quote:

Originally posted by signewt:
Never had run across this potential before this story today:

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news...hanistan/ar-AA16JmRL

No, I am not speculating on the reality or not.
This source is largely unknown to me.

Here's the source of that story:

https://bangshowbiz.com/

"BANG Showbiz is the world’s premier entertainment news agency providing the most exciting celebrity news to online, print and broadcast media outlets across the globe."

Hello?

Can we please stop the sensationalism and the fear-mongering? And let's please cast a critical eye on the sources of stories you choose to post in his thread.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
More fear-mongering from the news media. Do you honestly think Russia is going to fire missiles at the East Coast?

A limited strike, to dissuade the U.S. from providing additional arms to be used against them.
Yes, I think it is a very real possibility.

It’s not likely … but they have hinted at going nuclear over chrimea.
But nukes aside… haven’t we done enough damage?
Spending, inflation, depletion of our military?

quote:

Originally posted by kimber1911:

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
More fear-mongering from the news media. Do you honestly think Russia is going to fire missiles at the East Coast?

A limited strike, to dissuade the U.S. from providing additional arms to be used against them.
Yes, I think it is a very real possibility.

You are out of your mind. A "limited strike"? You have no idea what you are babbling about.

I have little patience for such foolishness appearing on the pages of this forum.

I have a fix for stuff like this, and that's to lock the thread. Keep it up and that is what's going to happen. Some of you need to get a grip. Really, get a grip.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:
Spending, inflation, depletion of our military?

Hasn't the way Biden's handled the Kung Flu had a lot more to do with those things than supporting Ukraine?

^^^Only About Half, but that NOT a justification/excuse that makes it any better. This is just dangerous incompetence on top of dangerous incompetence, all driven by the arrogance of a reckless ideology!

quote:

Originally posted by kimber1911:

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
More fear-mongering from the news media. Do you honestly think Russia is going to fire missiles at the East Coast?

A limited strike, to dissuade the U.S. from providing additional arms to be used against them.
Yes, I think it is a very real possibility.

There's no such thing as a "limited strike". An attack on the US is an attack on NATO.

There is no way that a foreign power engaged in a proxy war with NATO could sail halfway across the world, chuck a missile at a target of any sort in a NATO member state and not expect a full-blown war. I mean, the thing that Putin is most paranoid about is the fact that NATO is now on his doorstep, so attacking the US would lead directly to what he's worried about.

That's coocoo bananas talk.

quote:

Originally posted by Il Cattivo:

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:
Spending, inflation, depletion of our military?

Hasn't the way Biden's handled the Kung Flu had a lot more to do with those things than supporting Ukraine?

Well... maybe, but two wrongs don't make a right.

quote:

Originally posted by kimber1911:

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
More fear-mongering from the news media. Do you honestly think Russia is going to fire missiles at the East Coast?

A limited strike, to dissuade the U.S. from providing additional arms to be used against them.
Yes, I think it is a very real possibility.

Re-read history....Pearl Harbor was a limited strike intending to keep the US nose out of Japan's expansion through China and SE Asia, it resulted in a massive 4.5-year war.
To strike the US mainland, 'to send a message', would require intercontinental-class of weapons, those aren't small and you're not chucking that type of weapon only to leave a crater in the middle of nowhere to 'send a warning'. And, it certainly isn't going to happen without a response.

quote:

Originally posted by corsair:
Re-read history....

Or for countless people, how about reading it even just once?

quote:

Originally posted by nhracecraft:
^^^Only About Half, but that NOT a justification/excuse that makes it any better.

Uhmm, no. There aren't any solid numbers out there showing that support for Ukraine is responsible for anywhere near half, or even a tenth, of the spending, inflation or "depletion of our military" we've seen. There are plenty of numbers out there showing that Uncah Ho flooded the country with government dollars - and with corresponding increases in the national debt - to deal with the Kung Flu, and Uncah Ho's vaccine requirement has taken far more trained career personnel out of the military in the US than Ukraine has. Replacing them is going to take more years and may take more investment than replacing the weapons we've sent to Ukraine.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:
[T]wo wrongs don't make a right.

No, but for some people support for Ukraine is serving as a great distraction from Uncah Ho's wild domestic spending spree - and complete disregard for foresight or accountability. Concentrating on a molehill is silly when there's a mountain right in front of you.

So, for that matter, is ignoring the lives, time and fortunes that we've lost to the never-ending aggression, hostility and subversion from Russia that we've had to deal with over the last century. Exactly how much inflation, spending and "depletion of the military" has that cost us without the differences between us and Russia ever being truly settled? How much of those things will decades more of Russia trying to play the schoolyard bully cost us into the future?

Ukranie has been the honey hole for the elite and politically connected for years. Everyone knows it. Except those unwilling to admit it.

Everyone also knows how this will end. It won't. It will drag on for years and probably decades. And billions of $ will continue to be handed off to those in power. Sure you can say it is for the weapons and fighting the evil Russians. But we know how the backfilling of the billions works.

Focus will go to whatever the next bunch of crises are and there you have it.

Putin will eventually die and the next great leader of the Russian empire will be handed a completely demolished Ukraine and be asked to play nice.

The rich and powerful globalist will continue enriching themselves and garnering more power while the US is drained of it power and wealth. And becomes nothing more than another decaying shithole by design.

So if you believe this country, smaller than the state of TX. is worth filling the pockets of the rich and power hungry globalist at the expense of ruining this once great nation, than more power to you.

And yes I know about the suffering women, children, and elderly there. They are everywhere across the globe.
So helping all of them is should be an equal endeavor, should it not?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: old rugged cross,

quote:

Originally posted by Il Cattivo:

quote:

Originally posted by nhracecraft:
^^^Only About Half, but that NOT a justification/excuse that makes it any better.

Uhmm, no. There aren't any solid numbers out there showing that support for Ukraine is responsible for anywhere near half, or even a tenth, of the spending, inflation or "depletion of our military" we've seen.

OK, lets just focus on one of the biggest, if not THE biggest driver of inflation...Energy Costs!

Within the first year of Biden (thru 12/2021), the price of gas increased by 50%. This is BEFORE Putin invades Ukraine. During the next year (basically since the war in Ukraine began), the price of gas increased another 50%, and here we are...The price has DOUBLED, with half of that increase attributed to policies, sanctions, etc designed to 'Punish Putin'! Fuel Costs affect the price of EVERYTHING. My electricity costs and natural gas costs have DOUBLED since the war in the Ukraine began!

So, when the price of many things you NEED to buy (most?) are up 40%, and the price of energy has DOUBLED, I'd say we're looking at some pretty solid numbers!

The point to seriously worry about Russia doing something crass (by the relaxed standards of a government trying to annex the neighbor country in a war of aggression) was last October, when their position in Kherson became untenable and they were actually calling Western defense officials with accusations that Ukraine was preparing to deploy a "dirty bomb" in a false flag operation, ostentatively trying to build a case for nuclear use. They got told to stow that shit.

Previously there was the still-unresolved attack on the Nord Stream pipelines, but if you believe it was Russia to demonstrate the vulnerability of European energy infrastructure, it was done with plausible deniability, for good reason. Letting fly with missiles doesn't exactly achieve the same. You should never rule out an irrational moment, but as somebody who actually lives on the edge of the range of Iskander SRBMs from Kaliningrad (and certainly of Russian cruise missiles), I'm not particularly worried, despite the predictable antics and threats against Berlin specifically following the decision on tank deliveries.

Sorry Para.

I didn’t recognize your question as being rhetorical.
Attempted to provide an answer, not wanting to ignore you.

I will step away from this topic.

It wasn't rhetorical. I was asking you.

quote:

Originally posted by nhracecraft:
OK, lets just focus on one of the biggest, if not THE biggest driver of inflation...Energy Costs!

Let's. Gasoline and diesel prices are higher than they were in late February of 2022 but, barring the midAtlantic, not by much. (see charts on the right hand side of the webpage)
http://www.eia.gov/petroleum/gasdiesel/

Natural gas prices are actually being reported as lower right now than in late February of 2022, and that's whether or not one adjusts prices for the sky-high inflation we've been "enjoying". (scroll down to chart, drag cursor over chart to see price on specific months in specific years)
http://www.macrotrends.net/247...ces-historical-chart

None of that looks like a "50% on top of %50" increase in energy prices to me. Just how many add-ons does your utility company put on your electric bill, anyway?

It's useless. We'll piss away billions in Ukraine and it will remain a quagmire until some type of peace process is initiated. We'll spend billions...Russia will spend billions...we'll point out we're destroying Russian equipment that could potentially be used in Europe...they'll replace the destroyed stuff that wouldn't have been used anywhere. It's ludicrous.

We don't have enough tanks to send to Ukraine, Pentagon admits: Biden's promise to send 31 Abrams could take up to a YEAR - because the US has to buy more


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/ne...s-YEAR-buy-more.html

The Biden administration administration's plan to send Ukraine a battalion of lethal Abrams tanks will be hampered by the production timeframe and the Pentagon's insistence that it does not have any in surplus, the Defense Department revealed Thursday.

Unlike some of the high-tech weaponry the U.S. has been shipping to Ukraine as part of a multi-billion effort to deter Russia's invasion, the U.S. military does not 'have these tanks available in excess in our U.S. stocks,' deputy Pentagon press secretary Sabrina Singh' told reporters.

The means it could take months before the tanks, which President Biden called the most capable in the world, reach their destination. It is anyone's guess what the state of play in the war will be at that point. The one-year anniversary of Russia's brutal invasion is approaching.

'These things are going to require training maintenance, sustainment, that is going to take a very long time to also train in Ukrainians on,' Pentagon spokeswoman Sabrina Singh Singh told reporters Thursday, a day after Biden announced the transfer.

Officials said it could take up to a year before the the Ukrainian military is using Abrams tanks on the ground to try to retake territory captured by the Russians – with fears of a new Russian offensive this spring.

The government will buy the tanks new from defense contractor General Dynamics, which makes the tanks in its Ohio plant. As with other sophisticated military hardware, the government will have to make sure it is not providing certain ultra-sophisticated components to keep them out of enemy hands.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky renewed his call for even more weaponry, including fighter jets.

'We have to unlock the supply of long-range missiles to Ukraine, it is important for us to expand our cooperation in artillery, we have to achieve the supply of aircraft to Ukraine. And this is a dream. And this is a task,' he said.

More at link

quote:

We don't have enough tanks to send to Ukraine, Pentagon admits: Biden's promise to send 31 Abrams could take up to a YEAR - because the US has to buy more

I know very little about tanks and surplus tanks. But I do wonder what the Pentagon did with all those tanks the USMC gave up in 2020. Did the Army absorb them all, and are they currently in active units?