Politics

[Kevin Peacocke]

All these ridiculous theories! It is really rather simple - Russia attcked Ukraine but miscalculated the resolve of the defenders and the devastating ability of some hand held anti tank and anti aircraft weapons. Now they are bogged down, not by some dashingly brilliant ulterior plan, but because they are stymied. A man with a missile is now worth a whole tank, or a plane. They can be employed by the tens of thousands, cheap, simple to use and clandestine. They are flooding into Ukraine, the 40 mile convoy is now redundant. The window simply closed, the Russians weren't fast enough.
Russia's huge dilemma now is whether to committ more forces, which takes time and planning, or sue for some sort of face saving peace. Putin called Macron, not the other way around, and he seems to have laid the groundwork.
Fortunately someone in NATO and the Pentagon knows their stuff - stingers and javelins, food and water.

 

[Ray B]

I'm not so sure about that. I wonder if the people will realize the bill of goods they have been sold, all of the things that they have lost to the Green New Deal and might be looking for a little Pay-Back.

 

[reineke]

@Rocked and Loaded; @ sgt_ Zim,
yes you are right-the analogy was shit. But I just wanted to show that Brent in Az'
logic is too simplistic.
And yes, maybe Putin would not have attacked the Ukraine with Trump still in
power - but then the reason might have been that this erratic politician was on the way
to ruin NATO anyway....

 

[spike.t]

Great page 666....

 

[spike.t]

 

[spike.t]

Mmmm.......

 

[PARA45]

Mmmm.......

View attachment 455486

Typical communist propaganda.

 

[Mark A Ouellette]

When the Russians are booted out of Ukraine, I wonder if the Ukrainians will move toward their own version of a constitutional amendment for the "Right to keep and bear arms"?

Better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.

 

[Scott CWO]

Six Ways to Help Ukraine Survive Right Now

Ukraine has shown remarkable resolve, resilience, and military capacity as it defends itself against Russia’s unprovoked and massive attacks.

cepa.org

An interesting article by two very experienced people. One formerly from our military and another formerly from the State Department.

Two main points of the six are A-10 aircraft and a limited no-fly zone over the capital and western Ukraine.

 

[CoElkHunter]

Mmmm.......

View attachment 455486

Putin has now lost any remnant of credibility he once might have had with the leaders of the free nations. He has become a pariah on the world stage and is finished as a leader of anything outside of Russia. The Russian “powers that be” need to take care of the situation before he destroys the Russian economy and its proud people.

 

[PHOENIX PHIL]

View attachment 455468

With no intent of throwing shade on much of the history of the world discussed in the last week or so, this seems to me to be the real crux of the matter. It seems the last 100 years or so of history should have taught us (the entire world) that when it comes to energy you have three choices:

1) Provide your own, in other words be energy independent. The USA if it wasn't it was closer than it had been in many years not that long ago. No one can possibly argue the benefit of not having to depend on other countries for energy, regardless if that supply is provided by friend or foe.

2) Source some of your energy from a friend/ally. Not as good as option 1, but maintaining a relationship with a friend and/or ally and hopefully all remains well.

3) Source a significant amount of your energy from an enemy or at least from another country that has historically not been friendly to you. You're now a dependent, a slave to an ugly master. Subject to the master's whims.

During the Trump administration, the POTUS pissed off a lot of people both here and abroad. I was not a fan of Trump's manners myself. Had he thought a little more about what he was going to say before doing so, perhaps he'd have kept his mouth shut more and with that maintained relationships a bit better.

Regardless, it made no sense whatsoever who the POTUS was to ever choose option 3. History has shown over and over again that that is a bad choice. To get in business with Putin to supply your energy is not just bad for you Germany, and any others in the same predicament, it's a horrible decision for the entire world.

How many more times will "leaders" have to relearn this lesson?

Will we apply this lesson to any other needs? An example of other needs would include materials needed for semi-conductors. The SOTU speech Tuesday night by Sleepy he mentioned semi-conductors. It was one point that he was correct on. But that issue isn't limited to just building more semi-con fabs here in the USA for our independence for this technology. You must also secure the materials required by the factory to manufacture the silicon wafers.

 

[PHOENIX PHIL]

View attachment 455485

Hopefully a sign that the oligarchs in Russia are coming to their senses even if it meant having to hurt their profits to do so.

 

[spike.t]

With no intent of throwing shade on much of the history of the world discussed in the last week or so, this seems to me to be the real crux of the matter. It seems the last 100 years or so of history should have taught us (the entire world) that when it comes to energy you have three choices:

1) Provide your own, in other words be energy independent. The USA if it wasn't it was closer than it had been in many years not that long ago. No one can possibly argue the benefit of not having to depend on other countries for energy, regardless if that supply is provided by friend or foe.

2) Source some of your energy from a friend/ally. Not as good as option 1, but maintaining a relationship with a friend and/or ally and hopefully all remains well.

3) Source a significant amount of your energy from an enemy or at least from another country that has historically not been friendly to you. You're now a dependent, a slave to an ugly master. Subject to the master's whims.

During the Trump administration, the POTUS pissed off a lot of people both here and abroad. I was not a fan of Trump's manners myself. Had he thought a little more about what he was going to say before doing so, perhaps he'd have kept his mouth shut more and with that maintained relationships a bit better.

Regardless, it made no sense whatsoever who the POTUS was to ever choose option 3. History has shown over and over again that that is a bad choice. To get in business with Putin to supply your energy is not just bad for you Germany, and any others in the same predicament, it's a horrible decision for the entire world.

How many more times will "leaders" have to relearn this lesson?

Will we apply this lesson to any other needs? An example of other needs would include materials needed for semi-conductors. The SOTU speech Tuesday night by Sleepy he mentioned semi-conductors. It was one point that he was correct on. But that issue isn't limited to just building more semi-con fabs here in the USA for our independence for this technology. You must also secure the materials required by the factory to manufacture the silicon wafers.

Well Phil...as you probably know I don't give a fk what i say....should have been his vice president...fk me what a combination.....

 

[spike.t]

With no intent of throwing shade on much of the history of the world discussed in the last week or so, this seems to me to be the real crux of the matter. It seems the last 100 years or so of history should have taught us (the entire world) that when it comes to energy you have three choices:

1) Provide your own, in other words be energy independent. The USA if it wasn't it was closer than it had been in many years not that long ago. No one can possibly argue the benefit of not having to depend on other countries for energy, regardless if that supply is provided by friend or foe.

2) Source some of your energy from a friend/ally. Not as good as option 1, but maintaining a relationship with a friend and/or ally and hopefully all remains well.

3) Source a significant amount of your energy from an enemy or at least from another country that has historically not been friendly to you. You're now a dependent, a slave to an ugly master. Subject to the master's whims.

During the Trump administration, the POTUS pissed off a lot of people both here and abroad. I was not a fan of Trump's manners myself. Had he thought a little more about what he was going to say before doing so, perhaps he'd have kept his mouth shut more and with that maintained relationships a bit better.

Regardless, it made no sense whatsoever who the POTUS was to ever choose option 3. History has shown over and over again that that is a bad choice. To get in business with Putin to supply your energy is not just bad for you Germany, and any others in the same predicament, it's a horrible decision for the entire world.

How many more times will "leaders" have to relearn this lesson?

Will we apply this lesson to any other needs? An example of other needs would include materials needed for semi-conductors. The SOTU speech Tuesday night by Sleepy he mentioned semi-conductors. It was one point that he was correct on. But that issue isn't limited to just building more semi-con fabs here in the USA for our independence for this technology. You must also secure the materials required by the factory to manufacture the silicon wafers.

And the companies involved in chip manufacturing have started massive factory building programmes now away from the east...but takes time....shame as I have said in another post....how come just reading...checking etc what's on various news outlets I can make to myself a fairly accurate prediction of what is going to happen...but at the time think to myself you obviously are incorrect...as the "experts " pulled up...or who write don't seen to have the same gut feeling as I do.....yeah well fk knows...

 

[sgt_zim]

@Rocked and Loaded; @ sgt_ Zim,
yes you are right-the analogy was shit. But I just wanted to show that Brent in Az'
logic is too simplistic.
And yes, maybe Putin would not have attacked the Ukraine with Trump still in
power - but then the reason might have been that this erratic politician was on the way
to ruin NATO anyway....

Was he? IMO, most of Europe was doing a fine job of destroying NATO all on its own.

Germany in particular - you've let your military fall utterly to pieces. Are your infantry actually "training" with brooms? What has happened to your vaunted air force? Could it even get a whole squadron airborne today?

 

[lwaters]

Well Phil...as you probably know I don't give a fk what i say....should have been his vice president...fk me what a combination.....

You would have to give up beer to be his vice president. I see the price of beer is going up. This needs to stop now.

 

[lwaters]

Was he? IMO, most of Europe was doing a fine job of destroying NATO all on its own.

Germany in particular - you've let your military fall utterly to pieces. Are your infantry actually "training" with brooms? What has happened to your vaunted air force? Could it even get a whole squadron airborne today?

Ah but look how fast they recovered from ww1.

 

[Rick Cox]

When the Russians are booted out of Ukraine, I wonder if the Ukrainians will move toward their own version of a constitutional amendment for the "Right to keep and bear arms"?

Better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.

The arms were handed out to any 'patriots' who wanted to defend the country. Now the country has a real problem with armed gangs of outlaws. Most of whom have no training or history of gun use.

 

[Sabattiboy]

View attachment 455423

Detroit and other cities still have damaged buildings from the 1960's race riots. Some of the lower 48 have third world areas of major cities. It doesn't appear america can be made great again.

 

[Sabattiboy]

The Saudi’s still want Dollars, not a gold backed Russia/China currency.

Can that change?