Coffin money

Guno צְבִי

Guno צְבִי

We fight, We win, Am Yisrael Chai
Russia state TV celebrates couple who used payout from their son dying in Ukraine to buy a new car to drive to his grave

Russia offers "coffin money" — in the tens of thousands of dollars — to families of dead fighters.


According to independent Russian news site Meduza, the Rossia-1 segment featured the parents of Staff Sergeant Alexei Malov, who died in the early days of the invasion.

The news item, filmed in western Russia's Saratovskaya region, showed Malov's parents exiting the driveway in a white Lada on a trip to the cemetery.

Russian families receive what is known as "coffin money" when their relatives are killed, the segment explained.

BBC Monitoring reporter Francis Scarr tweeted a clip from the show with English subtitles on Monday:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/worl...AAZJRPW?cvid=69a2cd9ebd4d41239b465a6d2d8b5e99
 
Nobody is emotionally or psychologically prepared to confess their son died for nothing.

Undoubtedly, rabid supporters of the War on Iraq who had sons and daughters killed there were able to somehow mentally justify their deaths.
 
guno said:
Russia state TV celebrates couple who used payout from their son dying in Ukraine to buy a new car to drive to his grave

Russia offers "coffin money" — in the tens of thousands of dollars — to families of dead fighters.


According to independent Russian news site Meduza, the Rossia-1 segment featured the parents of Staff Sergeant Alexei Malov, who died in the early days of the invasion.

The news item, filmed in western Russia's Saratovskaya region, showed Malov's parents exiting the driveway in a white Lada on a trip to the cemetery.

Russian families receive what is known as "coffin money" when their relatives are killed, the segment explained.

BBC Monitoring reporter Francis Scarr tweeted a clip from the show with English subtitles on Monday:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/worl...AAZJRPW?cvid=69a2cd9ebd4d41239b465a6d2d8b5e99
Click to expand...

Putin is going to be paying a lot of money if he covers every dead Russian soldier in Ukraine.

FWIW, I'm still chairman of the board raising money to shoot Russian Officers. Please give all donations to Damo in my name for processing. TIA

6m36d8.jpg
 
Cypress said:
Nobody is emotionally or psychologically prepared to confess their son died for nothing.

Undoubtedly, rabid supporters of the War on Iraq who had sons and daughters killed there were able to somehow mentally justify their deaths.
Click to expand...

Their deaths were used to prolong the war "so their deaths wouldn't be in vain".


https://www.econlib.org/archives/2007/08/dying_in_vain.html
What does it mean to “die in vain”? At absolute minimum, if a bunch of people died, and you got the same outcome as you would have gotten if they had stayed home, they “died in vain,” right?

Economists might want to make an average/marginal distinction here. But if the marginal AND the average effect of deaths is zero, then men died in vain. Period. But of course, very few politicians (especially the ones with a chance of winning) want to admit this ugly truth. Some dance around it; others just deny the obvious:
Click to expand...
 
Cypress said:
I think we could have pulled our military out of Iraq, Vietnam and Afghanistan years before we finally did, and the ultimate outcome would not have been substantially different.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Afghanistan should have ended with success by 2008-2010 but we divided our forces to fight two wars. One, Iraq, should never have been started.

Vietnam was a quagmire that began the moment the US decided not to invade North Vietnam.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Agreed. Afghanistan should have ended with success by 2008-2010 but we divided our forces to fight two wars. One, Iraq, should never have been started.

Vietnam was a quagmire that began the moment the US decided not to invade North Vietnam.
Click to expand...

Invading North Vietnam with the goal of regime change likely would have had the same result as our attempt to take over North Korea in 1950: it would have brought the enormous Chinese army into the fray, and resulted in another stalemate.
 
Cypress said:
Invading North Vietnam with the goal of regime change likely would have had the same result as our attempt to take over North Korea in 1950: it would have brought the enormous Chinese army into the fray, and resulted in another stalemate.
Click to expand...

Which was the problem. Not just China, but the USSR.

I've mentioned this before but love it so much I'll do it again. A few years after the US left Vietnam, Saigon Vietnamese were asked about any differences between the US and USSR military forces. The answer was "Russians are like Americans without money". :rofl2:
 
Cypress said:
I think we could have pulled our military out of Iraq, Vietnam and Afghanistan years before we finally did, and the ultimate outcome would not have been substantially different.
Click to expand...

That says more about how incompetently we handled the peace than about how we fought those wars...
 
T. A. Gardner said:
That says more about how incompetently we handled the peace than about how we fought those wars...
Click to expand...

Are you disagreeing that was known before we started the Iraq War? That it wasn't winning the war, but winning the peace with a foreign occupation force in Iraq?


Remember Will Rogers? He talked about US involvement in China during the Boxer Rebellion and other actions:

What would we say if the Chinese sent a gunboat with their marines up the Mississippi River claiming they were protecting their laundries in Memphis?
- Will Rogers

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Marines
The term China Marines, originally referred to the United States Marines of the 4th Marine Regiment, who were stationed in Shanghai, China from 1927 to 1941 to protect American citizens and their property in the Shanghai International Settlement, during the Chinese Revolution and the Second Sino-Japanese War. Those Marines stationed at the embassy in Peking and the consulate in Tientsin referred to themselves as North China Marines.[1]
Click to expand...
 
T. A. Gardner said:
That says more about how incompetently we handled the peace than about how we fought those wars...
Click to expand...

Wars aren't just about military tactics.

Wars are fundamentally political with political objectives.

Bush's goal of installing a democratic American vassal state in the heart of the Muslim world was naively and wildly optimistic and hubristic.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Which was the problem. Not just China, but the USSR.

I've mentioned this before but love it so much I'll do it again. A few years after the US left Vietnam, Saigon Vietnamese were asked about any differences between the US and USSR military forces. The answer was "Russians are like Americans without money". :rofl2:
Click to expand...
:)
The lesson of Vietnam for me is don't get militarily involved in civil wars unless there is an overwhelmingly obvious and self evident threat to American security.
 
Cypress said:
:)
The lesson of Vietnam for me is don't get militarily involved in civil wars unless there is an overwhelmingly obvious and self evident threat to American security.
Click to expand...

Vietnam was really Korea: the Sequel - Communist Containment.
 
Cypress said:
:)
The lesson of Vietnam for me is don't get militarily involved in civil wars unless there is an overwhelmingly obvious and self evident threat to American security.
Click to expand...

The lesson from Vietnam is that often the results you get aren't the ones you wanted but can still work to your advantage. In the case of Vietnam, the US in fighting that war, caused Communist insurgencies in Malaysia, Indonesia, and the Philippines to fail miserably as the Russians and Chinese couldn't support them with Vietnam going on.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
The lesson from Vietnam is that often the results you get aren't the ones you wanted but can still work to your advantage. In the case of Vietnam, the US in fighting that war, caused Communist insurgencies in Malaysia, Indonesia, and the Philippines to fail miserably as the Russians and Chinese couldn't support them with Vietnam going on.
Click to expand...

At a cost of 58,220 U.S. military fatal casualties.

https://www.archives.gov/research/military/vietnam-war/casualty-statistics
 
T. A. Gardner said:
It wasn't cheap, but then millions of people in SE Asia don't live in Communist run shitholes because of it. If the body count were the only thing that mattered, then WW 2 wasn't worth fighting either...
Click to expand...

Where in the Constitution does it authorize the US to spill American blood for Asians?

You're either deliberately missing the point or you are, as I suspect, mentally handicapped.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Where in the Constitution does it authorize the US to spill American blood for Asians?

You're either deliberately missing the point or you are, as I suspect, mentally handicapped.
Click to expand...

Or for Frenchmen, or Brits, or anyone else... Same place. Congress is given the power to wage war, declared or not. Remember, the first war the US was ever involved in was the Quasi-war with France--an undeclared war--and that was in John Adams' term of office. Since he was one of the people that helped write the Constitution, you'd think he'd know a thing or two about what the government could or coul not do...
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Or for Frenchmen, or Brits, or anyone else... Same place. Congress is given the power to wage war, declared or not. Remember, the first war the US was ever involved in was the Quasi-war with France--an undeclared war--and that was in John Adams' term of office. Since he was one of the people that helped write the Constitution, you'd think he'd know a thing or two about what the government could or coul not do...
Click to expand...

Blah, blah, blah. Not a fucking word answering the question. The fact is obvious: It's not in the Constitution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top