The U.S. Needs To Act Against Russian Threat To Ukraine!

[Mushroom]

It is banned to use against civilian targets. It's OK to use it against military and paramilitary ones.

No, it is illegal against all targets, military or civilian.

It is known as the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, signed at Geneva and entered into force on 10 October 1980.

Which by the way is the same Convention that outlawed land mines and blinding weapons (LASERs). It even put into place other things, like all shrapnel from fragmentary weapons must be detectable through X-Rays (no fragments of glass, plastic, etc). Why do you think nobody but terror groups have used them in over 40 years?

 

[Who_Me?]

The Russian army doesn't want a war. The Ukrainians don't want a war. The US and NATO don't want a war. There is only one person that wants a war, Putin. So you send a couple of Seals in and pop the sob, game over.

 

[DudleySmith]

The Russian army doesn't want a war. The Ukrainians don't want a war. The US and NATO don't want a war. There is only one person that wants a war, Putin. So you send a couple of Seals in and pop the sob, game over.

Yes. He's having troubles domestically and losing popularity. Needs big score so his fellow gangster chiefs don't rub him out.

 

[gipper]

The Russian army doesn't want a war. The Ukrainians don't want a war. The US and NATO don't want a war. There is only one person that wants a war, Putin. So you send a couple of Seals in and pop the sob, game over.

Wrong. How many wars has Putin started? Now compare that number with that of the USA.

 

[gipper]

Yes. He's having troubles domestically and losing popularity. Needs big score so his fellow gangster chiefs don't rub him out.

You’re referring to Biden right?

 

[JWBooth]

Not one inch of Ukrainian soil (or any of the other bordering pissant countries) is worth one drop of a US serviceman’s blood or a US taxpayer’s dollar.

 

[gipper]

Not one inch of Ukrainian soil (or any of the other bordering pissant countries) is worth one drop of a US serviceman’s blood or a US taxpayer’s dollar.

Unfortunately many Americans are easily duped into war by our criminal government and media. They think it’s patriotic or something. Purposely ignoring thousands of years of evidence that war is a racket and the health of the state.

 

[Silver Cat]

No, it is illegal against all targets, military or civilian.

It is known as the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, signed at Geneva and entered into force on 10 October 1980.

Which by the way is the same Convention that outlawed land mines and blinding weapons (LASERs). It even put into place other things, like all shrapnel from fragmentary weapons must be detectable through X-Rays (no fragments of glass, plastic, etc). Why do you think nobody but terror groups have used them in over 40 years?

Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Protocol III on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons prohibits, in all circumstances, making the civilian population as such, individual civilians or civilian objects, the object of attack by any weapon or munition which is primarily designed to set fire to objects or to cause burn injury to persons through the action of flame, heat or a combination thereof, produced by a chemical reaction of a substance delivered on the target. The protocol also prohibits the use of air-delivered incendiary weapons against military targets within a concentration of civilians, and limits the use of incendiary weapons delivered by other means. Forest and other plants may not be a target unless they are used to conceal combatants or other military objectives.[2][9] Protocol III lists certain munition types like smoke shells which only have a secondary or additional incendiary effect; these munition types are not considered to be incendiary weapons.[10]

 

[Silver Cat]

Wrong. How many wars has Putin started? Now compare that number with that of the USA.

Russia has never started an aggressive war in the last 1000 years.

 

[gipper]

Russia has never started an aggressive war in the last 1000 years.

Not true.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Russia has never started an aggressive war in the last 1000 years.

What did they do in Poland in 1939?

 

[Silver Cat]

What did they do in Poland in 1939?

Collective self-defence. Poland attacked Czechoslovakia, the ally of the USSR, and the Soviet-Polish non-aggression pact was cancelled. Then, when Polish state ended its existence under German strikes, Soviet Union recognized this fact and protected lands of the Western Ukraine, Western Belorussia and Lithuania, previously illegally occupied by Poland.

 

[gipper]

Collective self-defence. Poland attacked Czechoslovakia, the ally of the USSR, and the Soviet-Polish non-aggression pact was cancelled. Then, when Polish state ended its existence under German strikes, Soviet Union recognized this fact and protected lands of the Western Ukraine, Western Belorussia and Lithuania, previously illegally occupied by Poland.

What?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Collective self-defence. Poland attacked Czechoslovakia, the ally of the USSR, and the Soviet-Polish non-aggression pact was cancelled. Then, when Polish state ended its existence under German strikes, Soviet Union recognized this fact and protected lands of the Western Ukraine, Western Belorussia and Lithuania, previously illegally occupied by Poland.

Do you write for late night?
That's some funny shit.

 

[Silver Cat]

What?

Three simple facts:
1) Poland was an aggressor, who attacked Czechoslovakia, ally of the USSR in 1938.
2) At September 17 of 1939 Polish state was not existed as an organised force de facto.
3) Red Army liberated lands of the Western Ukraine, Western Belorussia and Vilnius region, which were populated mostly by Ukrainians, Belorussians and Lithuanians, and which were previously occupied by Poland.

 

[gipper]

Three simple facts:
1) Poland was an aggressor, who attacked Czechoslovakia, ally of the USSR in 1938.
2) At September 17 of 1939 Polish state was not existed as an organised force de facto.
3) Red Army liberated lands of the Western Ukraine, Western Belorussia and Vilnius region, which were populated mostly by Ukrainians, Belorussians and Lithuanians, and which were previously occupied by Poland.

Lol

 

[Mushroom]

Protocol III on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons prohibits, in all circumstances, making the civilian population as such, individual civilians or civilian objects, the object of attack by any weapon or munition which is primarily designed to set fire to objects or to cause burn injury to persons through the action of flame, heat or a combination thereof, produced by a chemical reaction of a substance delivered on the target.

Now I normally do not use WIkipedia, but it seems you did not read your own reference very clearly. Therefore I quote from the very first sentence.

The aim of the Convention and its Protocols is to provide new rules for the protection of civilians from injury by weapons that are used in armed conflicts and also to protect combatants from unnecessary suffering.

Trust me, it does indeed cover both. In fact, two very specific instances where the US uses its own interpretation of the law have been commented on now for over 4 decades.

One of which was that the use of White Phosphorous as a concealing agent is legal, so long as it is not specifically targeted against enemy personnel. Secondly, that the US can (and does) still use the M18 Claymore Mine, but only in a "command detonation" manner of firing, and no longer uses them with any kind of "trip wire" or other self-detonation system. Hence, we still train people in their use, but the units no longer come with the trip wire detonator and we do not train how to use them in that way.

And why some munitions like the recently developed (1976) M202 Flash were soon pulled from service. I was likely one of the last trained in the use of that particular weapon, it was a 4 tube short range shoulder fired weapon, specifically designed to "burn out" the occupants of a bunker using 66mm incendiary rockets.

Essentially it fired a "modern napalm" charge that burned even hotter than napalm, and could produce third degree burns simply from the indirect heat radiated. But by 1984 all training in this weapon was stopped and it was withdrawn from service and retired. This is because after years of arguing that it was not a "flame weapon" as it does not use flame at all the US was warned that if it was used it would indeed constitute a war crime.

But please, if you want to go on about this I can. But remember, the Laws of Land Warfare have been of primary importance of mine since 1983. Not sure exactly how much experience and training you have in this subject, but I literally taught it at one time. And I have yet to hear of any weapon that is legal to use against combatants, but illegal to use against civilians. It does not work that way.

 

[Mushroom]

1) Poland was an aggressor, who attacked Czechoslovakia, ally of the USSR in 1938.

Oh my god, that is complete coprolite. What, are you some kind of Nazi?

And I mean that literally, as what you just said is the worst kind of propaganda garbage.

Poland demanded a rail city that was right on their border and had been part of an ongoing border dispute since WWI. And the rail town happened to be in part of Czechoslovakia that Germany have handed back over to them. On 20 September 1938 Poland gave them an ultimatum that they were going to take the town, and on 1 October 1938 the Czech foreign ministry conceded to their demands and ordered all military forces to withdraw. And they simply accepted the annexation of the town of Bohumin and the countryside around it.

They did not invade, by the time a single Polish soldier crossed the border, the ongoing border dispute was resolved and the Czech government gave in to their demands of the new border placement.

Holy hell, you quite literally there are using part of the German casus belli that Germany included in their invasion of Poland! I guess you are just a little Adolph Fan Boi, but I never realized it before.

2) At September 17 of 1939 Polish state was not existed as an organised force de facto.

Well this is a real "no shit!" kind of statement.

Germany invaded Poland on 1 September 1929, and on 13 September the capitol of Warsaw was under siege and the government for most realistic purposes collapsed. The operation of the remaining units in the field was turned over to the local commanders as in effect no orders could be given any longer from Warsaw, and any given might come under duress so they were released to independent action.

I just can't believe that you are trying to use those two points, and apparently using them as a justification for what happened in Poland in WWII.

 

[gipper]

 

[Silver Cat]

Now I normally do not use WIkipedia, but it seems you did not read your own reference very clearly. Therefore I quote from the very first sentence.



Trust me, it does indeed cover both. In fact, two very specific instances where the US uses its own interpretation of the law have been commented on now for over 4 decades.

One of which was that the use of White Phosphorous as a concealing agent is legal, so long as it is not specifically targeted against enemy personnel. Secondly, that the US can (and does) still use the M18 Claymore Mine, but only in a "command detonation" manner of firing, and no longer uses them with any kind of "trip wire" or other self-detonation system. Hence, we still train people in their use, but the units no longer come with the trip wire detonator and we do not train how to use them in that way.

And why some munitions like the recently developed (1976) M202 Flash were soon pulled from service. I was likely one of the last trained in the use of that particular weapon, it was a 4 tube short range shoulder fired weapon, specifically designed to "burn out" the occupants of a bunker using 66mm incendiary rockets.

Essentially it fired a "modern napalm" charge that burned even hotter than napalm, and could produce third degree burns simply from the indirect heat radiated. But by 1984 all training in this weapon was stopped and it was withdrawn from service and retired. This is because after years of arguing that it was not a "flame weapon" as it does not use flame at all the US was warned that if it was used it would indeed constitute a war crime.

But please, if you want to go on about this I can. But remember, the Laws of Land Warfare have been of primary importance of mine since 1983. Not sure exactly how much experience and training you have in this subject, but I literally taught it at one time. And I have yet to hear of any weapon that is legal to use against combatants, but illegal to use against civilians. It does not work that way.

Whatever... Russia actively use individual rocket flamethrowers, heavy flamethrowers and incendiary bombs in Syria, and there is no any reason to think, that they won't use it in Ukraine, too...