LaxPower Back-Up Stick

a fan wrote: ↑Tue Feb 07, 2023 8:06 pm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerch_Strait_incident

old salt wrote: ↑Tue Feb 07, 2023 8:36 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Tue Feb 07, 2023 8:06 pm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerch_Strait_incident

I stand by what I said in the contemporary quote you posted.
Perfect time for a unified NATO response & show of force.

a fan wrote: ↑Tue Feb 07, 2023 8:53 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Tue Feb 07, 2023 8:36 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Tue Feb 07, 2023 8:06 pm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerch_Strait_incident

I stand by what I said in the contemporary quote you posted.
Perfect time for a unified NATO response & show of force.

I know you do. But you didn't criticize Trump for not leading NATO then, while I gave him a pass, because Ukraine isn't a part of NATO.

old salt wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 6:54 pm

a fan wrote:The question is: does Trump get it?

Remember, according to VDH (don't make me pull the quote), Obama was soft, and Trump won't be pushed around like Obama was.

What's your wager here, old salt? Will Trump bail on the situation, risking criticism from you and VDH?

Or will he step up immediately, and enter the region with a show of force?

More importantly: which path is the correct path?

I'm sure Mattis, Bolton, Kelly, Pompeo & Dunford are all advising him.

I'd avdise Trump to include NATO in every sentence. Say this requires a united NATO response.
The US is ready to participate & support whatever the collective alliance decides.
The USN is already there, with a CSG in the E Med. Closer, with far more firepower, than any of our other NATO allies.

I wouldn't go into the Black Sea without a NATO flotilla.
Can't afford to get into a shooting war if our allies are going to stay neutral.
Time for Macron & Merkel to assert the EU leadership they've been puffing about.

If Trump indicates he might do something unilaterally, he'll be accused of wagging the dog.

old salt wrote: ↑Tue Feb 07, 2023 9:46 pm What did you expect Trump to do ?

old salt wrote: ↑Tue Feb 07, 2023 9:46 pm 3 EU & NATO nations border the Black Sea. None of them, nor their EU/NATO allies wanted to do anything. Did you expect Trump to take action on their behalf ? Why would I criticize Trump for not bigfooting our allies & usurping their independence.

a fan wrote: ↑Tue Feb 07, 2023 10:06 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Tue Feb 07, 2023 9:46 pm What did you expect Trump to do ?

Not a thing! Like i said at time, and stand by......full pass from ME. Ukraine ain't a part of NATO. So Trump's good.

old salt wrote: ↑Tue Feb 07, 2023 9:46 pm 3 EU & NATO nations border the Black Sea. None of them, nor their EU/NATO allies wanted to do anything. Did you expect Trump to take action on their behalf ? Why would I criticize Trump for not bigfooting our allies & usurping their independence.

Because YOU have said, repeatedly, that the POTUS is supposed to lead NATO. And Trump wasn't doing that to get the NATO reaction you were asking for here.

Reasonable. But you think this is a strawman. Okay.

old salt wrote: ↑Tue Feb 07, 2023 10:10 pm It's a false predicate. A strawman you set up & challenge me to joust. That's how you roll.

a fan wrote: ↑Tue Feb 07, 2023 10:48 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Tue Feb 07, 2023 10:10 pm It's a false predicate. A strawman you set up & challenge me to joust. That's how you roll.

No. It's an annoyance that you have one set of rules for Dems, and one for R's.

old salt wrote: ↑Tue Feb 07, 2023 11:12 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Tue Feb 07, 2023 10:48 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Tue Feb 07, 2023 10:10 pm It's a false predicate. A strawman you set up & challenge me to joust. That's how you roll.

No. It's an annoyance that you have one set of rules for Dems, and one for R's.

So make up something implausable, to test your theory, then equivocate when it fails.

Stop wasting my time & the forum's bandwith, just to sustain your petty vendetta.

We're all free here to express our opinions. Give it a rest. We're all partisans or we wouldn't express our opinions.

Seacoaster(1) wrote: ↑Wed Feb 08, 2023 5:07 am

old salt wrote: ↑Tue Feb 07, 2023 11:12 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Tue Feb 07, 2023 10:48 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Tue Feb 07, 2023 10:10 pm It's a false predicate. A strawman you set up & challenge me to joust. That's how you roll.

No. It's an annoyance that you have one set of rules for Dems, and one for R's.

So make up something implausable, to test your theory, then equivocate when it fails.

Stop wasting my time & the forum's bandwith, just to sustain your petty vendetta.

We're all free here to express our opinions. Give it a rest. We're all partisans or we wouldn't express our opinions.

Just weighing in: It's OK by me for a fan to use "the forum's bandwidth" and carry on his "vendetta."

old salt wrote: ↑Tue Feb 07, 2023 11:12 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Tue Feb 07, 2023 10:48 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Tue Feb 07, 2023 10:10 pm It's a false predicate. A strawman you set up & challenge me to joust. That's how you roll.

No. It's an annoyance that you have one set of rules for Dems, and one for R's.

So make up something implausable, to test your theory, then equivocate when it fails.

Stop wasting my time & the forum's bandwith, just to sustain your petty vendetta.

We're all free here to express our opinions. Give it a rest. We're all partisans or we wouldn't express our opinions.

old salt wrote: ↑Tue Feb 07, 2023 11:12 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Tue Feb 07, 2023 10:48 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Tue Feb 07, 2023 10:10 pm It's a false predicate. A strawman you set up & challenge me to joust. That's how you roll.

No. It's an annoyance that you have one set of rules for Dems, and one for R's.

So make up something implausable, to test your theory, then equivocate when it fails.

Stop wasting my time & the forum's bandwith, just to sustain your petty vendetta.

We're all free here to express our opinions. Give it a rest. We're all partisans or we wouldn't express our opinions.

old salt wrote: ↑Mon Feb 06, 2023 6:53 pm Here ya go afan. Hot off the presses. I'm not the only vet frustrated with the lack of diplomatic engagement & pressure to end the carnage, ...no matter the stupid, illogical accidental borders.

https://sofrep.com/news/russias-soaring ... thing-war/

Russia’s Soaring Death Toll is a Gloomy Insight on Putin’s All-or-Nothing War
by SOFREP, 9 hours ago

The conflict in eastern Ukraine has been raging for nearly two years now, with no end in sight. The death toll is at an all-time high, and a closer look reveals that most of the casualties are from Russia’s poor tactics on the battlefield. This harsh insight into Russian strategies is cause for alarm and should be addressed by the international community.

Last year, after months of tension between Russia and Ukraine, Putin sent his troops to occupy parts of eastern Ukraine near Donetsk and Luhansk—the region known as Donbas. Since then, both sides have accused each other of launching offensives and war crimes against civilians. Though it’s hard to get accurate numbers due to incomplete records on both sides, estimates suggest that more than 100,000 people have died or been wounded since the war began. General Mark Milley recently stated that this number could be closer to 200k when you include losses from Russia’s side alone (180k dead/wounded). Ukrainian civilian deaths are estimated at around 30k plus 100k military casualties. The number of Russian troops killed and wounded in Ukraine is estimated to be approaching 200,000 according to the US and other Western officials – a stark symbol of the toll taken by President Putin’s invasion of eastern Ukraine near Bakhmut and Soledar towns.

The soaring death tolls among Russian troops in Ukraine are a devastating reminder of the impact of the Russian invasion. In an attempt to seize the entire eastern Donbas region, Russia tried to push toward Ukrainian regions multiple times but had been met with drastic failures. In addition, research conducted by non-governmental organizations such as Human Rights Watch suggests that Russia is responsible for significant violations of international humanitarian law during this period, including unlawful killings, indiscriminate attacks on civilian targets, torture, arbitrary detention, and forced displacement.

“Hundreds of Russian cluster munition attacks were documented, reported, or alleged in at least 10 of Ukraine’s 24 regions, killing an estimated 689 civilians between February and July 2022. Human Rights Watch documented Russian forces’ use of cluster munitions in Chernihiv, Kharkiv, Mykolaiv, and Donetsk regions,” the report notes.

As evidenced by recent reports from international organizations such as Human Rights Watch (HRW) and Amnesty International (AI), these tactics have resulted in high levels of suffering among non-combatants as well as Russian soldiers alike – many of whom are young conscripts without adequate training or supplies which are being forced into combat roles against their will. According to a report released by HRW earlier this year, “the human cost [of this conflict] continues to be staggering: hundreds if not thousands of civilian casualties each month from indiscriminate shelling attacks alone.”

The aggressive Russian tactics can also be seen in reports from journalists who have visited eastern Ukraine over the last few months. They describe a landscape littered with destroyed homes and buildings and mass graves filled with Russian soldiers killed in battle. Furthermore, some Ukrainian citizens interviewed claim that children have been conscripted into military service or forced to fight against their will – a clear violation of human rights legislation by Moscow’s leadership. Clearly, Putin’s aggression has had far-reaching consequences for its own citizens and Ukraine’s civilians, who have suffered immensely throughout this conflict.

In addition to sending ill-prepared troops into battle, Russia has employed various military tactics that make it difficult for Western forces to protect their own soldiers and civilians nearby. This includes using heavy artillery such as tanks, missiles, and mortars which can cause extensive damage in populated areas; deploying snipers who take cover among civilians; arming rebels with sophisticated weapons systems; carrying out mass arrests without due process; and allowing groups like “Little Green Men” (unidentified militants) to terrorize local populations.

What makes these figures even more alarming is evidence suggesting that Russia has been sending poorly trained recruits, including former convicts, to the front lines to pave the way for more seasoned fighters. This approach has resulted in thousands of deaths among those expendable human resources while stalling progress toward peace talks.

With civilian casualties reaching an all-time high and no sign of peace talks in sight, it’s clear that something needs to be done before things escalate even further.

Putin and the Russians’ Downfall
The increasing death toll in the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine is an increasingly grim reminder of the grave consequences of President Putin’s invasion.

Russia’s tactics in eastern Ukraine reveal much about Putin’s approach to the conflict; he values victory above all else, even if it means sacrificing his own soldiers. This strategy has proven highly effective before, with many battles ending in Russian victories within a short period of time. However, this may not continue indefinitely due to increased military pressure from Ukraine and sanctions from Western countries—notably those imposed after Moscow annexed Crimea in 2014.

Some analysts believe that Moscow views the city of Bakhmut as a critical point in its attempt to gain control over eastern Donbas and has flooded the area with troops despite knowing that doing so would result in an excessive loss of life. If true, then this tactic highlights an all-too-common willingness among some political leaders to risk civilian lives when pursuing their objectives.

Despite widespread condemnation from foreign governments and international organizations such as the United Nations, there has yet to be no meaningful progress toward preventing further loss of life among Russian forces in Ukraine. The current situation, therefore, seems unlikely to improve anytime soon and may continue until a decisive victory is achieved by one side or another. Until then, the world will probably remain witness to stories of needless suffering at the hands of those who prioritize strategic objectives over human rights considerations.

In addition to illustrating Putin’s desire for success at any cost, his strategy demonstrates his willingness to use unconventional methods, such as deploying untrained recruits and convicted criminals onto the battlefield rather than relying solely on experienced troops from Russia’s armed forces. This indicates that he does not feel limited by traditional rules of warfare or constrained by public opinion back home—and indeed, polls show that much of Russia remains firmly supportive of its president despite international criticism.

Given this context, it is clear that President Putin’s invasion has had tragic consequences for both sides involved in this conflict – but especially for those within his own borders who have borne the brunt of its most dire impacts. As such, it is crucial that international organizations continue to closely monitor these developments – while also intervening wherever possible – to ensure an end to further bloodshed and suffering on all sides.

Without swift action from world leaders, there’s no telling how much worse things could become for innocent civilians caught in the crossfire between two countries locked in a seemingly endless conflict over land rights and power struggles between political leaders. Our duty as citizens is to pressure our governments into taking action to protect those caught up in this battle for control so we can finally see some resolution after five long years of bloodshed and violence.

old salt wrote: ↑Tue Feb 07, 2023 11:12 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Tue Feb 07, 2023 10:48 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Tue Feb 07, 2023 10:10 pm It's a false predicate. A strawman you set up & challenge me to joust. That's how you roll.

No. It's an annoyance that you have one set of rules for Dems, and one for R's.

So make up something implausable, to test your theory, then equivocate when it fails.

Stop wasting my time & the forum's bandwith, just to sustain your petty vendetta.

We're all free here to express our opinions. Give it a rest. We're all partisans or we wouldn't express our opinions.

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Wed Feb 08, 2023 10:10 am

old salt wrote: ↑Tue Feb 07, 2023 11:12 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Tue Feb 07, 2023 10:48 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Tue Feb 07, 2023 10:10 pm It's a false predicate. A strawman you set up & challenge me to joust. That's how you roll.

No. It's an annoyance that you have one set of rules for Dems, and one for R's.

So make up something implausable, to test your theory, then equivocate when it fails.

Stop wasting my time & the forum's bandwith, just to sustain your petty vendetta.

We're all free here to express our opinions. Give it a rest. We're all partisans or we wouldn't express our opinions.

Disingenuous and hypocritical

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 07, 2023 4:36 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Tue Feb 07, 2023 4:32 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 07, 2023 4:07 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Tue Feb 07, 2023 1:03 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 06, 2023 11:56 am When we use the term "global cop", I assume pejoratively, and "paying the price" of being so, I think this misses the point that 'paying' this "price" has been enormously 'profitable' for the United States and its citizens, at least in economic terms.

We have benefited enormously from a rule based order that enables global trade. We would benefit even more if this was an entirely peaceful process, without risk of major disruption of supply lines, as it would foster even more efficient trade and risk taking, but unfortunately our world also includes transgressors to that 'rule based order', including those willing to commit horrible atrocities for power.

That's reality.

That's a very pie-eyed explanation of our behavior post-WWII that ignores a whole lot of bad, and completely unnecessary behavior on our part.

That might seem to be a reasonable case to make, assuming you ignore the rest of that post:

"So, we have led in the development of international organizations which create multilateral structures of such 'rules' and support for further peaceful development, and, if necessary, forceful maintenance of such rules.

Where we've gone awry, as we've often done, is when we have acted more unilaterally than multilaterally, and when we have over played our hand in disputes beyond our ability to control, choosing in many cases to back regimes which are undemocratic and do not well represent their people, simply out of our own 'interests' as defined by short term thinking."[/i]

This isn't true, either. Gulf War was multilateral. So was Charlie Wilson's War. And the Korean War. Even the Vietnam War had allied troops from other countries.

Sorry, I disagree.

Let me help you out. See bold.

I recognize that we don't agree entirely, but when you cherry pick what I've written, and pretend I didn't write further, that's not a fair argumentation.

Kismet wrote: ↑Wed Feb 08, 2023 10:22 am

old salt wrote: ↑Tue Feb 07, 2023 11:12 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Tue Feb 07, 2023 10:48 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Tue Feb 07, 2023 10:10 pm It's a false predicate. A strawman you set up & challenge me to joust. That's how you roll.

No. It's an annoyance that you have one set of rules for Dems, and one for R's.

So make up something implausable, to test your theory, then equivocate when it fails.

Stop wasting my time & the forum's bandwith, just to sustain your petty vendetta.

We're all free here to express our opinions. Give it a rest. We're all partisans or we wouldn't express our opinions.

Chutzpah on steroids. Very classy.

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 07, 2023 7:03 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Tue Feb 07, 2023 4:41 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 07, 2023 4:36 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Tue Feb 07, 2023 4:32 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 07, 2023 4:07 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Tue Feb 07, 2023 1:03 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 06, 2023 11:56 am When we use the term "global cop", I assume pejoratively, and "paying the price" of being so, I think this misses the point that 'paying' this "price" has been enormously 'profitable' for the United States and its citizens, at least in economic terms.

We have benefited enormously from a rule based order that enables global trade. We would benefit even more if this was an entirely peaceful process, without risk of major disruption of supply lines, as it would foster even more efficient trade and risk taking, but unfortunately our world also includes transgressors to that 'rule based order', including those willing to commit horrible atrocities for power.

That's reality.

That's a very pie-eyed explanation of our behavior post-WWII that ignores a whole lot of bad, and completely unnecessary behavior on our part.

That might seem to be a reasonable case to make, assuming you ignore the rest of that post:

"So, we have led in the development of international organizations which create multilateral structures of such 'rules' and support for further peaceful development, and, if necessary, forceful maintenance of such rules.

Where we've gone awry, as we've often done, is when we have acted more unilaterally than multilaterally, and when we have over played our hand in disputes beyond our ability to control, choosing in many cases to back regimes which are undemocratic and do not well represent their people, So, we have led in the development of international organizations which create multilateral structures of such 'rules' and support for further peaceful development, and, if necessary, forceful maintenance of such rules.

Where we've gone awry, as we've often done, is when we have acted more unilaterally than multilaterally, and when we have over played our hand in disputes beyond our ability to control, choosing in many cases to back regimes which are undemocratic and do not well represent their people, simply out of our own 'interests' as defined by short term thinking. "[/i]

This isn't true, either. Gulf War was multilateral. So was Charlie Wilson's War. And the Korean War. Even the Vietnam War had allied troops from other countries.

Sorry, I disagree.

Let me help you out. See bold.

I recognize that we don't agree entirely, but when you cherry pick what I've written, and pretend I didn't write further, that's not a fair argumentation.

Well come on...when you do that...whether we acted multilaterally or unilaterally has no bearing one way or the other on whether something we did was right or wrong. It's an irrelevant detail that has no bearing on the "correctness" our playing Global Cop.

Again, I continued with now bold red.

Multilateral increases the chances that what we're doing is more likely to be 'right', unilateral increases the chances that what we're doing is disagreed with, perhaps, and maybe probably, for good reason.

The "global cop" moniker implies a pejorative...I'd suggest that 'someone' does need to 'police' the rules based order, because there are, and likely always will be, transgressors. To the extent that multilateral orgs play this role, all the better, or at least more likely the 'better', but we've appreciated the control it has provided the US, with all sorts of attendant advantages, of being the lead such...'cop'.

There's a price paid, of course, for being in this role, a price that's typically less if multilaterally orchestrated, but a price nevertheless...but there's also enormous benefit of such a rules based order being in place, and I'd argue that this outweighs those costs.

But, of course we agree that how we exercise that leadership role matters a ton...

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Wed Feb 08, 2023 8:00 am

Seacoaster(1) wrote: ↑Wed Feb 08, 2023 5:07 am

old salt wrote: ↑Tue Feb 07, 2023 11:12 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Tue Feb 07, 2023 10:48 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Tue Feb 07, 2023 10:10 pm It's a false predicate. A strawman you set up & challenge me to joust. That's how you roll.

No. It's an annoyance that you have one set of rules for Dems, and one for R's.

So make up something implausable, to test your theory, then equivocate when it fails.

Stop wasting my time & the forum's bandwith, just to sustain your petty vendetta.

We're all free here to express our opinions. Give it a rest. We're all partisans or we wouldn't express our opinions.

Just weighing in: It's OK by me for a fan to use "the forum's bandwidth" and carry on his "vendetta."

Me too

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Wed Feb 08, 2023 10:10 am

old salt wrote: ↑Tue Feb 07, 2023 11:12 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Tue Feb 07, 2023 10:48 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Tue Feb 07, 2023 10:10 pm It's a false predicate. A strawman you set up & challenge me to joust. That's how you roll.

No. It's an annoyance that you have one set of rules for Dems, and one for R's.

So make up something implausable, to test your theory, then equivocate when it fails.

Stop wasting my time & the forum's bandwith, just to sustain your petty vendetta.

We're all free here to express our opinions. Give it a rest. We're all partisans or we wouldn't express our opinions.

Disingenuous and hypocritical