1 minute ago, Bill said:

Ah yes, I am the moron because I yield to theoreticals versus practicals.

I have been consistently proven wrong on this topic since day one.

This thread doesn't have a "Bill was right again" post on every page.

I am speaking consistently about things out of my wheelhouse. 

You look like a moron because your analogy sucks. It’s right there in my post, explained clear as day. I guess literacy isn’t in your wheelhouse along with analogies.

Here, let me help you: I am not married to Ukraine. Ukraine is your wife. You love and are willing to die for her. Literally, that’s you, not me. 

Now, if I wanted to throw it back in your face, I’d add something like, "to me, Ukraine is the town hoor that everyone has F’d, which is another great analogy both historically and for your wife.”

See? That is how you use a wife analogy to insult someone on the internet. 

https://twitter.com/ukrainewar24/status/1578828586962014208?s=46&t=BhAXAW9XfvxREHkD9rBNLQ
 

52 minutes ago, TEW said:

If we "wipe Russia off the map” — which is what TJ said — Russia will with 100% absolute certainty nuke us to oblivion in retaliation. You can’t just level a country with 7000 nukes and expect them to eat it without retaliation.

The commies were far from brainless, BTW. They were extremely rational actors during the Cold War. They were, frankly, less likely to launch than Russia today. They had a no first strike policy, for starters, which Russia no longer has.

And no, if someone breaks into my house they’re dead, because it’s my house and my wife. Ukraine isn’t my country. They’re not even a NATO member. So your analogy sucks, and ironically, your decision making in this scenario is far more likely to get your wife killed than my decision making. If you’re going to try to go with personal attacks, don’t make yourself look like a moron in the process.

This is partly true. After the cold war, Russia did scrap it's no first use doctrine because their military was in disarray. Since then, Russia has revised the nuclear doctrine a few times and the latest revision in 2010 which states, (Russia) "reserves the right to utilize nuclear weapons in response to the utilization of nuclear and other types of weapons of mass destruction against it and (or) its allies, and also in the event of aggression against the Russian Federation involving the use of conventional weapons when the very existence of the state is under threat.”

 

33 minutes ago, ToastJenkins said:

Because we dont care about your leveraged investments getting destroyed?

 

all that is necessary for evil to win is for good men to do nothing. Dont be such a weakling

Dude, if we get in a nuclear war with Russia I’m dead within 30 minutes. As is half my family and most of my friends. You can count the number of miles I am from the White House and Pentagon on your fingers. Business is the least of my concerns here. 

And basically everyone you’ve ever known will likely be dead within a few years.

In between doing nothing and lunatic human genocidal escalation, there is a middle ground.

3 minutes ago, Abracadabra said:

This is partly true. After the cold war, Russia did scrap it's no first use doctrine because their military was in disarray. Since then, Russia has revised the nuclear doctrine a few times and the latest revision in 2010 which states, (Russia) "reserves the right to utilize nuclear weapons in response to the utilization of nuclear and other types of weapons of mass destruction against it and (or) its allies, and also in the event of aggression against the Russian Federation involving the use of conventional weapons when the very existence of the state is under threat.”

 

Right. And they’ve just declared territory taken in the war as Russia proper.

4 minutes ago, TEW said:

Right. And they’ve just declared territory taken in the war as Russia proper.

And part of which has been taken back and they did not nuke Ukraine, you really are an idiot and have been for decades, now most here see it, you are one step up from the flat earther, that is all I can say good

3 minutes ago, Joe Shades 73 said:

And part of which has been taken back and they did not nuke Ukraine, you really are an idiot and have been for decades, now most here see it, you are one step up from the flat earther, that is all I can say good

It’s a hypothetical you idiot.

Just now, TEW said:

Right. And they’ve just declared territory taken in the war as Russia proper.

The existence of the Russian state is not threatened by the conflict with NATO's Ukrainian proxy. Conventional means are more than sufficient to deal with Ukraine or even NATO. 

Just now, Abracadabra said:

The existence of the Russian state is not threatened by the conflict with NATO's Ukrainian proxy. Conventional means are more than sufficient to deal with Ukraine or even NATO. 

Dude, Russia is getting its arse handed to it by Ukraine currently.

Russia has ZERO chance against merely the US Navy, let alone the entire US military, never mind all of NATO.

Their modernization programs were clearly fruitless, which caught both Russia and the US by surprise.

23 minutes ago, Abracadabra said:

The existence of the Russian state is not threatened by the conflict with NATO's Ukrainian proxy. Conventional means are more than sufficient to deal with Ukraine or even NATO. 

True Russian existence is not threatened but Russia can not beat NATO conventionally

 

11 minutes ago, Abracadabra said:

The existence of the Russian state is not threatened by the conflict with NATO's Ukrainian proxy. Conventional means are more than sufficient to deal with Ukraine or even NATO. 

You should really just live in Russia. 

yikes

It's simple.

You wait for Putin to use a tactical nuke, make him a global pariah, and then organize a global coalition to immediately liquidate every single piece of Russian military equipment in occupied Ukraine via conventional weapons. If Putin wants to respond he will have to attempt to wage war on the globe, which he wont... and can't quite frankly.

You then make clear that if they continue to F around they will risk a military response on Russia proper.

38 minutes ago, TEW said:

Dude, if we get in a nuclear war with Russia I’m dead within 30 minutes. As is half my family and most of my friends. You can count the number of miles I am from the White House and Pentagon on your fingers. Business is the least of my concerns here. 

And basically everyone you’ve ever known will likely be dead within a few years.

In between doing nothing and lunatic human genocidal escalation, there is a middle ground.

Ok Neville…

you love to talk of a global financial reset. Thats what it looks like. In the event ukraine got hit (which again makes no sense) we should absolutely level moscow. We survive. They dont. World moves on.

On 3/1/2022 at 5:00 PM, TEW said:

There are people in here saying that this is some strategic blunder by Putin made out of irrationality. That it was a miscalculation, that he won’t be able to hold the cities, that Russia is economically ruined, etc.

The fact is he knew the sanctions would be the response, he saw an opening, and he took it. He will have most if not all of Ukraine by the end of this mess and, much as we may detest him, it was an intelligent move on his part to achieve his own desired ends.

On 3/1/2022 at 7:41 PM, TEW said:

Again, I think you are seriously underestimating him. 

On 3/1/2022 at 7:10 PM, TEW said:

You are really underestimating him. You think he hasn’t thought this through?

The submarines are armed with sixteen Bulava ballistic missiles, a three-stage solid-propellant sea-launched variant of the Topol-M, which has a range of over 8,300 kilometers. It can reportedly be fitted with six to ten nuclear multiple warheads yielding 100 to 150 kilotons apiece, according to The Diplomat. In addition, the Bulava can be fitted with 10 to 40 decoy warheads. The Project 995A submarines are also furnished with 533mm torpedo tubes.
 

These are fake and can easily be destroyed if nuclear war breaks out. 
 

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/russias-new-borei-class-submarine-could-be-big-future-threat-199215

13 minutes ago, ToastJenkins said:

Ok Neville…

you love to talk of a global financial reset. Thats what it looks like. In the event ukraine got hit (which again makes no sense) we should absolutely level moscow. We survive. They dont. World moves on.

At risk of sounding like TEW, that is false

1 minute ago, dawkdaballhawk said:

The submarines are armed with sixteen Bulava ballistic missiles, a three-stage solid-propellant sea-launched variant of the Topol-M, which has a range of over 8,300 kilometers. It can reportedly be fitted with six to ten nuclear multiple warheads yielding 100 to 150 kilotons apiece, according to The Diplomat. In addition, the Bulava can be fitted with 10 to 40 decoy warheads. The Project 995A submarines are also furnished with 533mm torpedo tubes.
 

These are fake and can easily be destroyed if nuclear war breaks out. 
 

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/russias-new-borei-class-submarine-could-be-big-future-threat-199215

Cool story Abra

6 minutes ago, Joe Shades 73 said:

At risk of sounding like TEW, that is false

Nah. The US would carry on, as would other nations, even in the face of tragic losses. Russia would cease to exist.

19 minutes ago, ToastJenkins said:

Ok Neville…

you love to talk of a global financial reset. Thats what it looks like. In the event ukraine got hit (which again makes no sense) we should absolutely level moscow. We survive. They dont. World moves on.

No, this would be a global civilization reset. So now you’re going to attack their capital — in your own words, "level Moscow,” and you don’t think they’re nuking every major city and military base in the US?

1 hour ago, TEW said:

You look like a moron because your analogy sucks. It’s right there in my post, explained clear as day. I guess literacy isn’t in your wheelhouse along with analogies.

Here, let me help you: I am not married to Ukraine. Ukraine is your wife. You love and are willing to die for her. Literally, that’s you, not me. 

Now, if I wanted to throw it back in your face, I’d add something like, "to me, Ukraine is the town hoor that everyone has F’d, which is another great analogy both historically and for your wife.”

See? That is how you use a wife analogy to insult someone on the internet. 

Everyone has Fd her because the ussy is that good.

Is Ukraine my wife? No, but, then again, my grandfather wasn't married to France or Belgium either.

Am I willing to die for Ukraine? No, but I'm willing to die for someone else's freedom, particularly when they themselves are fighting so hard to keep it. To keep women and children from getting raped and murdered. I do what I need to do to help others. To plant a tree that I wont be able to enjoy the shade of. That's what the difference is between us.

My analogy sucks to you because you're overcomplicating it. You look at it in terms of what you're willing to do to protect your own interests, but it's not about your own interests. It's a simple observation that you're a coward and self serving. Whether or not the thing you would have to defend is yours or not is a moot point. When in the face of an obstacle from an abstract possibility, you fold like a cheap lawn chair rather than entertain a rational thought about it.  So when you say that you would defend your wife, I know it's a farcical statement.  I've seen guys like you. I've seen what happens to guys like you when the chips are down. The only one you would defend is yourself, and you would do whatever is possible to that extent.

Go forth and cower.

Worry, like a woman.

10 minutes ago, Bill said:

Everyone has Fd her because the ussy is that good.

Is Ukraine my wife? No, but, then again, my grandfather wasn't married to France or Belgium either.

Am I willing to die for Ukraine? No, but I'm willing to die for someone else's freedom, particularly when they themselves are fighting so hard to keep it. To keep women and children from getting raped and murdered. I do what I need to do to help others. To plant a tree that I wont be able to enjoy the shade of. That's what the difference is between us.

My analogy sucks to you because you're overcomplicating it. You look at it in terms of what you're willing to do to protect your own interests, but it's not about your own interests. It's a simple observation that you're a coward and self serving. Whether or not the thing you would have to defend is yours or not is a moot point. When in the face of an obstacle from an abstract possibility, you fold like a cheap lawn chair rather than entertain a rational thought about it.  So when you say that you would defend your wife, I know it's a farcical statement.  I've seen guys like you. I've seen what happens to guys like you when the chips are down. The only one you would defend is yourself, and you would do whatever is possible to that extent.

Go forth and cower.

Worry, like a woman.

TEW with a wife

Bill's got jokes

15 minutes ago, TEW said:

No, this would be a global civilization reset. So now you’re going to attack their capital — in your own words, "level Moscow,” and you don’t think they’re nuking every major city and military base in the US?

Indeed bc they rest of the country has no real

loyalty to putin