- 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
re: Latest Updates: Russia-Ukraine Conflict
Posted on 11/5/22 at 11:29 am to CitizenK
Posted on 11/5/22 at 11:29 am to CitizenK
quote:
The problem is that they are economically illiterate. They confuse accounting procedures of transfer of
If that is the case then why aren't posters pointing that out instead of labeling them Putin supporters?
I personally laugh every time someone post that weapons and armaments doesn't count as cash when it clearly cost tax payers to buy and make the weapons and will cost them a second time to replace them. So no that isn't being economically illiterate it's actually common sense.
2
Posted on 11/5/22 at 11:30 am to StormyMcMan
Great info stormy! Does U have any artillery that is accurate enough to hit directly into the trenches?
Posted on 11/5/22 at 11:32 am to SOSFAN
quote:
unfortunately anyone that isn't lock in step behind Ukraine or that dares to question the money we send over are immediately labeled Putin supporters.
Well these are two separate things. You want to debate the money, go to the poli board.
I don't think it's the support that gets shouted down in this thread as much as these two themes
- Russia and Ukraine need to negotiate, but then cannot give any situation in which Ukraine nor Russia would actually accept a truce, but will turn around and complain that negotiations aren't happening
-calling successes failures, saying things have escalated when they haven't, or other just incorrect interpretations of the battlefield (Crimean bridge attack was just a failure, OML saying things have escalated when they haven't, or the Eastern front being in full collapse in June when it was steady retreats)
Other things do get debated but just coming in and posting actual information with correct or at least believable interpretation isn't shouted down (as much as claimed at a minimum).
For example saying Russia is holding well in Kherson even though it looks like they might be retreating won't incite the thread. Saying a gain of 1km is an entire front collapsing will.
Posted on 11/5/22 at 11:34 am to SlimTigerSlap
quote:
Russia has failed to destroy a single HIMARS launcher to date
Correct. And the threat of counter battery fire/air to ground fire is so low they routinely fire in the open now.
The bigger shock is the Russians have only hit a few 155s which also fire in the open now.
Posted on 11/5/22 at 11:37 am to jeffsdad
quote:
Does U have any artillery that is accurate enough to hit directly into the trenches
I personally think the entire front is stalled for both parties at the moment due to a lack of ammunition. Russia has lots of shells but they are inaccurate, but not enough to just blow up the front like they were doing early on.
Ukraine doesn't have nearly as much ammunition but has the accuracy advantage (both with shells and equipment). So they can hold the line, but advancing is another story.
Hopefully the factories can swing that balance, but I think the ammunition quantities are keeping this at a stale mate for a few months minimum. In the meantime it probably means high casualties for both sides
Posted on 11/5/22 at 11:40 am to SOSFAN
quote:
If that is the case then why aren't posters pointing that out instead of labeling them Putin supporters?
I personally laugh every time someone post that weapons and armaments doesn't count as cash when it clearly cost tax payers to buy and make the weapons and will cost them a second time to replace them. So no that isn't being economically illiterate it's actually common sense.
It has been pointed out more than once but to no avail.
It did cost money decades ago. It will cost money to continue to store them and even dispose of them. Some of the HARMS missiles are past expiration date. They were headed to be destroyed before being used anyway. They also don't seem to grasp that a large part of funds actually spent was for mobilization of US forces to former Warsaw Pact nations in response to Putin's nuke sabre rattling. Deployment costs are not small and were part of treaty obligations.
Do you keep drinking spoiled milk? Likely those Politards do? I throw it away. It has been repeatedly shown that none of this is new armaments, even HIMARS which is 1980's technology. That is not to say that it is no longer valid, but they were taken from the USMC storage which no longer uses them.
Not a one of those Politards knows a damned thing about economics, running a business or accounting procedures.
Did we send actual cash to Ukraine, yes. We have sent enough to keep their government services functioning. We are also sending money to other nations to produce ammo for Ukraine. It is a drop in the bucket to our budget and amounts to my throwing away $20.
Posted on 11/5/22 at 11:40 am to SOSFAN
quote:
I've only seen a couple of posters that backed Russia on here unfortunately anyone that isn't lock in step behind Ukraine or that dares to question the money we send over are immediately labeled Putin supporters.
There are a couple of openly pro-Russian posters and they were calling the attack a failed attack since the bridge was not completely destroyed. Those are the posters to which I am referring to not the posters who have a neutral opinion on the war or the posters who are against helping Ukraine when there are so many problems in the USA that need addressing first.
Posted on 11/5/22 at 11:43 am to StormyMcMan
quote:
Russia is preparing to lose the city of Kherson and the whole left bank of the Dnieper. They are currently getting ready to defend the right bank of the river.
He got that part backwards but corrected it later in the thread.
This post was edited on 11/5/22 at 11:45 am
Posted on 11/5/22 at 11:43 am to StormyMcMan
quote:
Russia and Ukraine need to negotiate, but then cannot give any situation in which Ukraine nor Russia would actually accept a truce, but will turn around and complain
They do need to negotiate and to me a solution is Russia retreat back to their country and they not getting any Ukraine territory and Ukraine agreeing that they will not join NATO nor allow any NATO country to install weapons in the country. If Putin doesn't go for that then we'll know it really never was about NATO.
Posted on 11/5/22 at 11:44 am to StormyMcMan
quote:
Russians have created impressive defensive positions. On the third line of defense, 18 kilometers from the Dnieper, this defensive position was recently created. This position consists of three different defensive lines plus a canal!
It's all going to for nothing because Ukraine does not have the capability to attempt an amphibious assault across a river as wide as the Dnieper or the Khakova Reservoir. After Kherson city falls, Ukraine will attack the rest of the Kherson oblast after breaking through the Russian lines in the Zaporhrizhia obalst.
Posted on 11/5/22 at 11:46 am to CitizenK
quote:
did cost money decades ago
So yes it had value and yes taxpayers money was used and will be used again to replace it. Why try to dance around that fact?
Posted on 11/5/22 at 11:47 am to CitizenK
quote:
Not a one of those Politards knows a damned thing about economics, running a business or accounting procedures.
They do use the term "Keynesian" from time to time to smarten it up.
Posted on 11/5/22 at 11:47 am to jeffsdad
quote:
Great info stormy! Does U have any artillery that is accurate enough to hit directly into the trenches?
Both the M777s, and the Ukrainians soviet era artillery is accurate enough to hit directly into the trenches when the Ukrainians are using drones as artillery spotters and making corrections accordingly.
Posted on 11/5/22 at 11:51 am to WeeWee
The only problem there is our allies have less reserves than we do with the exception of South Korea. They always have to keep a lathe amount of artillery and ammunition because of the North but England would expend all of their artillery stocks in 8 days if a real war were to break out. We aren’t nearly in that bad of shape and we would no doubt kick production into high gear but that would take time to do unless they went ahead and made those preparations now. In WW2 we showed the world why you don’t frick with us because of our industrial power but it wouldn’t be as simple as it was back then although I’m confident we would find a way. They should start making preparations now so production can ramp up wine called upon without having a long delay to get everything organized. Right now we produce 18,000 155 mm shells a year or 1500 a month. That’s not a lot by any standard.
Posted on 11/5/22 at 11:56 am to SOSFAN
quote:Is this serious? How naive are you?
They do need to negotiate and to me a solution is Russia retreat back to their country and they not getting any Ukraine territory and Ukraine agreeing that they will not join NATO nor allow any NATO country to install weapons in the country. If Putin doesn't go for that then we'll know it really never was about NATO.
Posted on 11/5/22 at 12:00 pm to SOSFAN
quote:
They do need to negotiate and to me a solution is Russia retreat back to their country and they not getting any Ukraine territory and Ukraine agreeing that they will not join NATO nor allow any NATO country to install weapons in the country. If Putin doesn't go for that then we'll know it really never was about NATO.
Russia will never go for that because the war was never about Ukraine joining NATO in the first place. For Russia this war was a land grab and about increasing the power and prestige of the Motherland. Ukraine will never go for it either. Ukraine has proven that it is militarily stronger than most of the NATO nations combined. Ukraine actually would be an asset to NATO and it is not going to give up its NATO ambitions. In addition to wanting to be in NATO for pride sake, why would Ukraine agree to a peace that does not leave it free to join NATO if it wants? Russia is always going to be bigger and stronger than Ukraine and always view Ukraine as part of Russia even if Ukraine completely defeats the Russia military in Ukraine. Russia will always have the ability to rebuild its forces faster than Ukraine can build up its forces in the best of times. Since Ukraine is going to be rebuilding and recovering from this war for at least 15 - 20 years after the wars conclusion it will be far from the best of times for Ukraine. Ukraine realizes that it is going to need to either join NATO or build its own nuclear weapons (which is not a good idea btw) to guarantee its safety so it will not make a peace that does not allow it.
Posted on 11/5/22 at 12:11 pm to WDE24
quote:
this serious? How naive are you?
It's called an opinion and I clearly stated what I thought the negotiations should be. Instead of stooping low why not try to discuss your opinion and why mine would not work?
Not giving Putin an offramp is just pushing him closer and closer to using nukes. Putin stated this was mainly about NATO at his front door so call his bluff. If he agrees then it's a win for all if not then we know what direction to take.
Posted on 11/5/22 at 12:14 pm to WeeWee
quote:
Ukraine has proven that it is militarily stronger than
If Ukraine didn't have our military support and weapons it would have been over months ago.
Posted on 11/5/22 at 12:15 pm to SOSFAN
quote:A really dumb one that identifies naivety and simple mindedness.
It's called an opinion
quote:Is silly and naïve to think Putin will just order everyone back to Russia if everyone promises no NATO. To complain about the current tack and then offer this as an alternative is laughable.
what I thought the negotiations should be. Instead of stooping low why not try to discuss your opinion and why mine would not work?
quote:Putin has, as he always had, an off-ramp back to Russia. That you propose that in sincerity is why I asked the question.
Not giving Putin an offramp
This post was edited on 11/5/22 at 12:22 pm
Posted on 11/5/22 at 12:19 pm to SOSFAN
quote:
They do need to negotiate and to me a solution is Russia retreat back to their country and they not getting any Ukraine territory and Ukraine agreeing that they will not join NATO nor allow any NATO country to install weapons in the country. If Putin doesn't go for that then we'll know it really never was about NATO.
A major problem is enforcing any kind of peace treaty.
If both sides agreed to your suggested treaty; who enforces the treaty? Who believes Russia would just go home and leave Ukraine completely?
Russia has violated several treaties there already.
Page 2123 of 5046
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News