace. No target would be too low to hit except non combatants/children. I suspect the invader would call them war crimes, atrocities and murder. And yet, I would call it "giving an invader hell" personally 😁

I don't know where the technical line falls here, I could be completely wrong and they lose their protected status. Sadly, as a practical matter, the protected status doesn't seem to be saving them from Russian bombs/bullets so I say screw it, grab a rifle and aim for the Z's/V's

a reply to: Boadicea

You are making a distinction without a difference, because it is the acts of war -- or the acts of aggression if you prefer

Again, taking up arms against your country and your countrymen is not the only kind of treason. Providing aid and comfort to the enemy is also an "act" of treason.

But an "act of war" is always an aggression that promotes conflict and war, not a defensive action against an invading aggressor on home soil.

An act of war is an aggressive act committed by one state against another.

An invasion, whether in the form of amphibious landings or over the boarder ground assault, is one of the most overt acts of war.

www.wise-geek.com...

Russia is engaged in acts of war against Ukraine. Ukraine is not engaged in acts of war against Russia.

which makes them an enemy combatant. They would not be traitors unless they acted against their country.

Ukrainian citizens fighting on behalf of the invading Russian army, against their own country and countrymen who are defending their homeland, are committing treason.

Just don't cry and clutch your pearls when all civilians have a target on their backs because some are engaging in acts of "self-defense." They can't have it both ways.

What you are doing is justifying Russian forces attacking citizens and their facilities, their neighborhoods, hospitals, schools, roadways, cutting off their utilities, water, electricity and fuel, in the dead of winter, because some of them are willingly defending their country, their families' and their own lives by taking up arms.

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: Sookiechacha

I didn't agree that citizens who find themselves living in a war zone and taking up arms against invading aggressors are engaged in "acts of war". They are engaging in self-defense.

Even if its true, I support their acts of war (self defense by my estimate too)

If someone invaded this country, they would get no peace. No target would be too low to hit except non combatants/children. I suspect the invader would call them war crimes, atrocities and murder. And yet, I would call it "giving an invader hell" personally 😁

I don't know where the technical line falls here, I could be completely wrong and they lose their protected status. Sadly, as a practical matter, the protected status doesn't seem to be saving them from Russian bombs/bullets so I say screw it, grab a rifle and aim for the Z's/V's

I hear ya!

Anyone who is bold enough to "open carry" can be considered a "combatant".

The term applied to the inhabitants of a territory which has not been occupied, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading troops without having had time to organize themselves into regular armed forces. They must be regarded as combatants if they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of armed conflict.

Acts of war during wartime are regulated by a body of law commonly called the laws of war. For example, under the Geneva Convention, combat forces lawfully engaging in acts of war are required to bear arms openly and identify themselves as combatants.

sites.duke.edu...

So smart Ukrainians, won't open carry.

a reply to: Boadicea

"Anyone and everyone who wants to engage in acts of "self defense" should act responsibly and actually join their military, thus maintaining the lines between civilians and combatants, and thus maintaining the established protections and defenses for innocent civilians in war zones."

They'll still be bombed, shot at, mortared and shelled.

But so long as that meets your protocols and precious "rules of engagement" your fine with that.

However, I strongly suspect that your pedantic demarcations are going to be a bit lost on your average Ukrainian as we speak.

I take the opposite view. I think we should go in hard against Putin. Even the threat of a massive attack on him from the west might be enough to make him stand down and then the Russian people will get rid of him. To do nothing means he can take Ukraine, then he can go after Poland, then somewhere else and so on. At what point do you decide enough is enough. I think he has already overstepped the mark. I actually blame USA for provoking him into doing what he's doing, but I think what he's doing is unacceptable. He says he'll fire nukes, but will he, will his advisors and military people let him do that, I doubt it but if we do nothing he can keep threatening to use them forever.

a reply to: bigyin

He can't even take Ukraine, let alone Poland, a member of NATO.

It's all turning to ashes in his lying mouth.

There will come a point where he will have his SPECTRE boss stroking white cat saying "This Organisation does not tolerate failure" and then the Rosa Klebb equivalent does her thing with her lethal shoes.

I can but hope.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

What you are doing is justifying Russian forces attacking citizens and their facilities, their neighborhoods, hospitals, schools, roadways, cutting off their utilities, water, electricity and fuel, in the dead of winter, because some of them are willingly defending their country, their families' and their own lives by taking up arms.

This is simpleminded and petty that it makes me cringe.

Long before either of us were born, to protect innocent unarmed civilians, clear distinctions were made between armed combatants -- the military -- and civilians, precluding ALL military forces, whether foreign or domestic, from attacking civilians. FOR THE PROTECTION OF CIVILIANS. Those lines are now not just blurred, but erased, by "civilians" engaging in acts of aggression in a war zone which makes it an act of war. Now all civilians have a target on their back.

And any military force that did not return fire when attacked by a civilian or from a civilian building would be crazy and derelict in their duty. So that just ain't going to happen.

Rationalize it away all you want but the end result is the same. ALL civilians are denied those protections because SOME civilians want to "defend" themselves but won't do the honorable and noble thing and actually join the military, thus respecting and maintaining those protections for civilians.

if i could get myself kitted out with US weapons and armor and NV i would go in a heartbeat.

i even have a new passport

I'm not Ukrainian but i have skills from the AF from being Pararescue that would serve them well.

we all die sometime, fighting for others is a worthy cause in my book.

a reply to: Boadicea

"Those lines are now not just blurred, but erased, by "civilians" engaging in acts of aggression in a war zone which makes it an act of war. Now all civilians have a target on their back."

Again, acting in self defence against an invading aggressor is not an "act of aggression".

I don't know how I can spell this out more clearly for you?

Perhaps they should just get the white flags out and roll over?

Tell your pedantic distinctions to the civilian survivors of the Blitz in the UK.

Didn't help them much?

a reply to: Boadicea

innocent unarmed civilians

Innocent and unarmed are NOT mutually exclusive.

This is simpleminded and petty that it makes me cringe.

And your simple and petty inference that innocent armed citizens are fair game makes me cringe.

FOR THE PROTECTION OF CIVILIANS. Those lines are now not just blurred, but erased, by "civilians" engaging in acts of aggression in a war zone which makes it an act of war.

There you go again, throwing accusations of "acts of war" around like confetti. An act of war is an provocational aggression on one country by another. Citizens fighting Russian soldiers back from their door step is not an act of war.

No, Ukrainian citizens did not blur those lines by taking up arms against an invading army. Those lines were never even recognized by Putin. Putin's army shelled civilian sites and compromised citizens human rights before his army even got close enough to see if citizens were armed or not.

And any military force that did not return fire when attacked by a civilian or from a civilian building would be crazy and derelict in their duty. So that just ain't going to happen.

Nobody promised Ukrainian citizens that if they fired on the enemy the enemy wouldn't fire back. That isn't the issue. The issue is that Russia committed war crimes when they attacked civilians and civilians facilities without provocation...not that they fired back at armed civilian shooting at them.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Boadicea

"Anyone and everyone who wants to engage in acts of "self defense" should act responsibly and actually join their military, thus maintaining the lines between civilians and combatants, and thus maintaining the established protections and defenses for innocent civilians in war zones."

They'll still be bombed, shot at, mortared and shelled.

Maybe... maybe not. But if so, at least then all these claims of "no provocation" would be true and justified.

But so long as that meets your protocols and precious "rules of engagement" your fine with that.

Not mine, I didn't make the rules, as you well know. You also sure know the rules and that attacks on civilians are considered a war crime. Then cheer on attacks by civilians, expecting them to be exempt from any return fire. Then when they're not, you cry again about attacks on civilians. Sheesh.

However, I strongly suspect that your pedantic demarcations...

Stop. People long ago saw the problem and found a solution. You reject that solution, and so it's a problem again.

...are going to be a bit lost on your average Ukrainian as we speak.

I'm not pretending to speak for any Ukrainians. But plenty of Ukrainians have spoken for themselves and expressed very different thoughts and opinions. They all have to make their choices and do what their conscience tells them to do.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

I'm not doing this again. Split all the hairs you want, the end result is the same.

Tuesday, March 8, 2022

All of our little ego-driven disagreements and arguments may be coming to an end soon.

WARSAW, March 8 (Reuters) - Poland is ready to deploy all its MIG-29 jets to Ramstein Air Base in Germany and put them at the disposal of the United States, and urges other NATO members that own planes of that type to do the same, the Foreign Ministry said on Tuesday.

U.S. lawmakers pushed President Joe Biden's administration on Monday to facilitate the transfer of fighter aircraft to Ukraine from Poland and other NATO and Eastern European countries, after a plea on Saturday from Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

More at: www.reuters.com...

What do you think Vladimir Putin will do now that the U.S. is facilitating the transfer of fighter jets from NATO countries to Ukraine, for combatting his Russian military there?

As you can imagine, this decision by the Biden Administration is generating a whole range of extreme emotions at the moment.

-CareWeMust

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

You cannot make it any clearer. I cannot make myself any clearer. And I'm not even going to try.

You just don't like what I'm saying.

a reply to: Boadicea


Easy solution.

Russian soldiers should immediately leave Ukraine and never gain attack another country's civilians.

a reply to: carewemust

All of our little ego-driven disagreements and arguments may be coming to an end soon.

Indeed. But maybe not the way you think:

Zelensky Ready To 'Discuss & Find Compromise' On Crimea, No Longer Insists On NATO Membership

Fingers crossed and prayers up!

a reply to: Boadicea

"I'm not pretending to speak for any Ukrainians. But plenty of Ukrainians have spoken for themselves and expressed very different thoughts and opinions. They all have to make their choices and do what their conscience tells them to do."

Have they?

Got a source?

Last time I checked they were pretty hacked off with all the bombing, shelling, mortaring etc of their cities.

But, according to you, they are mostly fine with that?

a reply to: Boadicea

"Tyler Durden"?

a reply to: Boadicea

No, I certainly don't like you sticking up for war crimes. Simple as.

originally posted by: noscopebacon
if i could get myself kitted out with US weapons and armor and NV i would go in a heartbeat.

And I would not fault you for that. I would have much respect in fact. Everyone must do what their heart and conscience tells them to do.

we all die sometime, fighting for others is a worth cause in my book.

Perhaps the most worthy of all.