Russia Blocks Kerch Strait

#77
#77
carlos86 said:
The Carson City is a transport ship.
Click to expand...

Yeah I know. It’s lightly armed. The Carney is a guided missle destroyer. Both are US flagged military vessels though and thus subject to the 30,000 ton total limit. The Carson City has departed though.

Edit: and yes to be clear the Carney would have to have departed now also to be legal.
 
#78
#78
Rasputin_Vol said:
Just clarifying so you don't think they are just perched there for months at a time. The Montreux Convention clearly defines how long a military vessel can be in the Black Sea.
Click to expand...

We had a Marine air-ground task force along with its Expeditionary strike group in the Black Sea for 4 months.
 
#82
#82
Rasputin_Vol said:
Again, there has to be a catalyst for this action. Putin, even his critics would have to admit, isn't one to act capriciously. If he is taking military action here, there must be some sort of military provocation or reason that the Ukrainians have started.
Click to expand...
This was the catalyst.
 
#83
#83
I wonder if this accelerates the transfer of Oliver Perry frigates to Ukraine? We've been considering that recently.
 
#88
#88
Reports coming in from Donbas of artillery fire taking place but that's from the RT.
 
#90
#90
Rasputin_Vol said:
I'm pretty consistent in not wanting the US to be getting involved in these local skirmishes halfway around the globe that have ZERO impact on our daily lives.
Click to expand...


That is a perfectly valid reason for us not to get involved. And if that were the considered policy response of the US military in consultation with a commander in chief acting in good faith, having worked with our allies on the situation and reassuring them of our commitment to them, I can see it being a reasonable conclusion.

But we don't have that, do we? No, we have a POTUS who cozies up to Putin after Putin worked to help him win election. A POTUS indebted to Putin at many levels, some known, some hidden from us. A POTUS who has lied to us about his links to Putin. And a POTUS who actively undermines the efforts of other parts of the US government to put the brakes on Putin. A POTUS who repeatedly downplays our interests in helping our allies, some of whom are not that far from this situation.

There is plenty of reason to wonder out loud about our POTUS' motivations to side with Putin in this situation, and you can bet I'll be here every step of the way making sure you are reminded of it.
 
#91
#91
lawgator1 said:
That is a perfectly valid reason for us not to get involved. And if that were the considered policy response of the US military in consultation with a commander in chief acting in good faith, having worked with our allies on the situation and reassuring them of our commitment to them, I can see it being a reasonable conclusion.

But we don't have that, do we? No, we have a POTUS who cozies up to Putin after Putin worked to help him win election. A POTUS indebted to Putin at many levels, some known, some hidden from us. A POTUS who has lied to us about his links to Putin. And a POTUS who actively undermines the efforts of other parts of the US government to put the brakes on Putin. A POTUS who repeatedly downplays our interests in helping our allies, some of whom are not that far from this situation.

There is plenty of reason to wonder out loud about our POTUS' motivations to side with Putin in this situation, and you can bet I'll be here every step of the way making sure you are reminded of it.
Click to expand...
Wait... are you still on this nonsense? Putin didn't do jack to the election. Hillary lost it on her own merits.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCoastVol, InVOLuntary, TN-POSSUM and 2 others
#92
#92
lawgator1 said:
That is a perfectly valid reason for us not to get involved. And if that were the considered policy response of the US military in consultation with a commander in chief acting in good faith, having worked with our allies on the situation and reassuring them of our commitment to them, I can see it being a reasonable conclusion.

But we don't have that, do we? No, we have a POTUS who cozies up to Putin after Putin worked to help him win election. A POTUS indebted to Putin at many levels, some known, some hidden from us. A POTUS who has lied to us about his links to Putin. And a POTUS who actively undermines the efforts of other parts of the US government to put the brakes on Putin. A POTUS who repeatedly downplays our interests in helping our allies, some of whom are not that far from this situation.

There is plenty of reason to wonder out loud about our POTUS' motivations to side with Putin in this situation, and you can bet I'll be here every step of the way making sure you are reminded of it.
Click to expand...

Are-You-Paranoid1-658x468.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: TN-POSSUM, marcusluvsvols and davethevol
#94
#94
lawgator1 said:
That is a perfectly valid reason for us not to get involved. And if that were the considered policy response of the US military in consultation with a commander in chief acting in good faith, having worked with our allies on the situation and reassuring them of our commitment to them, I can see it being a reasonable conclusion.
Click to expand...
The US military should only be concerned with America's best interest, not with trying to relieve the fears of our alleged allies. Our alleged allies can do us a big favor by addressing some of these regional concerns on their own and leaving us out of it.
 
#95
#95
lawgator1 said:
At least Putin had the good sense to wait until after the U.S. midterms. Helps his boy Donny justify letting the Russians steamroll the Ukraine.
Click to expand...

It's a big facepalm when people try to make international news stories all about U.S. domestic politics. It happens all the time here.
 
#98
#98
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top