Russian Ukraine shenanigans

[SurelySerious]

incoherent spout

Irony, that’s all you post.

[Guest nsplayr]

Live look at filthy rn.

There is no shortage of argument as to why helping the Ukrainians defend themselves against a Russian invasion is the right thing to do and in our interest as the United States. UTFSF in this very thread!

No more feeding the troll for me. There is zero chance this guy is real, serious, and in possession of all his marbles.

[filthy_liar]

Well maybe.  Still looking for an argument that supports the US giving support to Ukraine.

[filthy_liar]

nsplayer has unfortunately turned himself into a Sims.

[CaptainMorgan]

nsplayer has unfortunately turned himself into a Sims.

Who is this Sims? Maybe a member from another message board you troll?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[filthy_liar]

4 minutes ago, CaptainMorgan said:

Who is this Sims? Maybe a member from another message board you troll?

??

[filthy_liar]

CaptainMorgan,I don't always suffer fucking morons.  But in this case I will.  CaptainMorgan, you fucking retard, please go right up there in the "members" section and click on Sims.  You fucking moron

[filthy_liar]

Did you pull it off mate?

 

[SurelySerious]

CaptainMorgan,I don't always suffer ing morons.  But in this case I will.  CaptainMorgan, you ing retard, please go right up there in the "members" section and click on Sims.  You ing moron

Making your glorious return to the internet after being banned by Bass?

[CaptainMorgan]

CaptainMorgan,I don't always suffer ing morons.  But in this case I will.  CaptainMorgan, you ing retard, please go right up there in the "members" section and click on Sims.  You ing moron

Nobody named “Sims” on here, filthy_liars


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[filthy_liar]

Yessir. So, considering aid to the Ukraine...go ahead

[filthy_liar]

Talking to Sua

[filthy_liar]

10 minutes ago, CaptainMorgan said:

Nobody named “Sims” on here, filthy_liars

Never heard of Sims on here?  God bless you.  No?  The covid threads?  No?  Ok then.

[filthy_liar]

Capt Morgan get the fuck out of here

 

[CaptainMorgan]

Capt Morgan get the out of here
 

Did you just realize that there is a “Sim” but no “Sims?”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[FLEA]

God I really hope noone in the US Public uses this forum to audit the performance of our government....... Or maybe I do hope that, I dont know yet. 

[dream big]

24 minutes ago, FLEA said:

God I really hope noone in the US Public uses this forum to audit the performance of our government....... Or maybe I do hope that, I dont know yet. 

No need! Just view it live to see what a clusterfuck our government is and the bafoons that run it. 

[filthy_liar]

2 hours ago, CaptainMorgan said:

Did you just realize that there is a “Sim” but no “Sims?”

Oh my.

[Lord Ratner]

20 hours ago, BashiChuni said:

Underestimate the Russian bear at your own risk. How many more hundreds of billions should we be willing to invest in the most corrupt country in Europe? 

How many hundreds of billions have we invested so far?

Most corrupt? You know Russia is in Europe too, right? 

[BashiChuni]

1 hour ago, Lord Ratner said:

How many hundreds of billions have we invested so far?

Most corrupt? You know Russia is in Europe too, right? 

At least 100b. We’ve given Ukraine more than we gave South Vietnam from the 50s to 1975. 
 

when I say europe I’m not including Russia. There is zero doubt Ukraine is wildly corrupt. If you think otherwise I’d love to see evidence to change my mind. 

[Lord Ratner]

On 2/2/2023 at 10:59 AM, gearhog said:

You may not be allowed to make the decisions, but you are allowed to have an opinion with regards to the immediate best interests of yourself and those around you. Can I not ask how this is making your life better?

Sorry for the delay.

 

Sure, though it's the same generalized answer for most of the government actions that are broad-based. I benefit immensely from a peaceful world. My paycheck is larger and my goods and services are cheaper. I'm healthier because a world that isn't spending on war is usually spending on medical progress, as well as the discounts gained from the scale offered by a global customer base. 

 

I believe there are now several countries that are realizing they won't win the globalized world, so if we go back to polarized they can at least be king of their corner. That's going to be bad for all of us. While I do think it is inevitable, delaying it will prolong human flourishing. 

On 2/2/2023 at 10:59 AM, gearhog said:

Do you really think this conflict would be happening if Ukraine were acting in a vaccum? Not only is it easy to create a situation in which a leader can be compelled to send his people to war for the benefit of another, it's happened countless times throughout history.

Conspiracies are only needed when the obvious answer isn't apparent. Who needs a puppet master? Russia and the West have been jockeying for alliance with the old Soviet countries for years, and Russia is losing that battle mightily. Add a wannabe-conqueror to the mix (Putin) and it shouldn't be surprising that this is happening. Did the other 100% of human history need excuses to invade and conquer?

 

Russia would be occupying Ukraine if not for the US and the West. You might consider that more desirable, but I do not. The option where Ukraine is Ukraine and Russia is content with what they have and the rest of the world stops meddling is a hypothetical fantasy. I believe it was a misstep to rush the NATO courtship with Ukraine. Personally, I think NATO is useless, but a generalized alliance of Western-style countries is not a bad thing. 

On 2/2/2023 at 10:59 AM, gearhog said:

I don't understand your analogy. In it, we're the seller, and Ukr is the buyer. What are they making purchases with? This is not a decision as to whether or not to buy a luxury item. As long as we are providing them with a means to survive in exchange for killing Russians, do you really think it's a choice?

Right now they seems to be getting a huge discount, though I suspect we are preventing them from any attacks within Russia. A seller can give away their product for free, until they decide not to. Either way, of course it's a choice. You are suggesting they surrender their land through negotiations. 

 

And stop trying to word everything others say to suit your narrative. "In exchange for killing Russians." What a bunch of nonsense. Russia is the one making a choice that is wiping out Russians. We are providing them a means to survive and defend. Whether or not that results in dead Russians is Russia's decision, not ours. 

On 2/2/2023 at 10:59 AM, gearhog said:

Again, when you have created a situation where you have the means to provide or deny survival, you can't pass it off as a choice. I wholeheartedly agree that all the atrocities committed by both sides is ugly. We such an environment should never have been created in the first for the earlier claimed reasons of weakening a percieved threat, increase the availability of energy, and sustain economic development. Sorry your kids got disemboweled, but we just couldn't have Europe running on Russian natgas.

They are two modes of survival here. Get Western weapons and fight back (on western terms), accept Russian rule, or die fighting Russia to the last person without help. That is a fucking choice, and like the rest of life, some of the choices are fucked. 

 

Interestingly, your position offers only the latter two choices, which I agree, makes it much less of a choice.

On 2/2/2023 at 10:59 AM, gearhog said:

Apparently not. But I don't think I could allow myself to tell anyone to do that.

Yeah, you get over that once you stop accepting the false choice they are offering you.

Do what I say OR I will kill myself. But really it was always: Participate in my delusion OR don't. Often the threat suggested in the false choice is unrelated to the path you choose in the real choice anyways. 

On 2/2/2023 at 10:59 AM, gearhog said:

As for the rest of it: Uh.. YEAH. Debts are bad. Debts have created the mess. Debts get paid. This is going South. It's gonna be bad. Yet you spend a lot of your time trying to convince me that we should just continue debt spending and exacerbating the end result. It makes no sense. LOL.

It's as if you're saying you don't like drugs, but you're going to increase your habit in hopes that you finally overdose, get hospitalized and rehabed.

I'm not trying to convince you of anything, because I believe it has been finalized for around 15 years now. Once the central banks unleashed QE, we lost. I like your analogy, because it fits pretty well with similar misconceptions people have about drugs. You don't just quit heroin or meth. Sure, there are a few much-ballyhooed examples of someone just quitting one day, but that's the exception, not the rule. We wouldn't have the "homeless" (i.e. drug abuse) problem if it were. Once you're hooked, there are only a few ways out:

1. Something so damaging happens to you, at a point where you just happen to be sober enough to comprehend it, that you are scared into kicking the addiction. Very, very high rate of relapse.
2. You are forced into sobriety by people with the power to force your actions through:
   1. Financial incentives (weak)
   2. Threat of disassociation (better, but weak)
   3. Physically overpowering you and forcing you into treatment (best, but only with very costly follow-through by the enforcer)
3. You die. 

Now I've spent most of my life seeing option 3 as the best answer. I don't want anyone to die for the sake of it, but I'm not interested in helping people that don't want to be helped. But that was my false choice. Go broke helping them or let them die. But we were never going to let them die, it's just not what western societies do, so the true choice was

• Help them now (with force, if necessary) at great cost but with a better chance of recovery -or-
• Be their custodians for life later (also with force, and more often) at an even greater cost. 

So extrapolating that to global finances, the same options apply from above. But we are the top dog, for now, so no one can force us. But we are still hopelessly addicted, both the politicians and the voters. We are not going to kick this habit on our own.

Option one from above would be the Global Financial Crisis. Didn't last long, and we ended up being less responsible in the aftermath. 

Option two would be the collapse of the fiat system, and the associated chaos that will follow. 

Option three would be us spending into oblivion, then being conquered. 

 

Option two is my bet, with three being unchoosable and one being a fantasy. So if two is the only option, positioning ourselves for that reality is the best course, shitty though it may be. 

[Stoker]

5 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

How many hundreds of billions have we invested so far?

Most corrupt? You know Russia is in Europe too, right? 

We've given them something like $20b so far, but it's really all about the accounting. If an artillery shell costs $500 and has a shelf life of 20 years, does giving an artillery shell that's twenty years old to Ukraine count as a $500 cost? IIRC virtually all of the early equipment we gave to Ukraine was either obsolete already or due to be replaced in a couple years. Stingers, humvees, MRAPs... I can write a report about how these cost X to produce and we gave them to Ukraine but that doesn't account for the fact that they were destined for the scrapheap.

If you were king of defense appropriations, how much would it be worth to you if you could buy a magic button that crippled the Russian military for a decade or three?

[uhhello]

https://www.reuters.com/article/ukraine-crisis-ammunition-csg/restocking-western-ammunition-after-arming-ukraine-will-take-years-producer-idINL8N32R4T9

https://www.businessinsider.com/us-scrambling-for-artillery-shells-ukraine-can-use-against-russia-2023-1

 

In World War I and II, artillery ammunition wouldn't have been such a problem. The US, Germany, Britain, and Russia eventually developed enough manufacturing capacity to keep their big guns in action. During the Soviet offensive against the Seelow Heights in April 1945, Red Army gunners fired 500,000 shells in 30 minutes.

Unfortunately for the Russian soldiers, their generals followed Soviet military doctrine nearly to the letter, and the Germans had grown used to their tactics. Anticipating a Soviet bombardment, the German generals had pulled most of their men back from the first defensive lines and reduced the number of men in the second lines.

 

Holy hell

Edited February 6, 2023 by uhhello

[FLEA]

1 hour ago, Stoker said:

We've given them something like $20b so far, but it's really all about the accounting. If an artillery shell costs $500 and has a shelf life of 20 years, does giving an artillery shell that's twenty years old to Ukraine count as a $500 cost? IIRC virtually all of the early equipment we gave to Ukraine was either obsolete already or due to be replaced in a couple years. Stingers, humvees, MRAPs... I can write a report about how these cost X to produce and we gave them to Ukraine but that doesn't account for the fact that they were destined for the scrapheap.

If you were king of defense appropriations, how much would it be worth to you if you could buy a magic button that crippled the Russian military for a decade or three?

Different of ways to look at this. The Public Accounting view is definitely valid. A munition has a shelf life and without renewed investment it supposedly retires. That is how corporate world works but the government often reevaluates assets to extend their life, hence why we are flying B-52s and KC-135s still. If the asset has to be replaced and an expense needs to be generated to replace the asset then yes, you can count it as a cost. But you can also possibly say we are modernizing the force as well. Different ways to go about it. Also worth noting, the depreciated value of an asset is not the market value. Those are two different things. 

[BashiChuni]

I never viewed Russia as this all powerful threat that some of you do. the real threat is China.