Ukraine II: The Fight Against Russian Aggression

now this is interesting. why would they want to break in?


My opinion? Whatever designer nerve agent they have created, which is at first undetectable, they dont want to be chemically identified...so it cant be replicated or traced back to them in the future. As of now, it is a ghost...once they can isolate it, we can use it, identify it, and try to make an antidote for it in case its used on the good guys.
 
They’re losing a proxy war! We are losing the same proxy war! ISIS were/are CIA/Mossad assets...

It’s why they came up with excuses to bomb said Iranian military...to bomb Assad using the chemical weapons lie...

If anything, Iran is strengthening their hold in Syria...

Ask Hezbollah if Israel remembers how to lose...
You seem to be excited about the prospect of this. Very. Strange. Are you Persian?
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols
You seem to be excited about the prospect of this. Very. Strange. Are you Persian?

I’m excited that the facts are coming out...instead of the continuous lies...

And Persian makes zero sense...if that was an attempt at humor...
 
delivered during the Cold War to what is now Ukraine. does nothing to prove that it was in Ukrainian hands when fired. I doubt the Russians left everything Soviet behind when they eventually left.

I think it proves that it was it wasn’t in the hands of the Russians...in the least...

There is absolutely no reason for the Russians or E Ukrainians to shoot down a passenger plane in Ukrainian air space...it makes zero sense...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rasputin_Vol
I think it proves that it was it wasn’t in the hands of the Russians...in the least...

There is absolutely no reason for the Russians or E Ukrainians to shoot down a passenger plane in Ukrainian air space...it makes zero sense...
plenty of reason, Ukraine was flying military strikes. No reason for the Ukranians being ready to shoot down air, the rebels didn't find modern Russian aircraft in those mines along with the tanks and artillery.

also interesting that you are finally talking about Russia's role in the matter. for the longest time you were deny deny deny.

and that report does nothing to establish ownership of the missile. It was made by soviets, sent to soviets. that's as far as we know. both sides had access to the same platform, and the Russians were definitely doing some spring cleaning of old stock while arming the rebels. and lastly the rebels could have captured the system. the Ukrainians weren't taking pot shots at Russian military air(there wasn't any), but the Russians were definitely shooting at Ukrainian air.

the report did nothing but establish what we already knew, it was a soviet missile.
 
LMAO!!!!!! This is about as believable as the Russian military saying they have a functioning aircraft carrier.

They do have one that is functional, but the question is why does anyone need 15 or so?!

They seem to be handling things quite well in there sphere...with just one, though...
 
They do have one that is functional, but the question is why does anyone need 15 or so?!

They seem to be handling things quite well in there sphere...with just one, though...

It's not functional if you need a tugboat and a cargo ship full of spare part where ever it goes.
 
Aircraft carriers are needed because they enable us to project power to every corner of the world. We can pull up 10 miles off the coast of any continent in the world and lock down the skies above hostile territory. We can provide close air support to UN, US, or allied forces on the ground anywhere in the world. While it is not possible to really occupy territory 100% without putting boots on the ground, if "shock and awe" over Baghdad taught us anything, it is that with our airpower we can completely cripple command control and infrastructure in foreign countries from the skies. Carriers dont travel alone, they have a flotilla of support ships, which are capable in their own right, particularly with Tomahawk cruise missiles. While outrageously expensive, i am sure more than 1 dictator has thought twice about invading a neighbor or attacking our allies because a carrier group was posted up nearby.

Other than that, no reason at all to have aircraft carriers. As you were.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TennTom
Aircraft carriers are needed because they enable us to project power to every corner of the world. We can pull up 10 miles off the coast of any continent in the world and lock down the skies above hostile territory. We can provide close air support to UN, US, or allied forces on the ground anywhere in the world. While it is not possible to really occupy territory 100% without putting boots on the ground, if "shock and awe" over Baghdad taught us anything, it is that with our airpower we can completely cripple command control and infrastructure in foreign countries from the skies. Carriers dont travel alone, they have a flotilla of support ships, which are capable in their own right, particularly with Tomahawk cruise missiles. While outrageously expensive, i am sure more than 1 dictator has thought twice about invading a neighbor or attacking our allies because a carrier group was posted up nearby.

Other than that, no reason at all to have aircraft carriers. As you were.

I realize what they are built for...

Seems with recent history they’re used more as a bullying tactic?!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rasputin_Vol
Aircraft carriers are needed because they enable us to project power to every corner of the world. We can pull up 10 miles off the coast of any continent in the world and lock down the skies above hostile territory. We can provide close air support to UN, US, or allied forces on the ground anywhere in the world. While it is not possible to really occupy territory 100% without putting boots on the ground, if "shock and awe" over Baghdad taught us anything, it is that with our airpower we can completely cripple command control and infrastructure in foreign countries from the skies. Carriers dont travel alone, they have a flotilla of support ships, which are capable in their own right, particularly with Tomahawk cruise missiles. While outrageously expensive, i am sure more than 1 dictator has thought twice about invading a neighbor or attacking our allies because a carrier group was posted up nearby.

Other than that, no reason at all to have aircraft carriers. As you were.
I think was his point. That America is the bully of the world, not Russia.
 
I think was his point. That America is the bully of the world, not Russia.

Its certainly a matter of perspective. Some 3rd world countries see us as "imperialist Americans " after all of their natural resources...despite the fact that we have never attempted to colonize the world like England, Spain, France, etc... the territories we have, like Puerto Rico, etc would love to become states...so they could suckle at the teat of welfare even more. I am not blind though, we certainly have noticed that Afghanistan has some of the largest if not THE largest deposits of rare earth minerals needed in nano tech etc...or that since our fiat economy is tied to petro dollars, we will always maintain some control over the sandbox and anywhere else oil reserves can be accessed or controlled by us...our hands are not squeaky clean, you have maybe seen my posts about us hanging the Kurds out to dry....again...as they are slaughtered. We make mistakes, and get involved in crap that we shouldn't...but we do at least try to spread capitolism and democracy where we can, which lifts countries out of poverty...as well as hand put billions and billions of dollars in aid every single year that could be used to probably provide food and shelter to every single homeless person in America several times over (which they wouldnt have worked for, so they would destroy and squander, of course) as a country i still believe that in general we try to help and change for the better other nations as much as we can. I highly doubt that China or the Russians give away half of what we do every year. I personally wish we would stay out pf other countries civil wars unless there are serious human rights abuses, and not give huge sums of cash to any country unless they could prove it was being used directly to dig wells, grow crops, build cheap housing for the poor, etc....i dont support us paying for dictators to buy thousands of ak47s and russian tanks so they can squash rebellion by their own people (this happens all the time i think)
 
Its certainly a matter of perspective. Some 3rd world countries see us as "imperialist Americans " after all of their natural resources...despite the fact that we have never attempted to colonize the world like England, Spain, France, etc... the territories we have, like Puerto Rico, etc would love to become states...so they could suckle at the teat of welfare even more. I am not blind though, we certainly have noticed that Afghanistan has some of the largest if not THE largest deposits of rare earth minerals needed in nano tech etc...or that since our fiat economy is tied to petro dollars, we will always maintain some control over the sandbox and anywhere else oil reserves can be accessed or controlled by us...our hands are not squeaky clean, you have maybe seen my posts about us hanging the Kurds out to dry....again...as they are slaughtered. We make mistakes, and get involved in crap that we shouldn't...but we do at least try to spread capitolism and democracy where we can, which lifts countries out of poverty...as well as hand put billions and billions of dollars in aid every single year that could be used to probably provide food and shelter to every single homeless person in America several times over (which they wouldnt have worked for, so they would destroy and squander, of course) as a country i still believe that in general we try to help and change for the better other nations as much as we can. I highly doubt that China or the Russians give away half of what we do every year. I personally wish we would stay out pf other countries civil wars unless there are serious human rights abuses, and not give huge sums of cash to any country unless they could prove it was being used directly to dig wells, grow crops, build cheap housing for the poor, etc....i dont support us paying for dictators to buy thousands of ak47s and russian tanks so they can squash rebellion by their own people (this happens all the time i think)

We've essentially colonized Afghanistan and by spreading capitalism and democracy, is that why we support the Saudis?
 
Some 3rd world countries see us as "imperialist Americans " after all of their natural resources...despite the fact that we have never attempted to colonize the world like England, Spain, France, etc... the territories we have, like Puerto Rico, etc would love to become states...so they could suckle at the teat of welfare even more.

That is because America has never colonized in the traditional sense like those countries. The US lets its corporations go after the countries resources and then helps to put in governments friendly to those businesses in place (through covert and overt actions). The governments installed usually being somewhat democratic, if in name only, so we can use the excuse we are promoting democracy. The Banana Republics are the best, clearest example of this but not the only ones by far.
 

VN Store



Back
Top