"All of Vlad's forces and all of Vlad's men, are out to put Humpty together again."

Can we at least put East LA into that definition?

Thumpalumpacus said:

Can we at least put East LA into that definition?

Click to expand...

L.A. used to belong to Spain - pretty sure they don't want it back...

GrauGeist said:

L.A. used to belong to Spain - pretty sure they don't want it back...

Click to expand...

To paraphrase Sherman, if I owned Hell and Los Angeles, I'd live in Hell and rent Los Angeles out.

The Falklands was an economic war over the production of the froth for the top of stout, ale, beer etc anyway.

In other words, a war over Penguins. You boil them up and the white part floats to the top.

Poot hog must be getting desperate. World News reported that he just conscripted another 140,000 future corpses.

Looks like Ukrainians are getting fiesty. Apparently they struck an oil facility in Russia

nuuumannn said:

Nice that you have pointed all these things out, but you haven't really done anything except provide circumstantial evidence behind your assertion. Were you in the room when the statements of intent were being written? Yes, the nuclear issue is definitely a consideration when tackling a nuclear power, but that doesn't mean NATO is acting in those other scenarios simply because these countries are not nuclear powers - there were outside mitigating factors.

Click to expand...

Do I need to be in the room to know that NATO and the UN have only acted on non nuclear possessing nations - that's fact - if you decide to ignore this - up to you

nuuumannn said:

As for things like the Falklands War, what has NATO got to do with it simply because the UK is in NATO? This is the point I made earlier, NATO states do not have to be beholden to NATO, they can act independently of NATO. NATO had NOTHING to do with the UK response to the Argentine invasion of the islands, in fact, I don't even see the connection, to be frank.

Click to expand...

The Falklands are British territory - as such NATO member Britain was attacked. As such NATO is obliged to aid Britain, however as I pointed out the NATO framework excluded British territories such as the Falklands. I brought in this example to proof that despite the NATO being a defensive organization at that time, it did not stop Britain from taking military action.
As such what is stopping a NATO member from taking action now in the Ukraine/Russia issue - NUKES. If Argentina would have had nukes - you can bet they would have solved the issue by peaceful means. If you remember Thatcher even threatened nuclear retaliation towards Argentinian mainland if the British troopships (passenger-cruisers) and carriers would be attacked.

nuuumannn said:

Firstly, you are deliberately muddying the waters by considering all actions carried out by NATO member states as being NATO ordered, which clearly they are not. Secondly, the nuclear issue obviously informs how NATO will act, but it is not (take note, others) the only driver behind NATO's actions in the past and present, certainly not in this case when the Sec Gen (again, how many times do I have to point this out?!) stated that NATO was not going to provoke a full scale war in Europe.

Click to expand...

I never stated NATO ordered military involvement - but military actions commanded by NATO upon receiving it's orders from their respective governments. You are muddying in this case. And UN resolutions are guided by their respective members governments - who clearly have never taken steps towards attacking a nuclear armed nation. If you can't realize that
and the reasons okay, your problem not mine.

nuuumannn said:

Obviously the nuclear issue is big and changes the dynamic (I've said this before...) and NATO is right to be cautious regarding Putin's threats of using nuclear weapons in-theatre. What NATO fears right now is a possible incursion into NATO space that would result in war in Europe. Those Baltic State NATO members are probably feeling quite vulnerable right now.

Click to expand...

It is not a big change, absolutely not - because NATO has never attacked a nuclear armed nation and never will.
Putin IMHO will not attack the Baltic states - being NATO members and as such profiting from the NATO nuke deterrent.

That is the prime purpose of NATO since the late 60's - to prevent a nuke war - since every party was and is aware that a conventional war will sooner or later end in nuclear confrontation, and that is exactly as to why NATO has and will never attack a nuke possessing country.
Putin is very well aware of that. However the Ukraine is not a NATO member so Putin believes he can roam around in non NATO countries as much as he wants.
Just as NATO, Putin adheres exactly to the same doctrine - the existence of nukes will prevent a direct involvement of NATO, e.g. in the Ukraine conflict.

Back to topic:
That is why I keep repeating and repeating and repeating that economical sanctions are the presently only valid means to cripple Putin's ambitions. Independently of arming the Ukraine to it's teeth, and not fantasizing about possible theoretical military actions by NATO endorsed by the UN.

Regards
Jagdflieger

*yawn*

Noice:

Seems like Russians have left Chernobyl and airport at Hostomel.

tomo pauk said:

Seems like Russians have left Chernobyl and airport at Hostomel.

Click to expand...

That's interesting. The Chernobyl site was an ongoing threat as in if it was blown up or something.

Something just seems odd on the alleged oil depot attack in Russia. Why would they send a couple of helicoptors at night into Russia to attack instead of lobbing a couple of missiles?

vikingBerserker said:

Something just seems odd on the alleged oil depot attack in Russia. Why would they send a couple of helicoptors at night into Russia to attack instead of lobbing a couple of missiles?

Click to expand...

Equipment availability? Target of opportunity?

I've read that the Ukrainians are very active at night, both with fixed wing and rotary - something that has plagued the Russians from day one.

To compound the Russian's frustration, the Ukraine equipment is hidden during the day and uses roads and such for operations, rarely staying in the same location for very long.

Dimlee said:

Some fireworks near Belgorod, Russian Federation.

Just some accident, right. A cigarette, a short circuit...
And why do I remember that:

Click to expand...

And again. They really need to improve their safety measures. Ban smoking in hazardous areas, keep the fire extinguisher nearby during the welding work...

vikingBerserker said:

Something just seems odd on the alleged oil depot attack in Russia. Why would they send a couple of helicoptors at night into Russia to attack instead of lobbing a couple of missiles?

Click to expand...

There could be several reasons -- equipment availability was just mentioned. Maybe the Ukrainians wanted to go against expectations in order to keep the Russian defenses off-balance. Maybe the helo pilots ran out of trucks to shoot up.

In any event, striking at the fuel reserves of an opponent who has already shown slipshod logistical acumen is a good thing. It can help prevent what is obviously a Russian redeployment (rather than a "humanitarian withdrawal") from the northern front to the Donbas. I've read that eight storage tanks of fuel are burning.

I love how "Russia" accuses Ukraine of attacking one of their oil depots. As if Ukraine does not have the right to fight back.

vikingBerserker said:

Something just seems odd on the alleged oil depot attack in Russia. Why would they send a couple of helicoptors at night into Russia to attack instead of lobbing a couple of missiles?

Click to expand...

What helicopters. Ukraine's MoD just said that Ukraine is not responsible for the safety accidents on the territory of RF.
Moscow has declared it has established absolute air superiority over a month ago.
UFOs disguised as choppers? A flock of birds with self-combustion capability? Asteroid?

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:

I love how "Russia" accuses Ukraine of attacking one of their oil depots. As if Ukraine does not have the right to fight back.

Click to expand...

It's fluent "whiny bitch" again.

Right, the word "accuse" is sorely out of place in describing a war operation.

Here's the tank farm itself after the attack:




... and a short video of the strike itself can been seen here.