"All of Vlad's forces and all of Vlad's men, are out to put Humpty together again." (4 Viewers)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

I believe it's "fiduciary duty" and has roots in Olde English law.
You might find that it isn't so clear cut and that one could argue that maximising profit doesn't fall under such.


But I digress...
 
For the resident tankers. The M-55S have real frontline use yet? T-55 refurbished in 1999 seems wordt than the russian T-62 at first sight.

 
Wasn't sure whether to put this in the Ukraine thread or the jokes thread....but it wasn't that funny so I threw it in here.


I guess we should all be glad that the UK wasn't turned into a glass-bottomed swimming pool yesterday. What a peaceful bunch those nice Russians are!!!!!

For drgondog ,, the US may be reviled but please note that Britain is "the root of all evil." The Russian guy in the above video clip said so!
 
It defies logic how these separatist states think they can allow their illegally seized territories to become annexed by Russia.

No matter, Ukraine will just "annex" it back, anyway...
It's a slippery precedent too. There are hundreds of thousands of ethnic Chinese in Russia's mostly undefended Far East. Does Russia want to show China how to take territory through sham referenda?
 
I'm not arguing anything. Take it up with an attorney familiar with American corporate law. I'm not.
 
Sigh. That's a step backwards. What's next for the UAF, Ishermans?

Step backwards?

The M-55 S1 has been completely modernized and up-gunned to the point that it only has looks in common with the T-55.

Optics, gunnery computer, ERA armor (provided by Israel), new suspension, higher HP engine, larger caliber cannon, LIRD defense system, Israeli smoke grenade system and much more.
 
I'm not arguing anything. Take it up with an attorney familiar with American corporate law. I'm not.
Fiducary duty is the duty of directors duty to the company, not necessarily shareholders.
In this example, directors may decide it is better for the company, in the long run, to take a moral stance rather than seeking to maximise short-term profits. Especially when they are then able to sell 'battle-proven' military hardware.

But, this is all a moot point, as ITAR means that the company doesn't have the option of unilaterally sending arms anywhere.
 

Users who are viewing this thread