re: Latest Updates: Russia-Ukraine Conflict

quote:

---

If they were needed, okay... but were they needed?

I can remember drone attacks on US servicemen in Syria a couple of years ago, and I would hope they'd received these systems and a shitload stock of missiles immediately after that (they should have had them before it happened).

So to be clear, I can't understand if we stationed Troops somewhere without anti-drone defenses. If they were running low, I guess they needed them... but I have to wonder...

---

I have two sons-in-law in the military, fathers to 8 of my grandchildren. Both are combat veterans in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

Even if they aren’t under immediate threat of drone attack today, they might be tomorrow. And if these weapons might save their lives, then it was absolutely the right decision.

I will never put the support of another country over the support of our troops.

Lee B would. And so.would Cope.

quote:

---

I have two sons-in-law in the military, fathers to 8 of my grandchildren. Both are combat veterans in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

Even if they aren’t under immediate threat of drone attack today, they might be tomorrow. And if these weapons might save their lives, then it was absolutely the right decision.

I will never put the support of another country over the support of our troops.

---

You put it extremely well.

The responsibility of the American State is to protect the American people.
That is accomplished via the US Military.
For them to accomplish that job we need to give them all the tools they may need.

Not after they get attacked.

After our troops are fully supplied comes our allies (of which Ukraine is not one).
NATO and the Major Non NATO allies as designated by Congress.

After that comes the needs of nations we are supporting.

That's the only hierarchy that is sustainable.

Drones are a massively growing warfare area and Iran is obviously exporting them to everyone who hates the US.

Thank your Son In Laws for their service!

quote:

---

The responsibility of the American State is to protect the American people.

---

The nation was founded on trade and the business of State Dept since day 1 has been US business interests. We've sent military overseas to protect US business interests/citizens conducting business whether it has been to North Africa, or Central America or Caribbean Islands, or China or Europe.

quote:

---

I’ve learned that no one in the Middle East is safe.

It’s a bloody region.

---

And it has been that way for 5,000 years...

The responsibility of the American State is to protect the American people AND American interests (including commerce and trade).

You can't seriously argue that it's not part of the "States" responsibility to protect the American people. It's not one or the other; we've used our military for many reasons in the past and will do so in the future.

Now, you can argue that the Government hasn't always made protecting the people its highest priority, with the current immigration issues as Exhibit #1.

quote:

---

The nation was founded on trade and the business of State Dept since day 1

---

This is accurate but ignores the change in role our federal government has undergone since "Day 1" as states have had their power siphoned off by the federal government. The government in those days existed for collective defense, trade facilitation (which in the early days included trade between states, not just international trade), and balancing state and national power.

American business interests don't work (and frankly don't matter) if the American people aren't protected.

quote:

---

Russia is now switching off mobile and internet services, as soon as an attack is being carried out by Ukraine. This is based on an old wartime strategy of preventing information regards damage to be seen by the enemy (Ukraine and the world).

---

Not that this will succeed, it only delay video being sent. But in any case, you would think the Katsaps would have tried this a long time ago.

Oh, and here's my favorite Russian observation -





Ok, this one is good too -






LINK

quote:

---

I just don't see much of a benefit to Russia in symbolic attacks honestly. The winning side doesn't really need it.

---

I don't see much benefit to Russia in constantly hitting civilian targets in cities vs military targets, yet they continue to do it day after day.

It seems like an expenditure of a lot of expensive missiles for minimal ROI.

quote:

---

I just don't see much of a benefit to Russia in symbolic attacks honestly. The winning side doesn't really need it.

I don't see much benefit to Russia in constantly hitting civilian targets in cities vs military targets, yet they continue to do it day after day.

It seems like an expenditure of a lot of expensive missiles for minimal ROI.

---

You have to understand what Russia is doing now; since they have been unable to do much of note on the battlefield even though their cost is high.

They are trying to sell the notion that Ukraine is desperate, they are running out of soldiers and their air defenses have crumbled. They are telling us that Trump is out and Europe can’t continue with enough aid to help.

Then you have Russian generals trying to please Putin. They have to make a showing or else. The best thing they can do is their terror war.