Russia-Ukraine War 2022 - Page 419 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#15249379
Igor, while I have generally enjoyed most of your work in this thread, there are some severe weaknesses in a few of your later-thread arguments. I have chosen two, and I am posting them here (with counter-arguments) in order to encourage you to be more precise.

Igor Antunov wrote: >ride bike through snow because no gas for car
>down to one can of beans and broth per day, can't remember what meat tasted like


These are part of your list of "the hell" that awaits post-pipeline Germans. But, what you have failed to notice is that Germans SHOULD stop driving so much and eating so much meat. Oil is a precious commodity, used for medicines, industrial processes, emergency vehicles, electricity and fertilizer, and yet Germans (and Americans, and Canadians, and Italians...) are burning it all as fast as possible by driving large cars everwhere. This is nihilism, and it demonstrates that today's adults are TOXIC for their own children and grandchildren. You missed this point tragically in your list.

Likewise, your list mentions "forgetting the taste of meat," which rings hollow to vegetarians like me, as well as to the billions of farting cattle who are slaughtered every year.

Igor Antunov wrote:This is the most popular and watched news channel and talking head in the US right now:


Tucker starts this episode by FRAMING this event as an ecological crisis, which it isn't. That he has to start with *a lie* says more about American media than it does about the pipeline destruction. What else is he lying about? What are the various lies that one can hear on other networks? How do I know which lie is right for me?
#15249388
Just 6 well placed Russian lowest yield nukes (5kt) would eliminate the entire 70,000 NATO zergling infestation in Kharkiv region across the Luhansk front. Russia has thousands. With air bursts radiation would be temporary and limited to the line of extermination.


Love it. This is just another stupid troll by a kuck on a white sectional but what the fuck. If you can get Russia to nuke itself, fine. Of course in a previous post you referred to this territory as Ukraine. It is Ukraine and Putin is going to lose it in the end. His ploy may stand for awhile as he reinforces the untrained cowards at the front with even more poorly trained cowards at the front.

You are wrong about air bursts by the way. They are not "clean". They are better than ground bursts but they still produce fallout to some degree. But how would the world respond to the deaths of a few hundred thousand or more civilians? You tell me. What is the end game? To become another DPRK. A totally isolated dictatorship starving in the cold winter?

Do try to remember though that the US could effectively decapitate the Russian government with conventional sub launched weapons for which Russia has no land based defense. So lets see One SSGN (and we have several just in the US naval forces) could launch 1000 pound payloads against 150 targets in Russia. Probably the thing to do would be to take down Russia's entire power grid so the citizenry can "feel the pain". Then we, of course, would take down Russia's entire cell phone and internets. Probably shut down most municipal water systems as well. The Russian navy would be destroyed immediately. He would probably lose the effectiveness of his boomers within hours. He would be blockaded instantly with all imports and exports stopped in their tracks. Without launching a single Nuke (and we have a shit ton of them) we could devastate the Russian economy and infrastructure. And he could not sell his oil anywhere.

What would China do? It would be faced with its treaty requirement to respond against Russia. Long border there. If it did not respond, it would lose the entire EU and USA markets. Its economy is already in suck mode so they are not going to sacrifice that over some third rate power. And that is exactly what Russia has proved itself to be. A third rate regional power.


And finally Igor the Idiot. Using battlefield nukes over cities puts the world on notice that Russia approves of and will use nuclear weapons as blackmail. There is nowhere safe in the world from that. It would probably be the calculation in the new allies (EU, China, USA) that Russia must be neutralized militarily. India? Well with 22% of their entire trade going to the US I think we know where they will come down. With 30% between the EU and USA China is a forgone conclusion.

No my grade school friend. Go find another meme to post. For you it is a good substitute for a brain.
User avatar
By Rancid
#15249393
It's hilarious @Igor Antunov is advocating the use of Nuclear weapons. Then we have someone like @ingliz who doesn't push back against that suggestion.
#15249394
Rancid wrote:Tucker Carlson.... :lol:


Lies all over the place..... :lol:
User avatar
By ingliz
#15249401
Drlee wrote:... the US could effectively decapitate the Russian government with conventional sub-launched weapons for which Russia has no land-based defense. So let's see. One SSGN (and we have several just in the US naval forces) could launch 1000-pound payloads against 150 targets in Russia. Probably the thing to do would be to take down Russia's entire power grid so the citizenry can "feel the pain", [etc., etc., etc.]

M[utually]A[ssured]D[estruction], guaranteed.

Madness.


:lol:
User avatar
By ingliz
#15249403
Rancid wrote:Then we have someone like @ingliz who doesn't push back against that suggestion.

Would my "pushback" make a ha'porth of difference?

NATO appears intent on provoking WWIII.
#15249405
@Igor Antunov you know, by advocating the use of nuclear weapons, you are admitting that Putin cannot win the conventional war in Ukraine. So much for Putin's super masculine military.



ingliz wrote:NATO appears intent on provoking WWIII.

Putin is more interested in starting WWIII by continuing to bullshit around with his nukes bullshit. How do you not see that?

Who during this entire fucking war has threatened nukes? It's you boy Putin. Stop cunting for him.
Last edited by Rancid on 02 Oct 2022 16:39, edited 1 time in total.
#15249407
Istanbuller wrote:Putin is not a dictator. He has been remaining in the office by getting elected every time.

LOL what a fool. By that logic fidel castro in cuba was not a dictator either, he got re-elected every time for over 50 years. :knife: :lol:

ingliz wrote:M[utually]A[ssured]D[estruction], guaranteed.

Madness.


:lol:


You are incorrect. If you were to nuke the estate of TEXAS and you send all ICBM that russia have just for texas, and none of them fail, none of them miss the target and none of them get intercepted by US defense, you still would not be able to kill every single person in texas with the nukes.
Half the nukes russia have will not become airborne, they will be destroyed after the initial wave with our own reply. Of those that get sent, a portion will simply fail (see how poor equipped those in the fighting field are? see how rusty their weapons? what makes you think that Russia skipped on provided maintenance to those weapons they use often but decided to properly attend to the maintenance of their nuclear arsenal, presumably weapons they didn't really think they would ever have to use due to deterrence... Are you really convinced that none of the generals and other officers stole part of the budget for those weapons? These weapons are in essence small space rockets, they need precission, they need maintenance. Tiny leaks here and there, expiration of their fuel, degradation of electronic components, capacitors, etc would make a good bunch of these weapons completely unoperable. I highly doubt that russia even has half of what they say they have ready for operations.
The crude reality is that Russia will hurt us, the way a gazelle can hurt a lion, we could pull a muscle, perhaps get a scratch. But russia will lose its neck.
#15249409
Rancid wrote:@Igor Antunov you know, by advocating the use of nuclear weapons, you are admitting that Putin cannot win the conventional war in Ukraine. So much for Putin's super masculine military.




Putin is more interested in starting WWIII by continuing to bullshit around with his nukes bullshit. How do you not see that?

Actually, despite being fools/ignorants they do have a tiny kernel of a point. NATO nations should ignore all the stupidity that these idiots are doing and act regardless. Put troops in Ukraine, repell the invaders and if they use nukes, respond in kind.
Anything less than that, is sending a signal to other shit states such as Iran, North Korea, etc.
#15249411
XogGyux wrote:Actually, despite being fools/ignorants they do have a tiny kernel of a point. NATO nations should ignore all the stupidity that these idiots are doing and act regardless. Put troops in Ukraine, repell the invaders and if they use nukes, respond in kind.
Anything less than that, is sending a signal to other shit states such as Iran, North Korea, etc.


Sure, but it is the war of choice of Putin, so all results of this war lay on his feet.

Anyway, yes, I agree, Putin keeps claiming this is a war against NATO, then let's give him his war against NATO.
#15249412
Rancid wrote:Sure, but it is the war of choice of Putin, so all results of this war lay on his feet.

Anyway, yes, I agree, Putin keeps claiming this is a war against NATO, then let's give him his war against NATO.


Of course, he said that much. We should take his claims as a formal declaration of war. Doing otherwise would be irresponsible. Hitler was ignored by the west for too long and look what happened. Don't ignore this fool as well.
#15249414
XogGyux wrote:Don't ignore this fool as well.



That is what the simp @ingliz claims would help. However, we know he's a weasel Putinist supporter, so of course he's not actually advocating for peace, but instead, for Russian imperialism. This is what weasel's do. Hide their motives behind bullshit tactics.
#15249420
XogGyux wrote:LOL what a fool. By that logic fidel castro in cuba was not a dictator either, he got re-elected every time for over 50 years. :knife: :lol:

So by your definition was FDR a dictator? He got re-elected every time until his death. As well as a deep network of corruption throughout the North FDR also relied on campaign of murder and terror to stop people of Black African heritage voting Republican in the South.

JFK of course recognised the treatment of Black-African Americans as a moral issue. :lol: You've got to understand that what JFK meant by a moral issue is actually the complete opposite of what most decent people would consider a moral issue. He was worried (quite rightly) that the issue of Jim Crow could be exploited by the Communists in the Cold War. However his desire to reform the south, came into conflict with his desire to get re-elected, hence his decision to get into the car with segregationist and terrorist supporter John Connally in November 1963.

Its amazing isn't it, the hypocrisy of Americans. They're constantly demanding that people risk their lives standing up to Putin, to Hitler, to the Taliban or who ever, but never seem to demand even the most minimal standards of decency from their own heroes.
Last edited by Rich on 02 Oct 2022 17:36, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By ingliz
#15249421
XogGyux wrote:nuke the estate of TEXAS

Why would Russia nuke the relatively empty state of Texas when there's the East Coast to vaporize?


:lol:
User avatar
By ingliz
#15249428
Rancid wrote:by advocating the use of nuclear weapons, you are admitting that Putin cannot win the conventional war [against NATO] in Ukraine. So much for Putin's super masculine military.

I am not disputing that. Russia is in the same position the US was in the 60s.

That is why I think it will end badly.
#15249429
QatzelOk wrote:Igor, while I have generally enjoyed most of your work in this thread, there are some severe weaknesses in a few of your later-thread arguments. I have chosen two, and I am posting them here (with counter-arguments) in order to encourage you to be more precise.


:lol: :lol: :lol:

ingliz wrote:Would my "pushback" make a ha'porth of difference?

NATO appears intent on provoking WWIII.


Russia turns nukes into an offensive weapon (respect my annexation or I'll nuke you) and you blame NATO.

What a fucking retarded pig you are.
#15249431
ingliz wrote:Why would Russia nuke the relatively empty state of Texas when there's the East Coast to vaporize?


:lol:

I am just portraying the infeasibility of what you are suggesting. Of course they would aim at major military targets and major cities where they can achieve the most impact, but the truth of the matter is that the US will survive, even if injured. The one that will not survive is the russian federation. Remember, the US is just one of 30 NATO countries, many of which also have nuclear capability, also russia, despite being the largest country of the world, the vast majority of it is unpopulated tundra wasteland, so if anything, the west will have a much more concentrated target than Putin does. He would have to send nukes to NY, San Francisco, Washignton and dozens of many more US cities as well as London, Berlin, Paris, Istanbul, Madrid, hundreds and hundreds all around the world.
This is not a mutual assured destruction. This is a "I hurt you a bit, you annihilate me" situation. This is very unbalanced.
#15249443
Russian northern front at Kerson is collapsing, seems they are trying to cross the river. Maybe no one told them the bridge is destroyed?

Also this:
" ... stories that Russian command and control has broken down so spectacularly in Kherson that one unit has gone onto social media to beg for air support."

Last edited by Wels on 02 Oct 2022 22:02, edited 1 time in total.
#15249444
Rich wrote:To be fair, although they suffered defeats, set backs and humiliations, the Soviet Union was certainly not short on military glory. [...]
It was in the more mundane, less noble offerings to its citizens, that the Soviet Union failed to satisfy. Which is why although some say humanity is too good for Communism, others say Communism is too good for humanity.

I agree. But the Soviet Union ended, and what some called the dictatorship of the proletariat only was a dictatorship with one man at the top, Stalinism.
Communism is theoretically a good idea. In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, unfortunately not.
  • 1
  • 417
  • 418
  • 419
  • 420
  • 421
  • 831

No, it doesn't. The US also wants to see Hamas top[…]

Israel removed 10,000 Israeli families from Gaz[…]

The Donbas fortifications have been incredibly su[…]

@litwin is clearly an Alex Jones type conspir[…]