- 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: US Looks To Korean Peninsula As Possible Strategy For Ukraine
Posted on 5/18/23 at 4:28 pm to CarrolltonTiger
Posted on 5/18/23 at 4:28 pm to CarrolltonTiger
quote:
Russia is obviously winning, it has met all of its goals and the regime is comfortable with its success. Almost as big a win as the 1905 conflict with japan.
Too obscure of a reference for most people here to detect the sarcasm in your post.
1
Posted on 5/18/23 at 4:28 pm to lsuguy84
quote:
Do you even OMLandshark, bro?
lol I miss him.
Posted on 5/18/23 at 4:37 pm to LSUnation78
quote:
Then you either dont actually pay attention or have selective memory.
I remember people saying a cold winter would create economic hardships and personal comfort hardships, not that “everyone would die” as you stated.
And, like I said, a mild winter helped to mitigate that economic and personal hardship.
quote:
Kind of like how people in this very thread are suddenly acting like Russia wasnt trying to take all of Ukraine at the start of this thing.
I think Russia was not trying to take (as in annexing) all of Ukraine but were primarily trying to depose the Ukrainian government and replace it with a more Russian friendly government while occupying Russian speaking eastern Ukraine with so called peacekeeping forces.
When that failed to be accomplished, I think they went to plan b which was to take eastern parts of Ukraine.
But that’s just my thoughts from observing and analyzing the situation.
Posted on 5/18/23 at 4:41 pm to LuckyTiger
quote:
This depends upon a lot of unknown factors, such as length, costs, levels of support, etc, that you seem to set your own predictions and values upon and take them as real. And you seem to wholly discount other cost factors, such as human lives.
Look at this from a macro view. In this case, you know the intentions of the other side are to arm themselves. Thus the defensive realist approach suggests you have to arm your own state to equivalent levels to ensure a possible balance of power. There is nothing at the micro or macro level that indicates to me there is going to be a decrease in spending. That is true regardless of who the victor in Ukraine is, because the geopolitical cards are now out in the open, with formerly neutral (as least nominally) countries taking sides.
Broadly, I see widespread conflict shaping up in between the 30th meridian and the 45th meridian east. That area includes several already hot zones, and the sides in the conflict are becoming clearer. The fact that many of them are simmering suggests far more military investment than other eras.
Russian/NATO antagonism is going to be driving military spending to a degree not seen in a long time. Given that China is attempting to sort of vassalize the Russians, this is going to conveniently allow the US to include NATO while the US shifts its attention to the South Pacific.
quote:
Lately, however, you seem to have dropped a level.
I barely post now.
Posted on 5/18/23 at 5:03 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:Are you intimating Potatobrain, the same idiot who tried to spend $3.5T for BBB, would not push spending $1T to keep he and his folks out of jail?
It took us more than a decade to reach 1 trillion in spending on Iraq and Afghanistan, two conflicts we were directly involved in
Posted on 5/18/23 at 5:06 pm to Indefatigable
quote:Teddy Roosevelt disagrees with the situational assessment as well as the comparison.
Too obscure of a reference for most people here to detect the sarcasm in your post
Posted on 5/18/23 at 5:07 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Are you intimating Potatobrain, the same idiot who tried to spend $3.5T for BBB, would not push spending $1T to keep he and his folks out of jail?
No, just that there are limits on what can be spent in a physical sense. As in, you can give Ukraine money for tanks, but there are still a limited number of them in the world. The same is true for all advanced weaponry. It would take a long time to reach those levels of spending in Ukraine.
Posted on 5/19/23 at 7:32 am to LuckyTiger
quote:
Moscow called NATO’s expansion in Europe and its creeping takeover of Ukraine without its formal accession as one of the key reasons for sending troops against its neighbor. The conflict, Russia has maintained, is part of a US proxy war against it, in which Ukrainians serve as cannon fodder.
An accurate and straight forward assessment of this Ukraine conflict is provided by Russia, not America, our MSM are nothing more than federal government mouthpieces spewing disinformation.
Posted on 5/19/23 at 7:39 am to LSUnation78
quote:
I thought Russia was winning.
Ukraine is smaller than fricking Texas, and a world superpower that is 1.8 X larger than the entire United States, and the largest country on Earth struggles to subdue it.
Wrap your head around that shite for a few minutes.
Page 3 of 3
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News