Ukraine conflict
#3302
A dozen? For 220,326 views? That's over 18,000 views each. I really am living in you guys' heads I guess. 😂😂😂
#3303
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,903
Meanwhile, the US war wheel spins itself. Ray ban Joe stumbling around, muttering mindlessly. The hairdo busy off managing Israeli ops. A geriatric 4 star who lost 100lbs in 2 weeks with one foot already out the door. What’s not to like?
#3304
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2023
Posts: 722
#3305
Otherwise the only metric you have to compare it with is the other threads in hangar talk that are two years old. This is the most viewed one I can find with 16,251 views.
San Francisco declares Monkeypox emergency
That's a long way from the now 220,477 views on this thread but if you're claiming that's what you guys are doing I'll concede it's possible. Why any sane person would do that though...well, I don't think they would. Which isn't to say I wouldn't believe the lot of you if that's what you are admitting to doing...😂
#3306
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2023
Posts: 722
To the extent that nothing is impossible, I suppose. So are you openly admitting that you, Hub, Lowslung, tfork, and company each come here 30 times a day to refresh the page to see if you can post another ad hominem attack? I really am living in your head rent-free if that's the case.
Otherwise the only metric you have to compare it with is the other threads in hangar talk that are two years old. This is the most viewed one I can find with 16,251 views.
San Francisco declares Monkeypox emergency
That's a long way from the now 220,477 views on this thread but if you're claiming that's what you guys are doing I'll concede it's possible. Why any sane person would do that though...well, I don't think they would. Which isn't to say I wouldn't believe the lot of you if that's what you are admitting to doing...😂
Otherwise the only metric you have to compare it with is the other threads in hangar talk that are two years old. This is the most viewed one I can find with 16,251 views.
San Francisco declares Monkeypox emergency
That's a long way from the now 220,477 views on this thread but if you're claiming that's what you guys are doing I'll concede it's possible. Why any sane person would do that though...well, I don't think they would. Which isn't to say I wouldn't believe the lot of you if that's what you are admitting to doing...😂
I return to admire my own work.
Seriously though, the view count surged when the war was new, and probably has fallen off to less than 10,000 views per month. Divided between refreshes and page views. I honestly believe there are about 20 or so people who actively view this thread.
Ex... you want to spread your cherrypicked "news" to the masses, get a blog. A non-aviation thread 3 layers deep on a pilot forum is a really poor way of doing it.
Last edited by ReluctantEskimo; 06-19-2024 at 09:53 PM.
#3307
In a land of unicorns
Joined APC: Apr 2014
Position: Whale FO
Posts: 6,633
It's not bad enough that Article 5 is pretty much meaningless in terms of mutual support. NATO allies aren't really obligated to do squat. Basically it gives them permission to do anything they were going to do anyway - big whoop. But it does illustrate why it was silly to bring some of these nations - like Hungary and Slovakia- into NATO in the first place. A lot of these small and pretty much unimportant countries are a liability - not an asset.
Article 5
Article 5
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.”
Let's read it together, IN FULL, so you can see what they are saying. Your boldface is irrelevant, as there is a comma, not a dot, after the second bold.
Lets read the last part of it. "To restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area". That is the obliged ultimate goal of Article 5. Every member agrees, by a legally binding treaty, that the goal is to have security within the North Atlantic area (meaning, member states and a bit of other fluff if you read Article 6, something you didn't bother to do). Article 5 thus obliges each of them, by a legally binding treaty, to do whatever they deem necessary to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area. By saying "we are doing nothing", if their help is required, they are in violation of Article 5, as they are not restoring nor maintaining said security.
That is why Article 5 was invoked after 9/11, as it was decided by the Security Council that terrorism is a threat to security of the North Atlantic area.
When Article 5 was negotiated in the 40's, the language was drafted to prevent an automatic assistance pledge for minor conflicts. There's no point to send full US troops to some regional clash in outskirts of Turkey (just a random example), if they can handle it with ease by themselves. In that case, the US can decide that "doing nothing" or sending equipment is enough. But if the territory of a NATO member is threatened by an outsized force (such as Russia), then it's damn sure the response will be different, as required by Article 5.
#3308
Oh, here is the part you conveniently forgot to quote.
Quote:
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.”
This is why no-one takes you seriously. You can't even read the NATO Article 5 without inserting your BS spin to it.
Quote:
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.”
This is why no-one takes you seriously. You can't even read the NATO Article 5 without inserting your BS spin to it.
Article 51Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.
Let me enlighten you:
United States,
China,
France,
Russian Federation
United Kingdom
Do you understand the word veto?
read this:
https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/un-security-council-working-methods/the-veto.
php
An excerpt:
Beyond permanency itself, the veto power is probably the UN Charter’s most significant distinction between permanent and non-permanent members. Article 27 (3) of the Charter establishes that all substantive decisions of the Council must be made with “the concurring votes of the permanent members”. The veto has been addressed regularly during the annual working methods debates and is among the topics most frequently raised in the context of almost all discussions of Council working methods.
Permanent members use the veto to defend their national interests, to uphold a tenet of their foreign policy or, in some cases, to promote a single issue of particular importance to a state. Since 16 February 1946—when the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) cast the first veto on a draft resolution regarding the withdrawal of foreign troops from Lebanon and Syria (S/PV.23)—the veto has been recorded 293 times.
In the early years, the USSR cast most of the vetoes, with a considerable number of these used to block the admission of a new member state. Over the years, the USSR/Russia has cast a total of 120 vetoes, or close to half of all vetoes. The US cast the first of its 82 vetoes to date on 17 March 1970 (S/9696 and Corr. 1 and 2). The USSR had by that point cast 107 vetoes. Since 1970, the US has used the veto far more than any other permanent member, most frequently to block decisions that it regards as detrimental to the interests of Israel. The UK has used the veto 29 times, the first such instance taking place on 30 October 1956 (S/3710) during the Suez crisis. France applied the veto for the first time on 26 June 1946 with respect to the Spanish Question (S/PV.49) and has cast a total of 16 vetoes. China has used the veto 16 times, with the first one, on 14 December 1955 (S/3502), cast by the Republic of China (ROC) and the remaining 13 by the People’s Republic of China after it succeeded ROC as a permanent member on 25 October 1971.
Since the end of the Cold War in 1991, new trends in the usage of the veto by the different permanent members have emerged. France and the UK have not cast a veto since 23 December 1989 (S/21048) when, in tandem with the US, they prevented condemnation of the US invasion of Panama. China, which has historically used the veto the least, has become increasingly active on this front and cast 13 of its 16 vetoes since 1997. Russia cast 24 vetoes in this period, whereas the US has resorted to the veto 16 times since the end of the Cold War.
The use of the veto by Russia and China rose considerably since 2011, with the conflict in Syria accounting for the bulk of these. Since 2011, Russia cast 19 vetoes, 14 of which were on Syria. Eight of the nine Chinese vetoes during this period were over Syria and one was on Venezuela. The remaining Russian vetoes since 2011 were against two resolutions related to the conflict in Ukraine, one on the 20th anniversary of the genocide in Srebrenica, one on sanctions against Yemen, and one on Venezuela. (The US cast 14 vetoes since 2020, with all but two on Israel/Palestine issues.)
Permanent members use the veto to defend their national interests, to uphold a tenet of their foreign policy or, in some cases, to promote a single issue of particular importance to a state. Since 16 February 1946—when the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) cast the first veto on a draft resolution regarding the withdrawal of foreign troops from Lebanon and Syria (S/PV.23)—the veto has been recorded 293 times.
In the early years, the USSR cast most of the vetoes, with a considerable number of these used to block the admission of a new member state. Over the years, the USSR/Russia has cast a total of 120 vetoes, or close to half of all vetoes. The US cast the first of its 82 vetoes to date on 17 March 1970 (S/9696 and Corr. 1 and 2). The USSR had by that point cast 107 vetoes. Since 1970, the US has used the veto far more than any other permanent member, most frequently to block decisions that it regards as detrimental to the interests of Israel. The UK has used the veto 29 times, the first such instance taking place on 30 October 1956 (S/3710) during the Suez crisis. France applied the veto for the first time on 26 June 1946 with respect to the Spanish Question (S/PV.49) and has cast a total of 16 vetoes. China has used the veto 16 times, with the first one, on 14 December 1955 (S/3502), cast by the Republic of China (ROC) and the remaining 13 by the People’s Republic of China after it succeeded ROC as a permanent member on 25 October 1971.
Since the end of the Cold War in 1991, new trends in the usage of the veto by the different permanent members have emerged. France and the UK have not cast a veto since 23 December 1989 (S/21048) when, in tandem with the US, they prevented condemnation of the US invasion of Panama. China, which has historically used the veto the least, has become increasingly active on this front and cast 13 of its 16 vetoes since 1997. Russia cast 24 vetoes in this period, whereas the US has resorted to the veto 16 times since the end of the Cold War.
The use of the veto by Russia and China rose considerably since 2011, with the conflict in Syria accounting for the bulk of these. Since 2011, Russia cast 19 vetoes, 14 of which were on Syria. Eight of the nine Chinese vetoes during this period were over Syria and one was on Venezuela. The remaining Russian vetoes since 2011 were against two resolutions related to the conflict in Ukraine, one on the 20th anniversary of the genocide in Srebrenica, one on sanctions against Yemen, and one on Venezuela. (The US cast 14 vetoes since 2020, with all but two on Israel/Palestine issues.)
or were you just too ignorant of NATO and the UN to understand what a trivial thing you are trying to make into a gotcha moment so you can count coup? Which is it, demonstrating your own ignorance or quibbling over trivia?
#3309
Article 5 thus obliges each of them, by a legally binding treaty, to do whatever they deem necessary to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area. By saying "we are doing nothing", if their help is required, they are in violation of Article 5, as they are not restoring nor maintaining said security.
You do understand the definition of "deem", n'est ce pas?
Deem
To hold; consider; adjudge; believe; condemn; determine; treat as if; construe.To deem is to consider something as having certain characteristics. If an act is deemed a crime by law,then it is held to be a crime. If someone is deemed liable for damages, then he or she will have to paythem.
West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
#3310
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: Window seat
Posts: 5,527
Silly Excargodog... You think I come back to read your stuff?
I return to admire my own work.
Seriously though, the view count surged when the war was new, and probably has fallen off to less than 10,000 views per month. Divided between refreshes and page views. I honestly believe there are about 20 or so people who actively view this thread.
Ex... you want to spread your cherrypicked "news" to the masses, get a blog. A non-aviation thread 3 layers deep on a pilot forum is a really poor way of doing it.
I return to admire my own work.
Seriously though, the view count surged when the war was new, and probably has fallen off to less than 10,000 views per month. Divided between refreshes and page views. I honestly believe there are about 20 or so people who actively view this thread.
Ex... you want to spread your cherrypicked "news" to the masses, get a blog. A non-aviation thread 3 layers deep on a pilot forum is a really poor way of doing it.
You need to get educated. You need to read up on the issues. You don't know what type of military experience I have, my degrees, my interests, or my specialities. You brought nothing to the discussion (which discussion??).
What's funny is he's throwing bricks at others while *he* has no clue what the answers to those questions are from the people he thinks are ignorant of the REAL (ask him what they are) issues are. I asked him what his military experience and training was, his degrees, etc, etc when he made that comment and he said "I've posted it before. Look it up." He's not General Hodges or Patraeus so I'd rather stick with the real experts insights. BTW their resumes are available to anyone who's interested. I'm drawing a blank on the USAF 3 star (4 star?) with the goatee that also provides excellent insight into the issues. USAFE Commander at one point?? Regardless, a real expert.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post