Malaysian 777 Plane Crashes in Ukraine

The difference is it WASN'T a US airline. It's sad to see what's happening, but we have no place going in there. Period. Let Europe put their big boy pants on and take care of this mess.

Once again, from my original post I never said I want the US involved or that I want to see US troops on the ground there.

I want to see troops from the affected nations. The Dutch lost nearly 200 people. The Malaysians lost an aircraft, and over 40 of its citizens. One of these affected countries should have done something to secure the site once it was apparent that rebels were destroying evidence.
 
I want to see troops from the affected nations. The Dutch lost nearly 200 people. The Malaysians lost an aircraft, and over 40 of its citizens. One of these affected countries should have done something to secure the site once it was apparent that rebels were destroying evidence.

Obviously Netherlands and Malaysia ain't sending any troops into the territory where Russia has its own interest. U.S. is probably the only country that got balls to pull something like that. But I agree we should not be involved, let the Europeans sort out the geopolitical poop they got themselves into after decades of sucking up to Putin.
 
I haven't discussed foreign policy at all in this thread, and again, that's why you're missing the entire point of what we're saying: There's nothing personal about this to you. This crash is just an abstract for you; an opportunity to be a talking head, and repeat what you've read and watched elsewhere.

That's the experience you lack, and why you won't understand when other posters and I get annoyed with all this geopolitical drivel we've all heard before in this thread.

Frankly, the chance of you being blown out of the sky is about one in a trillion, so how this affects you isn't my primary concern. My concern is the foreign policy issues. If that bothers you, tough.
 
Frankly, the chance of you being blown out of the sky is about one in a trillion, so how this affects you isn't my primary concern. My concern is the foreign policy issues. If that bothers you, tough.

If chances were that low, why does the FAA issue a NOTAM about it?
 
If chances were that low, why does the FAA issue a NOTAM about it?

The FAA requires a lot of things to prevent disasters that have an incredibly miniscule chance of taking place. That's a good thing. But I don't spend my time worrying about things that are so unlikely to happen. I'm more concerned about the fact that we have warmongers trying to get us involved in things that we shouldn't be involved in, resulting in real deaths of real people.
 
Once again, from my original post I never said I want the US involved or that I want to see US troops on the ground there.

I want to see troops from the affected nations. The Dutch lost nearly 200 people. The Malaysians lost an aircraft, and over 40 of its citizens. One of these affected countries should have done something to secure the site once it was apparent that rebels were destroying evidence.
Absolutely! The Dutch should have offered "assistance" to the Ukrainians in the form of armed soldiers to the crash site to secure it once the shenanigans begun. But then again this is Europe, they have a history of ignoring threats and atrocities in their own backyard .

I feel so bad for these families caught up in this, their governments have failed them. I can't help but feel angry over this whole thing.
 
If chances were that low, why does the FAA issue a NOTAM about it?
Well, NOTAMs aside, the chances are indeed very low of something happening. But, this whole thing throws the "No insurgent group has missiles that can reach FL370" argument out the window. I can't say where, but that has been an actual concern in several areas I've operated into/over. The fact that they just proved otherwise is what's freaky about this whole thing.
 
A story in the NY Times this morning with photographs of MH17's surface showing evidence of an external explosion. The Times reporters asked Jane's analyst Reed Foster about this, who said "...the damage is consistent with the effects of a fragmentary warhead carried by an SA-11."

Yes, obvious I know, but it's nice to start reading the opinions of independent experts who have seen evidence that points to the suspected missile system.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...rs-clues-on-why-flight-17-went-down.html?_r=0
 
A story in the NY Times this morning with photographs of MH17's surface showing evidence of an external explosion. The Times reporters asked Jane's analyst Reed Foster about this, who said "...the damage is consistent with the effects of a fragmentary warhead carried by an SA-11."

Yes, obvious I know, but it's nice to start reading the opinions of independent experts who have seen evidence that points to the suspected missile system.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...rs-clues-on-why-flight-17-went-down.html?_r=0
Good to know the world isn't barking up the wrong tree. Not that I can think of any other way it could have happened in these circumstances, but...you know...that thing 4 months ago.
 
This thread is a shining example of why our political system is so jacked up. Even when one isn't in politics, they still fight the other sides political beliefs with nukes.
 
You must have missed that that segment was mocking people like you and @dasleben.
I didn't really see how that was at all mocking what they've been saying? Unless I missed some of their posts or just missed that specific part of the show somehow... It seemed to be mocking Russia and Putin (The Shaggy bit was pretty good) but that's pretty much it. I'm not trying to call you out necessarily, but I just watched the beginning again trying to see what you were talking about and I just didn't really see it.
 
Back
Top