Russia-Ukraine War Politics Thread Mk. 2

I think he meant "as far as I know I domt even have any Eastern European ancestors
Yep, I got that but thank you. My point was that I read things as @DarthOne taking the post from @AmosTrask be read as suggesting that he (DarthOne) was eastern European, whereas I think the post was actually intended to contrast his opinions with those of eastern Europeans. So him saying "I have no eastern European roots." is a non-sequitor.
 
Yep, I got that but thank you. My point was that I read things as @DarthOne taking the post from @AmosTrask be read as suggesting that he (DarthOne) was eastern European, whereas I think the post was actually intended to contrast his opinions with those of eastern Europeans. So him saying "I have no eastern European roots." is a non-sequitor.
Exactly. My autocorrect deleted my punctuation. I did indeed mean to contrast DarthOne's opinion with that of Eastern Europe's generally negative opinion on Russians. Muscovite Russians in particular.
 
Please the Catholic Church was also never free it was always the Bishop of Rome ways.

And while the Orthodox Church is a national church and is part of the nation. It’s still Christian. Zelensky is either a Jew or an atheist. He has no business having any power or meddling in church business like deciding how the calendar will be. If he converted and was baptized it would be one thing but he hasn’t done that.
Keys of Peter.God gave Church to pope.Besides,Church,except papal state,never ruled over state.

And no,orthodox churches are not national,they belong to state.That is why soviet state turned russian church into kgb dumpster,and it remained in such sorry state.

And that is wht Zelensky could do whatever he want with orthodox Church on Ukraine.Just like Putin in kgbstan.
P.S The same goes for protestant states,of course.
 
Keys of Peter.God gave Church to pope.Besides,Church,except papal state,never ruled over state.

And no,orthodox churches are not national,they belong to state.That is why soviet state turned russian church into kgb dumpster,and it remained in such sorry state.

And that is wht Zelensky could do whatever he want with orthodox Church on Ukraine.Just like Putin in kgbstan.
P.S The same goes for protestant states,of course.
Ahahahahahahahahahaha

Very funny ATP. I know you Catholics like to use the "I will build my church on this rock" thing Jesus said to Peter. But that does not mean that the Bishop of Rome is Peter's successor. After all Peter was also the Bishop of Antioch. Why not have Antioch be the head of the Church?

But even with all that in the Bible all the apostles meet together for a council the very first Crisis Christians had the Judaizer conflict. Peter/the Pope thought that Christians had to obey the Mosaic law Paul managed to convince everyone else otherwise. If you think that the Pope is in charge you should agree with Peter you need to stop eating pork and get circumcized. Shall I hold you down while we call a mohel to do the deed?

 






Erdogan supports Ukraine entering NATO. This is a big thing, as it shows one of the other power players (and the Turks are power players in NATO, as seen with the whole Sweden and Finland approval issues).

Biden slow rolling aid and trying to pick up a turd by the clean end in regards to Russia has left Turkey with a much greater amount of leverage over the alliance than they'd had previously, and Erdogan is using that advantage in every way he can.
 
I mean, Hungary has always been the one we don't know about letting them join.
Turkey supported Ukraine from the beginning
 
We should veto it,till they agree to made graves for UPA victims.But our eunuchs do not even consider it.
 

Cluster bombs are banned by a convention signed by more than 100 countries, including many NATO allies. Because of their huge civilian toll, their use has long been seen as a war crime (including by the US when used by Bad Countries™),

Biden is now sending them to Ukrain
President Biden is prepared to waive U.S. law prohibiting the production, use or transfer of cluster munitions with a failure rate of more than 1 percent to send them to Ukraine, amid concerns about Kyiv’s lagging counteroffensive against Russian troops. https://wapo.st/3rlJsbY


USA incidentally did not sign the treaty. But still bans them through internal law. which biden intends to just waive. Apparently the president can just waive laws now?
 





USA incidentally did not sign the treaty. But still bans them through internal law. which biden intends to just waive. Apparently the president can just waive laws now?
War crimes only count when your side loses, I guess. Disgusting.
 
War crimes only count when your side loses, I guess. Disgusting.
Fact of life.I am suprised,that you are suprised.If Germany win WW2,not Allies with soviets,then everybody would condemn commie crimes,and young people on entire Earth would glorify comrades Hitler,Himmler,and others.

USA cities would be burned by Anticom,not Antifa,like in OTL.
 
War crimes only count when your side loses, I guess. Disgusting.
So you are saying everyone who doesn't follow the silly SJW virtue signalling treaty commits war crimes, including Russia? Great, apparently the right now includes arms control activists who will be surprised that they aren't liberal leftie globalists anymore.





USA incidentally did not sign the treaty. But still bans them through internal law. which biden intends to just waive. Apparently the president can just waive laws now?
Yes and not just Biden:

A 2009 law bans exports of US cluster munitions with bomblet failure rates higher than 1%, which applies to virtually all of the US military stockpile. But Biden can waive prohibitions around the munitions, as his predecessor, Donald Trump, did in January 2021 to allow the export of cluster munitions technology to South Korea.


Also you linked the wrong virtue signalling treaty, i know, they are easily confused as they are all stupid. Ottawa one regards anti personnel mines, you wanted this:
 
Last edited:
War crimes only count when your side loses, I guess. Disgusting.
I mean... The reason they're bad is because they leave unexploded ordinance around to potentially harm civilians after the conflict. Given that Ukraine will be using these weapons on their own territory, I feel that it's their choice to take that risk. I can also understand their perspective in deciding that US munitions with a dud rate of <2.5% don't meaningfully add to the risk, when they've asserted Russia (Who like the US and Ukraine aren't signatory to the international laws against cluster munitions.) are already using similar, and quite likely Ukraine have also used soviet legacy systems and that their dud rate is many times worse. According to some sources up near half the submunitions are duds in the already used Ukrainian and Russian systems.

Who exactly are war crimes being commited against, and what exactly do you think the specific crime is?

Apparently the president can just waive laws now?
It's actually a specific part of the law that the restriction can be waived by Presidential fiat.
 
So you are saying everyone who doesn't follow the silly SJW virtue signalling treaty commits war crimes, including Russia? Great, apparently the right now includes arms control activists who will be surprised that they aren't liberal leftie globalists anymore.

Yes and not just Biden:

A 2009 law bans exports of US cluster munitions with bomblet failure rates higher than 1%, which applies to virtually all of the US military stockpile. But Biden can waive prohibitions around the munitions, as his predecessor, Donald Trump, did in January 2021 to allow the export of cluster munitions technology to South Korea.

Also you linked the wrong virtue signalling treaty, i know, they are easily confused as they are all stupid. Ottawa one regards anti personnel mines, you wanted this:
To be honest the treaty against cluster munitions is stupid, but the one against mines is not. Calling it "sjw" is just being an edgy tryhard. Land mines can cause deaths after the war is over and such weapons should be banned. Imagine you had a war with a nation but now that nation is one of your closest allies, yet when the war happened they left so many weapons on your land that around 100 of your citizens a year end up getting injured or killed by that stuff. Some allies they are still killing your people.
The US did not sign the laws of war.
We just limit ourselves because we want to give ourselves a handicap.

Dumbass take. No almost all nations have signed the big parts about the laws of war. So don't go pulling bullshit just because you might want to weasel out of it.
 
To be honest the treaty against cluster munitions is stupid, but the one against mines is not. Calling it "sjw" is just being an edgy tryhard. Land mines can cause deaths after the war is over and such weapons should be banned. Imagine you had a war with a nation but now that nation is one of your closest allies, yet when the war happened they left so many weapons on your land that around 100 of your citizens a year end up getting injured or killed by that stuff. Some allies they are still killing your people.
Well guess who pushed those treaties the hardest...
If you don't want to use them in given circumstances for political reasons, don't, but you don't need a stupid virtue signalling treaty to not do it, it's not like you are obligated to put unmapped minefields everywhere if you don't sign it. On the other hand, if you end up fighting against a country which does use them and laughs in your face about doing so, there is no benefit to not even having the ability to respond in kind. No one is going to reward your country for inflicting war handicaps upon itself.
 
Well guess who pushed those treaties the hardest...
If you don't want to use them in given circumstances for political reasons, don't, but you don't need a stupid virtue signalling treaty to not do it, it's not like you are obligated to put unmapped minefields everywhere if you don't sign it. On the other hand, if you end up fighting against a country which does use them and laughs in your face about doing so, there is no benefit to not even having the ability to respond in kind. No one is going to reward your country for inflicting war handicaps upon itself.
Umm do you also think the treaties that prevent POW's from being raped or tortured are vitrue signalling? Again why do you support the original geneva conventions yet are opposed to this? Again I'm practical I think war should be made less cruel, but not if it affects actually useful things like cluster bombs.

Also in the past treaties only protected those who followed them. The Nazi for example did not violate the geneva conventions when they executed Soviet prisoners because the Soviets never signed the treaty.
 
To be honest the treaty against cluster munitions is stupid, but the one against mines is not. Calling it "sjw" is just being an edgy tryhard. Land mines can cause deaths after the war is over and such weapons should be banned. Imagine you had a war with a nation but now that nation is one of your closest allies, yet when the war happened they left so many weapons on your land that around 100 of your citizens a year end up getting injured or killed by that stuff. Some allies they are still killing your people.


Dumbass take. No almost all nations have signed the big parts about the laws of war. So don't go pulling bullshit just because you might want to weasel out of it.

Umm do you also think the treaties that prevent POW's from being raped or tortured are vitrue signalling? Again why do you support the original geneva conventions yet are opposed to this? Again I'm practical I think war should be made less cruel, but not if it affects actually useful things like cluster bombs.

Also in the past treaties only protected those who followed them. The Nazi for example did not violate the geneva conventions when they executed Soviet prisoners because the Soviets never signed the treaty.
Ah you see, we signed certain laws of war.
Most laws that pertain to weapon restrictions though? We did not sign or have gone back on it.

Because there is a diffrence between laws of war pertaining to civilian population and laws of war pertaining to use of arms.

And also, it is nicknamed geneva suggestions by the United States military for a reason.

Jokes aside, there is a diffrence between treatment of POWs and Civies vs that of treatment of enemy combatants in a warzone.
US did not sign most of those treaties
 
Ah you see, we signed certain laws of war.
Most laws that pertain to weapon restrictions though? We did not sign or have gone back on it.
For a second I was going to ask who is we? I thought you were Marduk. Anyway yes the US has not signed the weapon restrictions.

Because there is a diffrence between laws of war pertaining to civilian population and laws of war pertaining to use of arms.

And also, it is nicknamed geneva suggestions by the United States military for a reason.

Jokes aside, there is a diffrence between treatment of POWs and Civies vs that of treatment of enemy combatants in a warzone.
US did not sign most of those treaties
Why do you think there is a differance? Again there isn't that much of a differance between using gas weapons or bio weapons, using cluster mines, or raping POWs.

Heck you can argue raping POWs like Hannoi Hilton is less bad because the violence is limited to only durring war time as opposed to a century later.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top