Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

bound for glory wrote:
Well, couple of things.
firstly, i am pretty sure the 2 men dead were privates. I may be wrong, but i don't think so.
Second, Latvians lost more than 4 dead, because on halloween of that same year, a rocket attack injured 9. As we were very close to their camp, we called in OUR medivacs to help them. 4 died before they reached Q-camp(a field hospital).

Thanks.

It's very interesting that the Latvian government is hiding the real number of its killed soldiers as Wikipedia only lists 4 soldiers dead. All that "freedom of speech and democracy" but they are as lying cowards as any totalitarian regime.

I was advised not to bother...but i have to ask,what do you care how many Lats were killed?
Maybe the great, never wrong, all-inclusive lolcow that is Wikipedia is wrong.

According to this report taken from the Resolute Support website, dated 19 Nov 2014, Latvia has lost four soldiers in Afghanistan since joining ISAF. I can find no further reports since that time, so four it is. Though the report only states soldiers with no mention of civilians/contractors.

Maybe they only include soldiers who were killed directly by the enemy, and not those who died of wounds or other things?

Ukraine plans to join fight against Isis means troops could come up against Russian forces in Syria]#

Ukraine has drawn up plans for a potential military contribution to the fight against Isis in Syria in a move that could also pit its troops against Russian forces in the Middle East.

An options paper drawn up by Ukraine’s defence ministry is to be discussed this week during a visit by US Defence Secretary Ash Carter, who has been touring the world gathering support for the war against the extremist jihadist group.

According to those who have read it, the paper – produced at the behest of President Petro Poroshenko – highlights the possibility of Ukrainian forces coming up against Russian forces in Syria, and details potential contributions.

A Ukrainian government source said: “We have prepared a range of options for our support against Isis including in Syria, which could include troops. It could result in potential clashes with Russians.”

Ukraine’s battle-hardened armed forces would relish such an opportunity. Ukraine has four special-forces regiments and a further unit of its Defence Intelligence Department – a total of 7,000 troops. It also has highly capable airborne troops, part of a mobilised army numbering 200,000, of which 40,000 are always on the country’s eastern front facing pro-Russian rebels.

In terms of Russian language skills and combating Russian tactics, Ukrainians are world leaders. However, any troop deployment into Syria would be controversial in Kiev, and require a parliamentary vote, with some arguing that Ukraine needs to focus on the rebels who pose a continuing threat in its east, despite the current military deadlock. It might also prove controversial in Europe.

A senior military source in Ukraine’s capital said: “I would see a lot of hand wringing at Nato in Brussels.”

 Wyrmalla wrote:

Ukraine plans to join fight against Isis means troops could come up against Russian forces in Syria]#

Ukraine has drawn up plans for a potential military contribution to the fight against Isis in Syria in a move that could also pit its troops against Russian forces in the Middle East.

An options paper drawn up by Ukraine’s defence ministry is to be discussed this week during a visit by US Defence Secretary Ash Carter, who has been touring the world gathering support for the war against the extremist jihadist group.

According to those who have read it, the paper – produced at the behest of President Petro Poroshenko – highlights the possibility of Ukrainian forces coming up against Russian forces in Syria, and details potential contributions.

A Ukrainian government source said: “We have prepared a range of options for our support against Isis including in Syria, which could include troops. It could result in potential clashes with Russians.”

Ukraine’s battle-hardened armed forces would relish such an opportunity. Ukraine has four special-forces regiments and a further unit of its Defence Intelligence Department – a total of 7,000 troops. It also has highly capable airborne troops, part of a mobilised army numbering 200,000, of which 40,000 are always on the country’s eastern front facing pro-Russian rebels.

In terms of Russian language skills and combating Russian tactics, Ukrainians are world leaders. However, any troop deployment into Syria would be controversial in Kiev, and require a parliamentary vote, with some arguing that Ukraine needs to focus on the rebels who pose a continuing threat in its east, despite the current military deadlock. It might also prove controversial in Europe.

A senior military source in Ukraine’s capital said: “I would see a lot of hand wringing at Nato in Brussels.”

Ukraine has no money. Ukraine's armed forces can't even effectively fight a bunch of rebels on their own territory due to lacking working equipment, its armed forces have to pillage the local countryside due to lacking food, they suffer from deadly epidemics due to lacking medicine, and most importantly, they are conscripts and civilian volunteers who lack all but the most basic of training. And those doing the fighting are virtually all radical volunteers. The regular conscripts and remaining professional soldiers are so lacking in morale that often, they just refuse to fight.
Highly capable, my ass. That number of 200,000 only exists on paper. Many of those soldiers have either deserted or never showed up in the first place, and those that are there are so ineffective they might just as well not be there.

And now they want to go to Syria and fight ISIS... They don't even have the money to buy plane tickets.
It is nothing but wooden language. Poroshenko wants to appear strong and capable to hide the truth that Ukraine is in very serious problems.

So the Ukrainian military is basically the Bundeswehr only with disease, eh? Rough.

From what I've read in the Ukraine thread, I was under the impression that they don't lack working equipment, they just prefer to sell the equipment the West gives them and opt for cheap inferior crap instead.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
From what I've read in the Ukraine thread, I was under the impression that they don't lack working equipment, they just prefer to sell the equipment the West gives them and opt for cheap inferior crap instead.

They do lack lack working equipment. Especially aircraft. The Ukrainian airforce has only a few aircraft that are actually capable of flying. The same goes for tanks and other heavy vehicles. On paper they have a lot of that, but most of it has been rusting away since 1991 and no longer works.
The Ukrainian army has been forced to create improvised vehicles in order to make up for their lack. They have also been scouring the Red Army's graveyards for old tank hulls etc. they can restore to working order. When you are forced to make vehicles out of scrap, you know the army is in pretty serious trouble. And yes, the West giving them stuff isn't helping anything. The Ukrainian government and army are so corrupt, they will just sell everything for cash and leave the soldiers with trash.
Any thought of Ukraine figthing ISIS is ridiculous. ISIS would steamroll over them in the same way it steamrolled over the Iraqi army. And the Iraqi army was actually in a better shape than the Ukrainian one.

The seperatists are in even worse shape though. They have actually been pulling T-34s of WW2 monuments and using them to fight. Much of their other weapons are also from WW2.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
From what I've read in the Ukraine thread, I was under the impression that they don't lack working equipment, they just prefer to sell the equipment the West gives them and opt for cheap inferior crap instead.

They do lack lack working equipment. Especially aircraft. The Ukrainian airforce has only a few aircraft that are actually capable of flying. The same goes for tanks and other heavy vehicles. On paper they have a lot of that, but most of it has been rusting away since 1991 and no longer works.
The Ukrainian army has been forced to create improvised vehicles in order to make up for their lack. They have also been scouring the Red Army's graveyards for old tank hulls etc. they can restore to working order. When you are forced to make vehicles out of scrap, you know the army is in pretty serious trouble. And yes, the West giving them stuff isn't helping anything. The Ukrainian government and army are so corrupt, they will just sell everything for cash and leave the soldiers with trash.
Any thought of Ukraine figthing ISIS is ridiculous. ISIS would steamroll over them in the same way it steamrolled over the Iraqi army. And the Iraqi army was actually in a better shape than the Ukrainian one.

The seperatists are in even worse shape though. They have actually been pulling T-34s of WW2 monuments and using them to fight. Much of their other weapons are also from WW2.

Not to derail this thread into the Ukraine one, but no, its a joke to say that any of the major players in that conflict are that worse off. The Ukrainians have more refurbished T-64s than they can use. The Separatists similarly use a lot of refurbs, and whilst direct support from the Russians has been drawn back after the initial year (there's still thousands of Russians in country), the notion that they're using WWII era tanks is propaganda (some old tanks were refurbed, but people soon clued in that they make more at auction than as fighting vehicles).

ISIS however doesn't want a war with Ukraine. Hell they came out in support of the Ukrainians months ago. Of course Kiev wouldn't be too happy about that. Regardless ISIS weapons are in Ukraine, as are those trained by the organisation (initially pouring in from other rebel groups who ISIS had already supporting against the Russians). Moscow are the ones who have to worry about Jihadi bombings, not Kiev.

bound for glory wrote:
I was advised not to bother...but i have to ask,what do you care how many Lats were killed?
Maybe the great, never wrong, all-inclusive lolcow that is Wikipedia is wrong.

I try to avoid political topics all together but you information about that episode involving Latvians sparked my curiosity and I decided to cross-check it with what the rest of the World knows via Wikipedia. It's a garbage source but it's still better than propaganda websites that try to look informative while pushing their political agenda.

Regardless Latvia in particular, I found it amusing that the Latvian government didn't announce the deaths of the soldiers you've mentioned and thus it didn't make into the article about War in Afghanistan casualties by the nation. I have my own theories about that. First, they are so anti-communist and Russophobic the only mentioning of a lot of ethnic Latvians participating in the the Soviet War in Afghanistan would make them cringe and they prefer not to mention it at all. But the current operation in Afghanistan is for the "good cause" and so the participation and casualties are mentioned but kept at a low level so the Latvian public wouldn't start making a comparison. Also the very important detail of that accident is that perps were ethnic Chechens makes me think it was another reason why it was not reported by the Latvian government, at least broadly. You see, in the 90s, when Russia was battling Islamic terrorists in Chechnya the West was teaching Russia about the importance of the "human rights" of said terrorists scum and the Baltic states, Latvia including were and still are very fond of Chechen "freedom fighters" who were given a political asylum from the wrath of Russia. Given that the same Chehchens cut the Latvian soldiers in pieces could be interpreted again, by the Latvian public that the moral support they have given to the "white and fluffy" Chechens could be wrong and Russia was right. In the current anti-Russia climate it could make people think and thinking is bad, because they have to trust what their government tells them.

By the way, you've mentioned that they were "paras". Are you sure about that? According to the Latvian MoD website, they don't even have a single dedicated air assault battalion, never mind "paratroopers". I am guessing some of their regular infantry soldiers get Jump qualified and they also have an unknown number of SF personal.

 Wyrmalla wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
From what I've read in the Ukraine thread, I was under the impression that they don't lack working equipment, they just prefer to sell the equipment the West gives them and opt for cheap inferior crap instead.

They do lack lack working equipment. Especially aircraft. The Ukrainian airforce has only a few aircraft that are actually capable of flying. The same goes for tanks and other heavy vehicles. On paper they have a lot of that, but most of it has been rusting away since 1991 and no longer works.
The Ukrainian army has been forced to create improvised vehicles in order to make up for their lack. They have also been scouring the Red Army's graveyards for old tank hulls etc. they can restore to working order. When you are forced to make vehicles out of scrap, you know the army is in pretty serious trouble. And yes, the West giving them stuff isn't helping anything. The Ukrainian government and army are so corrupt, they will just sell everything for cash and leave the soldiers with trash.
Any thought of Ukraine figthing ISIS is ridiculous. ISIS would steamroll over them in the same way it steamrolled over the Iraqi army. And the Iraqi army was actually in a better shape than the Ukrainian one.

The seperatists are in even worse shape though. They have actually been pulling T-34s of WW2 monuments and using them to fight. Much of their other weapons are also from WW2.

Not to derail this thread into the Ukraine one, but no, its a joke to say that any of the major players in that conflict are that worse off. The Ukrainians have more refurbished T-64s than they can use. The Separatists similarly use a lot of refurbs, and whilst direct support from the Russians has been drawn back after the initial year (there's still thousands of Russians in country), the notion that they're using WWII era tanks is propaganda (some old tanks were refurbed, but people soon clued in that they make more at auction than as fighting vehicles).

This is going off topic, but there are multiple videos on the internet of seperatists using monument T-34s, the Ukrainian army has even captured several that were actually used in combat, and all reports as well as a good amount of pictures show seperatists using WW2 equipment. Using T-34s as propaganda is a horrible idea, because it does nothing but show that you have no better equipment.
Ukraine does have a lot of T-64s, but this is on paper. Most of these T-64s are not fit for frontline duty, and refurbishments proceed very slowly due to lack of money and proper facilities (Most of Ukraine's industry capable of repairing or building tanks has been neglected since 1991) replacement parts going missing (most likely being sold for money). And even the tanks that do get refurbished are in many cases exported for money rather than given to own troops. The Ukrainian government however, likes to throw big numbers and big words around to make people believe they still are in control and make the situation look less hopeless than it is. But if the Ukrainians had enough tanks, they would not have needed to improvise all kinds of vehicles.

 Wyrmalla wrote:
ISIS however doesn't want a war with Ukraine. Hell they came out in support of the Ukrainians months ago. Of course Kiev wouldn't be too happy about that. Regardless ISIS weapons are in Ukraine, as are those trained by the organisation (initially pouring in from other rebel groups who ISIS had already supporting against the Russians). Moscow are the ones who have to worry about Jihadi bombings, not Kiev.

There is clear links between Ukraine and ISIS, yes. Ukrainian nationalists and islamist terrorists have been close ever since the Ukrainians helped the Chechen terrorists out in the 1st Chechen War.
Here, just the 1st article I found when searching for "Ukraine ISIS": http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/11/the_ukraineisis_alliance.html It has links to other articles too.
This one I found particularly interesting: https://theintercept.com/2015/02/26/midst-war-ukraine-becomes-gateway-europe-jihad/

 Wyrmalla wrote:
(some old tanks were refurbed, but people soon clued in that they make more at auction than as fighting vehicles).

I'm glad they got that email.

They were certainly paras. The sgt. that came to our camp had 65 jumps to credit.
He did'nt believe that we had men that had over 200 jumps in service. I have 109.
And to be clear, the lats had more than 4 KIA's in afghanistan. I:
ll go to my grave on that.
Like I said, 4 died on halloween(october 31st, 2008) after a rocket attack. Our comms guy told the whole company at first call the next day.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And that was a tough thing to hear as we shared the AO and went up against the same scum.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'm thinking one of the guys murdered by the chechens was named Pzarski.

bound for glory wrote:
They were certainly paras. The sgt. that came to our camp had 65 jumps to credit.
He did'nt believe that we had men that had over 200 jumps in service. I have 109.
And to be clear, the lats had more than 4 KIA's in afghanistan. I:
ll go to my grave on that.
Like I said, 4 died on halloween(october 31st, 2008) after a rocket attack. Our comms guy told the whole company at first call the next day.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And that was a tough thing to hear as we shared the AO and went up against the same scum.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'm thinking one of the guys murdered by the chechens was named Pzarski.

If you say it's true, I will believe you. "Pzarski." sounds like a Polish name but Latvia indeed has a small Polish diaspora.

Did'nt mean to come off angry. I just know what i know.
Peace, brother.

Stay safe, brother.

Wife of ISIS leader and rapist charged with Aid Workers death.

Seaward wrote:
So the Ukrainian military is basically the Bundeswehr only with disease, eh? Rough.

That's kind of a low blow though.

 Hordini wrote:
That's kind of a low blow though.

Yeah. Since they probably caught those diseases *off* the Bundeswehr...

Turkish Air Force violated Greek airspace 22 times on Monday, the Greek General Staff said.

ATHENS (Sputnik) — The violations took place over the islands of Samos and Chios in the eastern Aegean Sea and over Lemnos and Lesbos in the northern part of the sea, the General Staff said, adding that two "virtual dogfights" between Greek and Turkish aircraft took place.

On Wednesday, Greek media reported that at least six Turkish fighter jets, flying in a single formation, violated Greek airspace.

Turkey's air force is known to violate the neighboring country's airspace almost on a daily basis. Turkish incursions reached a peak in 2014, when the number of violations reached 2,224, according to University of Thessaly figures based on Greek military data.

http://sputniknews.com/military/20160216/1034814117/turkey-greece-airspace-violation.html

Now imagine the Greeks shooting down 2,224 Turkish airplanes.

Russia will raise the issue of Turkey shelling the Kurdish positions in northern Syria at the UN Security Council on Tuesday, a diplomatic source said Monday.

UNITED NATIONS (Sputnik) – On Saturday, Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said Turkish forces shelled Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG) positions in northern Syria as a retaliatory measure within rules of engagement. The attacks continued on Sunday.

The UN Security Council will discuss the situation in Yemen on February 16. The issue will be raised in the "other questions" section of the session, the source told RIA Novosti.

Ankara considers the Syrian Kurds to be affiliated with the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), an organization seeking Kurdish independence that has fought the Turkish state since 1984.

http://sputniknews.com/politics/20160216/1034811680/turkey-shelling-syria.html

So Turkey is allowed to indiscriminately bomb and shell Kurds in Iraq and Syria. Can anyone tell me why they are still a member of NATO?

Beats me. My guess is they don't want to rock the boat by booting them (can they be kicked out?).

 Yaraton wrote:


Now imagine the Greeks shooting down 2,224 Turkish airplanes.

Turkey would declare war, and everyone would probably agree with them for the most part because Greece (and select Russian propaganda outlets) are the only ones who ignore the existence of the Aegean Sea Dispute.

So Turkey is allowed to indiscriminately bomb and shell Kurds in Iraq and Syria. Can anyone tell me why they are still a member of NATO?

Calling it indiscriminate is unfair. Turkey is most certainly very discriminate in which Kurds it likes and which it doesn't.

And they're in NATO because during the Cold War no one gave a damn about the Kurds. All anyone gave a damn about was the Soviet Union. Honestly once this ISIS thing is over, most of the world will likely go back to not giving a damn about the Kurds. Hell. Arguably right now, no one really gives a gak about the Kurds outside of being a means to an end.

And dear god someone is linking Sputnik news.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Beats me. My guess is they don't want to rock the boat by booting them (can they be kicked out?).

I don't know what the NATO rules say, but it won't happen. EDIT: To expand on this, at time when several countries already feel NATO isn't of much help to them, kicking any country out of the alliance will effectively be the dissolution of all of NATO.

Turkey tends be treated as 'better our friend than our enemy' kind of country.

 LordofHats wrote:

Turkey would declare war, and everyone would probably agree with them for the most part because Greece (and select Russian propaganda outlets) are the only ones who ignore the existence of the Aegean Sea Dispute.

Great. Always wanted to see a war between two NATO countries.

Calling it indiscriminate is unfair. Turkey is most certainly very discriminate in which Kurds it likes and which it doesn't.

Turkey likes Kurds? Where? In Hell? Certainly not in Turkey itself or near it.

And they're in NATO because during the Cold War no one gave a damn about the Kurds. All anyone gave a damn about was the Soviet Union. Honestly once this ISIS thing is over, most of the world will likely go back to not giving a damn about the Kurds. Hell. Arguably right now, no one really gives a gak about the Kurds outside of being a means to an end.

I remember the crocodile tears by the West after Saddam gassed them. Surely they are worth something even right now?

And dear god someone is linking Sputnik news.

Feel free to link BBC, CNN, Fox, CBC, ABC etc. You can't because they don't write about it? Well, what do you know...

They do write about it, if we consider copy pasting writing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Yaraton wrote:
Turkey likes Kurds? Where? In Hell? Certainly not in Turkey itself or near it.

Iran was complaining just the other month that there were Turkish military personnel in Iraq training Kurdish fighters, because just like Turkey, Iran is very discriminate in which Kurds it does and does not like. It's kind of a running theme for the Kurds these days. Turkey doesn't like it's resident Kurdish independence movement, but doesn't seem to care too much about the Kurds in Iran and has been supporting the Kurds in Iraq. They initially supported the Kurds in Syria, but as those Kurds have pulled back on fighting Assad actively, and have become more closely aligned with the resident Kurdish independence movement from Turkey, Turkey has decided it is ambivalent towards them.

I remember the crocodile tears by the West after Saddam gassed them.

Well if there's anything that gets the West to start talking about doing something without ever actually doing anything, it's using chemical weapons on civilians

Surely they are worth something even right now?

Sure. They're great cannon fodder for the war against ISIS. I'm saying that really, no one cares that much about Kurdish interests, and support for them only goes as far as their usefulness towards geopolitical goals.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Yaraton wrote:


Now imagine the Greeks shooting down 2,224 Turkish airplanes.

Turkey would declare war, and everyone would probably agree with them for the most part because Greece (and select Russian propaganda outlets) are the only ones who ignore the existence of the Aegean Sea Dispute.

Actually, the entire world except Turkey ignores the Aegan Sea Dispute. It is not much of a dispute really. International law is firmly on the side of the Greeks. As I explained before, Greece has shown great consideration towards outrageous Turkish demands by limiting its territorial waters to a smaller size than it has a right to, despite having no obligations to do so. However, Greece has not chosen to do the same for its airspace, and claims control over the full ten mile zone it has rights to. This Greek claim is recognised by international law and every nation in the world except Turkey. For all intents and purposes, it is Greek airspace, and Turkey disputing that and invading it constitutes pure military agression.
If Greece would shoot down those Turkish aircrafts, it would be in its full right to do so, and unlike Turkey, its position would be supported by international law. It is no coincidence Turkish invasions of Greek airspace suddenly stopped after the incident with the Russian jet. Turkey knows it is wrong. If Turkey declared war on Greece, I have little doubt the entire world would condemn it.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Actually, the entire world except Turkey ignores the Aegan Sea Dispute.

That's the opposite of reality.

International law is firmly on the side of the Greeks.

As was explained last time this came up, Turkey was not signatory to those agreements precisely because of the Aegean Sea. International Law is barely even law. It's a body of agreements. Naturally, countries tend to pick and choose when ones they want to be party too. Countries that aren't party to them are not bound for them. Pretending otherwise would be like demanding a Canadian in Quebec be charged with murder in a US court for a crime committed in Montreal. Laws don't work that way. Dubiously standing international agreements more so.

Greece has shown great consideration towards outrageous Turkish demands by limiting its territorial waters to a smaller size than it has a right to

Both countries have shown great consideration towards one another. Turkey's demands are actually quite reasonable, and Greece's position is very understandable. 100 years ago, there would have been a war over the matter, but they've both managed to go nearly a century now with only a few scuffles and lots of chest beating. They've made slow and steady progress in resolving their differences themselves, so you might understand that people get frustrated when certain news outlets decide to start rattling sabers for the gain of a third party.

despite having no obligations to do so.

Unless they want to go to war over the matter, they have every obligation to do so. There is no standing agreement between Greece and Turkey over territorial rights in the Aegean. Turkey is not a signatory to the Law of the Sea, and thus the law has no relevance towards the matter.

This Greek claim is recognised by international law and every nation in the world except Turkey.

No it's not. In fact Greeces claims fly in the face of international law they are signatory too, namely the international law stating that territorial airspace is = to territorial waters. Greece has a tertiary agreement with Turkey that territorial waters is 6 kilometers. International law would by this bind Greece (but not Turkey) to 6 kilometers of territorial airspace. Greece claiming 4 beyond that as territorial airspace is a violation of international law they've actually signed.

For all intents and purposes, it is Greek airspace, and Turkey disputing that and invading it constitutes pure military agression.

Sure if we want to pretend Greece's opinion is the only one that matters, but that's not how international relations are conducted.

If Greece would shoot down those Turkish aircrafts, it would be in its full right to do so,

No it wouldn't. It would be an act of war. Whether or not a war followed would depend on circumstance, but no one in NATO or western Europe is going to jump up to defend Greece in that scenario.

It is no coincidence Turkish invasions of Greek airspace suddenly stopped after the incident with the Russian jet.

And as I pointed out last time you brought that up Turkey flew 3 planes through Greece's claimed airspace 2 days after the Russan jet was shot down. You linked to the page with the date and airspace incursions clearly marked.

I have little doubt the entire world would condemn it.

The international community always condemns war, unless the US has put one of its lynch mobs together, in which case they only pretend to condemn war That doesn't really change that Greece would be seen as the aggressor in the scenario, as functionally they'd be shooting down a Turkish aircraft in what all documentation says is neutral airspace.

 Yaraton wrote:

bound for glory wrote:
They were certainly paras. The sgt. that came to our camp had 65 jumps to credit.
He did'nt believe that we had men that had over 200 jumps in service. I have 109.
And to be clear, the lats had more than 4 KIA's in afghanistan. I:
ll go to my grave on that.
Like I said, 4 died on halloween(october 31st, 2008) after a rocket attack. Our comms guy told the whole company at first call the next day.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And that was a tough thing to hear as we shared the AO and went up against the same scum.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'm thinking one of the guys murdered by the chechens was named Pzarski.

If you say it's true, I will believe you. "Pzarski." sounds like a Polish name but Latvia indeed has a small Polish diaspora.

I keep in contact with several men i served with, and asked if he remembered either of the Lats names(of the 2 men killed by the Chechens).
One(confirmed to be a private) was a man named "Puskis".

 LordofHats wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

This Greek claim is recognised by international law and every nation in the world except Turkey.

No it's not. In fact Greeces claims fly in the face of international law they are signatory too, namely the international law stating that territorial airspace is = to territorial waters. Greece has a tertiary agreement with Turkey that territorial waters is 6 kilometers. International law would by this bind Greece (but not Turkey) to 6 kilometers of territorial airspace. Greece claiming 4 beyond that as territorial airspace is a violation of international law they've actually signed.

I really need to go to sleep right now, so I can't respond to your entire post anymore, but this I can do quickly. Greece's territorial airspace was established in 1931. The ICAO statutes that regulate that airspace = to territorial waters is from 1948. The law is not retroactive, and thus does not apply here. Greece's airspace constitutes an established right that was acknowledged by all countries, including Turkey, both in 1931 and 1948.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Greece's territorial airspace was established in 1931. The ICAO statutes that regulate that airspace = to territorial waters is from 1948.

And the ICAO says explicitly that territorial airspace = territorial waters. Greece's claim that 'something' was established in 1931 is meaningless. There was no agreement to that effect. It has no bearing on anything. At the time, Turkey was respectful of that boundary absent an agreement for two reasons; The territorial layout of the Aegean sea was completely different pre-WWII, and they had no reason to complain that Greek territorial claims would shut them out of the Aegean and the passage of the 1948 agreement, which Greece signed, established territorial airspace = territorial waters, meaning Greece has no right under international law to claim an addition 4 km/nautical miles/I admit I forget what the unit of measure is

The law is not retroactive, and thus does not apply here.

What? Retroactivity has nothing to do with it. Greece actually has signed an agreement that defines what territorial airspace is and how it is determined. They're claim to an additional 4 km beyond their territorial waters flies in the face of that agreement.

Greece's airspace constitutes an established right that was acknowledged by all countries, including Turkey, both in 1931 and 1948.

Yes, because even today Turkey recognizes Greece's territorial airspace as the ICAO defines it. They do not recognize the additional airspace Greece claims, and neither does international law (or anyone not Greece for that matter).