Can we offer this Ukranian solider a scholarship?

PostGameOrangeSlices

Bob_C said:

PostGameOrangeSlices said:

Bob_C said:

UW_Doog_Bot said:

huskyhooligan said:

Bruh, I think I stated this pretty early. My nephew, in the military, stationed in Poland at one point during this, and completely on the spectrum when it comes to weapons, tanks, artillery, you name it. Early on he was like "Russia basically just threw out their old equipment to start and will roll when they use their modern equipment." Russia truly rolls Ukraine rather easily, one might say even 34-17 without foreign aide. This would have been Oregon vs. Portland State, but in this case Portland State (Ukraine) had the refs (NATO) and NCAA (USA) on their side so the score looks closer.

You have a lot of issues in that part of the world where ethnic Russians, for multiple reasons, have not fully embraced the country they were left in. Maldova being the next best example after the Ukraine. Part of it might be due to the cultures of the countries being too similar to Russia, but surely old and likely very very small ethnic tensions probably are the biggest factors.

They lost their black sea fleet and lots of other irreplaceable strategic assets. This talking point is at least a year out of date.

At least you are honest that it was all about killing Russians instead of pretending it was about protecting Ukrainians and saving democracy.

Why not both?

Russia tried and failed at their main objective.

Sucks to suck

Are you on board for another $60b?

I'm still scanning the radar and the sky for the nuclear launch I heard was imminent

Bob_C

PostGameOrangeSlices said:

Bob_C said:

PostGameOrangeSlices said:

Bob_C said:

UW_Doog_Bot said:

huskyhooligan said:

Bruh, I think I stated this pretty early. My nephew, in the military, stationed in Poland at one point during this, and completely on the spectrum when it comes to weapons, tanks, artillery, you name it. Early on he was like "Russia basically just threw out their old equipment to start and will roll when they use their modern equipment." Russia truly rolls Ukraine rather easily, one might say even 34-17 without foreign aide. This would have been Oregon vs. Portland State, but in this case Portland State (Ukraine) had the refs (NATO) and NCAA (USA) on their side so the score looks closer.

You have a lot of issues in that part of the world where ethnic Russians, for multiple reasons, have not fully embraced the country they were left in. Maldova being the next best example after the Ukraine. Part of it might be due to the cultures of the countries being too similar to Russia, but surely old and likely very very small ethnic tensions probably are the biggest factors.

They lost their black sea fleet and lots of other irreplaceable strategic assets. This talking point is at least a year out of date.

At least you are honest that it was all about killing Russians instead of pretending it was about protecting Ukrainians and saving democracy.

Why not both?

Russia tried and failed at their main objective.

Sucks to suck

Are you on board for another $60b?

I'm still scanning the radar and the sky for the nuclear launch I heard was imminent

You can take divert the question with other posters, that's never been my argument. You said on page one, as long as it takes (which implies more money). But that was also back when you were all-in in that Ukraine could actually achieve its goals and the vaunted Spring offensive was being planned that would in all likelihood be a success .

So are you for the $60b or not?

PostGameOrangeSlices

Bob_C said:

PostGameOrangeSlices said:

Bob_C said:

PostGameOrangeSlices said:

Bob_C said:

UW_Doog_Bot said:

huskyhooligan said:

Bruh, I think I stated this pretty early. My nephew, in the military, stationed in Poland at one point during this, and completely on the spectrum when it comes to weapons, tanks, artillery, you name it. Early on he was like "Russia basically just threw out their old equipment to start and will roll when they use their modern equipment." Russia truly rolls Ukraine rather easily, one might say even 34-17 without foreign aide. This would have been Oregon vs. Portland State, but in this case Portland State (Ukraine) had the refs (NATO) and NCAA (USA) on their side so the score looks closer.

You have a lot of issues in that part of the world where ethnic Russians, for multiple reasons, have not fully embraced the country they were left in. Maldova being the next best example after the Ukraine. Part of it might be due to the cultures of the countries being too similar to Russia, but surely old and likely very very small ethnic tensions probably are the biggest factors.

They lost their black sea fleet and lots of other irreplaceable strategic assets. This talking point is at least a year out of date.

At least you are honest that it was all about killing Russians instead of pretending it was about protecting Ukrainians and saving democracy.

Why not both?

Russia tried and failed at their main objective.

Sucks to suck

Are you on board for another $60b?

I'm still scanning the radar and the sky for the nuclear launch I heard was imminent

You can take divert the question with other posters, that's never been my argument. You said on page one, as long as it takes (which implies more money). But that was also back when you were all-in in that Ukraine could actually achieve its goals and the vaunted Spring offensive was being planned that would in all likelihood be a success .

So are you for the $60b or not?

I don't really care one way or the other, to be blunt

Bob_C

PostGameOrangeSlices said:

Bob_C said:

PostGameOrangeSlices said:

Bob_C said:

PostGameOrangeSlices said:

Bob_C said:

UW_Doog_Bot said:

huskyhooligan said:

Bruh, I think I stated this pretty early. My nephew, in the military, stationed in Poland at one point during this, and completely on the spectrum when it comes to weapons, tanks, artillery, you name it. Early on he was like "Russia basically just threw out their old equipment to start and will roll when they use their modern equipment." Russia truly rolls Ukraine rather easily, one might say even 34-17 without foreign aide. This would have been Oregon vs. Portland State, but in this case Portland State (Ukraine) had the refs (NATO) and NCAA (USA) on their side so the score looks closer.

You have a lot of issues in that part of the world where ethnic Russians, for multiple reasons, have not fully embraced the country they were left in. Maldova being the next best example after the Ukraine. Part of it might be due to the cultures of the countries being too similar to Russia, but surely old and likely very very small ethnic tensions probably are the biggest factors.

They lost their black sea fleet and lots of other irreplaceable strategic assets. This talking point is at least a year out of date.

At least you are honest that it was all about killing Russians instead of pretending it was about protecting Ukrainians and saving democracy.

Why not both?

Russia tried and failed at their main objective.

Sucks to suck

Are you on board for another $60b?

I'm still scanning the radar and the sky for the nuclear launch I heard was imminent

You can take divert the question with other posters, that's never been my argument. You said on page one, as long as it takes (which implies more money). But that was also back when you were all-in in that Ukraine could actually achieve its goals and the vaunted Spring offensive was being planned that would in all likelihood be a success .

So are you for the $60b or not?

I don't really care one way or the other, to be blunt

Ok, so it's no longer "as long as it takes" then?

Bob_C

Sounds like a white flag.

PostGameOrangeSlices

Bob_C said:

PostGameOrangeSlices said:

Bob_C said:

PostGameOrangeSlices said:

Bob_C said:

PostGameOrangeSlices said:

Bob_C said:

UW_Doog_Bot said:

huskyhooligan said:

Bruh, I think I stated this pretty early. My nephew, in the military, stationed in Poland at one point during this, and completely on the spectrum when it comes to weapons, tanks, artillery, you name it. Early on he was like "Russia basically just threw out their old equipment to start and will roll when they use their modern equipment." Russia truly rolls Ukraine rather easily, one might say even 34-17 without foreign aide. This would have been Oregon vs. Portland State, but in this case Portland State (Ukraine) had the refs (NATO) and NCAA (USA) on their side so the score looks closer.

You have a lot of issues in that part of the world where ethnic Russians, for multiple reasons, have not fully embraced the country they were left in. Maldova being the next best example after the Ukraine. Part of it might be due to the cultures of the countries being too similar to Russia, but surely old and likely very very small ethnic tensions probably are the biggest factors.

They lost their black sea fleet and lots of other irreplaceable strategic assets. This talking point is at least a year out of date.

At least you are honest that it was all about killing Russians instead of pretending it was about protecting Ukrainians and saving democracy.

Why not both?

Russia tried and failed at their main objective.

Sucks to suck

Are you on board for another $60b?

I'm still scanning the radar and the sky for the nuclear launch I heard was imminent

You can take divert the question with other posters, that's never been my argument. You said on page one, as long as it takes (which implies more money). But that was also back when you were all-in in that Ukraine could actually achieve its goals and the vaunted Spring offensive was being planned that would in all likelihood be a success .

So are you for the $60b or not?

I don't really care one way or the other, to be blunt

Ok, so it's no longer "as long as it takes" then?

Things change. Neither army can do anything.

Hth

Cute double post trying to bait a response.

RaceBannon

PostGameOrangeSlices said:

Bob_C said:

PostGameOrangeSlices said:

Bob_C said:

PostGameOrangeSlices said:

Bob_C said:

PostGameOrangeSlices said:

Bob_C said:

UW_Doog_Bot said:

huskyhooligan said:

Bruh, I think I stated this pretty early. My nephew, in the military, stationed in Poland at one point during this, and completely on the spectrum when it comes to weapons, tanks, artillery, you name it. Early on he was like "Russia basically just threw out their old equipment to start and will roll when they use their modern equipment." Russia truly rolls Ukraine rather easily, one might say even 34-17 without foreign aide. This would have been Oregon vs. Portland State, but in this case Portland State (Ukraine) had the refs (NATO) and NCAA (USA) on their side so the score looks closer.

You have a lot of issues in that part of the world where ethnic Russians, for multiple reasons, have not fully embraced the country they were left in. Maldova being the next best example after the Ukraine. Part of it might be due to the cultures of the countries being too similar to Russia, but surely old and likely very very small ethnic tensions probably are the biggest factors.

They lost their black sea fleet and lots of other irreplaceable strategic assets. This talking point is at least a year out of date.

At least you are honest that it was all about killing Russians instead of pretending it was about protecting Ukrainians and saving democracy.

Why not both?

Russia tried and failed at their main objective.

Sucks to suck

Are you on board for another $60b?

I'm still scanning the radar and the sky for the nuclear launch I heard was imminent

You can take divert the question with other posters, that's never been my argument. You said on page one, as long as it takes (which implies more money). But that was also back when you were all-in in that Ukraine could actually achieve its goals and the vaunted Spring offensive was being planned that would in all likelihood be a success .

So are you for the $60b or not?

I don't really care one way or the other, to be blunt

Ok, so it's no longer "as long as it takes" then?

Things change. Neither army can do anything.

Hth

Cute double post trying to bait a response.

Looks like it worked

PostGameOrangeSlices

RaceBannon said:

PostGameOrangeSlices said:

Bob_C said:

PostGameOrangeSlices said:

Bob_C said:

PostGameOrangeSlices said:

Bob_C said:

PostGameOrangeSlices said:

Bob_C said:

UW_Doog_Bot said:

huskyhooligan said:

Bruh, I think I stated this pretty early. My nephew, in the military, stationed in Poland at one point during this, and completely on the spectrum when it comes to weapons, tanks, artillery, you name it. Early on he was like "Russia basically just threw out their old equipment to start and will roll when they use their modern equipment." Russia truly rolls Ukraine rather easily, one might say even 34-17 without foreign aide. This would have been Oregon vs. Portland State, but in this case Portland State (Ukraine) had the refs (NATO) and NCAA (USA) on their side so the score looks closer.

You have a lot of issues in that part of the world where ethnic Russians, for multiple reasons, have not fully embraced the country they were left in. Maldova being the next best example after the Ukraine. Part of it might be due to the cultures of the countries being too similar to Russia, but surely old and likely very very small ethnic tensions probably are the biggest factors.

They lost their black sea fleet and lots of other irreplaceable strategic assets. This talking point is at least a year out of date.

At least you are honest that it was all about killing Russians instead of pretending it was about protecting Ukrainians and saving democracy.

Why not both?

Russia tried and failed at their main objective.

Sucks to suck

Are you on board for another $60b?

I'm still scanning the radar and the sky for the nuclear launch I heard was imminent

You can take divert the question with other posters, that's never been my argument. You said on page one, as long as it takes (which implies more money). But that was also back when you were all-in in that Ukraine could actually achieve its goals and the vaunted Spring offensive was being planned that would in all likelihood be a success .

So are you for the $60b or not?

I don't really care one way or the other, to be blunt

Ok, so it's no longer "as long as it takes" then?

Things change. Neither army can do anything.

Hth

Cute double post trying to bait a response.

Looks like it worked

Yryk

UW_Doog_Bot

Bob_C said:

UW_Doog_Bot said:

huskyhooligan said:

Bruh, I think I stated this pretty early. My nephew, in the military, stationed in Poland at one point during this, and completely on the spectrum when it comes to weapons, tanks, artillery, you name it. Early on he was like "Russia basically just threw out their old equipment to start and will roll when they use their modern equipment." Russia truly rolls Ukraine rather easily, one might say even 34-17 without foreign aide. This would have been Oregon vs. Portland State, but in this case Portland State (Ukraine) had the refs (NATO) and NCAA (USA) on their side so the score looks closer.

You have a lot of issues in that part of the world where ethnic Russians, for multiple reasons, have not fully embraced the country they were left in. Maldova being the next best example after the Ukraine. Part of it might be due to the cultures of the countries being too similar to Russia, but surely old and likely very very small ethnic tensions probably are the biggest factors.

They lost their black sea fleet and lots of other irreplaceable strategic assets. This talking point is at least a year out of date.

At least you are honest that it was all about killing Russians instead of pretending it was about protecting Ukrainians and saving democracy.

Power politics in the world is a bitch. You wanna be Bama or you wanna be Cal?

UW_Doog_Bot

Bob_C said:

PostGameOrangeSlices said:

Bob_C said:

PostGameOrangeSlices said:

Bob_C said:

UW_Doog_Bot said:

huskyhooligan said:

Bruh, I think I stated this pretty early. My nephew, in the military, stationed in Poland at one point during this, and completely on the spectrum when it comes to weapons, tanks, artillery, you name it. Early on he was like "Russia basically just threw out their old equipment to start and will roll when they use their modern equipment." Russia truly rolls Ukraine rather easily, one might say even 34-17 without foreign aide. This would have been Oregon vs. Portland State, but in this case Portland State (Ukraine) had the refs (NATO) and NCAA (USA) on their side so the score looks closer.

You have a lot of issues in that part of the world where ethnic Russians, for multiple reasons, have not fully embraced the country they were left in. Maldova being the next best example after the Ukraine. Part of it might be due to the cultures of the countries being too similar to Russia, but surely old and likely very very small ethnic tensions probably are the biggest factors.

They lost their black sea fleet and lots of other irreplaceable strategic assets. This talking point is at least a year out of date.

At least you are honest that it was all about killing Russians instead of pretending it was about protecting Ukrainians and saving democracy.

Why not both?

Russia tried and failed at their main objective.

Sucks to suck

Are you on board for another $60b?

I'm still scanning the radar and the sky for the nuclear launch I heard was imminent

You can take divert the question with other posters, that's never been my argument. You said on page one, as long as it takes (which implies more money). But that was also back when you were all-in in that Ukraine could actually achieve its goals and the vaunted Spring offensive was being planned that would in all likelihood be a success .

So are you for the $60b or not?

"A Defense Department study that proposed cutting $125 billion in administrative waste from the Pentagon budget was buried amid concerns the findings would give Congress an excuse to further slash defense spending, the Washington Post reported on Monday."

In all honesty yes, spending money on actually using obsolete/outdated hardware to kill Russians is probably the most strategic defense value that $60b is likely to gain in value. Plus, it's less money they can use on buying things to use against us? ultra maga extremists.

I can think of a lot of other places to take it out of.

If full scale defunding of the fed is on the table lmk maybe I'll change my mind. Until then, the money they already take from me could be used on worse things.