The Ukraine War thread

[McTallshort]

Not sure what your point is here? Easy to call for war or troops to be deployed when you are not the one to put yourself in harms way. Just like firefighters and police officers, easy to sit at home in a recliner on your phone and dissect their actions over minutes where there is zero risk to you when they have to react in seconds and their lives are potentially at stake

Ok so I have been in harms way and I have deployed and even at the tender age of 49 I would probably still be up for driving or construction in support of a deployment and I as a British taxpayer be more than happy for UK troops to deploy to protect Ukraine as per any peace agreement.

I really don't understand this whole "you shouldn't care about Ukraine unless you're willing to die there" it's a ******* lazy argument and pretty stupid

 

[Yulia]

Prove a point and head out there now…..

Well yeah, you have to take responsibility for your words actually
(I say it in general and not trying to pique Ragey in this concrete case though)

 

[Sour Patch Kid]

Would you defend a policeman for shooting someone they deemed a criminal if in truth they were no threat?

First of all you can't shoot someone for them being a criminal. It all depends on the circumstances and why or what threat the officer perceived at the time that he shot someone, not what we later found out. Perfect example is the officer who shoots someone who points an airsoft weapon at them. It looks real, the reasonable person and officer would perceive it to be real at the time of the incident, it isn't until after the incident that it was discovered that the weapon was fake. In that case, yes I would defend that officer. The officer has to act on the information that he/she has at the time of the incident taking into account all the factors, not what is discovered later. Such a question as you asked is a very much, case-by-case basis.

 

[Sour Patch Kid]

Ok so I have been in harms way and I have deployed and even at the tender age of 49 I would probably still be up for driving or construction in support of a deployment and I as a British taxpayer be more than happy for UK troops to deploy to protect Ukraine as per any peace agreement.

I really don't understand this whole "you shouldn't care about Ukraine unless you're willing to die there" it's a ******* lazy argument and pretty stupid

Huge difference, you have been in harms way and have a VERY different appreciation for what that entails. Like an informed decision so to say. Not sure what exactly that means (military, police, fire department) don't know your background. And I didn't say you shouldn't care if you're not willing to die there but if you are so in favor of troops deploying there are you willing to put your money where your mouth is and deploy as well

 

[TommiG88]

Why isn't putin on the front line in Ukraine then?

 

[General Melchett]

Well yeah, you have to take responsibility for your words actually
(I say it in general and not trying to pique Ragey in this concrete case though)

With respect I really don't understand this line of thinking. Ragey didn't start the war or play any part in bringing it about. He is entitled to an opinion and is sharing it on a forum = free speech. He is under no obligation to walk the talk. Asking Putin or Lavrov to send their kids to the front line is much more valid IMO.

 

[McTallshort]

Huge difference, you have been in harms way and have a VERY different appreciation for what that entails. Like an informed decision so to say. Not sure what exactly that means (military, police, fire department) don't know your background. And I didn't say you shouldn't care if you're not willing to die there but if you are so in favor of troops deploying there are you willing to put your money where your mouth is and deploy as well

Didn't I just say I was?

 

[Yulia]

Why isn't putin on the front line in Ukraine then?

He's already participating in a war as a supreme commander-in-chief of his state. And bears responsibility for this war.

Asking Putin or Lavrov to send their kids to the front line is much more valid IMO.

They have daughters.
But in general I agree

 

[TommiG88]

He's already participating in a war as a supreme commander-in-chief of his state. And bears responsibility for this war.

So he's not talking the talk…… he's sent troops to invade another country on his behalf.

 

[Sour Patch Kid]

With respect I really don't understand this line of thinking. Ragey didn't start the war or play any part in bringing it about. He is entitled to an opinion and is sharing it on a forum = free speech. He has no obligation to walk the talk. Asking Putin or Lavrov to send their kids to the front line is much more valid IMO.

As an American I 100% accept the free speech aspects of him sharing an opinion but I also believe 100% in people challenging or questioning his position as well.
We all know they aren't sending their kids to the front lines. Politicians of all stripes seem very adept at avoiding that

 

[Sour Patch Kid]

Didn't I just say I was?

I didn't mean YOU specifically I meant the colloquial you.

 

[General Melchett]

As an American I 100% accept the free speech aspects of him sharing an opinion but I also believe 100% in people challenging or questioning his position as well.
We all know they aren't sending their kids to the front lines. Politicians of all stripes seem very adept at avoiding that

No-one is saying that he shouldn't be challenged. People were merely challenging the challenge which IMO didn't hold up.

 

[Yulia]

So he's not talking the talk…… he's sent troops to invade another country on his behalf.

Not to protect Putin, but just to respond you in general:
Generals and Colonels are also not on the front line usually,but that doesn't mean they don't take part in a war

 

[BrokenWing]

With respect I really don't understand this line of thinking. Ragey didn't start the war or play any part in bringing it about. He is entitled to an opinion and is sharing it on a forum = free speech. He has no obligation to walk the talk. Asking Putin or Lavrov to send their kids to the front line is much more valid IMO.

Bit too much of the battle dodging, nappy wearing, I'd rather have a cup of tea than charge stark naked at Ivan about it.

 

[General Melchett]

Bit too much of the battle dodging, nappy wearing, I'd rather have a cup of tea than charge stark naked at Ivan about it.

Zelensky is a damn fine chap. Not a pen pushing desk sucking blotter jotter like Vance here.

 

[McTallshort]

I didn't mean YOU specifically I meant the colloquial you.

You mean as long as I don't have bone spurs?

 

[Sour Patch Kid]

You mean as long as I don't have bone spurs?

What are you talking about? I wasn't saying anything about you individually only the people who beat the drum without knowing anything about the personal cost. Regardless of your area of service I respect that and your perspective about going in harm's way.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

The "If there was a mass mobilization" is a pretty weak and cowardly argument. Easy to sit back and suggest others put themselves in harm's way when you have no intention of doing it yourself. Why do you need mass mobilization? Ukraine accepts individual foreign volunteers.

Because the point is advocating the nation as a whole support it, not individuals. This is no different to saying people who advocate higher taxes should just voluntarily pay higher taxes themselves. Again, it's a weak strawman. I also advocate increased funding in science, are you going to turn around now and demand I give up my life savings for science, or otherwise I can't hold that view? Or perhaps demand I become a scientist (whilst simultaneously being a policeman, fireman and every other position I happen to advocate)?

Seeing the idiocy of this line of strawman yet? It's impossible to personally contribute to every position you advocate.

 

[Sour Patch Kid]

HUGE difference between advocating for money spent versus people being sent into violent conflict as far as willingness to risk personal safety/comfort. Also do you think that the UK would support mass mobilization or is that something that would be political suicide for any politician that suggested it?

 

[McTallshort]

HUGE difference between advocating for money spent versus people being sent into violent conflict as far as willingness to risk personal safety/comfort. Also do you think that the UK would support mass mobilization or is that something that would be political suicide for any politician that suggested it?

We have had massive mobilisation before and it's not looked at as a problem. Quite the opposite in fact