- 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: NATO signs off on F-16 usage against and inside of Russia
Posted on 2/24/24 at 2:18 pm to WeeWee
Posted on 2/24/24 at 2:18 pm to WeeWee
quote:The rabid stupidity infesting the Ukraine-Russia discussion is beyond worrisome.
Now NATO laughs at Russia's military capabilities.
NATO "laughs" at Russian military capabilities? Really?
NATO laughs at 1700 deployed nukes, and 5800 on hand? Does 'NATO' post on the OT as well?
Because that stupidity would fit perfectly with a forum which aplaudes itself for conflating the Communist USSR with the democratized Russia of the 1990's.
NATO laughing at Russian nuclear capacity would mesh perfectly with other OP contentions ... E.g., NATO's eastward expansion was independent of US input, or claims the Donbas Civil War 2014-2022 was not a civil war at all, but rather a direct international conflict between Russia and Ukraine.
You proto-Ukrainians are living in a virtual world of fantasy and sugarplum fairies. Hopefully a few of our decision makers are better grounded.
Posted on 2/24/24 at 2:21 pm to NC_Tigah
We could not fight a conventional war like this, we wouldn’t be able generate this much manpower, and we couldn’t supply an army this large.
Posted on 2/24/24 at 2:24 pm to BayouBlitz
What? Oh please explain this one.
Posted on 2/24/24 at 2:26 pm to JackieTreehorn
That dude was an awesome fullback at LSU before becoming a medical doctor.
Posted on 2/24/24 at 2:26 pm to VOR
quote:
You truly don’t know what you’re talking about.
quote:Back-to-back no less.
Another Putin apologist
Posted on 2/24/24 at 2:37 pm to BayouBlitz
quote:
Good. frick Putin. He started this shite.
Tell us you don't know without telling us you don't know
Posted on 2/24/24 at 3:26 pm to Lima Whiskey
quote:Frankly, I'm not certain we'd have to. On the surface, I'd have to suspect we'd control the air.
We could not fight a conventional war like this
Russian airpower (or lack thereof) has been the single most surprising element of this conflict. Lack of aircover turned the battlefield into something akin to WWI or the early days of the Battle of the Bulge, when significant air support was impossible.
But fighting a ground war against Russia on the Russia border would be a lethal game. Plus, of course, the premise Russia would capitulate rather than fire off nukes in its death throes is a dreamer's speculation.
Posted on 2/24/24 at 4:55 pm to SirWinston
quote:
I feel like they want to keep this going for a long as possible and kill as many Russians as possible which is grotesque.
Well, the option to go home is always available.
Posted on 2/24/24 at 10:56 pm to Tantal
Ukraine, a poor, undermanned and underarmed country has done well against the "mighty Russia". Russia against NATO? LOL it would take hours not days.
As far as I am concerned it is time to take the battle to them before they take the battle to us.
As far as I am concerned it is time to take the battle to them before they take the battle to us.
This post was edited on 2/24/24 at 10:57 pm
Posted on 2/25/24 at 7:33 am to Eurocat
quote:
As far as I am concerned it is time to take the battle to them before they take the battle to us.
That's a good way to catch a nuke. Not the CONUS, but Berlin, Stockholm, London, or Paris. Conventional war between Russia and NATO would be such a one-sided bloodbath that Russia would have no other option.
Posted on 2/25/24 at 7:35 am to VOR
quote:
Another Putin apologist
This has become as meaningless as, "that's racist".
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News