War in Ukraine

#71,851
#71,851
Rasputin_Vol said:
Dude... just stop. No amount of mental gymnastics can explain how it is easier for the Patriots to shoot down hypersonic missiles and planes, but not gravity bombs. Your coping and gaslighting.
Click to expand...
most AA missiles aren't designed for direct hits to take out the target.

It seems like the Patriot missile system can use 4 different (American) missiles. 3 of them rely on shrapnel, the 4th is designed to take out ballistic missiles with a direct hit. I don't know if any foreign missiles are compatible.

Missiles, and planes, are thin skinned with lots of technical pieces, and it doesn't take a lot of damage to take them out. and even a direct hit by a kinetic round (no explosive) would likely just pass through, there isn't enough mass to stop the round. and unless that kinetic round directly hits a critical component the plane or missile can keep going. because its able to go through the plane or missile not a lot of the force is transferred to the target, and therefore damage is minimal. and that relies on getting a direct hit. its like throwing a dart at another dart, possible, but difficult, and even a small miss does nothing.

most AA type missiles instead rely on shrapnel. because of the thin skin there isn't a lot of armor to stop the shrapnel. The shrapnel is propelled by an explosive. That explosive is triggered via a sensor that detects the target once its close enough to damage. This way you don't need a direct hit. and instead of relying on hitting one dart with another dart, you are hitting a dart with a reactive basketball. and because the explosion is omnidirectional there is no where to hide, so a close "miss" is still a hit. and with a large number of projectiles your chances of hitting something critical are increased. various "airburst" triggers have existed since WW1, it really came into play as AA in WW2. anything from magnetic detection, to built in radar/heat detection, or even ground controlled can trigger the explosion. but even with all of that no system is 100% effective on getting hits, nor 100% on taking out the target when a hit occurs.

a dumb iron bomb is going to be relatively immune to shrapnel damage even with a hit, think a grenade going off outside a tank, the tank is going to be fine, armor is too thick. and the iron bomb won't have superfluous critical components to get damaged to disrupt it. unless the Russians are using pre-WW2 iron bombs, the explosives inside the bomb isn't going to react too much (explode) to a kinetic strike from shrapnel, no matter what TV tells you. the shrapnel would have to take out whatever the trigger is for the bomb.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#71,852
#71,852
LouderVol said:
what in your version of history makes you think that Russia would be better for Ukraine?
Click to expand...

The best thing for Ukraine was to remain neutral. They eff'ed that up. Did Russia mistreat the Ukrainian region at times in it's history? Sure. Did the US mistreat the south at times in it's history? Sure. China? Same. Welcome to the complicated history of large Countries. In your list of mistreatment, you failed to list the West's mistreatment of proxies like Ukraine, over the last 40-60 years.

Bottom line, the West destroyed what was Ukraine and when given ample opportunities to avoid this outcome, the West ignored them. Why? Because the West was advancing THEIR agenda, not Ukraine's. The West was looking out for THEIR best interest, not Ukraine's.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rasputin_Vol
#71,853
#71,853
BeardedVol said:
His statement wasn't:

"procedures and systems in place are inadequate for the level of accountability that I expect for monitoring the aid given to Ukraine"

It was "there's zero accountability". Evena as a hyperbolic statement, it's grossly inaccurate to the point of being nonsense.

But feel free to give your assessment of what has been done, and where you believe additional oversight is needed.
Click to expand...
*I feel like my original response got lost somehow, SIAP*

I was replying to your fact check, not his OP. if I was, I would have quoted him and not you.

your fact check didn't prove anything. the fact check was asking if there was enough. The only evidence it provided was that it was the most we have ever had, that doesn't mean its enough. it also said they hadn't found any evidence of any problems, despite the fact that we had discussed a problem.

your argument is that we gave them the right amount, but we used a different value, that ended up giving Ukraine more. in my world that means we gave them more than we said we did. which means we don't have an accurate assessment of what we are giving. either the initial reporting used the wrong term, and we intended to give them the value we gave them, which would be dishonesty by the government, and pretty corrupt to be lying to the public. or we meant what we said initially and somewhere along the line someone else in the government gave Ukraine a different end value that increased the value, which would also be corruption. Now I would say that's a pretty light corruption, but its clearly corruption if we are either lying or changing the value on purpose. your fact check said there was NO evidence.

the OPs absolutes burnt him, and your absolutes burnt you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88
#71,854
#71,854
F62lX4KXcAA8p6G
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40
#71,855
#71,855
volgr said:
The best thing for Ukraine was to remain neutral. They eff'ed that up. Did Russia mistreat the Ukrainian region at times in it's history? Sure. Did the US mistreat the south at times in it's history? Sure. China? Same. Welcome to the complicated history of large Countries. In your list of mistreatment, you failed to list the West's mistreatment of proxies like Ukraine, over the last 40-60 years.

Bottom line, the West destroyed what was Ukraine and when given ample opportunities to avoid this outcome, the West ignored them. Why? Because the West was advancing THEIR agenda, not Ukraine's. The West was looking out for THEIR best interest, not Ukraine's.
Click to expand...
Dear lord your bull **** knows no boundaries or limits. You cannot justify the ongoing rape of Ukraine by Russia by blaming others for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary, AM64 and BeardedVol
#71,856
#71,856
LouderVol said:
*I feel like my original response got lost somehow, SIAP*

I was replying to your fact check, not his OP. if I was, I would have quoted him and not you.

your fact check didn't prove anything. the fact check was asking if there was enough. The only evidence it provided was that it was the most we have ever had, that doesn't mean its enough. it also said they hadn't found any evidence of any problems, despite the fact that we had discussed a problem.

your argument is that we gave them the right amount, but we used a different value, that ended up giving Ukraine more. in my world that means we gave them more than we said we did. which means we don't have an accurate assessment of what we are giving. either the initial reporting used the wrong term, and we intended to give them the value we gave them, which would be dishonesty by the government, and pretty corrupt to be lying to the public. or we meant what we said initially and somewhere along the line someone else in the government gave Ukraine a different end value that increased the value, which would also be corruption. Now I would say that's a pretty light corruption, but its clearly corruption if we are either lying or changing the value on purpose. your fact check said there was NO evidence.

the OPs absolutes burnt him, and your absolutes burnt you.
Click to expand...
You should probably Google, "Net Book Value".

This is not some conspiracy by Ukrainians to defraud the government, especially since inflating the value of military hardware would server no purpose for them.

1695651597024.png

It's a DoD pencil pusher looking at the wrong column on a spreadsheet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#71,857
#71,857
volgr said:
The best thing for Ukraine was to remain neutral. They eff'ed that up. Did Russia mistreat the Ukrainian region at times in it's history? Sure. Did the US mistreat the south at times in it's history? Sure. China? Same. Welcome to the complicated history of large Countries. In your list of mistreatment, you failed to list the West's mistreatment of proxies like Ukraine, over the last 40-60 years.

Bottom line, the West destroyed what was Ukraine and when given ample opportunities to avoid this outcome, the West ignored them. Why? Because the West was advancing THEIR agenda, not Ukraine's. The West was looking out for THEIR best interest, not Ukraine's.
Click to expand...

Ukraine is not a part of Russia.

Ukraine is a sovereign nation that can choose it's own trade and military alliances as it sees fit.


1695651843763.png
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, USF grad in TN, TVOLS and 2 others
#71,858
#71,858
BeardedVol said:
You should probably Google, "Net Book Value".

This is not some conspiracy by Ukrainians to defraud the government, especially since inflating the value of military hardware would server no purpose for them.

View attachment 582041

It's a DoD pencil pusher looking at the wrong column on a spreadsheet.
Click to expand...

I like the use of the words "significant" and "generally" which means there is waste, fraud and abuse along with agencies not cooperating.

Keep slurping up the propaganda.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LouderVol
#71,860
#71,860
#71,861
#71,861
NorthDallas40 said:
If this is what I remember it to be even Rand Paul voted against it. His excuse was he wanted to roll the responsibility into the already existing Afghan watchdog and oversight office. I thought that was a bad look get the office in place and then haggle about consolidation. There needs to be focused OIG oversight.
Click to expand...

It's a bad look without question.
 
#71,862
#71,862
hog88 said:
It's a bad look without question.
Click to expand...
There are massive amounts of resources being funneled into Ukraine there absolutely needs to be dedicated oversight focused only on that effort. The current discussion here about the mechanism of the Pentagon accounting bungle only reinforces the need to me. And I’m really trying to understand the accounting method it appears to be very similar to capital depreciation which doesn’t make sense to me for a government dept that doesn’t pay taxes. 🤷‍♂️
 
#71,866
#71,866
BeardedVol said:
Feel free to post your evidence to the contrary.
Click to expand...

You posted it for me.

Not finding "significant" fraud and abuse means they did find fraud and abuse so what is this propaganda groups definition of significant? How many millions is significant? If they would have found none don't you think they would have said so?
 
#71,871
#71,871
volgr said:
The best thing for Ukraine was to remain neutral. They eff'ed that up. Did Russia mistreat the Ukrainian region at times in it's history? Sure. Did the US mistreat the south at times in it's history? Sure. China? Same. Welcome to the complicated history of large Countries. In your list of mistreatment, you failed to list the West's mistreatment of proxies like Ukraine, over the last 40-60 years.

Bottom line, the West destroyed what was Ukraine and when given ample opportunities to avoid this outcome, the West ignored them. Why? Because the West was advancing THEIR agenda, not Ukraine's. The West was looking out for THEIR best interest, not Ukraine's.
Click to expand...
Coming to Taiwan soon. Same song, same verse...
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top