- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
3
Posted on 10/17/22 at 1:57 pm to Eurocat
quote:
Moscow Mayor announced
"Mobilization in Moscow declared OVER".
Apparently they "reached the target goal" or something.
At the end they went to the homeless shelters.
And from ethnic minority regions
Posted on 10/17/22 at 2:09 pm to Lakeboy7
quote:
Every time a Russian dies the world becomes a better place.
little extreme here no?
Posted on 10/17/22 at 2:11 pm to Eurocat
quote:
Moscow Mayor announced
"Mobilization in Moscow declared OVER".
They announced that mobilization would end at or around Oct 31st as the normal fall conscription will start on Nov 1. So it's not really over as much as it's changing names for a little bit of time. I'd imagine they are going to call it mobilization again before long
Posted on 10/17/22 at 2:14 pm to CitizenK
quote:
Client this morning thinks that the Nuke threats are aimed at women and effeminate males who would otherwise support Ukraine.
That's crazy because my client this morning said People with McNeese logos in their bio that support Ukraine like to wear woman's panties.
Posted on 10/17/22 at 2:17 pm to Eurocat
quote:
"Mobilization in Moscow declared OVER".
Mobilization has been a political and economic disaster for them so far.
But Russia is also about to start it's normal, yearly conscription cycle. And the bureaucracy simply can't handle the regular draft plus all this other mobilization.
So, Russia is about to do its normal draft of young men, who are legally prohibited from fighting in wars outside of Russia. Of course, that's one of the reasons that Russia did the "annexations": these men, unlike conscripts back in February, can now legally be thrown right into the fight.
Posted on 10/17/22 at 2:21 pm to PrecedentedTimes
quote:
The mighty stout, the great arbiter of truth and moral righteousness, who goes around buying houses on behalf of Blackrock.
Does he really?
What a hypocritical piece of shite.
Posted on 10/17/22 at 2:22 pm to lowspark12
No I don't work for Blackrock
Posted on 10/17/22 at 2:23 pm to stout
quote:
No I don't work for Blackrock
just ignore bro...tons of good guys in this thread but also, just like the poliboard ironically, some fricking losers too. big time.
Posted on 10/17/22 at 2:25 pm to Realityintheface
quote:
Unless you’re gonna be fighting the Russians, I don’t see the point in staying when Russian artillery gets in range. It’s war for fricks sake. Bad shite happens.
It is a little like people who ride out hurricanes. They do it for a myriad of reasons none of which seem logical from the outside.
Posted on 10/17/22 at 2:27 pm to StormyMcMan
Some additional commentary/context from Elon:
Seems Elon’s assessment of the situation is somewhat similar to what we’ve discussed in here, some with dramatics and others calmly and logically as potential outcomes/responses. I think there’s some validity to the Hawaii/Pearl and Crimea comparison in the context of Russian view which is what drives Russian action whether factual or not.
I still think Elon’s mistakes are not considering, at least not relaying what he considers, the long term effect of giving in when nukes are threatened, that Russia historically will not abide by a peace agreement, and perspective from the Ukrainian side.
I think this gives a little credence to my thought of his view being through the lens of global nuclear apocalypse and is drive to inhabit alternative planets as a solution to the inevitable end of the earth and/or its resources. Doesn’t make it right, but I think that’s where he’s coming from and just proposed a bad solution.
For those interested, here is the Newsweek article he shared in his OP:
Newsweek
Interestingly we’ve largely said some of this just today and of course over the full length of the thread.
Seems Elon’s assessment of the situation is somewhat similar to what we’ve discussed in here, some with dramatics and others calmly and logically as potential outcomes/responses. I think there’s some validity to the Hawaii/Pearl and Crimea comparison in the context of Russian view which is what drives Russian action whether factual or not.
I still think Elon’s mistakes are not considering, at least not relaying what he considers, the long term effect of giving in when nukes are threatened, that Russia historically will not abide by a peace agreement, and perspective from the Ukrainian side.
I think this gives a little credence to my thought of his view being through the lens of global nuclear apocalypse and is drive to inhabit alternative planets as a solution to the inevitable end of the earth and/or its resources. Doesn’t make it right, but I think that’s where he’s coming from and just proposed a bad solution.
For those interested, here is the Newsweek article he shared in his OP:
Newsweek
Interestingly we’ve largely said some of this just today and of course over the full length of the thread.
This post was edited on 10/17/22 at 2:28 pm
Posted on 10/17/22 at 2:30 pm to lsu777
It doesn't bother me. I do work for hedge funds but not Blackrock. Hedge fund work is only like 10% of my business and only in 2 of the 14 states I cover but I know in NOLA if someone wanted to make a killing there are a few hedge funds begging for local GCs to assist them.
Posted on 10/17/22 at 2:33 pm to DabosDynasty
Elon is 100% correct here
Posted on 10/17/22 at 2:35 pm to DabosDynasty
I dont know where I fall on this. On one hand, does Russia feeling that Crimea is Russia magically supercede Ukraine feeling the same?
On the other hand, that does seem like a legitimate red line moment
Gun to my head would tend to agree with Elon in this instance that we should probably be trying to avoid this hornets nest but idk
On the other hand, that does seem like a legitimate red line moment
Gun to my head would tend to agree with Elon in this instance that we should probably be trying to avoid this hornets nest but idk
This post was edited on 10/17/22 at 2:36 pm
Posted on 10/17/22 at 2:39 pm to DabosDynasty
If Crimea was/is such a critical area for Russia then why did they elect to give it to Ukraine in 1954?
Posted on 10/17/22 at 2:39 pm to DabosDynasty
Couple things…
- NATO/US would not necessarily respond with nukes.
- I don’t understand the fascination with Crimea… the likelihood of Russia losing crimea is very slim at this point.
- if the western world caves to Russia’s nuclear posturing today, we are setting an extremely dangerous precedent for other nuclear powers to use in the future (specifically China).
- by caving to Russia’ nuclear posturing, we create an extremely lucrative incentive for rouge nations like Iran and NK to develop nuclear weapons.
It is in our (the western democratic developed world) best interest to draw and very clear public line on nuclear weapons… IF they are used, the full wrath will be felt swiftly and immediately.
- NATO/US would not necessarily respond with nukes.
- I don’t understand the fascination with Crimea… the likelihood of Russia losing crimea is very slim at this point.
- if the western world caves to Russia’s nuclear posturing today, we are setting an extremely dangerous precedent for other nuclear powers to use in the future (specifically China).
- by caving to Russia’ nuclear posturing, we create an extremely lucrative incentive for rouge nations like Iran and NK to develop nuclear weapons.
It is in our (the western democratic developed world) best interest to draw and very clear public line on nuclear weapons… IF they are used, the full wrath will be felt swiftly and immediately.
This post was edited on 10/17/22 at 2:41 pm
Posted on 10/17/22 at 2:39 pm to stout
I agree with a lot of what’s in the tweets and even the article, but I do disagree with his proposed plan. His comment on Kherson and Zap(I’ll misspell the rest I’m sorry) confirm his lack of Ukrainian perspective and his macro view. That’s fine to consider and we should consider both macro and micro ramifications, but don’t expect the Ukrainians to be happy about it.
Posted on 10/17/22 at 2:40 pm to WestCoastAg
The answer is easy. Support Ukraine with weapons and intel all we want but we just can’t respond to a nuclear attack by Russia on Ukrainian soil with our own nuclear weapons on Russia. Ukraine needs to know that they we won’t defend them even in the event of a nuclear attack on their soil. It’s just not worth it.
Posted on 10/17/22 at 2:45 pm to WestCoastAg
quote:
Gun to my head would tend to agree with Elon in this instance that we should probably be trying to avoid this hornets nest but idk
Sure we should, but who would have thought that 7 months ago Russia’s taking if Crimea would be threatened?
It’s hard to believe that Russia had bungled the situation so bad that now they are even having to consider using nukes not to defend Russia, but to defend their pride.
And what does this mean long term? Now these smaller country see that Russia isn’t what they once were. Now will Russia gave you resort to nukes to keep their other subjects in line? Are nukes the only hole card left for the Russians to play?
Posted on 10/17/22 at 2:52 pm to doubleb
Giving in now is only kicking the can down the road to a potential larger conflict that has a more immediate affect on The US (ie Taiwan).
Page 2009 of 5046
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News