Russian invasion of Ukraine

[Elder Millennial]

That's IF there are elections. Because the Democrats seem desperate to stop Trump from even running in 2024, and any rash decision to forbid him from running in some way, may actually start significant civil conflicts, causing elections to get postponed if not something worse than that. I mean if the Democrats' goal is to quite literally forbid Trump from running, they are playing with fire, as lots of people absolutely worship Trump, and others put a lot of hope for change into him.

Let's ignore the conspiracy theories here for a moment. There's only one party in America that wants to cancel elections if they don't go their way, and it's not the Democratic party.

But, I'd just like to point out, that there's no such thing as "not allowing" Trump to run. Trump could be serving a life sentence in federal prison he could still run. More importantly if Cheeto Fuhrer is what you absolutely want, I'd just like to remind you that you are literally allowed to write in any name whether that name is on the ballot or not.

But again, there's only one party that wants to cancel elections or rejects their results when it doesn't go their way. Republicans. So stop.

Stop trying to blame the Democrats for the abyssal disconnect between the GOP base and the general public.

Currently there's no Republican that could win a primary who at the same time could win a general election too.

And while a lot of people (including myself) thought DeSantis might be it (for a brief moment circa late 2020 to early 2021), DeSantis' presidential ambitions died as his "War on Woke" peaked. He stopped looking "conservative but competent" and started looking just weird and unhinged.

[noidentity]

Senator Tommy Tuberville said Monday he did not think Ukraine could win the war against Russia and compared Ukraine’s efforts to a junior high team trying to defeat a college team in a hypothetical sports match.

In an interview with Fox News’s Laura Ingraham on Monday night, Tuberville touted his record voting against funding for Ukraine and said that, while he supported the country’s efforts over Russia, he thought Ukraine was outmatched and that no amount of funding would change that.

“I haven’t voted for a dime to send Ukraine,” Tuberville told Ingraham. “I’m for Ukraine. Russia should have never done this. I was in Ukraine three months with President [Volodymyr] Zelensky before this started. They were already fighting to that point.”

“But, at the end of the day, it’s a junior high team playing a college team,” he continued. “They can’t win. We can throw all the money we want to, but unless we send NATO and our troops over, which we’re not going to do, if I have got anything to do with it, then there’s no chance.”

Tuberville’s comments come amid increasing concern that support for Ukraine might be waning among American voters and among Republicans in Congress.

Oh wow a Republican spouting Russian talking points, shocker (for you as usual, not for anyone else).

[Flarelaine]

Fortifications can be bombed, but minefields require specialized equipment to clear, unfortunately.

Unless you are Russia and can just send your infantry through. The Soviets did, anyway.

- - - Updated - - -

That's IF there are elections. Because the Democrats seem desperate to stop Trump from even running in 2024, and any rash decision to forbid him from running in some way, may actually start significant civil conflicts, causing elections to get postponed if not something worse than that. I mean if the Democrats' goal is to quite literally forbid Trump from running, they are playing with fire, as lots of people absolutely worship Trump, and others put a lot of hope for change into him.

This thread is about the war in Ukraine. Do not bring US politics into it any more than they are directly connected and especially do not bring conspiracy theories here.

[diller]

Senator Tommy Tuberville said Monday....

Your point being?

[Azadina]

Unless you are Russia and can just send your infantry through. The Soviets did, anyway.

Wouldn't mind if Ukraine sent captured ruZZkies on a 3 day special mine clearing operation. They'll need to capture some more though.

[Flarelaine]

Wouldn't mind if Ukraine sent captured ruZZkies on a 3 day special mine clearing operation. They'll need to capture some more though.

Careful. I'm assuming this is sarcasm but it sounds an awful lot like advocating for war crimes.

[Azadina]

Careful. I'm assuming this is sarcasm but it sounds an awful lot like advocating for war crimes.

Sorry, not seeing it quite that way.

People will die clearing the mines, that's one fact I doubt neither will argue. Now you have two groups of people to do the task. Those who are innocent, and those who are guilty. Are you telling me here with straight face, that picking the innocents to die is fine, but making the guilty deal with the problem they created is crime? The law is horseshit if that's the case, and I'll keep my answer in which group should have at it.

[Ivanstone]

Sorry, not seeing it quite that way.

Its against the Geneva Convention to force prisoners to do dangerous work.

Both France and Denmark forced German POW's to clear mines after WWII. Hundreds of them died. That might seem fair to some but humane treatment of prisoners is the difference between a good nation and a shithead nation.

[Veggie50]

Sorry, not seeing it quite that way.

People will die clearing the mines, that's one fact I doubt neither will argue. Now you have two groups of people to do the task. Those who are innocent, and those who are guilty. Are you telling me here with straight face, that picking the innocents to die is fine, but making the guilty deal with the problem they created is crime? The law is horseshit if that's the case, and I'll keep my answer in which group should have at it.

Hmmm you would punish a collective for the deeds of others though. Mind you, in their mind they may very well not be the guilty party. Nor in the history of war tribunals, has a common soldier been convicted for warcrimes because he was part of an invading army.

It's a gut reaction, sure. I personally wouldn't care less if Russian soldiers accidentally blow themselves up with their own mines. But there's a moral highground to keep here.

[Iphie]

Sorry, not seeing it quite that way.

People will die clearing the mines, that's one fact I doubt neither will argue. Now you have two groups of people to do the task. Those who are innocent, and those who are guilty. Are you telling me here with straight face, that picking the innocents to die is fine, but making the guilty deal with the problem they created is crime? The law is horseshit if that's the case, and I'll keep my answer in which group should have at it.

Your premise is flawed. Do I want the innocent to die? No of course not, don't be daft. But making the guilty clean up the mess runs afoul of all sorts of international conventions (most notably the Geneva one). It's shitty but at the same time it also prevents Ukrainian POWs from being sent into an Ukrainian minefield for clearing (prevents used here to mean: should not happen but russia is a smelly country so they would totally do it anyway but it is not allowed.)

[Flarelaine]

Sorry, not seeing it quite that way.

People will die clearing the mines, that's one fact I doubt neither will argue. Now you have two groups of people to do the task. Those who are innocent, and those who are guilty. Are you telling me here with straight face, that picking the innocents to die is fine, but making the guilty deal with the problem they created is crime? The law is horseshit if that's the case, and I'll keep my answer in which group should have at it.

Even if they are guilty - and it is debatable in the case of conscripts - courts around the West would still likely qualify this as cruel and unusual punishment.

[Canpinter]

Even if they are guilty - and it is debatable in the case of conscripts - courts around the West would still likely qualify this as cruel and unusual punishment.

Especially because azadian is clearly just suggesting it as a thinly viled means of mass execution.

Hell even from a simple tactical perspective it's a horrible idea. You want the enemy soldiers to surrender to you and if they think they will have to clear minefields and die they are less likely to do so.

[Shadowferal]

Yea...enemy soldiers, in this particular case, conscripts, need to know that they'll be treated better, far more so, than going back home.

[Gabriel]

Your premise is flawed. Do I want the innocent to die? No of course not, don't be daft. But making the guilty clean up the mess runs afoul of all sorts of international conventions (most notably the Geneva one). It's shitty but at the same time it also prevents Ukrainian POWs from being sent into an Ukrainian minefield for clearing (prevents used here to mean: should not happen but russia is a smelly country so they would totally do it anyway but it is not allowed.)

This is the best reason not to do it, even if the invaders would deserve it.

[Azadina]

Especially because azadian is clearly just suggesting it as a thinly viled means of mass execution.

Hell even from a simple tactical perspective it's a horrible idea. You want the enemy soldiers to surrender to you and if they think they will have to clear minefields and die they are less likely to do so.

Only if the mine clearers are incompetent, or the ruZZkies choose to shoot and artillery their own people doing the mine clearing. Neither of which you could fault me for. It would once again be purely their own fault.

[Shadowferal]

Only if the mine clearers are incompetent, or the ruZZkies choose to shoot and artillery their own people doing the mine clearing. Neither of which you could fault me for. It would once again be purely their own fault.

As sympathetic as I may be here, one needs to consider all the ramifications. If one can't consider forced conscription, and those that'd willingly surrender, then the political consequences need to be seen to.

[Azadina]

Hmmm you would punish a collective for the deeds of others though. Mind you, in their mind they may very well not be the guilty party. Nor in the history of war tribunals, has a common soldier been convicted for warcrimes because he was part of an invading army.

It's a gut reaction, sure. I personally wouldn't care less if Russian soldiers accidentally blow themselves up with their own mines. But there's a moral highground to keep here.

What others? We were talking captured ruZZki invaders, weren't we? They ARE the ones who have been doing the "deeds of others" in Ukraine. Also whether they think they're invading, murdering pillagers, doesn't concern me one bit. They are, as long as they crossed the border into Ukraine to do so. They could have picked the "let's not go there" option, but did not.

Your premise is flawed. Do I want the innocent to die? No of course not, don't be daft. But making the guilty clean up the mess runs afoul of all sorts of international conventions (most notably the Geneva one). It's shitty but at the same time it also prevents Ukrainian POWs from being sent into an Ukrainian minefield for clearing (prevents used here to mean: should not happen but russia is a smelly country so they would totally do it anyway but it is not allowed.)

It wasn't a question of what you ideally want to happen or not. It was simply picking either innocent group of people for dangerous and fatal task, or the group who are at fault for it in the first place. One or the other, there's no option three in sight. You're picking the innocents because something something law, geneva, morality, something war is shitty etc. How nice for them right? Heartwarming I'm sure.

[Gorsameth]

Sigh.
It is the strategically smart choice to treat captives well. Enemy soldiers who know they will be treated cruelly and/or killed if captured have little reason not to fight to the death. Soldiers who know they will be treated humanly are more likely to surrender when given the option.

Using captives as human mine clears does a LOT LOT LOT more bad long term then they could ever do 'good' short term

The only reason to want to treat captives badly is because you want sadistic vengeance. Nothing more.

[Sunseeker]

Sigh.
It is the strategically smart choice to treat captives well. Enemy soldiers who know they will be treated cruelly and/or killed if captured have little reason not to fight to the death. Soldiers who know they will be treated humanly are more likely to surrender when given the option.

Using captives as human mine clears does a LOT LOT LOT more bad long term then they could ever do 'good' short term

The only reason to want to treat captives badly is because you want sadistic vengeance. Nothing more.

Not to mention, there's no incentive to do a job like mine clearing well. Miss a mine? Oh well, I guess it sucks to be those guys behind me.

[Azadina]

Not to mention, there's no incentive to do a job like mine clearing well. Miss a mine? Oh well, I guess it sucks to be those guys behind me.

If you're doing mine clearing, I'd imagine you'd find some incentive to do a proper job. One simple incentive if nothing else.