Posted on 05/08/2024 6:22:06 AM PDT by McGruff
The support of Ukraine has gone way beyond the fecklessness we have seen in these other conflicts. Nobody wants to go back to a predatory and aggressive Russia. I think we will stand together pretty well and that will make a big difference.
Over Ukraine? LAUGHABLE!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Again, western tactical nukes could easily be used in retaliation against Russia, if the Kremlin is mad enough attacking NATO troops with nukes.
Nothing is laughable about that scenario.
Well... Mogadishu and beirut were merely tiny police operations by the US. The US had a 48 hour battle in Mogadishu and a couple of years of counterterrorism operations there. It was definitely not a war.
By the way we are still in Somalia. 500 US troops in Somalia as we speak. We regularly conduct airstrikes there. It’s just counterterrorism efforts, not war.
However, Iraq and Vietnam... They were true wars.
Militarily speaking, America won both of them.
Iraq was won in 21 days, and.. we got him! Remember? I supported both wars.
Our mistake was that we changed our objective after the great victory in Iraq. We decided to do nation-building there... that was a costly mistake.
In Vietnam we were crushing the Russian proxies. We had won the war! It’s only because of the marxists, hippies and Hanoi Janes in America that prematurely forced us to withdraw. American internal and political discord let the Vietcong communists take over. That’s all. Its has nothing to do with the US army.
Militarily speaking, America has never lost any wars.
Politicians make us “lose” wars.. every time they listen to our homegrown pacifists and hippies that is...
Russia is treating Ukrainians like the US treated American Indians...
Sure,
As long as it’s just money we’re throwing at it.
We are the nation with forces in the most countries around the world. With the most troops deployed outside our borders. With the biggest war budget in the world. One of the nations with the most manpower in the armed forces. We have invaded or attacked more countries than anyone else in the world post 1991 (251 military operations). And you talk about them being “predatory?”. Are you for real?
Post 1991 we were left as the only worlds superpower. China was barely on the radar. We quickly learned that we can use force with impunity to get what we want.
Post 9-11 we changed our MO and became much more aggressive, more assertive and massively meddling in other countries using our non-conventional and Intel capabilities which had grown enormously post 2003.
Today you have US congressmen proposing the invasion of another nation merely because it “sounds good,” because it benefits him politically, and this neighbor is a NAFTA member and poses ZERO threat to us: https://youtu.be/UD4kFxyHALo?si=UhhhqtklLlBStVge. I assure you, the Mexicans do not see the Russians as predatory.
Instead of trying to pretend labels, cliche, and slogans are an argument, try using facts. It may help.
https://www.dw.com/en/germany-to-provide-nato-with-35000-troops-from-2025/a-67073164
Germany to provide NATO with 35,000 troops from 202510/12/2023
- - - - -
Retrieved May 8, 2024
Scholz announces Germany's readiness to deploy 35,000 troops to support alliesStory by Kateryna Serohina • 1d
Germany is ready to rapidly deploy its forces to support allies with 35,000 prepared military personnel, states German Chancellor Olaf Scholz.
According to him, Germany has managed to consistently respond to the beginning of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, and against this backdrop, the Bundeswehr confirms its commitment to defending Northeastern and Central Europe.
"Almost 35,000 German soldiers are ready to provide operational support to our allies in case of an emergency," Scholz said.
- - - - -
https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2024/05/8/7454883/
NATO has no plans to deploy troops in Ukraine, Ukraine has not asked us to – StoltenbergOleh Pavliuk — Wednesday, 8 May 2024, 23:48
NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg has once again stressed that the Alliance has no plans to deploy troops in the territory of Ukraine. Rather, it is important that Ukraine should be supplied with sufficient military aid.
Source: Stoltenberg in an interview for Italian news agency ANSA during a visit to Italy, as reported by European Pravda
Details: Stoltenberg pointed out that due to delays in the supply of US and European military aid to Ukraine, Russian forces have been able to make progress in their offensive. Even though "the situation is changing now", there are no reports of this aid being there "on the ground".
"NATO has no intention of sending troops to Ukraine. When I visited Ukraine last week, the Ukrainians didn’t ask for NATO troops – they asked for more military aid," Stoltenberg stressed.
He added that Vladimir Putin still believes Russia can win militarily in Ukraine, so the only way to convince him to sit down at the negotiating table is "to prove on the battlefield that he will not win, and the only way to do that is to supply Ukraine with military aid".
Background:
- After a meeting of the presidents and heads of governments of about 20 European states in Paris at the end of February, French President Emmanuel Mac ron admitted that he had suggested that Western states send troops to Ukraine.
- He recently reopened the debate on the possibility of sending foreign troops to Ukraine, provoking a strong reaction from the Kremlin.
Russia said on Wednesday that sending NATO troops into Ukraine would potentially be extremely dangerous, and Moscow was closely watching a Ukrainian petition that called for such an intervention.The petition, posted on the Ukrainian president's website, says Ukraine should ask the United States, Britain and other countries to send troops to help it repel Russia's invasion.
Such troops may, or may not, be lawful combatants, depending on whether the sending nation is considered a party to the conflict. So far, the NATO nations have made believe they are not parties to the conflict. Russia has gone along with the joke as it does not want a war with 32 more nations. If France were to send 50 troops, and not consider itself a party to the conflict, its troops may not have protected status. If Russia were to consider France to be a party to the conflict, the French homeland would be a legitimate target. This would get into red-line territory and nations may not want to go there. The nations between Russia and France might not be too keen on the idea.
The Russians have stated they would consider the insertion of NATO troops to be an existential threat. Translating that from diplomatic language, Russia said it would interpret it as authorizing the use of nuclear weapons pursuant to the Law of Armed Conflict. No nation, when facing an existential threat, is prohibited from using nuclear weapons. Russia indicated it would consider such an action to make the offending nation a party to the war. NATO, the United States, the UK, Germany and France have said they have no plans to send troops to Ukraine.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-68417223 >p>
Nato allies reject Emmanuel Macron idea of troops to Ukraine27 February 2024
By Lipika Pelham & Lou Newton,
BBC NewsSeveral Nato countries, including the US, Germany and the UK, have ruled out deploying ground troops to Ukraine, after French President Emmanuel Macron said "nothing should be excluded".
Mr Macron said there was "no consensus" on sending Western soldiers to Ukraine.
Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov has warned of direct conflict if Nato troops deploy there.
[...]
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/france-denies-having-sent-troops-to-ukraine/ar-BB1lUG4i
Retrieved May 8, 2024
France denies having sent troops to UkraineStory by Iryna Kutielieva, Oleksandr Shumilin • 2d
France formally disputed the deployment of the Foreign Legion's first 100 military personnel in the Ukrainian city of Sloviansk, which had been reported the day before. ...
https://www.icj-cij.org/public/files/case-related/95/095-19960708-ADV-01-00-EN.pdf
INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
REPORTS OF JUDGMENTS,
ADVISORY OPINIONS AND ORDERS
LEGALITY OF THE THREAT OR USE
OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS
ADVISORY OPINION OF 8 JULY 1996[excerpt at pg 266, pg 44 of pdf]
E. By seven votes to seven, by the President's casting vote, It follows from the above-mentioned requirements that the threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, and in particular the principles and rules of humanitarian law;
However, in view of the current state of international law, and of the elements of fact at its disposal, the Court cannot conclude definitively whether the threat or use of nuclear weapons would be lawful or unlawful in an extreme circumstance of self-defence, in which the very survival of a State would be at stake;
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule1
Rule 1.The Principle of Distinction between Civilians and Combatants
Rule 1. The parties to the conflict must at all times distinguish between civilians and combatants. Attacks may only be directed against combatants. Attacks must not be directed against civilians.
Practice
Volume II, Chapter 1, Section A.
SummaryState practice establishes this rule as a norm of customary international law applicable in both international and non-international armed conflicts. The three components of this rule are interrelated and the practice pertaining to each of them reinforces the validity of the others. The term combatant in this rule is used in its generic meaning, indicating persons who do not enjoy the protection against attack accorded to civilians, but does not imply a right to combatant status or prisoner-of-war status (see Chapter 33).This rule has to be read in conjunction with the prohibition to attack persons recognized to be hors de combat (see Rule 47) and with the rule that civilians are protected against attack unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities (see Rule 6). Belligerent reprisals against civilians are discussed in Chapter 41.
- - - - -
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule3
Rule 3.Definition of Combatants
Rule 3. All members of the armed forces of a party to the conflict are combatants, except medical and religious personnel.
[...]
International armed conflicts
This rule goes back to the Hague Regulations, according to which “the armed forces of the belligerent parties may consist of combatants and non-combatants”.[1] It is now set forth in Article 43(2) of Additional Protocol I.[2]
Numerous military manuals contain this definition of combatants.[3] It is supported by official statements and reported practice.[4] This practice includes that of States not, or not at the time, party to Additional Protocol I.[5]
No official contrary practice was found.
- - - - -
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/api-1977/article-43?activeTab=undefined
Article 43 - Armed forces1. The armed forces of a Party to a conflict consist of all organized armed forces, groups and units which are under a command responsible to that Party for the conduct of its subordinates, even if that Party is represented by a government or an authority not recognized by an adverse Party. Such armed forces shall be subject to an internal disciplinary system which, 'inter alia', shall enforce compliance with the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict.
2. Members of the armed forces of a Party to a conflict (other than medical personnel and chaplains covered by Article 33 of the Third Convention) are combatants, that is to say, they have the right to participate directly in hostilities.
3. Whenever a Party to a conflict incorporates a paramilitary or armed law enforcement agency into its armed forces it shall so notify the other Parties to the conflict.
- - - - -
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/api-1977/article-44?activeTab=undefined
Article 44 - Combatants and prisoners of war1. Any combatant, as defined in Article 43 , who falls into the power of an adverse Party shall be a prisoner of war.
2. While all combatants are obliged to comply with the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, violations of these rules shall not deprive a combatant of his right to be a combatant or, if he falls into the power of an adverse Party, of his right to be a prisoner of war, except as provided in paragraphs 3 and 4.
3. In order to promote the protection of the civilian population from the effects of hostilities, combatants are obliged to distinguish themselves from the civilian population while they are engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack. Recognizing, however, that there are situations in armed conflicts where, owing to the nature of the hostilities an armed combatant cannot so distinguish himself, he shall retain his status as a combatant, provided that, in such situations, he carries his arms openly:
(a) during each military engagement, and
(b) during such time as he is visible to the adversary while he is engaged in a military deployment preceding the launching of an attack in which he is to participate.
Acts which comply with the requirements of this paragraph shall not be considered as perfidious within the meaning of Article 37, paragraph 1 (c .
4. A combatant who falls into the power of an adverse Party while failing to meet the requirements set forth in the second sentence of paragraph 3 shall forfeit his right to be a prisoner of war, but he shall, nevertheless, be given protections equivalent in all respects to those accorded to prisoners of war by the Third Convention and by this Protocol. This protection includes protections equivalent to those accorded to prisoners of war by the Third Convention in the case where such a person is tried and punished for any offences he has committed.
5. Any combatant who falls into the power of an adverse Party while not engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack shall not forfeit his rights to be a combatant and a prisoner of war by virtue of his prior activities.
6. This Article is without prejudice to the right of any person to be a prisoner of war pursuant to Article 4 of the Third Convention.
7. This Article is not intended to change the generally accepted practice of States with respect to the wearing of the uniform by combatants assigned to the regular, uniformed armed units of a Party to the conflict.
8. In addition to the categories of persons mentioned in Article 13 of the First and Second Conventions, all members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as defined in Article 43 of this Protocol, shall be entitled to protection under those Conventions if they are wounded or sick or, in the case of the Second Convention, shipwrecked at sea or in other waters.
- - - - -
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/api-1977/article-47?activeTab=undefined
Article 47 - Mercenaries1. A mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war.
2. A mercenary is any person who:
(a) is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict;
(b) does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities;
(c) is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party;
(d) is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict;
(e) is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and
(f) has not been sent by a State which is not a Party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces.
what is all that cutting and pasting supposed to be about?
Thanks to ww2 we learned to be proactive and deal with problems before they become bigger ones. We also dealt with terrorism and were not just throwing our weight around just to throw it around. It was not and is not that simple.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWxh2oS7Ays
But, there was a time where that was rolled back in the 70s because of the public outrage, and an American spirit that was not accepting of these illegal and freedom robbing practices. “Freedom” was still alive in the American psyche which would not have tolerated what we are doing today.
Post Cold War, we were the only remaining worlds super power, with the dissolution of the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact. China was at the time, in a military sense, barely even an emerging power. We quickly learned that the use of force can achieve quick results. That we could use force with impunity. Our policy makers became trigger happy. The US has been involved in about 780 military campaigns of various types since its creation in 1776. In 220 years of our existence we had about 529 various military campaigns (~2.4 per year). In the last 33 years, we have had 251 (~7.6 per year).
Then came 9-11 and a dumb-ass President that opened the flood gates for the “deep state,” i.e. the intel and police state. This moron advocated flat out Unconstitutional policies and laws like the Patriot Act, bold faced lied to the American public when he said we don't torture when he himself signed and authorized “torture.” The era of secrecy, mass surveillance, the ability to side step Constitutional rights, total control had been born. Exactly what we tried to get rid of in the 1970s, what Truman feared, what Eisenhower feared, what our Founding Fathers wanted to prevent, had been created. In fact, we essentially have adopted all the same vile tactics which we once proclaimed were evidence of how evil the once former Soviet Union was: kidnapping (extraordinary rendition), torture (enhanced interrogations), assignations, gross violations of our own Constitutions and the rights guaranteed therein. The IC grew by leaps and bounds in manpower, budget, scope of powers, all new agencies... The US Intel Community is roughly (((TWICE))) the size of the Russian FSB and all their intel services combined: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Intelligence_Community
What you define as us learning has made us indistinguishable from what we once called the “evil empire.” And that is meant literal.
This war in Ukraine is a war “we” created.
This is us expanding East: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukrainian-president-zelenskiy-holding-talks-with-biden-adviser-says-2021-12-09/
—We wouldn't accept the Russians or Chinese building bases in Mexico. We were willing to risk nuclear war when the Russians based missiles in Cuba in 1962: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis
—We lied about NATO expansion Eastward: https://www.france24.com/en/russia/20220130-did-nato-betray-russia-by-expanding-to-the-east
—We violated Minsk: https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/631007/us-begins-second-phase-of-ukrainian-training-equipping-mission/ (We bragged about it in our official .gov sites!)
—We have been invading the Russians sphere of influence, even nations outright allies with them where they have naval and air bases: Iraq, Libya, Venezuela, Syria...
—We attempt to break Montreux constantly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreux_Convention_Regarding_the_Regime_of_the_Straits
—We withdrew from the Ballistic Missile Treaty: https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2002-07/news/us-withdraws-abm-treaty-global-response-muted
But that does not stop us from wanting to pretend like we're some knight in shining silver armor defending national sovereignty, democracy and human rights in Ukraine and that we didn't provoke this war.
You know, if we care so much about human rights, maybe we should talk to our friends the Saudi's and Jordanians. If democracy is such an important deal breaking issue, maybe the PRC shouldn't have most favored trade status with the us. If sovereignty is an issue, maybe we should stop trying to overthrow democratically elected governments and meddling in the elections of other nations, even allied to us: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/12/obama-admin-sent-taxpayer-money-oust-netanyahu/ https://www.jpost.com/Blogs/The-View-from-Israel/Obamas-shocking-interference-into-Israels-election-process-389858
We are no longer the USA of Norman Rockwell and Ronald Reagan. Those are not the values we represent or spread. We are not motivated by the same ideals.
Do you really believe that Libya today is better off, safer, and isn’t a bigger threat to everyone?
Do you really believe that Iraq today is better off, safer, and no bigger threat?
We created a BIGGER threat to the West when we got rid of both of these men who were keeping these nations under some semblance of control, where we had a single voice to speak with.
However, these nations are oil producers and were aligned with Russia and we want our fingers in the jar. We want that real estate. Get it?
And we created a (((FAR WORSE AND DANGEROUS))) situation for our, Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East regards the security situation.
The jets of major US oil executives were on the ground before Qaddafi’s body had even cooled off. In fact, when those forces not happy with us arming other military factions in Libya attacked us and killed our Ambassador there (yeah, we were arming folks and some got pissed about that), we used the jets of private oil execs in part to evacuate our folks. Do you really believe that our ambassador was killed because of a stupid video? Why do you think our State Department and CIA wanted to keep things hush-hush and were reluctant to come to our own folks help when everything started going South? We were providing arms, intel, money and other equipment (example ATVs) to certain groups in Libya which we thought we can control and would be more on our side, which of course pissed off others that were fighting the folks we’re helping. That made us a target.
But in a nation where you have the intelligence community often defining the media narrative (push some stories and censor others), we chose to make it about an anti-Islamic movie and managed to keep the real story almost entirely out of the news: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/sep/12/movie-assault-us-consulate-libya
Dude, only 14% of the entire population of Libya had Internet access in 2012! Hahaha Most don’t speak English. Many Domains were blocked. Other stories had existed prior and this, and these sort of stories aren’t really new (Koran burning and toilet flushing etc). BUT, we needed a scapegoat after that disaster, and coming out and telling the truth isn’t the sort of stuff we do, and so a BS story about a movie sparking this violence was pushed.
Do you see the US struggling with Russia over lordship of Ethiopia? How about Armenia? What about Trinidad and Tobago? Hint, every nation where we are in a conflict with the Russians has an “economic value” to us and it is us encroaching into THEIR sphere of influence: Iraq, Libya, Venezuela, Syria.
But, things are changing, Russia has begun to massively increase their war budget starting 2022, manpower, and cut the dogs or war loose. Russia has forged new alliances, is playing the proxy game... Things are changing (Chad, Sudan, Ivory Coast, Niger), and it’s a change we asked for. We wanted this conflict. If people were aware of what has been set in motion, they would not be so upbeat and casual about it.
We had zero moral and national defense arguments in both cases.
We lied about Iraq, specifically WMD.
In both cases you wanted to use as examples, we created a WORSE security threat to us, economically damaged these nations.
We simply are/were trying to tear these nations out from under Russia and put them under our control.
All for peace, freedom, democracy, sovereignty and human rights, of course.
Let me ask you this. What nation do you think has overthrown the most governments, even elected ones, on this planet? Russia or the US?
We need to seriously calm down in how we deal with the world around us. This bomb everyone at the drop of a dime mentality has already made us into a pariah on the worlds stage. Just not in the US and Euro media, but even juts in Mexico and you'll see and hear a very different tone.
I'm not saying there never is a need for use of force.
However, when you are involved in 251 different military campaigns in 33 years, spend $880 billion a year on war (not counting Ukraine and Israel), bomb more countries than anyone else, invade more countries than anyone else, have the third largest war machine in the world in brute military manpower, have troops in more countries than anyone else, have more troops deployed outside your borders than anyone else, have more “deployed” nukes than anyone else, overthrow more governments than anyone else, export more weapons than anyone else, (((MAYBE))) it's not the other guys that are predatory. (Please let me know which of these facts you disagree with?)
But hell, who needs facts?
We withdrew from the Ballistic Missile Treaty because we wanted to build a missile defense system, which was in violation of that treaty.
As usual, when we want to cheat and lie, we blame the other side.
Funny thing is, I defended that move and it was correct. But that said, we still were the ones to unilaterally withdraw from the treaty and that actually plays a role today in the Ukraine crisis.
Let me attempt to explain using various maps:
Here’s Russia and where they have bases around the world: https://bigthink.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/18410104.jpg?fit=1200,675
Here is the US and where we have bases around the world: https://bigthink.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/18410101.jpg?fit=1200,675
What does this tell me: https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/vwc2uv/us_military_bases_around_the_world/#lightbox
What does this tell me? https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2013/02/cia-rendition-map3.jpg
I know we care a lot about democracy and human rights, so explain this to me: https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/57r7lv/authoritarian_regimes_supported_by_the_usa_in_the/#lightbox
What does this map tell us: https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/uf9fa4/ussponsored_regime_changes_and_military_invasions/#lightbox
You live in a distant and parallel universe, far away from reality.
It must feel really good to exist in this universe? Sort of like when on a euphoric high on some drug or otherwise delusional and no longer in touch with the physical reality around you.
We (the US) have progressively become worse and worse since 1991. It’s not Russia invading, bombing, and sponsoring coups everywhere. It’s us.
And no, we are not spreading freedom, democracy, human rights, and sovereignty. We are completely OK with a dictator and oppressive regimes as long as they serve our political and economic interests. In fact, if this democracy thingy gives us an answer we don’t like, we’ll overthrow a democratically elected government and install a dictator.
Now, go watch your Captain America, read your doctored up History book, and go pretend you’re a force for good.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
