Obama (split from Impeachment Hearings)

[iNow]

54 minutes ago, YJ02 said:

My biggest concern is that there are too many people in America (or any place) that have no passion on political issues; they just take what they are handed/told to think and move on

We’re pretty off topic, and this could be interesting to pursue elsewhere as a separate thread, but I’m less concerned with apathy/lack of passion among the populace and far more concerned with passions rooted in misconceptions, falsehoods, and/or nationalism and cult-like mindsets. 

57 minutes ago, YJ02 said:

the lack of passion and interest, IMO, is what those in both parties are counting on. Sure, they want your vote, but then they want you to go away and let them be in their comfortable 'political class' way of living and remain loyal to them no matter what.

This is at odds with what the data shows. It’s the passionate margins that drive the action AND the discussion. Those temperate moderates just get carried along by the currents and waves generated by those margins. 

Again though... the topic here is impeachment. Please let’s focus on that and split other topics into their own threads. 

[YJ02]

7 hours ago, iNow said:

We’re pretty off topic, and this could be interesting to pursue elsewhere as a separate thread, but I’m less concerned with apathy/lack of passion among the populace and far more concerned with passions rooted in misconceptions, falsehoods, and/or nationalism and cult-like mindsets. 

This is at odds with what the data shows. It’s the passionate margins that drive the action AND the discussion. Those temperate moderates just get carried along by the currents and waves generated by those margins. 

Again though... the topic here is impeachment. Please let’s focus on that and split other topics into their own threads. 

sure, ok, I was just trying to communicate to you that I understand you are pretty fired up about this, and I do not take anything personal as a result. no one should.

your above comment on the passionate margins is what I was speaking to. The two parties count on their passionate margins--their base- to keep them in power. Everyone else? Well they just want them placated and would just as well prefer they stayed home and not vote. 

 

------------------------------

and now, I would like to drop this in related to the impeachment. Only after last nights dog and pony show and the one democrat who made the comment of "because of Trump withholding the military aide, (13) Ukrainian soldiers died"

Now that is pure and utter distortion.

Back in 2015 under Obama, Congress had passed funding for Ukraine. It included lethal and non lethal aid. It had some bi partisan support.

President Obama did not want to include lethal aid-like ammo for weapons the Ukrainians already had, and for weapons like javelin anti tank missiles. He only authorized the non lethal which including items like Kevlar helmets and body armor, first aid and other medical supplies, generators -the stuff that an army requires in the field.

So, how many Ukrainians died because Obama withheld the aid, the means that they needed to defend themselves? Back then, the war was far more active, they really could have used more ammo and a excellent anti tank missile system.

But democrats on Obama's side said things like "it wouldn't matter how much we give them, will they be able to hold off the attacks?"

and, Obama saw no way any amount of lethal military aid would help. He saw that there would only be a non military solution, and the Democrats were happy with that, then! Now, they are for war? 

from below linked NYT article -"That has set the stage for a pitched debate between lawmakers and the White House that could well undermine Mr. Obama’s repeated assertion that the United States sees no military solution to the conflict in Ukraine."

So now, the dems want to give the Ukrainians lethal aid, like those Anti tank systems; now they are for it where they were once against the very same thing. And, they are using the fact  that aid was held up by Trump as the reason for the deaths of Ukrainians. 

And, the way words were used. In this article you can see where back then, the administration and the press called the rebels "Russian backed separatists" .But now, when Trump is President they are "Russian (army) invaders"

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/12/world/europe/defying-obama-many-in-congress-press-to-arm-ukraine.html?fbclid=IwAR3pepN_9lv4Bec4Z3d4TONq1_FjIX5pEiOatbCZsKZMKsFsIi__qcLet-U

from President Obama's press conference after the shoot down of Malaysian airlines flight.

Notice how he says that Ukraine is "better armed then the separatists" (note- not Russian invaders):

Q    So far sanctions haven’t stopped Vladimir Putin.  Are sanctions going to be enough?  And are you considering lethal aid for Ukraine?

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, keep in mind, the issue at this point is not the Ukrainian capacity to outfight separatists.  They are better armed than the separatists.  The issue is how do we prevent bloodshed in eastern Ukraine.  We’re trying to avoid that.  And the main tool that we have to influence Russian behavior at this point is the impact that it’s having on its economy. 

The fact that we’ve seen Europeans who have real, legitimate economic concerns in severing certain ties with Russia stepping up the way they have today I think is an indication of both the waning patience that Europe has with nice words from President Putin that are not matched by actions, but also a recognition as a consequence of what happened with the Malaysian Airlines flight that it is hard to avoid the spillover of what’s happening in Ukraine impacting Europeans across the board.

And so we think that the combination of stronger U.S. and European sanctions is going to have a greater impact on the Russian economy than we’ve seen so far.  Obviously, we can't in the end make President Putin see more clearly.  Ultimately that's something that President Putin has to do by -- on his own.  But what we can do is make sure that we’ve increased the costs for actions that I think are not only destructive to Ukraine but ultimately are going to be destructive to Russia, as well.

 

All right.  Guys, I’ve got to get going. 

END

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2014/07/29/statement-president-ukraine

 

More on Obama's refusal on providing lethal aid:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/09/18/ukraine-poroshenko-speaks-to-congress/15819211/

https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/26/politics/donald-trump-barack-obama-ukraine-military-aid-sheets-pillows-fact-check/index.html

 

All those years under attack and the dems did not feel it necessary to send Ukraine weapons until Trump took office? interesting, more so that no they have added this to their reasoning for impeachment

Edited December 14, 2019 by YJ02

[iNow]

8 minutes ago, YJ02 said:

the one democrat who made the comment of "because of Trump withholding the military aide, (13) Ukrainian soldiers died"

Now that is pure and utter distortion.

It’s not, though. A minimum of 13 died due to Trump withholding aid. Not zero. 

If you must lie to defend your position, then you should consider changing your position. 

https://www.newsweek.com/thriteen-ukrainian-soldiers-killed-trump-aid-withheld-1463128

You mention Obama 8 (eight) distinct times in that one (1) short post. He’s not being impeached, so here again whataboutism raises its ugly head.

You can be damned sure that Republicans would’ve impeached Obama if they could. Instead they had to settle for 33 hearings on Benghazi that didn’t turn up shit. 

[YJ02]

19 minutes ago, iNow said:

It’s not, though. A minimum of 13 died due to Trump withholding aid. Not zero. 

If you must lie to defend your position, then you should consider changing your position. 

https://www.newsweek.com/thriteen-ukrainian-soldiers-killed-trump-aid-withheld-1463128

You mention Obama 8 (eight) distinct times in that one (1) short post. He’s not being impeached, so here again whataboutism raises its ugly head.

You can be damned sure that Republicans would’ve impeached Obama if they could. Instead they had to settle for 33 hearings on Benghazi that didn’t turn up shit. 

there is no lie. i gave you links to the New York times, the official Obama records, USA today and CNN, where are these lies you speak of?

The simple fact is the Obama admin gave no weapons assistance of any type. The same weapons that the Dems are now using as a key point  in their arguments.

A few years ago, most Dems agreed with President Obama that weapons to Ukraine would escalate the situation.They gave no weapons, since then, the situation has escalated and stagnated. The war rages on. Their plans of sanctions did not have the desired effect. But now that Trump is President, somehow it has become crucial to the very survival of Ukraine that they had to wait a few more weeks to get the weapons they should of had 5 years ago?

Yeah, that makes sense.. only to someone blinded by bias and "Trumpitis". There is no 'whataboutism', these facts I cited are essential to the discussion. The democrats have made it that way by making these arms deliveries, and their delay, a cornerstone of the impeachment.

This is precisely what I have meant when I have said that our political status is so polarized that partisanship has made people incapable of telling the truth or accepting that sometimes "your guy" makes mistakes and sometimes the opposing side does something right that should be acknowledged. But the current political health of our nation has no room to tolerate honesty or even keeled discourse.

This is going to a Senate trial, and the democrats seem to have not realized what problems they will make for themselves by doing so. If McConnell goes along with the WH and does a long trial, with many witnesses, the democrats may become exposed to issues they do not want made public. Also, their 4 Senators running for President will have to leave their campaigns in Iowa and maybe New Hampshire and more places. Instead of campaigning they will be required to sit in the Senate chamber while their dem opponents get all the attention on the campaign. And if the republicans call the Bidens..well, I doubt they will even show up.

Look at what partisanship has gotten you and America; stress, anger, arguments. Partisanship and its drive to the extremes gave us Trump. Not worth it. The voters of America need to wake up and reject these parties and their perceived entitlement to their dysfunctional 'duopoly' on Washington DC. The Constitution neither guarantees nor gives rights to political parties to exist, but to voters and their rights instead.

[iNow]

10 minutes ago, YJ02 said:

where are these lies you speak of?

The simple fact is the Obama admin gave no weapons assistance of any type

You ask in one sentence where the lies are, then in the next sentence present another blatant falsehood. Classy!

https://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2019/oct/25/matt-gaetz/matt-gaetz-says-obama-permanently-stopped-military/
 

Quote

Between 2014 and 2016, the United States committed more than $600 million in security assistance to Ukraine.

Under Obama, the federal government started the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative, which sent other kinds of U.S. military equipment to the country. From 2016 to 2019, Congress appropriated $850 million.

In the last year of the Obama administration, Congress authorized lethal aid, but it didn’t include the Javelins.

The 2016 National Defense Authorization Act, which became law in November 2015, called for "lethal assistance such as anti-armor weapon systems, mortars, crew-served weapons and ammunition, grenade launchers and ammunition, and small arms and ammunition."

The legislation also called for counter-artillery radars, unmanned aerial tactical surveillance systems and other equipment.

It’s be much easier to take you seriously if you at least stopped parroting the clearly false talking points of folks like Matt Gaetz. 

Again though, this thread isn’t about Obama. Maybe you could stop talking about Obama in every post you make. 

21 minutes ago, YJ02 said:

Look at what partisanship has gotten you and America; stress, anger, arguments. Partisanship and its drive to the extremes gave us Trump

Actually, that was the electoral college 

21 minutes ago, YJ02 said:

The democrats have made it that way by making these arms deliveries, and their delay, a cornerstone of the impeachment.

Actually, it’s about him trying to invite foreign interference in the upcoming election.
 

Most of us would prefer this be settled via a free and fair election. Unfortunately, Trump decided to break his oath to our constitution and cheat. It’s like catching your sister cheating at Monopoly and then suggesting we should let the winner of the game be chosen by finishing the game without doing anything about the cheating. 

[MigL]

It isn't that simple YJ02.
One could argue that both presidents withheld military aid, but B Obama did it to minimize deaths in the conflict, even though this resulted in a number of deaths.
D Trump withheld aid for personal political gain, and this resulted in a number of deaths.

One position can be defended, the other, not so much.
And pointing out the loss of life due to D Trump's extortion attempt should be allowed.
( although I'm with you in believing that this impeachment process will go nowhere, and may actually be detrimental to Democrat aspirations to form the next government )

[YJ02]

57 minutes ago, iNow said:

You ask in one sentence where the lies are, then in the next sentence present another blatant falsehood. Classy!

https://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2019/oct/25/matt-gaetz/matt-gaetz-says-obama-permanently-stopped-military/
 

This from the same article you linked, para's 16 and 17...as i stated before, and verified by the article YOU linked,The Obama admin provided NO LETHAL AIDE

"But experts told us that the equipment ultimately provided during Obama’s tenure was non-lethal aid.

"The first lethal deliveries came from Trump," said Jim Townsend, deputy assistant secretary of defense for European and NATO Policy during the Obama administration. "

[iNow]

12 minutes ago, YJ02 said:

This from the same article you linked, para's 16 and 17...as i stated before, and verified by the article YOU linked,The Obama admin provided NO LETHAL AIDE

Please stop trying to move the goalposts. Your text is there for all to see and in the quote to which I was responding you quite clearly mentioned nothing about lethality. 

Here is that quote once more for convenience:

1 hour ago, YJ02 said:

The simple fact is the Obama admin gave no weapons assistance of any type

What was that thing I said to you just 2 short hours ago? Oh yeah... If you must lie to defend your position, then you should consider changing your position. 

Also, yet again, this thread isn’t about Obama. If you could kindly please focus on the Trump impeachment... our actual thread topic... and not these continued red herrings about Obama, it would be greatly appreciated. 

Edited December 14, 2019 by iNow

[YJ02]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

It isn't that simple YJ02.
One could argue that both presidents withheld military aid, but B Obama did it to minimize deaths in the conflict, even though this resulted in a number of deaths.
D Trump withheld aid for personal political gain, and this resulted in a number of deaths.

One position can be defended, the other, not so much.
And pointing out the loss of life due to D Trump's extortion attempt should be allowed.
( although I'm with you in believing that this impeachment process will go nowhere, and may actually be detrimental to Democrat aspirations to form the next government )

While  I appreciate your civility, I must point out that I have been talking about lethal aide, and in the articles I linked to prior as well as the article iNOW  linked to above (ref Matt Gaetz), my statement on no lethal aide by Obama admin is verified.

The lethal aide that Trump withheld, and referenced in the above linked articles and mentioned repeatedly in impeachment testimony, is the Javelin anti tank missile system. The javelin is a direct fire weapon to be used against armored vehicles. the majority of the remainder of the aide package is for non combat systems. It is for combat support and combat service support systems. there are a few small arms weapons though:

"The Defense Department’s tranche was set to include sniper rifles, rocket-propelled grenade launchers, counter-artillery radars, electronic warfare detection and secure communications, night vision equipment, and military medical supplies and treatment. The department previously included counter-sniper equipment, Humvees and tactical drones as well"

from:.https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2019/09/25/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-us-aid-package-to-ukraine-that-trump-delayed/

And as I can find no specific listing online of the numbers of Ukrainian battle deaths this summer during the time of aide being withheld, per this article (also referenced in yesterdays hearings) it would appear that since the nature of the war has become mainly trench warfare, most of the deaths are a result of indirect fire. The Ukrainians have long been in receipt and trained on counter battery radar systems. These systems warn troops f incoming indirect fire and also give a location of the weapon system that fired them so that counter battery fire can be made. The Ukrainians also have plenty of artillery  to do this with.

We do not possess anything like the Israeli 'Iron Dome' system which can detect and intercept artillery and mortars, to give them, so the UKR Army had everything needed to try to prevent deaths in their possession PRIOR to the nitwits July 25th phone call.

So, the withheld Javelins would have been in no way useful to prevent any Ukrainian deaths as it is a anti armor weapon, and the two articles I have linked indicate that the Separatists have withdrawn their armor from the battle field to put them out of range of the javelins already received prior to this summer, and the other anti tank weapons the Ukr Army has.

https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2019-10-16/as-ukraine-waited-for-u-s-assistance-death-toll-on-eastern-front-line-grew

This is all pertinent to the impeachment as this aide is one half of the 'quid pro quo' Trump is charged with. The repeated mention of Obama (I mean he was the President when this war started) and his admin's refusal to send lethal aide as well as the non lethal aide he did authorize (like the counter battery radar systems I mentioned) is important to show that any deaths that occurred, during the summer and TRUMP'S EMBARGO, Would have not been prevented by the aide package withheld but rather by the material  ALREADY being used by the UKR Army.

So the impeachment argument of Trumps being responsible for deaths is a very hollow one, and most likely, no deaths can be directly linked to non receipt of anything in the aide package and definitely not the much talked about by democrats, Javelin missile system.

Additionally in the la times article, a UKR army spokeperson states that as of October, none of the aide package-released in September, had yet arrived to field units. Therefore, even if it was not held up in July, it most likely still would not have arrived to field units until August or September. That is, in all trust that no Ukrainian Oligarch or right wing, UKR neo nazi group (who have their own militias at the front) stole it in transit.

39 minutes ago, iNow said:

Please stop trying to move the goalposts. Your text is there for all to see and in the quote to which I was responding you quite clearly mentioned nothing about lethality. 

Here is that quote once more for convenience:

What was that thing I said to you just 2 short hours ago? Oh yeah... If you must lie to defend your position, then you should consider changing your position. 

Also, yet again, this thread isn’t about Obama. If you could kindly please focus on the Trump impeachment... our actual thread topic... and not these continued red herrings about Obama, it would be greatly appreciated. 

 "Weapons"-- when supplying an army in combat, do you know of any that are not lethal? Besides the quote of my post below, I also mentioned 'lethal' and ;'lethality' in my post where I quoted the 4 different sources to include President # 44's news conference, where the question of lethal vs non lethal aide is brought up by a reporter and answer by the President. So yes, it was mentioned by me before

definition of lethal vs non lethal. weapons are in the lethal category: https://foreignpolicy.com/2012/08/02/what-exactly-is-non-lethal-aid/

 

2 hours ago, YJ02 said:

The simple fact is the Obama admin gave no weapons assistance of any type. The same weapons that the Dems are now using as a key point  in their arguments.

A few years ago, most Dems agreed with President Obama that weapons to Ukraine would escalate the situation.They gave no weapons, since then, the situation has escalated and stagnated. The war rages on. Their plans of sanctions did not have the desired effect. But now that Trump is President, somehow it has become crucial to the very survival of Ukraine that they had to wait a few more weeks to get the weapons they should of had 5 years ago?

Edited December 14, 2019 by YJ02

[zapatos]

17 minutes ago, YJ02 said:

"Weapons"-- when supplying an army in combat, do you know of any that are not lethal?

Google is your friend.

Anti-millile missiles, stun grenades, microwave weapons, psychochemical weapons, sleep gas, sticky foam, anti-vehicle, caltrops, electro-shock, and a long list of directed energy weapons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-lethal_weapon

27 minutes ago, YJ02 said:

We do not possess anything like the Israeli 'Iron Dome' system which can detect and intercept artillery and mortars, to give them, so the UKR Army had everything needed to try to prevent deaths in their possession PRIOR to the nitwits July 25th phone call.

Quote

Counter Rocket, Artillery, and Mortar, abbreviated C-RAM or Counter-RAM, is a set of systems used to detect and/or destroy incoming rockets, artillery, and mortar rounds in the air before they hit their ground targets, or simply provide early warning.

The intercept capability of C-RAM is effectively a land version of weapons such as the Phalanx CIWS radar-controlled rapid-fire gun for close-in protection of vessels from missiles; the weapon system also contains a forward-looking infrared (FLIR) camera to allow a soldier to visually identify these target threats before engaging the targets. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter_Rocket,_Artillery,_and_Mortar

[rangerx]

Aid is aid.

Not everything in a war is lethal. Sanction, attrition, siege etc. are acts of war.

Soldiers need to be housed, dressed, equipped, transported and hygienic. It costs money. LOTS of money.

"Non-lethal" is just a talking point to belittle Obama, but in the eyes of the world it's needlessly indignant toward the man who actually conscientiously contributed to the war effort.

[YJ02]

I have nothing to say about Obama, only about the military aid delivered to ukraine during his administration.

and the very easy to find facts are that administration did not release any lethal aid to Ukraine. this can be found at this link, originally provided by iNOW:

https://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2019/oct/25/matt-gaetz/matt-gaetz-says-obama-permanently-stopped-military/

despite the times that congress, with some democratic support, had authorized lethal aid as part of a larger aid package, Obama did not authorize lethal aid to be shipped

and another, with the same info, from CNN: https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/26/politics/donald-trump-barack-obama-ukraine-military-aid-sheets-pillows-fact-check/index.html

Quote

While it never provided lethal aid, many of the items that the Obama administration did provide were seen as critical to Ukraine's military. Part of the $250 million assistance package that the Trump administration announced (then froze and later unfroze) included many of the same items that were provided under Obama, including medical equipment, night vision gear and counter-artillery radar.

The Trump administration did approve the provision of arms to Ukraine, including sniper rifles, rocket launchers and Javelin anti-tank missiles, something long sought by Kiev.

20 hours ago, zapatos said:

Google is your friend.

Anti-millile missiles, stun grenades, microwave weapons, psychochemical weapons, sleep gas, sticky foam, anti-vehicle, caltrops, electro-shock, and a long list of directed energy weapons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-lethal_weapon

yes, google is handy, however, from your post you can see you are citing a wiki entry on "non-lethal weapon" . and from the items you listed, I don't know if any were ever included in shipments to Ukraine. 

Counter-Mortar and Counter Artillery (also referred to as Firefinder by the US army and marines ) radar systems are not lethal. They are not weapons systems, they are support systems. The radars and the positioning and trajectory data  they provide are just apart of a counter battery set, which includes friendly mortars, artillery or air to ground systems to deliver a lethal strike.

None of these systems are capable of what something like the IDF's "iron dome' system are. that is they cannot both locate and intercept projectiles

the first systems were the lightweight and very limited range AN/TPQ-50. In either 2015 or 16, the Obama admin authorized and delivered the longer range and much more capable  AN/TPQ-36 and AN/TPQ-37 radars. For those who use or work with them, the Q-36 is mainly employed as a counter mortar, and the Q-37 as a counter artillery (tube and rocket). With the distinction not being one of capability but in range. Since artillery is fired from a greater range then mortars, the Q-37 is considered best used for counter artillery.

In the US army, the Q-50 is typically deployed with front line or near front line units-like Infantry, Armor and their support and the q-36 AND q-37's are deployed further back with artillery and rocket (MLRS) units (citation Me,Myself, I)

 

therefore, all of these FIREFINDER systems are non lethal aid.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/pentagon-prepares-to-send-better-radar-to-ukraine-1437596928

https://asc.army.mil/web/portfolio-item/antpq-50-lightweight-counter-mortar-radar-lcmr/

https://www.armyrecognition.com/united_states_military_equipment_uk/an/tpq-36_counter_artillery_radar_firefinder_weapon_locating_system_technical_data_sheet_11511153.html

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/an-tpq-37.htm

4 hours ago, rangerx said:

Non-lethal" is just a talking point to belittle Obama, but in the eyes of the world it's needlessly indignant toward the man who actually conscientiously contributed to the war effort.

you make it sound as if someone just made that up it is a long standing characterization, part of a binary system of 'lethal' and 'non lethal'

similar to the US Military and its designations to classify field units (and MOS''s) as combat, combat support and combat service support. yes all are manned by soldiers or marines but not all have the mission of direct combat.

this is sourced in my OP for this thread

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

another issue, which also brings up many other possible questions-for other threads- of why are we giving so much military gear to ukraine when it has its own weapons industry?

it is a near farcical situation--we hear reports of UKR army that go something like- " helpless in the field against the might of Russian tanks; UKR units have very little armor of their own"

that they can't survive with EU and US selling and gifting of weapons. But they can supply themselves. They simply do not have the will to nationalize the industry--therefore are they really that frightened? More corruption? Are US taxpayer's money going to the UKR govt to buy over priced gear from Ukrainian manufacturers? A Ukrainian, US/EU funded jobs program?

NEWSWEEK Article from 2017  https://www.newsweek.com/ukraines-new-tank-can-take-russias-best-kiev-cant-afford-it-665972

Quote

But closer to home, the Oplot may prove too expensive for Ukraine's own military, Ukrainian independent news channel Hromadske reported on Friday. Per a vaulation made by Ukroboronprom, Kiev's state-owned arms-making conglomerate, a single Oplot costs $4.7 million. Kiev first ordered 10 Oplot tanks for its troops before crunching the numbers and realizing the state budget was spread too thin for the pricey purchase.

Even as war flared on the territory and with tank production surging, the kit had gone for export abroad until earlier this month. Visiting the Kharkiv factory that birthed the Oplot, Ukraine's Defense Minister Stepan Poltorak praised the tank, calling it a "modern combat machine that is now being exported to many countries across the world but is absent from the arsenal of Ukraine's armed forces."

they even make their own counter-battery radar systems, comparable to the q-37's we are giving them

https://www.janes.com/article/87863/ukrainian-1l220uk-counter-battery-radar-completes-field-tests

 

Edited December 15, 2019 by YJ02

[zapatos]

7 minutes ago, YJ02 said:

yes, google is handy, however, from your post you can see you are citing a wiki entry on "non-lethal weapon" . and from the items you listed, I don't know if any were ever included in shipments to Ukraine. 

 

Just leave the goalposts where they are please. No need to add qualifying information AFTER I've responded to what you said.

8 minutes ago, YJ02 said:

Counter-Mortar and Counter Artillery (also referred to as Firefinder by the US army and marines ) radar systems are not lethal. They are not weapons systems, they are support systems. The radars and the positioning and trajectory data  they provide are just apart of a counter battery set, which includes friendly mortars, artillery or air to ground systems to deliver a lethal strike.

Yes, and rifle scopes are only support systems that provide aiming data so that the bullet can deliver a lethal strike.

Is it really that hard just to concede a point?

[YJ02]

25 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Just leave the goalposts where they are please. No need to add qualifying information AFTER I've responded to what you said.

Yes, and rifle scopes are only support systems that provide aiming data so that the bullet can deliver a lethal strike.

Is it really that hard just to concede a point?

your response is nothing but add- on "butwhatifisms"

 

and, since you bring it up, no, a scope IS NOT a weapon. a scope is not necessary for the operator to perform  the primary function of the weapon. same with a sling. they are both superfluous equipment items.

 

 

this is why i dont like spending time finding citations/sources. discuss first and then if needed, cite.

cite first and apparently no one reads the info linked.

if you don't like my words ,fine, but at least read the cited links and discuss

[YJ02]

Why do you people 'upvote' posts that contain information that is not true? Like the one where the poster is claiming that a scope is a weapon?

Like the saying goes "You can have your own opinions, but you can't have your own facts"

As of now, no one has offered any facts or evidence that shows that what I have said about lethality or weapons and weapons systems as being wrong.

I have given, on two occasions now, multiple links to fact evidence, as well as my personal knowledge on these topics; you have provided none. Just a link to some "butwhataboutthis-ism" article on non lethal and mainly crowd control used, items.things that would have little to no use in a war zone.

 

on my first day here, when I did not include a source or 'evidence' I was asked "Where's your evidence?"

Now that I provide evidence it seems no one is reading the evidence, just checking to make sure I post some link, so if I didn't, they can pounce with the "Where's your evidence?" question again.

If you did read the links/evidence I provided,and you do not agree with the information provided in that evidence, then argue that and not on some type of semantically based "issue".

example "What is lethal?" "What does weapon mean?"

If you do not know what those things mean, then, I think you are being dishonest and are just trying to bait me into saying something in return that is insulting to you.

But, that won't happen, I'll stay up here on the high ground--with my facts-- and out of the "mud".  

[MigL]

Come on now...
You guys are getting silly with the down-votes.

Lethal and non-lethal war equipment is a common definition and is used by the American government for the purpose of foreign military sales.

It is just coming across as a bias/dislike of a particular poster.

[J.C.MacSwell]

I've said this before but I think downvotes, by their very nature, attack the poster not just the post.

To the degree that's true, that goes against the spirit of the rules we are expected to follow when posting, and is especially unfair to new posters, and especially when they see upvotes for rudeness directed at them or their posts.

I know I didn't know the definition of a non-lethal weapon. I thought it meant it wouldn't, or at least shouldn't under normal use, kill people.

Edited December 15, 2019 by J.C.MacSwell

[Phi for All]

!

Moderator Note

In the interest of moving on, many of the rep votes in this thread, both up and down, are from non-participants. Staff does monitor the system for vendettas and persistent abuse. 

 

[YJ02]

Since  I was posting about the Ukrainian military assistance package and what was in the packages, I'd like to ask if anyone has considered the following (I did put this above but it was buried in the already large post)?

The question is: No matter who our President is, why are we giving military hardware to the Ukraine to begin with?

I could understand if it were a nation without means and incapable of either procuring weapons on their won or producing their own. Like Iraq, or Afghanistan or a NGO like the Kurds of Rojava. But the Ukraine is and has been a nation with a massive weapons industry.

They were one of the largest military weapons manufactures during the time of the USSR and they still are. Before the Dombas and Crimea issue and since, they have been producing weapon systems- much of it for export.

Now, if a nation, that claims to be under severe threat from Russia (which is also questionable since Russia could enter into Ukraine from 3 fronts and take the whole nation in a few months) and also says they cannot defend against that aggression on their own, why does it's government allow domestically produced weapons and supplies to be sold as exports? Why not nationalize the weapons industry until the war is won or stabilized?

So, what is the Ukraine doing with all of the money they have received? In one year alone, the EU gave them a package of loans and grants valued at $16.5 billion,and they say that the domestically produced OPLOT tank is non-affordable for them.

Why are we and the EU giving them millions of dollars in equipment,weapons and ammo when they make their own? I understand at the onset of war, the nation was poorly managed adn the President had been accused of 'scuttling the military' and selling off its weapons, but they should be on their own by now.

The OPLOT:

https://www.newsweek.com/ukraines-new-tank-can-take-russias-best-kiev-cant-afford-it-665972

They even make their own counter battery radar which os on par with the Q-37 radars we have gifted them?;

https://www.janes.com/article/87863/ukrainian-1l220uk-counter-battery-radar-completes-field-tests

On total arms exports, prior to the war, Ukraine was ranked as the 11th worldwide for exports. They did slow down exports a little, but they are and have been fr from 'defenseless and helpless': 

Quote

According to the Stockholm Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), which analyzes the control over arms transfers and global disarmament, in 2016 Ukraine increased military exports by 53%, to $528 million, and was 11th among the world’s arms exporters.

Read more on UNIAN: https://www.unian.info/economics/2077946-ukrainian-arms-exports-in-2016.html

Quote

At the same time, according to European experts, for the entire period of independence, Ukraine earned about $11 billion on military exports

Read more on UNIAN: https://www.unian.info/economics/2077946-ukrainian-arms-exports-in-2016.html

 

"Helpless" UKR army:

https://www.foxnews.com/world/ukraine-says-its-forces-are-helpless-against-pro-russia-gunmen

Edited December 16, 2019 by YJ02

[iNow]

48 minutes ago, YJ02 said:

The question is: No matter who our President is, why are we giving military hardware to the Ukraine to begin with?

For the same reason we buy insurance and help our neighbors when they ask. It promotes stability in a region where allies are critical. 

[YJ02]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

For the same reason we buy insurance and help our neighbors when they ask. It promotes stability in a region where allies are critical. 

I can accept that in part. Though as a libertarian who feels we should become disengaged from the World Police business (the main reason I support Tulsi Gabbard) I would like it if the EU and others took care of their own business.

But, what I was getting at is that from 2014-2018, Ukraine was ranked as the 11th or 12th (depending on what organization is making the list) in military exports (please see my links above regarding the Tank and Counter fire radar systems they produce there).

So, are US and EU taxpayers paying to equip and arm the Ukrainian army while Ukrainian private industry exports equipment for profit that could/should be used to defend their own nation?

I understand it is necessary for them to make sales to get foreign currency,etc (but they are getting loans and grants form the US and EU) , but shouldn't they focus all of theirr esources on securing their nation first?  Seems priorities are a bit askew there.

I think it is a reasonable question to ask

the rankings on exports:

https://www.sipri.org/sites/default/files/2019-03/fs_1903_at_2018.pdf

associated info:

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/why-no-major-western-defense-company-will-invest-in-ukraine/

 

 

[iNow]

48 minutes ago, YJ02 said:

shouldn't they focus all of theirr esources on securing their nation first?

Do you see everything as so black and white or one dimensional? I find such myopic framing of complex issues reminiscent of the types of questions so often asked by toddlers. Sometimes insightful and thought provoking, but far more often absurd and suggestive of a limited understanding of the reality around them. 

[MigL]

I am most familiar with aerospace companies.
The Ukraine has the largest designer of military transport planes in the world; the Antonov design bureau.
Unfortunately, the USSR production model consisted of various design bureaus ( MiG, Sukhoy, Tupolev, Yakovlev, etc ) with the actual production being undertaken in various state production facilities ( all in Russia ), as Russia was the biggest customer.
When the Ukranian conflict with Russia started, Antonov had the designs, but could no longer produce them, or sell them to their main customer.
They have been looking for many years, to put Western equipment in their products ( an148/158 regional jets, an178 military transport, an70, an32, an124, an225, etc)

Lately as others have gotten over their distrust of Ukranian corruption, a few Western aerospace companies ( Boeing ) have collaborated with Antonov. And Antonov has set up a production facility in the Ukraine.

Most of their profits don't come from equipment sales, but from renting out their an124 Ruslan to Western air forces ( NATO ), and their biggest ( ! ) seller is the one copy of the an225 Mriya, originally built to ferry the Russian space shuttle. It is the largest transport plane in the world, and so in demand, that Antonov is attempting to complete a second unfinished copy that's been in storage for years.

So no YJ02, things are not so rosy for defence contractors in the Ukraine.

Recently their Jet engine producer, Ichvenko-progress, was stopped by the US state department from getting into a collaborative venture with a Chinese firm. The fear was that China, who has been having trouble producing jet engines ( must be that cheap Chinese metallurgy ), would gain valuable technology transfer from the Ukranians, who have the technology, but not the market.

[YJ02]

9 hours ago, iNow said:

Do you see everything as so black and white or one dimensional? I find such myopic framing of complex issues reminiscent of the types of questions so often asked by toddlers. Sometimes insightful and thought provoking, but far more often absurd and suggestive of a limited understanding of the reality around them. 

you are not answering the question.

In previous wars, where the attacked believed they were under a great national peril, industry was either nationalized or subsidized so that cost did not hamper the war effort.

If you are under attack in your house, are you still going to be concerned about preparing dinner?

8 hours ago, MigL said:

I am most familiar with aerospace companies.
The Ukraine has the largest designer of military transport planes in the world; the Antonov design bureau.
Unfortunately, the USSR production model consisted of various design bureaus ( MiG, Sukhoy, Tupolev, Yakovlev, etc ) with the actual production being undertaken in various state production facilities ( all in Russia ), as Russia was the biggest customer.
When the Ukranian conflict with Russia started, Antonov had the designs, but could no longer produce them, or sell them to their main customer.
They have been looking for many years, to put Western equipment in their products ( an148/158 regional jets, an178 military transport, an70, an32, an124, an225, etc)

Lately as others have gotten over their distrust of Ukranian corruption, a few Western aerospace companies ( Boeing ) have collaborated with Antonov. And Antonov has set up a production facility in the Ukraine.

Most of their profits don't come from equipment sales, but from renting out their an124 Ruslan to Western air forces ( NATO ), and their biggest ( ! ) seller is the one copy of the an225 Mriya, originally built to ferry the Russian space shuttle. It is the largest transport plane in the world, and so in demand, that Antonov is attempting to complete a second unfinished copy that's been in storage for years.

So no YJ02, things are not so rosy for defence contractors in the Ukraine.

Recently their Jet engine producer, Ichvenko-progress, was stopped by the US state department from getting into a collaborative venture with a Chinese firm. The fear was that China, who has been having trouble producing jet engines ( must be that cheap Chinese metallurgy ), would gain valuable technology transfer from the Ukranians, who have the technology, but not the market.

yet they are still ranked the 11th/12th top arms exporter in the world

Foreign nations are supplying their military while their military industry is selling abroad.

I believe it is  combination of the corruption there with a lack of government leadership or a lack of will to lead, to tell industry they must contribute, 100% to the war effort.

As a result, they are having issues with priorities of national importance and relying on the west to do things for them. We are creating another western dependent nation, when that is not needed. 

[Phi for All]

8 hours ago, MigL said:

I am most familiar with aerospace companies.
The Ukraine has the largest designer of military transport planes in the world; the Antonov design bureau.
Unfortunately, the USSR production model consisted of various design bureaus ( MiG, Sukhoy, Tupolev, Yakovlev, etc ) with the actual production being undertaken in various state production facilities ( all in Russia ), as Russia was the biggest customer.
When the Ukranian conflict with Russia started, Antonov had the designs, but could no longer produce them, or sell them to their main customer.
They have been looking for many years, to put Western equipment in their products ( an148/158 regional jets, an178 military transport, an70, an32, an124, an225, etc)

Lately as others have gotten over their distrust of Ukranian corruption, a few Western aerospace companies ( Boeing ) have collaborated with Antonov. And Antonov has set up a production facility in the Ukraine.

Most of their profits don't come from equipment sales, but from renting out their an124 Ruslan to Western air forces ( NATO ), and their biggest ( ! ) seller is the one copy of the an225 Mriya, originally built to ferry the Russian space shuttle. It is the largest transport plane in the world, and so in demand, that Antonov is attempting to complete a second unfinished copy that's been in storage for years.

So no YJ02, things are not so rosy for defence contractors in the Ukraine.

Recently their Jet engine producer, Ichvenko-progress, was stopped by the US state department from getting into a collaborative venture with a Chinese firm. The fear was that China, who has been having trouble producing jet engines ( must be that cheap Chinese metallurgy ), would gain valuable technology transfer from the Ukranians, who have the technology, but not the market.

I really appreciate this perspective, MigL, thanks!