Politics

[spike.t]

Must have been a few heads exploding here....

212K views · 11K reactions | Sound familiar? | Stand up for Australia before its too late

Sound familiar?

www.facebook.com

 

[Tanks]

It could just be as simple as him being a businessman rather than a warrior at heart. He’s not an idealist and doesn’t particularly care about Ukraine. It’s possible that in his mind a prolonged war is a waste of resources while abandoning Ukraine outright is untenable politically. From that perspective a brokered peace that he can claim as a personal victory makes sense, even if it’s to detriment of Ukraine.

On the other hand, Putin is a warrior at heart and Trump doesn’t really know how to handle that. He does have ideals so Trump can’t negotiate like he would with a peer. He doesn’t care about lost resources or lost business opportunity.

Here is an article about this business approach.

Peace Through Profit: The Problem with Steve Witkoff’s Ukraine Strategy — The Free Press

The president’s dealmaker thinks business can fix any foreign-policy crisis. Putin’s cronies think differently.

apple.news

 

[Altitude sickness]

“2000 meters to Andriivka” Shows that a lot of Arty was used and they were fighting with very little support. Looks more like WW1.

It’s apparent that many entrenched in the intelligence community believe if a Ukraine and Russia peace deal is struck that’s fine. But allowing them both to be weakened to a point of ruin helps the West.

So, hey let’s try to resolve the war. But if they keep fighting that’s fine too.

This belief explains a lot.

 

[RLD]

If we do not physically have them under US control and the CONOP was approved to destroy personnel and equipment I see them as a legal target as long as we have PID.

Your view on the law of war is novel. Physically under control has never been an element of hors de combat to my knowledge.

 

[Red Leg]

Your view on the law of war is novel. Physically under control has never been an element of hors de combat to my knowledge.

It may be novel from your perspective, but @roverandbrew accurately describes US operational guidance and expectations. Particularly with respect to counter terrorist operations, the objective is to destroy, not simply create casualties.

 

[Brent in Az]

I guess the guy doesn't fit the media's wanted narrative

 

[RLD]

It may be novel from your perspective, but @roverandbrew accurately describes US operational guidance and expectations. Particularly with respect to counter terrorist operations, the objective is to destroy, not simply create casualties.

If you think about the approach more broadly, if there is a physical control element required, it means that pilots descending in parachute from a disabled plane are fair game for attack as well.

That has been abhorred and illegal for generations.

I also suspect that every JAG lawyer alive would accept my approach.

By civilian law, or the international law of armed combat, this second strike looks illegal.

 

[Betterinthebush]

If you think about the approach more broadly, if there is a physical control element required, it means that pilots descending in parachute from a disabled plane are fair game for attack as well.

That has been abhorred and illegal for generations.

I also suspect that every JAG lawyer alive would accept my approach.

By civilian law, or the international law of armed combat, this second strike looks illegal.

Mercenaries, pirates and terrorists are not protected by Geneva Convention Treaty and nations are not required to give quarter as such.

 

[spike.t]

If you think about the approach more broadly, if there is a physical control element required, it means that pilots descending in parachute from a disabled plane are fair game for attack as well.

That has been abhorred and illegal for generations.

I also suspect that every JAG lawyer alive would accept my approach.

By civilian law, or the international law of armed combat, this second strike looks illegal.

Why are you so for saving these specimens..?...apart from the drugs they butcher and torture thousands of people.....so shoot on sight and don't stop seems fine to me....oh and in your response to my previous post...I don't feel any pain or grief.....just hate the fkrs......so shoot away ..and to the guys and gals doing it...

 

[RLD]

Why are you so for saving these specimens..?...apart from the drugs they butcher and torture thousands of people.....so shoot on sight and don't stop seems fine to me....oh and in your response to my previous post...I don't feel any pain or grief.....just hate the fkrs......so shoot away ..and to the guys and gals doing it...

It's not about the specimens, it is about the rule of law, and how when you cast it aside it comes back to bite you in the ass.

I don't have a problem with treating this is a law enforcement issue, and executing them all by lethal objection. No sweat off my back.

But it is due process and the rule of law that separates constitutional democracies from other less desirable forms of government. I am not willing to toss away Magna Carta and all that for a few boats full of drugs. Those ideas are central to who countries like the U.S.A. and Canada are.

Why we need to ‘give the Devil the benefit of law’ - Sutherland Institute

The framers of the Constitution tried to enshrine the principle of the rule of law, because temptations to circumvent the law are hard to confine to only one circumstance. Even noble exceptions can be used by bad actors to inflict serious harm on others.

sutherlandinstitute.org

I apologize if I mischaracterized how you were feeling. But when you said people close to you had been badly hurt by drugs, I thought pain and grief might have been what you were feeling. And justifiably so. My error.

 

[Brent in Az]

Your view on the law of war is novel. Physically under control has never been an element of hors de combat to my knowledge.

Frostbite.....is that you? LOL .......

 

[RLD]

Frostbite.....is that you? LOL .......

The quality and depth of your insight grows by the day.

 

[mdwest]

If we do not physically have them under US control and the CONOP was approved to destroy personnel and equipment I see them as a legal target as long as we have PID.

spot on.

as Ive stated several times before.. this is nothing new.. the US has been doing this as a matter of routine since the 80's... the only difference is the current administration is publicizing it..

they have this sort of thing figured out.. I can guarantee that everyone from the most senior commanders to the most senior JAG officers and everyone else in between have reviewed related policy, CONOPS, etc.. (FWIW the former SOCOM JAG from the early 90's is an acquaintance.. he and I have had SNOWCAP discussions more than a few times.. he, as the SOCOM JAG was very much aware of pretty much everything happening on SNOWCAP, provided legal review, counsel to commanders, etc..)... the DoD takes these types of operations very seriously..

no mistakes or oversteps were made.. the admiral was doing exactly what he was supposed to be doing...

I actually found it kinda funny that he got called to testify to a congressional committee about the strike thats been in question earlier this week... and 3 hours after the discussion was over, he ordered another strike that also involved a follow up if I understood everything correctly..

neither he nor hegseth nor trump are backing down... because they know they are 100% right and covered.. and like I said a few days ago.. its Friday, and its pretty much already out of the news cycle.. now the MSM is upset about the travel ban on 19 countries and the halting of grants for mental health workers..

 

[mdwest]

But I think it is fair to wonder about his not particularly aggressive handling of Russia. I really don’t get that.

thats certainly fair.. but that is something completely different than believing he is actually afraid of Putin or Russia..

the far better guess, understanding Trumps personality and his history, is that he thinks there is something better for himself or for the US in positioning the way he is with Russia..

what that might be? I certainly dont know..

another very fair guess would be much simpler... that its personal... he truly hates Z.. and he has been open for years about his respect for Putin..

people tend to make deals and do business with people they like... Z has gone out of his way to be unlikeable by Trump on numerous occasions... and Trump himself isnt very likeable by many.. .

 

[375 Ruger Fan]

 

[Red Leg]

If you think about the approach more broadly, if there is a physical control element required, it means that pilots descending in parachute from a disabled plane are fair game for attack as well.

That has been abhorred and illegal for generations.

I also suspect that every JAG lawyer alive would accept my approach.

By civilian law, or the international law of armed combat, this second strike looks illegal.

It doesn't matter what anyone may "suspect." @roverandbrew, @mdwest, and I, who all have had rather extensive actual experience with this issue, have accurately described the US view of the employment of kinetic weapons and their intended effects. Those are thoroughly vetted applications of military force.

Let me give you a more modern example of conventional conflict than the Battle of the Bismarck Sea. In the final hours of the first Gulf War, Iraqi military personnel, administrators and Kuwaiti turncoats attempted to flee Kuwait City in a fleet of military and civilian vehicles. The destruction of those fleeing personnel was ordered by CENTCOM, then commanded by Schwarzkopf. The convoy was struck front and rear and then mercilessly pounded by coalition aircraft, primarily with cluster munitions. The Iraqis were unable to fight back and unable to flee. Hundreds were, as you describe, "hors de combat."

Some on the left and in the international press criticized the ruthlessness of the attack, but no one within the US military was ever criticized by civilian or military leadership with regard to its legality or effectiveness. The US military will kill you.

 

[Rocked and Loaded]

 

[Altitude sickness]

The video clearly shows the two surviving “fisherman” trying to salvage the cargo to move to another boat coming to their rescue.

The Admiral and his chain of command know who is on each boat. And also know full well that women, children and or civilian non drug runners are being used as decoys. Hoping the U.S. military will strike one of the decoys.
I’m sure the media and leftist politicians are drooling on themselves hoping a boat load of women and children are hit.

 

[Wheels]

Your view on the law of war is novel. Physically under control has never been an element of hors de combat to my knowledge.

Just curious. Did you have the same convictions when Obama had over 500 drone strikes against terrorists in at least four countries. A few of which I remember included multiple strikes against an already destroyed vehicle/building with wounded laying around.

Since you are an attorney, what was your feeling about the extrajudicial murder of an American citizen by Obama in the drone strike against Awlaki and did you condem Obama for the killing.

If you did condemn Obama for the above at the time then fine. I respect your position even though it may not align with mine. If you didn’t/don’t condemn Obama for similar acts then it seems you have an agenda against the current administration.

PS: similar situations can also be said about Bush and Clinton.

 

[Hunt anything]

I’m still waiting on the uproar on the videos that @Altitude sickness posted of the Apache pilots shooting obviously wounded Afghanis out for a midnight stroll in 2009.