|
|
Post by socalexile on Mar 31, 2022 6:28:48 GMT -6
Again you're posting read-on documents for defense industry sales pitches. If the problem has been identified there's a solution in the works, and if Congress gets one of these documents it's because they're about to be sold on the solution. Again, if Russia really has nothing to worry about they could just do it. They haven't so either you're overstating their capabilities or understating ours. CRS reports are created specifically for Congress but are also made public for anyone to utilize, they are not made for defense contractors trying to make a buck. They cover all ranges of topics most of which unrelated to defense. To say it's limited to "defense industry sales pitches" would be a mistake. You realize you're posting recent docs talking up Russian capabilities, when there's a defense bill just signed, and more spending being discussed in Congress right now, right? You're trying to instill fear of Russian capabilities, but to someone who knows what goes into conducting ground offensive operations, claiming that Russia could jump on a boat and invade the US is just peak idiotic propaganda shilling. That's why I don't think you are who you say you are. I've seen blatant pro-Russian shill accounts and bots on social media use those reports to do exactly what you are doing: support fear-mongering not actually supported by those documents. They (and you) just use them because they don't think people read them. I notice you aren't responding to points about how things are actually going on the ground, and you still haven't answered the question as to what expensive weapons are coming that can actually take objectives that Russia is holding back - missiles don't win wars. Everything you posted about what Russia could do to the US they could have done to Ukraine; but they haven't, because they actually can't. Instead they've wasted the cream of the Russian army by giving them old equipment and little logistical support and sending them on a poorly-planned mission based on bad strategy. |
|
|
|
Post by uscgvet on Mar 31, 2022 9:38:36 GMT -6
CRS reports are created specifically for Congress but are also made public for anyone to utilize, they are not made for defense contractors trying to make a buck. They cover all ranges of topics most of which unrelated to defense. To say it's limited to "defense industry sales pitches" would be a mistake. You realize you're posting recent docs talking up Russian capabilities, when there's a defense bill just signed, and more spending being discussed in Congress right now, right? You're trying to instill fear of Russian capabilities, but to someone who knows what goes into conducting ground offensive operations, claiming that Russia could jump on a boat and invade the US is just peak idiotic propaganda shilling. That's why I don't think you are who you say you are. I've seen blatant pro-Russian shill accounts and bots on social media use those reports to do exactly what you are doing: support fear-mongering not actually supported by those documents. They (and you) just use them because they don't think people read them. I notice you aren't responding to points about how things are actually going on the ground, and you still haven't answered the question as to what expensive weapons are coming that can actually take objectives that Russia is holding back - missiles don't win wars. Everything you posted about what Russia could do to the US they could have done to Ukraine; but they haven't, because they actually can't. Instead they've wasted the cream of the Russian army by giving them old equipment and little logistical support and sending them on a poorly-planned mission based on bad strategy.  I have one of these... hope changes your mind on me being a Russian Bot. I had to compress the image down to <1MB for the site limitation. I'm only repeating what CRS is telling Congress. These are unbiased reports from hundreds of researchers spilling hours of work into them. I don't respond to the Ukraine invasion points because CRS Reports already informed Congress (and everyone else) on how Russia will execute their invasion in August of 2020. crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11625"It would introduce high-end conventional firepower when a low-cost strategy appears insufficient, and it could escalate or de-escalate force depending on the situation" Low-cost invasion first, then escalate as needed. Makes since to me. The current Ukraine attack is just in the low-cost phase right now. I agree with CRS Reports on this matter. Go with low budget and see if it works. If not, step up the heat. Its efficient use of resources. MSM certainly doesn't want the public to know this intel. It goes against their obviously biased narrative. What's very interesting to me is that both sides of Congress are seemingly and strangely hard-core pro-Ukraine. It's like they're trying to hide something neither side wants to get revealed. Why were we in Ukraine in the first place? Why did we financially and militarily support the anti-Russian coup that killed 114 pro-Russian government officials in Ukraine in 2014? As Obama would say: "we built that"... |
|
|
|
Post by uscgvet on Mar 31, 2022 10:14:37 GMT -6
CRS reports are created specifically for Congress but are also made public for anyone to utilize, they are not made for defense contractors trying to make a buck. They cover all ranges of topics most of which unrelated to defense. To say it's limited to "defense industry sales pitches" would be a mistake. You realize you're posting recent docs talking up Russian capabilities, when there's a defense bill just signed, and more spending being discussed in Congress right now, right? You're trying to instill fear of Russian capabilities, but to someone who knows what goes into conducting ground offensive operations, claiming that Russia could jump on a boat and invade the US is just peak idiotic propaganda shilling. That's why I don't think you are who you say you are. I've seen blatant pro-Russian shill accounts and bots on social media use those reports to do exactly what you are doing: support fear-mongering not actually supported by those documents. They (and you) just use them because they don't think people read them. I notice you aren't responding to points about how things are actually going on the ground, and you still haven't answered the question as to what expensive weapons are coming that can actually take objectives that Russia is holding back - missiles don't win wars. Everything you posted about what Russia could do to the US they could have done to Ukraine; but they haven't, because they actually can't. Instead they've wasted the cream of the Russian army by giving them old equipment and little logistical support and sending them on a poorly-planned mission based on bad strategy. Response 2: Sorry, forgot to answer your other concern. If Russian capabilities are all used up, and they have nothing left to give for this Ukraine invasion, why would Congress need to increase spending on US Defense? Russia isn't a threat... or is it? |
|
|
|
Post by socalexile on Mar 31, 2022 10:24:58 GMT -6
You realize you're posting recent docs talking up Russian capabilities, when there's a defense bill just signed, and more spending being discussed in Congress right now, right? You're trying to instill fear of Russian capabilities, but to someone who knows what goes into conducting ground offensive operations, claiming that Russia could jump on a boat and invade the US is just peak idiotic propaganda shilling. That's why I don't think you are who you say you are. I've seen blatant pro-Russian shill accounts and bots on social media use those reports to do exactly what you are doing: support fear-mongering not actually supported by those documents. They (and you) just use them because they don't think people read them. I notice you aren't responding to points about how things are actually going on the ground, and you still haven't answered the question as to what expensive weapons are coming that can actually take objectives that Russia is holding back - missiles don't win wars. Everything you posted about what Russia could do to the US they could have done to Ukraine; but they haven't, because they actually can't. Instead they've wasted the cream of the Russian army by giving them old equipment and little logistical support and sending them on a poorly-planned mission based on bad strategy. <button disabled="" class="c-attachment-insert--linked o-btn--sm">Attachment Deleted</button> I have one of these... hope changes your mind on me being a Russian Bot. I had to compress the image down to <1MB for the site limitation. I'm only repeating what CRS is telling Congress. These are unbiased reports from hundreds of researchers spilling hours of work into them. I don't respond to the Ukraine invasion points because CRS Reports already informed Congress (and everyone else) on how Russia will execute their invasion in August of 2020. crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11625"It would introduce high-end conventional firepower when a low-cost strategy appears insufficient, and it could escalate or de-escalate force depending on the situation" Low-cost invasion first, then escalate as needed. Makes since to me. The current Ukraine attack is just in the low-cost phase right now. I agree with CRS Reports on this matter. Go with low budget and see if it works. If not, step up the heat. Its efficient use of resources. MSM certainly doesn't want the public to know this intel. It goes against their obviously biased narrative. What's very interesting to me is that both sides of Congress are seemingly and strangely hard-core pro-Ukraine. It's like they're trying to hide something neither side wants to get revealed. Why were we in Ukraine in the first place? Why did we financially and militarily support the anti-Russian coup that killed 114 pro-Russian government officials in Ukraine in 2014? As Obama would say: "we built that"... Then stop posting Russian propaganda and realize you are out of your lane. What you are quoting doesn't prove what you are asserting, which is not what CRS (which isn't some all-knowing entity) is asserting. Now you're deflecting to the "MSM" conspiracy argument, with a bunch of Russian propaganda. The Russians tried to control Ukraine through corrupt government officials. The people rose up and overthrew that. So then Russia tried a color revolution in Donbas that failed. So they put their own troops in, that failed. Now they're doing a full-scale invasion that is failing. Russia is the aggressor in this. There is no argument. Putin is not the Christian savior. Ukraine wants the right to self-determination and Putin is trying to stop that. He's a tyrant trying to social engineer gullible westerners with lies through proxy information channels. It's not some huge conspiracy - stop trying to find evil under a rock while ignoring the evil you can see right in front of your face: |
|
|
|
Post by socalexile on Mar 31, 2022 10:30:34 GMT -6
You realize you're posting recent docs talking up Russian capabilities, when there's a defense bill just signed, and more spending being discussed in Congress right now, right? You're trying to instill fear of Russian capabilities, but to someone who knows what goes into conducting ground offensive operations, claiming that Russia could jump on a boat and invade the US is just peak idiotic propaganda shilling. That's why I don't think you are who you say you are. I've seen blatant pro-Russian shill accounts and bots on social media use those reports to do exactly what you are doing: support fear-mongering not actually supported by those documents. They (and you) just use them because they don't think people read them. I notice you aren't responding to points about how things are actually going on the ground, and you still haven't answered the question as to what expensive weapons are coming that can actually take objectives that Russia is holding back - missiles don't win wars. Everything you posted about what Russia could do to the US they could have done to Ukraine; but they haven't, because they actually can't. Instead they've wasted the cream of the Russian army by giving them old equipment and little logistical support and sending them on a poorly-planned mission based on bad strategy. Response 2: Sorry, forgot to answer your other concern. If Russian capabilities are all used up, and they have nothing left to give for this Ukraine invasion, why would Congress need to increase spending on US Defense? Russia isn't a threat... or is it? You're not answering my question: what expensive weapons are coming that can actually take objectives that Russia is holding back? Congress needs to increase spending on defense because that's what fuels their elections in their districts, especially when they can pack a defense spending bill with pork due to a legit crisis. Plus war itself has evolved a lot in this conflict and we need to backfill what we've sent to Ukraine. |
|
|
|
Post by uscgvet on Mar 31, 2022 12:00:02 GMT -6
<button disabled="" class="c-attachment-insert--linked o-btn--sm">Attachment Deleted</button> I have one of these... hope changes your mind on me being a Russian Bot. I had to compress the image down to <1MB for the site limitation. I'm only repeating what CRS is telling Congress. These are unbiased reports from hundreds of researchers spilling hours of work into them. I don't respond to the Ukraine invasion points because CRS Reports already informed Congress (and everyone else) on how Russia will execute their invasion in August of 2020. crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11625"It would introduce high-end conventional firepower when a low-cost strategy appears insufficient, and it could escalate or de-escalate force depending on the situation" Low-cost invasion first, then escalate as needed. Makes since to me. The current Ukraine attack is just in the low-cost phase right now. I agree with CRS Reports on this matter. Go with low budget and see if it works. If not, step up the heat. Its efficient use of resources. MSM certainly doesn't want the public to know this intel. It goes against their obviously biased narrative. What's very interesting to me is that both sides of Congress are seemingly and strangely hard-core pro-Ukraine. It's like they're trying to hide something neither side wants to get revealed. Why were we in Ukraine in the first place? Why did we financially and militarily support the anti-Russian coup that killed 114 pro-Russian government officials in Ukraine in 2014? As Obama would say: "we built that"... Then stop posting Russian propaganda and realize you are out of your lane. What you are quoting doesn't prove what you are asserting, which is not what CRS (which isn't some all-knowing entity) is asserting. Now you're deflecting to the "MSM" conspiracy argument, with a bunch of Russian propaganda. The Russians tried to control Ukraine through corrupt government officials. The people rose up and overthrew that. So then Russia tried a color revolution in Donbas that failed. So they put their own troops in, that failed. Now they're doing a full-scale invasion that is failing. Russia is the aggressor in this. There is no argument. Putin is not the Christian savior. Ukraine wants the right to self-determination and Putin is trying to stop that. He's a tyrant trying to social engineer gullible westerners with lies through proxy information channels. It's not some huge conspiracy - stop trying to find evil under a rock while ignoring the evil you can see right in front of your face: Yes, you're doing a commendable job on the play-by-play of Russia's low-cost initial invasion strategy. Nobody can argue against that. There are bigger pictures at play though. The 400 employees of the Library of Congress that create the CRS Reports are a good source of research dealing with these big picture topics. I hope others here utilize that source in the future if they haven't already added them to their tool-belt. They are normally pretty balanced and try hard not to be biased as that is literally their job. As to the identity of the aggressor, I see it as both sides being the aggressor. America took advantage of a bad situation in Ukraine, helped kill 114 pro-Russian government officials in 2014, and then put in place, more corrupt officials that allowed America and the EU to come in and pillage that nation for profit for years; and got away with it seemingly Scott-free. A shame, but overthrowing nations isn't technically illegal. We do it all the time. It's what Rome did. (America and the EU being a child of Rome) It's what Persia did. It's what Greece did. It's what Babylon did. Jeremiah 27:4-11. |
|
|
|
Post by uscgvet on Mar 31, 2022 12:09:33 GMT -6
Response 2: Sorry, forgot to answer your other concern. If Russian capabilities are all used up, and they have nothing left to give for this Ukraine invasion, why would Congress need to increase spending on US Defense? Russia isn't a threat... or is it? You're not answering my question: what expensive weapons are coming that can actually take objectives that Russia is holding back? Congress needs to increase spending on defense because that's what fuels their elections in their districts, especially when they can pack a defense spending bill with pork due to a legit crisis. Plus war itself has evolved a lot in this conflict and we need to backfill what we've sent to Ukraine. "what expensive weapons are coming that can actually take objectives that Russia is holding back?" Nukes. Small ones to big ones that ride on smart, maneuverable, high speed delivery systems capable of bypassing our defenses. There are lots of other articles out there that show other military equipment upgrades as well but those are not where Putin put most of his funding. You nuke the resistance and you can waltz right over top of their bones and how do you put it? ... "actually take objectives"... If Putin is as smart as I know he is, he'll need to strike first. But we need to really corner him. Jeremiah 4 is a very intense read. |
|
|
|
Post by socalexile on Mar 31, 2022 15:54:04 GMT -6
You're not answering my question: what expensive weapons are coming that can actually take objectives that Russia is holding back? Congress needs to increase spending on defense because that's what fuels their elections in their districts, especially when they can pack a defense spending bill with pork due to a legit crisis. Plus war itself has evolved a lot in this conflict and we need to backfill what we've sent to Ukraine. "what expensive weapons are coming that can actually take objectives that Russia is holding back?" Nukes. Small ones to big ones that ride on smart, maneuverable, high speed delivery systems capable of bypassing our defenses. There are lots of other articles out there that show other military equipment upgrades as well but those are not where Putin put most of his funding. You nuke the resistance and you can waltz right over top of their bones and how do you put it? ... "actually take objectives"... If Putin is as smart as I know he is, he'll need to strike first. But we need to really corner him. Jeremiah 4 is a very intense read. Nukes can't take objectives. And you can't " waltz right over" in a nuclear environment, especially across an ocean when you can't even " waltz right over" your own border and conduct a competent military operation. |
|
|
|
Post by socalexile on Mar 31, 2022 16:01:59 GMT -6
Yes, you're doing a commendable job on the play-by-play of Russia's low-cost initial invasion strategy. Nobody can argue against that. There are bigger pictures at play though. The 400 employees of the Library of Congress that create the CRS Reports are a good source of research dealing with these big picture topics. I hope others here utilize that source in the future if they haven't already added them to their tool-belt. They are normally pretty balanced and try hard not to be biased as that is literally their job. As to the identity of the aggressor, I see it as both sides being the aggressor. America took advantage of a bad situation in Ukraine, helped kill 114 pro-Russian government officials in 2014, and then put in place, more corrupt officials that allowed America and the EU to come in and pillage that nation for profit for years; and got away with it seemingly Scott-free. A shame, but overthrowing nations isn't technically illegal. We do it all the time. It's what Rome did. (America and the EU being a child of Rome) It's what Persia did. It's what Greece did. It's what Babylon did. Jeremiah 27:4-11. It's been a pretty high-cost invasion overall for Russia; higher than they expected. You're making this stuff up about how competent they are, that's why you're arguing all conjecture and conspiracy. There's no actual evidence on the ground. They're losing. You're rehashing the same points. Repeating the same false Kremlin narrative and historical revisionism, as if people don't have the right to overthrow a corrupt government working against their interests - their government should be pro-Ukraine not pro-Russia, and it says a lot when western corruption is preferable to Russian tyranny. It's ironic that you basically call the US Satan and yet argue that it's worth trusting at the same time. Absolute clown shoes of a post, and you're an embarrassment to your service; and to your faith since you're willing to excuse and even cheer on the evil Russia is doing.  |
|
|
|
Post by socalexile on Mar 31, 2022 16:15:29 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by uscgvet on Mar 31, 2022 16:16:46 GMT -6
"what expensive weapons are coming that can actually take objectives that Russia is holding back?" Nukes. Small ones to big ones that ride on smart, maneuverable, high speed delivery systems capable of bypassing our defenses. There are lots of other articles out there that show other military equipment upgrades as well but those are not where Putin put most of his funding. You nuke the resistance and you can waltz right over top of their bones and how do you put it? ... "actually take objectives"... If Putin is as smart as I know he is, he'll need to strike first. But we need to really corner him. Jeremiah 4 is a very intense read. Nukes can't take objectives. And you can't " waltz right over" in a nuclear environment, especially across an ocean when you can't even " waltz right over" your own border and conduct a competent military operation. We dropped 2 nukes on Japan. What object was met after the second bomb dropped? Have you seen the two cities rebuilt? I'd say people are waltzing in those two cities just fine in Japan. Sure, not immediately, give some time for the radiation to dilute a bit. |
|
|
|
Post by socalexile on Mar 31, 2022 16:24:27 GMT -6
Nukes can't take objectives. And you can't " waltz right over" in a nuclear environment, especially across an ocean when you can't even " waltz right over" your own border and conduct a competent military operation. We dropped 2 nukes on Japan. What object was met after the second bomb dropped? Have you seen the two cities rebuilt? I'd say people are waltzing in those two cities just fine in Japan. Sure, not immediately, give some time for the radiation to dilute a bit. WOW you're really reaching...there was a four year war prior to that where forces "island hopped" taking objectives thousands of miles away from US shores - something Russia can't do on it's own border. Plus Japan didn't have a nuclear response capability that we have today....MAD wasn't a thing then. ETA: and if they could do they would've done it sometime in the last 70 years or so, and they wouldn't need a pretense, i.e. "baiting Nato"; they would just do it. Apples and oranges. Europe in 2022 is far more complex than "Japan vs. the world". Stop shilling for Russia. It's not convincing and it's evil. |
|
|
|
Post by socalexile on Mar 31, 2022 16:35:32 GMT -6
Biblically, you can't have a futurist fulfillment of Revelation with a nuclear exchange as you claim will happen, because the literal fulfillment of "the whole world" and "the whole earth" requires functional global communications. I'll even argue that the Millennial Rule of Christ over the whole world relies on it also - will He use existing infrastructure? Maybe - I don't see why not.
|
|
|
|
Post by yardstick on Apr 1, 2022 1:00:55 GMT -6
socalexile , uscgvet , Okay, I think that all the relevant points have been made regarding each perspective, and the discussion is now devolving to reiterated statements and insults. It's much more effective to make your points and let it go when it becomes clear you are not convincing someone. All else is beating one's head against the wall, resulting in frustration. After that it starts to go downhill. Time to move on. I am locking this thread.
|
|
