Yes, but we tried everything, Ferdia always end up pointing US, it's like some nasty scoundrel hacked his subconscious.

Only post 2014. Which was the year of Russias first invasion in parts of Ukraine.
How dare they preparing to defend themselves?

This post was edited by BaHgerAUT on Mar 23 2023 08:28am

Oman is a very neutral country, always has been, it doesn´t really take part in geopolitics. UAE changed positions a long time ago, same with Egypt. Arab-league rapprochement with Syria has been going on for like 2 years now, those countries have been more concerned with turkey/Libya conflict in recent years , and realized a while back that Assad isn´t going anywhere. They also don´t want to see turkey be victorious in syria, they prefere syria wins.

This post was edited by ownyaah on Mar 23 2023 08:39am

Technically, I am not against change, and by that definition self-determination. But self-determination, political decisions that affect others is a very pragmatic matter, and not something to be taken lightly. Californians would lose 100x on that deal (socially, economically, politically etc), they would be silly to do so. Also the other states/USA would definitely invade, simply not worth it from a military perspective either.

This post was edited by ownyaah on Mar 23 2023 08:43am

I’m aware that depleted uranium ammo is very efficient against vehicle/buildings for armor penetration.

My gripe with it is that it’s proven to cause cancer and side effects for everyone exposed, from the crews that will have to use it - to the people on the receiving end (see the link from guardian in my first post). American veterans can officially claim disability if they were exposed to DU ammo:

https://www.publichealth.va.gov/exposures/depleted_uranium/


In this case ammo will be used by Ukranian military and I’m sure they will not get any disability claims from the UK.

If an ammo depot is hit - everything inside it is usually obliterated into fine particles and a firestorm starts that spreads the ashes of everything that is burning for many miles around it. We never actually had a proper depleted uranium ammo depot firestorms so far as NATO ammo depots were never successfully hit by insurgents in Iraq/Afghanistan to my knowledge.

Would you eat a baguette or croissant made out of depleted uranium contaminated Ukranian grain?

/edit typos

This post was edited by Malopox on Mar 23 2023 08:48am

they "bombed" eastern ukraine because RUSSIAN TROOPS, little green men, invaded it and staged an uprising, provoked a military conflict ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Donbas_(2014%E2%80%932022) ) in order to create a "reason" to annex even more territory after crimea. any halfway intelligent and informed person would know that's a well documented russian MO these days (remember georgia?) - but i guess you prefer the kremlin friendly "russia is just trying to help out the poor east ukrainians, who wanted to be liberated after being shelled by evil west ukrainians for absolutely no reason" spin - conveniently ignoring how fierce the resistance against those "liberators" was and still is.

eastern european nations BEGGING NATO to join is a historical fact - and if you had paid attention during your history lessons, particularly those concerning the cold war era, you'd understand why they wanted that so desperately: not because the US pressured / forced them to join, but because they couldn't wait to escape russia's clutches - its authoritarianism, its lack of freedom, and its economic destitution. literally no need to strong-arm nations when you have a long track record of freedom, prosperity, and security - but unsurprisingly you prefer the nonsensical kremlin spin.

and no, ukraine was NOT "becoming" a NATO member either, that's simply not true. again, ukraine had no path to membership when russia attacked, completely debunking that idiotic talking point. article 5, the one thing that could have prevented russia from attacking them, only applies to actual, official members - so your silly "de facto nato member" narrative is completely pointless.

your "argument" regarding pootin's in reality goes against you btw. war being a "young man's game" (stupidly misquoted to fit your chosen narrative - the actual saying goes something like "war is declared by the old and fought by the young") is completely irrelevant to pootin - he wouldn't have done any of the fighting 20 years ago either, he's the one ordering the killing and invading, not the one dragging his short little legs through the mud. if anything, his progressing age and diminishing health pressured him into taking action now. he wants those conquests for his legacy.

lastly, your strawman about pootin's desire to have "imperial dominion over europe" perfectly illustrates your dishonesty. literally no one ever claimed that. you trying to justify your unwillingness to change your mind by rejecting some absurd claim that no one ever made, proves you're not debating in good faith. pootin wants to conquer ukraine. that's a fact. everything suggests he'd claim transnistria next, most likely moldova as a whole. his intentions regarding georgia are long known already. that is the argument. not "dominion over europe".

I wonder what happened in 2014 that might have motivated that? Maybe the US funded coup?

https://www.cato.org/commentary/americas-ukraine-hypocrisy

I wonder if there is any historical reason for Russia to be suspicious of foreign involvement in the country next door?

https://canadiandimension.com/articles/view/revisiting-our-secret-role-in-ukraines-2004-orange-revolution

Or maybe it was the continual eastward expansion of a western military alliance, despite assurances to Russian leaders that it would not do so, and despite many many protests from the Russian government about it over the years.

https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early

then go look at the international summit of 2008, or just youtube it.

Fender you are TLDR right now. You have your view I have mine. there is no need exercise ourselves in the definition of stupidity. i.e. its pointless at this time (and probably forever) to argue and expect a different outcome.

This post was edited by ferdia on Mar 23 2023 09:25am

Deflect much, enabler.

- Yes, DU is bad for health but more likely: as dust or when vastly disseminated in water or in dense/urban areas. We also have to note down that ammunitions are toxic in general so one can be accused because of the other.
- If used in the fields, in limited quantities (enough to finish off russian tanks), the impact would not be big enough to justify to not use it ( IF it has been proven that it will be necessary to destroy the old russian tanks).
- Russians may use it and are already massively contaminating the environment with their massive inaccurate shelling (heavy toxic metals) So now the "health" question is returned to you: Ukrainians are respecting mother nature by using accurate weapons, russians aren't ? Oh wait: "Orcs" ?

As personal opinion: DU but also others [shelling] chemicals are probably super bad for soldiers in a dry and urban (=dense) environment: IE for days under [shellings] or during a short assault just after.

This post was edited by Meanwhile on Mar 23 2023 09:24am