The Russian-Ukrainian War Thread

KipPotapych

Well-Known Member
ive done it. Some Judges are easy, some not. The FederalnSystem can be gamed if you know what you’re doing.

Art
Right of the bat, I realize that I may (and even expect to) be lawyered on this post. Nonetheless…

I can get a little carried away with reading when I have time and did yesterday and today in regards to the subject. How does eminent domain apply to his Tesla plants that you mentioned earlier. Beside the fact that it has nothing to do with anything, some states actually prohibit the use of eminent domain powers to nationalize or acquire (or take), if you will, factories, for example.

It also appears that nationalization on grand scale (and I believe SpaceX fits the grand scale criteria) was also done during some sort of public or national emergency with benefits of exercising such powers clearly defined. I do not see any clearly defined or otherwise benefits here, neither there is any public emergency. Without any emergency, these powers of taking appear to generally apply to land (and property attached to it) for the purposes of building infrastructure (energy, transport, etc), creating or expanding parks, and so on that presumably benefit the public via economic means or otherwise. Even in case of emergency, the Supreme Court had ruled that a) the president may not have the powers (violation of separation of powers) and b) while such powers may be appropriate in some circumstances, the declared emergency during the Korean War did not meet the standard:

The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (Youngstown Sheet & Tube v. Sawyer) on an expedited basis and on June 2, 1952 ruled (6-3) that the seizure was unconstitutional. Two of the six justices in the majority (Black and Douglas) stated that the seizing of private property required congressional authorization (under its lawmaking responsibilities) and as such Truman’s action was a violation of the separation of powers. The other four did not go so far, and believed that such presidential action could be permissible in certain circumstances, but the facts of the case and the current emergency that Truman had declared did not reach the necessary standard.

The same article I cited above is the source for this: https://thenextsystem.org/sites/def...ry_of_Nationalization_in_the_US-Hanna-NSP.pdf. In that case, the whole process took all but two months from seizing the steel companies and returning them back to private ownership. The second paragraph on page 23 of the same paper, also indicates a commonality with the current situation that there was no official declaration of war. And if this hits the Congress…

Also, in regards to “defeat Russia”. Isn’t one supposed to be in a state of war with another in order to defeat them?

I don’t know, the entire “proposal” or idea seems to be pretty absurd to me. After all, we are not talking about taking uncle John’s parcel to build a highway here. Especially when the guy (Musk) acted in the best interests of the company (SpaceX) without breaking any laws or obligations, contractual or otherwise, to anyone. Hence, like I mentioned earlier, I do not believe leadership of any democratic society would even consider such steps to be taken in the light of what had happened. Seems completely crazy to me. Just imagine that instead of awarding a contract with the Ministry of Defence to SpaceX, Musk declaring that he had a conversation with Biden administration and Pentagon officials and they threatened to nationalize his company if he refused to use the assets of his company as the Ukrainian and, perhaps, American governments see fit. This is what immediately came to my mind when I read it but I hesitated to post it previously:


The two last words that the narrator says in the video would be spot on in this situation as it happened.
 

rsemmes

Member
Sorry to interrupt the flow here! I wrote my last days ago and finally posted it.

I suppose I wrote some of it because it troubles me greatly when some here seem to vilify entire peoples and I go silent for a good while. Ascribing collective guilt (holding entire peoples responsible for horrid things done by some of their people in the past) is one of the roots of continuing cycles of horror and war in this world. The Poles eventually forgave the Ukrainians for what a portion of their people did in the past. Yet some can't seem keep from hanging onto what the Soviets did, even during the same time, tarring all Russians with that brush. Most Croatian Serbs had forgiven the Croats for what the Ustase did to their people during WWII -- until some (not all) Croats revived that whole vibe at independence (sort of like as happened in Ukraine, where a minority of Ukrainians conflated nationalism with Banderism/Nazi-ism and the only time their country had briefly sort been independent, but certainly not exactly the same), and so there was yet another bloody cycle. But there is no reasoning with that attitude, especially once war mentality has set in, so I just go quiet. (For the record, I would feel the same if anyone tarred all Ukrainians with the Nazi brush -- I just don't hold with forever blaming a whole people for the actions of only a portion.)

Anyway, I finally decided to speak up a bit. If my views on this are not welcome, I suppose I will hear about it!

(This is not directed at you, rsemmes, in case there is any confusion, as my reply was to you. I have not noticed you doing that.)
Thanks.
As you said, it was not much of a war, I didn't know much about it. I do remember that it was quick, that the Croats got time, weapons and training; that they were successful and that it was not clean (how could it had been?). Anyway, it was about the inexistant possibility of UKR winning that kind of offensive (unless Krajina = Donbas).
I miss those "good old wars" where soldiers were fighting each other to take a position.

Yes, it will be sad to reach a peace agreement where UKR gets even less than what was offered at the Ankara negotiations, at a much higher price, but Zelensky and Putin will get their place in History; not for the first time in History
Thanks again, now I know a lot more and I will be talking about those Lisbon/Dayton ~ Ankara/X to some friends.

(I have not noticed you doing that. I am confused here, not directing replies to someone when I am replying to someone, when I am not replying to someone? Taking it personally? I am completely lost)
 

rsemmes

Member
I know there have been more than a few post (I'm at #6.400) about Oryx, but I haven't seen this mentioned.
I read an anecdote about the ACW, a Confederate rgt took a position and captured one artillery piece, they chalked their number on it. A second rgt moved through the area, erase it and wrote down its own number. The first one got its due credit in the end.
I am not doubting Oryx honesty or good job (or if he is or can check the metadata), just all the other possibilities. One unit hit one tank, a few pictures, morning, trees in the background. A second unit moves through the area at sunset, more pictures, with a building in the background (one soldier is sending one of them two weeks later to his cousin, who then upload the picture one week later). Any good picture of the wheels?, just abandoned?, what was damaged? A repair unit takes it away, more pictures, different unit, different location, different date. Counter-order, they abandon it among some trees, another unit and some civilians taking more pictures. How may losses do we have? By the way, it was a captured one. We don't get a +1/-1, but a +4,+8/0.
We do repair tanks, a three times repaired tank is... how many losses? Unless burnt, is not a (total) loss, worth repairing is a different concept and we don't get any maintenance report with the picture.
A picture doesn't say who was using it at the time, too many variables.

There have been a lot of losses, we know that, we do have actual numbers for the Yom Kippur (and Israel repairing and sending tanks back and Egypt and Syria not really doing that; same thing for ammo consumption, we don't have to go back to 1915 for that), but I don't know how I would do more than guess work (not estimate) by counting pictures; I mean "hundreds", not "231".
 

2007yellow430

Active Member
Truman’s taking isn’t the same. Internet usage is governed by the FCC. I don’t know those rules, but I’d bet they are different. I do know radio stations are held to a much different standard. I suspect there is a lot of government control.

Art
 

Larry_L

Active Member
A view of the current status of the war from the Russian view. When I look at the topwar forums the comments are often more interesting than the post.


Mick Ryan sees the current offensive as different campaigns, Land, Air, and Strategic. I found it worth a read. One of the things he states is that Russia is currently recruiting 20,000 to 30,000 troops a month.

Variables in the Ukraine War for 2024

This is from Tom Cooper on Sept 8th. Hill 166 was recaptured by Russia again. Tom also speaks about his view on the various areas of the battelfield, and the exchange of longer range strikes by both sides. He also talks about the reserves that Russia is currently deploying.


Tom Cooper from yesterday. Some items here are RAF fighters patrolling the western Black Sea, Russian "active defense", lack of Storm shadow strikes, and western support, or lack of enough support. I tend to agree with the following quote. The italics are mine.

Quote: "This is so for reasons I'm explaining all the time since March-April last year: regardless the reason (Pudding's PRBS or whatever else), the victory in this war is going to be decided on the battlefield. And - also because NATO is far too dumb while run by opportunist and war profiteers but to understand this - there is only one way for Ukraine to win: destroy the VSRF (and VDV). Destroy it. Not damage it, not disable it, nothing else but destroy it. To the last, if necessary. "Right now, and unless Ukraine gets 1,000+ tanks, 1,000+ guns, plus necessary ammo, plus electronic warfare systems, plus necessary UAVs, plus necessary air defences - i.e. unless any of idiots in charge of NATO comes to his/her senses - there is only one way of effecting this result: attacking and killing dozens of thousands of Russians by (vastly superior) Ukrainian infantry, so to expose them to blows of available artillery, snipers, anti-material rifles, and UAVs (that's something like the 'charts' of most successful/effective Ukrainian weapons systems, right now). "

He also states that Russia can Recruit upwards of 15,000 - 20,000 a month. This agrees well with Ryan's estimate. It is also close to what Ukraine reports as Russian losses. Most estimate those estimates at too high. There is a question and answer also included.

 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
This article describes some of the recent Ukrainian drone and missile strikes on Russian territory ( from outside and within). Some information about the difficulties Russia is experiencing in producing Iranian drones domestically. Something as basic as a forklift truck and an available operator for it delaying production….wow!

 

KipPotapych

Well-Known Member
Forgot to add that ATACMS might be heading to Ukraine:

Not just ATACMS, but possibly and/or GMLRS packed with cluster munitions:


Ukraine is currently equipped with 155 millimeter artillery with a maximum range of 18 miles carrying up to 48 bomblets. The ATACMS under consideration would propel around 300 or more bomblets. The GMLRS rocket system, a version of which Ukraine has had in its arsenal for months, would be able to disperse up to 404 cluster munitions.

I already expressed my view on cluster munitions previously. This is getting out of hand, in my opinion.

Also Kuleba in regards to Taurus (via Google translate):

Kuleba firmly expects the delivery of German Taurus cruise missiles. "You will do it anyway," he said. "I don't understand why we're wasting time."

 

Vivendi

Well-Known Member
Aw, thanks. As for some thinking Musk was nuts for not materially assisting with sinking the Russian fleet at Sevastopol, and for thinking it might go nuclear, well ...

That would have been sorta like Russia's Pearl Harbor, no? And look what we ended up dropping on Japan. Twice.
I don't think this is a valid example.

The US did not drop nuclear bombs on Japan because Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. The US dropped the bombs to end a horrible and gruesome war war as quickly as possible, at a point in time where it was clear that Japan would keep on fighting, even when it was clear they were losing. Harry Truman’s Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb (U.S. National Park Service) (nps.gov)

Also, the situation has changed since WW2 and the war between US and Japan. There is a general acceptance amongst most world leaders that the threshold for using nuclear weapons should remain very high. The US was losing in Vietnam but did not use nukes. The US was losing in Korea but did not use nukes. The USSR was losing in Afghanistan but did not use nukes. Etc.

In addition, the US and the UK all have signaled numerous times to Russia that if Russia does use nukes, it will have severe consequences for Russia. US has privately warned Russia against using nuclear weapons in Ukraine for several months | CNN Politics
UK warns Russia of severe consequences if nuclear weapons used in Ukraine | Reuters

To top it off, also China, who has declared a "no limits partnership" with Russia, has warned Russia to not use nukes: China’s Xi warns Putin not to use nuclear arms in Ukraine – POLITICO
 

Vivendi

Well-Known Member
Not just ATACMS, but possibly and/or GMLRS packed with cluster munitions:


Ukraine is currently equipped with 155 millimeter artillery with a maximum range of 18 miles carrying up to 48 bomblets. The ATACMS under consideration would propel around 300 or more bomblets. The GMLRS rocket system, a version of which Ukraine has had in its arsenal for months, would be able to disperse up to 404 cluster munitions.

I already expressed my view on cluster munitions previously. This is getting out of hand, in my opinion.
So you think it's getting out of hand if Ukraine is getting cluster munitions? This was getting out of hand when Russia launched their full-scale invasion followed by massacres of civilians in Bucha and elsewhere. Also, Russia has been using cluster munitions for a very long time in this war.

I agree cluster munitions is horrible. It would have been better if US/Europe had stepped up with much stronger support with heavy equipment, long range missiles, fighter jets, etc. at a much earlier stage. However we are where we are. Russia can end this war at any time by simply pulling their forces out of Ukraine. Ukraine cannot do the same, they are literally fighting for their existence.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
So you think it's getting out of hand if Ukraine is getting cluster munitions? This was getting out of hand when Russia launched their full-scale invasion followed by massacres of civilians in Bucha and elsewhere. Also, Russia has been using cluster munitions for a very long time in this war.

I agree cluster munitions is horrible. It would have been better if US/Europe had stepped up with much stronger support with heavy equipment, long range missiles, fighter jets, etc. at a much earlier stage. However we are where we are. Russia can end this war at any time by simply pulling their forces out of Ukraine. Ukraine cannot do the same, they are literally fighting for their existence.
Ukraine could pull their forces out of the parts of Ukraine Russia has claimed and to start negotiations. Don't get me wrong it's not the same. But either side can end the war by simply accepting defeat. Clearly neither side is going to do that. And let's not forget what exactly is and isn't "Ukraine" is what's currently at issue in this conflict.

EDIT: To be clear, I think Kip's point is more along the lines of this;


Human Rights Watch visited Izium and nearby villages from September 19 to October 9, 2022, to investigate Russian abuses against Ukrainian civilians during the Russian occupation, including arbitrary detention, torture, and summary executions. Human Rights Watch interviewed over 100 people, including victims of abuses, witnesses, emergency services personnel, and health professionals. Almost all of them said that they had seen fragments from submunitions that had detonated around their homes during the Russian occupation.


Ukrainian cluster munition rocket attacks in the city of Izium in 2022 killed at least eight civilians and wounded 15 more, Human Rights Watch said. The attacks occurred in Izium and surrounding areas where Russian forces had arrived in March, seized control by early April, and remained in control until early September. A United Nations report also found that Ukrainian armed forces used cluster munitions in attacks on Izium between March and September 2022.


The total number of civilians killed and wounded in the cluster munition attacks that Human Rights Watch examined is most likely greater. Russian forces took many injured civilians to Russia for medical care and many had not returned when Human Rights Watch visited. An ambulance driver said he and his colleagues had regularly transported and treated civilians, including children, with cluster munition injuries during the Russian occupation. He estimated that he took at least one such case to the hospital every day.
EDIT2: And this;


You can agree or disagree. But the landmine cleanup alone will be massive. Cluster munitions make the problem significantly worse.
 

Vivendi

Well-Known Member
Ukraine support tracker from the Kiel institute was updated quite recently, quite interesting reading.

Over the summer, the EU announced a new €50 billion multi-year support package to be delivered through 2027, which doubles total EU commitments.

In addition, there are several multi-year commitments from individual European countries, in particular a 4-year military support package of Germany worth €10.5 billion (2024–2027) and Norway’s “Nansen Support Program” worth €6.6 billion over 5 years. Additional multi-year packages were committed by Denmark, UK, Switzerland, Sweden, Portugal, and Lithuania. 

Moreover, the Ukraine Support Tracker lists new, short-term commitment increases from Europe, in particular by Germany worth €619 million and by the United Kingdom worth €286 million. Total EU commitments are now almost double those of the US.

I am also content to notice that my own country Norway is now the fourth biggest donor, after the US, Germany and the UK. A pity that France, Italy and Spain in particular are lagging so far behind. They are all quite big European countries, and also with significant defense industries. They should really step up.

Ukraine Support Tracker | Kiel Institute (ifw-kiel.de)

No doubt: Europe is in this for the long haul.
 

Big_Zucchini

Well-Known Member
If Ukrainian will have access to much fewer cluster munitions than Russia had already used and currently uses, but it will contribute to ending the war more quickly, then it makes a lot of sense to use them. If the war ends more quickly as a result, the munitions not used on Ukrainian territory during the time saved may offset the use of cluster munitions.
 

rsemmes

Member
First of all, sorry, my books are in one city and I am in different one (in another country, actually); at least until December. I will try to google something to provide some links. Some of this is common knowledge, for a military buff, unless you only read Harris.
They took him out of the picture after the war, the fact of spending two years burning women and children alive was not, then, that "politically correct". ("Bomber" Harris, RAF Bomber Command in WW2).

Vivendi
I fully agree that the landmine and cluster munition cleanups will be massive. All of this could have been avoided if Russia had not launched their brutal, illegal, unprovoked invasion of Ukraine.


In all those old posts I read, "moot point" was mentioned more than once.
Could the (quote) brutal, illegal, unprovoked invasion of Iraq have been avoided if America has not been discovered in 1492? Moot point. Could the war has not started through negotiations? Could the war has ended last year through negotiations? This year, through negotiations? Moot point.
Unless your are using: "brutal, illegal, unprovoked invasion" every time you are talking about the United States of America, what is the point of using those inflammatory terms, do you feel better? Because it makes you sound naive. Please remember that when you are pointing one finger at one thing, three fingers are pointing at you.
Could we live in a better world? Moot point. This is our world, this is our History.

Big_Zucchini
If Ukrainian will have access to much fewer cluster munitions than Russia had already used and currently uses, but it will contribute to ending the war more quickly, then it makes a lot of sense to use them. If the war ends more quickly as a result, the munitions not used on Ukrainian territory during the time saved may offset the use of cluster munitions.


So, Russia should use whatever (quote) will contribute to ending the war more quickly. You are stating that the end justify the means, with a few "ifs" and one "may". I think that is a very dangerous path and off topic, we are getting into philosophy.
Probably a moot point too, if you don't have the ammo you want, you use what you have. There is no need to defend the case.

Vivendi
The US was losing in Vietnam but did not use nukes.

Nixon was more than happy to use them. (Pentagon Papers and Whitehouse tapes, common knowledge nowadays). The question is how vital that war ("Special Military Operation", war was never declare, neither against Cambodia nor against Laos) was, for US, no for his re-election.
I am not sure about the wording (again, my books being far away from me), but the doctrine after Korea was (something like) "no war in the East (China) without nuclear weapons".

Vivendi
The US did not drop nuclear bombs on Japan because Japan attacked Pearl Harbour. The US dropped the bombs to end a horrible and gruesome war war as quickly as possible, at a point in time where it was clear that Japan would keep on fighting, even when it was clear they were losing.
Harry Truman’s Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb (U.S. National Park Service) (nps.gov)

No.

Putin or the Russian Government accusing themselves of war crimes, in writing?
That was an excuse/explanation after the fact, like Dresden. [Dresden, again, old posts: It was not a military operation, it was not to help the USSR (it's true that the URSS was asking for more "active participation"), it was done because it could be done. UK/US were trying to repeat the "success" of Hamburg, again and again. One of the goals was burning 10.000 civilians in one go.] Japan was already trying to surrender (negotiate), Japan was going to starve and, anyway, US was burning it from one end to the other; no need to invade either. (From a military point of view, invading the Philippines was unnecessary too).
Again, should Russia use any means "to end a horrible and gruesome war as quickly as possible".

Even after the Saville Report and one British PM saying "Oops!", you can still read that the Paras (after the no-so-well-known same incident in Belfast) were "defending themselves" in Derry. We can extract different interpretations from the same documents, that is History, Vivendi's bias (nothing personal), my bias. The fact is that there are too many myths (by the victors) that keep creeping back. Vae victis!

Edit:
Dresden.
The Bombing War. R. Overy; The Fire. J. Friedich; Right of the Line. J. Terraine. I think I got that of "Harris not being invited to the party any more" from the last one. From Overy, Churchill to Portal (Bomber Command), after the fact: the policy of bombing 'for the sake of increasing the terror, though under other pretexts, should be reviewed'; mind, "reviewed". Also, Churchill to Stalin: "If need be, as the war went on, we hoped to shatter almost every dwelling in almost every German city". The conversation was warmer after that.
Dresden was in Germany, Dresden was a city. It was in the general direction of the Soviet advance.

Korea.
The Korean War. M. Hastings. The use of nuclear weapons and the invasion of China were contemplated, and MacAthur was more than happy to carry it out. This should be in every not that old book. The doctrine/policy/conclusion of "not another war in Asia without nukes" is probably from the Pentagon Papers, they covered WW2 too.
I think the point is, if you have the weapons you want, why escalation? (and then escalation). You always have plans for something else, that's how the Armed Forces work and there is always going to be a discussion before giving the order or deciding not to give the order.

Japan.
This one is going to be trickier because it's more political. That Patton (and not only him) was eager to keep marching East (like NATO), provides a hint.

Edit: Japan.
Well, it wasn't that difficult after all. Nothing is coming from my books, just the same information, even some of the same references.

Mandate for Change. former President Dwight D. Eisenhower criticized the use of the atomic bombs, saying they weren’t necessary to force the surrender of Japan.

American Prometheus. M J Sherwin
Once the USSR entered the war, the Japanese military not only had no arguments for continuation of the war left, but it also feared the Soviet Union would occupy significant parts of northern Japan.
Truman did not want the USSR to have a claim to participate in the occupation of Japan. Another option (which could have ended the war before August) was to clarify that the emperor would not be held accountable for the war under the policy of unconditional surrender.

Political and Social Problems. J Franck. (Franck Report).
It is doubtful whether the first available bombs, of comparatively low efficiency and small size, will be sufficient to break the will or ability of Japan to resist, especially given the fact that the major cities like Tokyo, Nagoya, Osaka and Kobe already will largely be reduced to ashes by the slower process of ordinary aerial bombing.

A May 5, 1945, cable — intercepted and decoded by the US — ‘dispelled any possible doubt that the Japanese were eager to sue for peace.’

The Strategic Bombing Survey concluded that "certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated".
Their own report about what they had been doing and what they achieved. Why are we still excusing the use of two atomic bombs?

In the next war, the air war will be "clean" again and we will achieve exactly what we intended; as long as it is our war.

I wonder if "retaliation", "a just retaliation" at that is mention by
Oops!, they forgot. Calling your enemy a beast looks familiar, doesn't it? Ergo, my retaliation is just.
 
Last edited:

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
If Ukrainian will have access to much fewer cluster munitions than Russia had already used and currently uses, but it will contribute to ending the war more quickly, then it makes a lot of sense to use them. If the war ends more quickly as a result, the munitions not used on Ukrainian territory during the time saved may offset the use of cluster munitions.
Will it contribute to ending the war more quickly? What if the war ends quicker but the intensity of fighting is higher and therefore more net munitions are used? There are too many variables here. It's possible to construe an interpretation that shows it's possible that supplying cluster munitions to Ukraine will actually decrease UXO left in the end. But this certainly doesn't look like the likeliest explanation. Not that this is necessarily an argument against supplying those munitions to Ukraine.
 

vikingatespam

Well-Known Member
This entire discussion on cluster munitions reminds of the one regarding DU munitions in the Gulf War. Given the entire miserable sum of destruction inflicted on the warring parties, is the addition of a relatively small number of cluster rounds really noticeable ? There will be de-mining efforts in UKR for longer than I will be alive, regardless of the use of them.
 

KipPotapych

Well-Known Member
Appear to be some big hits in Sevastopol. I’ll just leave a link for the OSINT twitter/x/whatever channel and you can browse around for some photos and videos and preliminary assessment:


Edit: According to some reports, the two ships in question (via Google translate):

As a result of a missile strike by the Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU) on a shipyard in Sevastopol, the diesel-electric submarine "Rostov-on-Don" was damaged, as well as the large landing ship (BDK) "Minsk". The Telegram channel Shot writes about it.

Source: Подлодка и десантный корабль загорелись из-за удара ВСУ по заводу в Севастополе
 
Last edited:

Big_Zucchini

Well-Known Member
So, Russia should use whatever (quote) will contribute to ending the war more quickly. You are stating that the end justify the means, with a few "ifs" and one "may". I think that is a very dangerous path and off topic, we are getting into philosophy.
Probably a moot point too, if you don't have the ammo you want, you use what you have. There is no need to defend the case.
That was not what I said. I said that if using cluster munitions will end the war more quickly, then the total sum of UXO could be overall lower. That's my entire point. Not that everyone should use everything at their disposal. Any interpretation beyond the topic of UXO is your own.
 

rsemmes

Member
That was not what I said. I said that if using cluster munitions will end the war more quickly, then the total sum of UXO could be overall lower. That's my entire point. Not that everyone should use everything at their disposal. Any interpretation beyond the topic of UXO is your own.
Sorry, I thought that Russia was able to use your "if"... "could" too.
 

rsemmes

Member
This entire discussion on cluster munitions reminds of the one regarding DU munitions in the Gulf War. Given the entire miserable sum of destruction inflicted on the warring parties, is the addition of a relatively small number of cluster rounds really noticeable ? There will be de-mining efforts in UKR for longer than I will be alive, regardless of the use of them.
It is a war, both sides have weapons, "it makes a lot of sense to use them". I do agree.
 
Top