This one was the moment went after Kyev.
United States US presidential election 2024
- Thread starter Carrot of Truth
- Start date
mrttao
Well-known member
your reading comprehension is abysmal
Terthna is explicitly arguing that total war does not exist, all war is total war.
You are arguing that the war between Russia and Ukraine is a total war, which is barely tangentially related argument.
Blasterbot
Well-known member
can we send this back to the Ukraine war threads and not argue about the Ukraine war for another 6-10 pages? we get it. the arguments have been made 8 times already in other threads. nobody is gonna move anyone on this issue at this point.
strunkenwhite
Well-known member
Is the presidential election campaign a total war? 
Okay cool.
Still a military target and perfectly viable according to the laws of war. It's dual purpose, doesn't make it not a target.
Russians can survive without oil, they can still travel snd the like.
its mot like they have to take cars ir busses everywhere....
Putin Says He Prefers More 'Predictable' Biden Over Trump
Russian President Vladimir Putin described U.S. President Joe Biden as more "predictable" than former President Donald Trump, but said the Kremlin is prepared to work with whoever wins the 2024 U.S. presidential election.
www.google.com
And because Trump would attempt a peace deal, Ukraine would rather die then let Russia win a war of aggression.
So Trump winning could mean more support if Russia and Ukraine can't compromise, or something escalates.
LordsFire
Internet Wizard
You seem to have missed the fact that the Russians have been fairly explicit about genocidal intentions towards Ukraine.
And that they have been targeting infrastructure that does not directly support the war effort, like power infrastructure that isn't directly connecting a factory to the grid.
Part of how war works is that when the enemy starts engaging in tactics, it is then fair play to use such tactics against them, as far as such things go in war. There are some lines moral men still should not cross, but bombing oil refineries is not one of them.
mrttao
Well-known member
This is called shifting the goalposts.
You went from arguing "fuel is military infrastructure, not civilian infrastructure" (in any war)
To instead arguing "ok I admit fuel is civilian. But it is ok in this specific war because self defense genocide"
mrttao
Well-known member
When has russia bombed ukraine's fuel infrastructure?
Genuine question here. So far the only civilian infrastructure you guys posted russia blowing up was nordstream (blatantly the USA. biden even said so in interview. later ukraine said it was a political rival of zelenski who blew it up on a sailboat with some friends against orders), and that water dam (which has no evidence of being russia)
Almost everything posted here in the sietch about the war is PR about how ukraine is winning everything and russia losing all the time. and any day now russia will get overwhelmed by ukrainian might
Uh...no the aspect if bombing if civilian electrical grids leaving entire cities without power. Targeting of apartment buildings, churches, schools, hospitals.....
The children in a building that said "children inside"....
Huh, how many more can I name.
Tons. I jist don't have time to go through 2 years of war footage to get them all in a reasonable timeframe
mrttao
Well-known member
So when lordsfire said "respond in kind" he meant "civilian for civilian" rather than "fuel for fuel"?
That is a more coherent argument if that is what he meant.
He is saying the Russians have been doing this kind of targeting since the ear started
prinCZess
Warrior, Writer, Performer, Perv
It's relevant to note Ukraine has a single-digit number of refineries because they're small (and were more an oil transit-point from Russia to Europe than a domestic refiner themselves).
That said, Russia droned what wikipedia claims to be the largest refinery in the country in September of last year (and the article notes had attempted strikes before as well).
The wiki-claimed second-largest refinery in the country was attacked in April of the previous year directly in the aftermath of the hostilities starting (captured later in the year).
Luhansk Oblast Governor: Russian forces shell oil refinery in Lysychansk.
Serhiy Haidai said that a fire broke out in an area of 5,000 square meters following the morning attack, and workers are still extinguishing the flame. Shelling still continues in residential areas of Lysychansk and locals are asked to remain in shelters, the official added.
kyivindependent.com
Russian invaders fired on Lysychansk oil refinery – Haidai
Russian invaders have fired on the Lysychansk oil refinery, remaining oil sludge is still burning. — Ukrinform.
www.ukrinform.net
Also in April two years ago there were Russian strikes on (wiki-claimed fourth-largest) oil refinery and storage in Odessa.
So, even restricting the conversation entirely to oil (which isn't exactly an equal comparison since a lot of Ukraine's fuel is coal or nuclear and both have also been recipients of Russian missiles or drones), targeting oil refineries is nothing new. Ukraine is by no means breaking new ground on that front.
It is also worth note that Ukrainian strikes have, to-date, struck refineries and such more consistently than Russian strikes which have overlapped, by either failed targeting or intention we can't for-certain say which, into strikes on apartment buildings and other much more explicitly fully-civilian structures. Part of that is probably a function of Ukraine having less capability in general for these strikes so lower sample-size, and part of it is probably western aid allowing better targeting on their part than Russia...And they're probably incentivized to avoid bad PR for them while Russia has much less of a problem with that.
And intentional strikes on civilian buildings to encourage surrender would not be unheard of from Russia and, particularly, Putin, since it was practiced in Grozny.
*BIG BREATH*
AND to drag this back to some semblance of the thread's topic, that's why the Biden administration's messaging/handling of the issue is bonkers and something he absolutely deserves to take political heat on. Trying to arm-jaggle Ukraine not to actually fight the war we encouraged them towards and have expressed support for is some grade-A silliness. Bad enough when political bullshittery from the 'Best and Brightest' got injected into America's Vietnam war by those folks and got America's ass thrown out, now we're trying to vicariously sabotage our patsies/puppets/allies/clients war efforts on the same political bullshit-basis (and it's not even a very good political bullshit-basis...Putin may be many things, including much more inured to civilian deaths than the West is--which also probly goes for Ukraine in general as well--but he's not an irrational actor by all we can tell, merely a very, very Russian one with a completely different realm of interests and historiography, even).
Anyhow, The State Department is full of imbeciles who are convinced they're intelligent.
Last edited:
LordsFire
Internet Wizard
No, I am not shifting the goalposts.
Oil/fuel infrastructure is always a useful military target, while also serving civilian utilities. I had not realized at the outset of this exchange that you were (somehow) ignorant of the fact that Russia has been bombing civilian infrastructure since the opening phases of the war.
If 'limited warfare' in contrast to 'total war' were ever an option, a case could be made supporting the position you've put forward. I probably still wouldn't agree with it, but the case at least could be made. Last I checked, kind of tightly-constrained limited war hasn't happened between nations since WWI. The Falklands War might count, but I have my doubts given the nature of the conflict.
Russia's been blatantly genocidal in intent since their opening attempt to blitz Kiev failed, and a quick-and-dirty fait accompli couldn't present a puppet government to Europe and the US. The 'Ukraine isn't a real nation' rhetoric and absurd surrender demands alone would be grounds for Ukraine to treat this as a war to the knife, adding in Russia's blatant terror bombings, and there's absolutely no question.
There's no justification for you putting forward such a strident opinion when you've missed such basic facts about the war, and from the start I'd assumed you were aware of such. Don't confuse that for me 'shifting goalposts.'
DarthOne
☦️
It's relevant to note Ukraine has a single-digit number of refineries because they're small (and were more an oil transit-point from Russia to Europe than a domestic refiner themselves).
That said, Russia droned what wikipedia claims to be the largest refinery in the country in September of last year (and the article notes had attempted strikes before as well).
The wiki-claimed second-largest refinery in the country was attacked in April of the previous year directly in the aftermath of the hostilities starting (captured later in the year).
Luhansk Oblast Governor: Russian forces shell oil refinery in Lysychansk.
Serhiy Haidai said that a fire broke out in an area of 5,000 square meters following the morning attack, and workers are still extinguishing the flame. Shelling still continues in residential areas of Lysychansk and locals are asked to remain in shelters, the official added.Russian invaders fired on Lysychansk oil refinery – Haidai
Russian invaders have fired on the Lysychansk oil refinery, remaining oil sludge is still burning. — Ukrinform.
Also in April two years ago there were Russian strikes on (wiki-claimed fourth-largest) oil refinery and storage in Odessa.
So, even restricting the conversation entirely to oil (which isn't exactly an equal comparison since a lot of Ukraine's fuel is coal or nuclear and both have also been recipients of Russian missiles or drones), targeting oil refineries is nothing new. Ukraine is by no means breaking new ground on that front.
It is also worth note that Ukrainian strikes have, to-date, struck refineries and such more consistently than Russian strikes which have overlapped, by either failed targeting or intention we can't for-certain say which, into strikes on apartment buildings and other much more explicitly fully-civilian structures. Part of that is probably a function of Ukraine having less capability in general for these strikes so lower sample-size, and part of it is probably western aid allowing better targeting on their part than Russia...And they're probably incentivized to avoid bad PR for them while Russia has much less of a problem with that.
And intentional strikes on civilian buildings to encourage surrender would not be unheard of from Russia and, particularly, Putin, since it was practiced in Grozny.
*BIG BREATH*
AND to drag this back to some semblance of the thread's topic, that's why the Biden administration's messaging/handling of the issue is bonkers and something he absolutely deserves to take political heat on. Trying to arm-jaggle Ukraine not to actually fight the war we encouraged them towards and have expressed support for is some grade-A silliness. Bad enough when political bullshittery from the 'Best and Brightest' got injected into America's Vietnam war by those folks and got America's ass thrown out, now we're trying to vicariously sabotage our patsies/puppets/allies/clients war efforts on the same political bullshit-basis (and it's not even a very good political bullshit-basis...Putin may be many things, including much more inured to civilian deaths than the West is--which also probly goes for Ukraine in general as well--but he's not an irrational actor by all we can tell, merely a very, very Russian one with a completely different realm of interests and historiography, even).
Anyhow, The State Department is full of imbeciles who are convinced they're intelligent.
Thank you!
Hoping to try and bring this back on track...
So Trump came out with a video where he said that abortion is now a matter for the states.
Does this significantly disarm the Dems push to reinvigorate the Abortion debate and gin up emotional anger in their base?
So Trump came out with a video where he said that abortion is now a matter for the states.
Does this significantly disarm the Dems push to reinvigorate the Abortion debate and gin up emotional anger in their base?
Yes, because the argument he wants a full on abolition of Abortion is false ans they can't push it as what he will do.
He knew what was gonna happen
LordsFire
Internet Wizard
It disarms them among what actual moderates exist out there. Lefties and those who refuse to get out of leftist media bubbles will still swallow whatever is fed to them.
Poe
Well-known member
No that isn't what he said, I watched the video when it came out. He's asked which candidate is better for Russia and he says, "Biden because he's more predictable," and it's pretty clear both from the context of the video, the smirky face Putin makes, the conversation around the time the video was recorded (right after the Tucker interview) and just the consensus among Russians both outside of this video and when discussing it that Putin is taking the piss to trigger the left and it worked. If you think he is dead serious about preferring Biden I don't know what to tell you, it wasn't a serious answer and Putin loves to troll anti-Russian westerners.Okay cool.
Still a military target and perfectly viable according to the laws of war. It's dual purpose, doesn't make it not a target.
Russians can survive without oil, they can still travel snd the like.
its mot like they have to take cars ir busses everywhere....
He outright says he prefers Biden because he knows he can get away with so much more under Biden.Putin Says He Prefers More 'Predictable' Biden Over Trump
Russian President Vladimir Putin described U.S. President Joe Biden as more "predictable" than former President Donald Trump, but said the Kremlin is prepared to work with whoever wins the 2024 U.S. presidential election.
And because Trump would attempt a peace deal, Ukraine would rather die then let Russia win a war of aggression.
So Trump winning could mean more support if Russia and Ukraine can't compromise, or something escalates.
He definitely never "endorsed" Biden and it's ridiculous to even claim so, however a number of his lackies like Dugin have 100% endorsed Trump and Trump (and Elon) is a favorite among Russian bloggers and nationalist podcasters e.g. Russians with Attitude.
Last edited:
Poe
Well-known member
No I'm really just saying Putin is a troll, and gave Trump the ability to push back against collusion while smirking about it, not that you shouldn't roll with it (you should.)