Quote:
Calling people Russian sympathizers or parroting Russian propaganda is absolute NOT "respectfully asking questions and clarifying positions."
Quote:
The death toll from the Russian missile strike on a school in the town of Nikopol in the central Ukrainian region of Dnipropetrovsk has been revised from three to four by Ukrainian officials.
"As a result of the Russian strike, four people died: a 72-year-old man and three women aged 69, 67 and 60," the interior minister, Ihor Klymenko, said on Telegram.
Literally the previous page:Teslag said:Quote:
Calling people Russian sympathizers or parroting Russian propaganda is absolute NOT "respectfully asking questions and clarifying positions."
I've looked through the past few pages and haven't found anyone to make this claim. All I've seen is respectful, courteous dialogue and questions.
Quote:
I'm sure your support for Russia in the conflict will not wain, so they got that going for them...
How is this discussion? If you think there was a strawman, let's hear it. Nope, just little snarks.GAC06 said:
And lots of strawmen as usual
SockStilkings said:Literally the previous page:Teslag said:Quote:
Calling people Russian sympathizers or parroting Russian propaganda is absolute NOT "respectfully asking questions and clarifying positions."
I've looked through the past few pages and haven't found anyone to make this claim. All I've seen is respectful, courteous dialogue and questions.
https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/3365034/replies/65892231
Ags with kids replying to PlaneCrashGuy...Quote:
I'm sure your support for Russia in the conflict will not wain, so they got that going for them...
Do you really think that if the Biden admin didn't send this money to Ukraine that they would turn around and spend it to help Americans domestically? Hah.SockStilkings said:Its been pointed out previously that the 4%-6% figures are drastically off and completely irrelevant regardless.Teslag said:
But it's not really that complex. Russia and Hamas are just thugs on the world stage and have acted as such.Quote:
must be destroyed not matter what it costs the US
No one has made this argument. We are spending like 4 to 6% of our defense budget on Ukraine and zero american lives. We are perfectly fine with that.
And even at the financial costs and no American soldiers, you discount lives that could be saved if those funds were spent on Americans.
So"WE" are NOT perfectly fine with endless spending on Ukes, hence the whole reason for this thread.
It is much more complex than you and others try to continually make it. But you do you. At least let others discuss the more complex issues even if you choose to continually ignore them. Quit shouting down others who have a different perspective.
To be fair, I'm not incorrect.SockStilkings said:Literally the previous page:Teslag said:Quote:
Calling people Russian sympathizers or parroting Russian propaganda is absolute NOT "respectfully asking questions and clarifying positions."
I've looked through the past few pages and haven't found anyone to make this claim. All I've seen is respectful, courteous dialogue and questions.
https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/3365034/replies/65892231
Ags with kids replying to PlaneCrashGuy...Quote:
I'm sure your support for Russia in the conflict will not wain, so they got that going for them...
I'm a little tired of updating this thread since the war has now as expected spread in an 'unexpected' way to Israel via Iranian/various proxies. The "Biden" administration doesn't really play around trying to say "we have this pot of money, let's decide where to spend it." They throw money wherever their hateful management decides they want to, period.Ag with kids said:Do you really think that if the Biden admin didn't send this money to Ukraine that they would turn around and spend it to help Americans domestically? Hah.SockStilkings said:Its been pointed out previously that the 4%-6% figures are drastically off and completely irrelevant regardless.Teslag said:
But it's not really that complex. Russia and Hamas are just thugs on the world stage and have acted as such.Quote:
must be destroyed not matter what it costs the US
No one has made this argument. We are spending like 4 to 6% of our defense budget on Ukraine and zero american lives. We are perfectly fine with that.
And even at the financial costs and no American soldiers, you discount lives that could be saved if those funds were spent on Americans.
So"WE" are NOT perfectly fine with endless spending on Ukes, hence the whole reason for this thread.
It is much more complex than you and others try to continually make it. But you do you. At least let others discuss the more complex issues even if you choose to continually ignore them. Quit shouting down others who have a different perspective.
Well, they MIGHT, but not in ways that you'd agree with...it would be more student loan forgiveness, more welfare, more free healthcare, etc. So, is THAT what you'd rather they spend this money on?
Unfortunately, that's where we're at. I agree with many of y'all that don't like the Ukraine conflict in that we should be spending more on conservative domestic issues that are affecting the US. My disagreement is that I think we should ALSO fund this Ukraine conflict.nortex97 said:I'm a little tired of updating this thread since the war has now as expected spread in an 'unexpected' way to Israel via Iranian/various proxies. The "Biden" administration doesn't really play around trying to say "we have this pot of money, let's decide where to spend it." They throw money wherever their hateful management decides they want to, period.Ag with kids said:Do you really think that if the Biden admin didn't send this money to Ukraine that they would turn around and spend it to help Americans domestically? Hah.SockStilkings said:Its been pointed out previously that the 4%-6% figures are drastically off and completely irrelevant regardless.Teslag said:
But it's not really that complex. Russia and Hamas are just thugs on the world stage and have acted as such.Quote:
must be destroyed not matter what it costs the US
No one has made this argument. We are spending like 4 to 6% of our defense budget on Ukraine and zero american lives. We are perfectly fine with that.
And even at the financial costs and no American soldiers, you discount lives that could be saved if those funds were spent on Americans.
So"WE" are NOT perfectly fine with endless spending on Ukes, hence the whole reason for this thread.
It is much more complex than you and others try to continually make it. But you do you. At least let others discuss the more complex issues even if you choose to continually ignore them. Quit shouting down others who have a different perspective.
Well, they MIGHT, but not in ways that you'd agree with...it would be more student loan forgiveness, more welfare, more free healthcare, etc. So, is THAT what you'd rather they spend this money on?
Spending the/close to that much money domestically instead of fueling inflation and 500K+ war throughout Europe/Middle East would have been better, yes, even if it was on some socialist/communist idiocy here.
But somewhat you have a point I will concede; we can't talk about international diplomatic policy of the US hoping for sanity until/unless Joseph Robinette Biden is no longer the nominal president.
Optimistically, perhaps the munitions crunch driven by the expanded Israeli front will force the Ukrainians to halt their 'faux-fensive' for the winter season.
That really is a discussion better for another thread...But I understand where you're coming from.ravingfans said:
My vote is we shouldn't be spending on either Ukraine or domestic issues.
I think you are well aware that is not what I really think.Ag with kids said:Do you really think that if the Biden admin didn't send this money to Ukraine that they would turn around and spend it to help Americans domestically? Hah.SockStilkings said:
Its been pointed out previously that the 4%-6% figures are drastically off and completely irrelevant regardless.
And even at the financial costs and no American soldiers, you discount lives that could be saved if those funds were spent on Americans.
So"WE" are NOT perfectly fine with endless spending on Ukes, hence the whole reason for this thread.
It is much more complex than you and others try to continually make it. But you do you. At least let others discuss the more complex issues even if you choose to continually ignore them. Quit shouting down others who have a different perspective.
Well, they MIGHT, but not in ways that you'd agree with...it would be more student loan forgiveness, more welfare, more free healthcare, etc. So, is THAT what you'd rather they spend this money on?
I think there is room for perhaps a thread on the politics, historical contexts, and where US money is sent / spent on ongoing global conflicts (and also on global "peacekeeping".nortex97 said:
I'm a little tired of updating this thread since the war has now as expected spread in an 'unexpected' way to Israel via Iranian/various proxies. The "Biden" administration doesn't really play around trying to say "we have this pot of money, let's decide where to spend it." They throw money wherever their hateful management decides they want to, period.
Spending the/close to that much money domestically instead of fueling inflation and 500K+ war throughout Europe/Middle East would have been better, yes, even if it was on some socialist/communist idiocy here.
But somewhat you have a point I will concede; we can't talk about international diplomatic policy of the US hoping for sanity until/unless Joseph Robinette Biden is no longer the nominal president.
Optimistically, perhaps the munitions crunch driven by the expanded Israeli front will force the Ukrainians to halt their 'faux-fensive' for the winter season.
I don't think you do...SockStilkings said:I think you are well aware that is not what I really think.Ag with kids said:Do you really think that if the Biden admin didn't send this money to Ukraine that they would turn around and spend it to help Americans domestically? Hah.SockStilkings said:
Its been pointed out previously that the 4%-6% figures are drastically off and completely irrelevant regardless.
And even at the financial costs and no American soldiers, you discount lives that could be saved if those funds were spent on Americans.
So"WE" are NOT perfectly fine with endless spending on Ukes, hence the whole reason for this thread.
It is much more complex than you and others try to continually make it. But you do you. At least let others discuss the more complex issues even if you choose to continually ignore them. Quit shouting down others who have a different perspective.
Well, they MIGHT, but not in ways that you'd agree with...it would be more student loan forgiveness, more welfare, more free healthcare, etc. So, is THAT what you'd rather they spend this money on?
But... the dollars being sent are still dollars borrowed so even if the money was not spent elsewhere at the very least the interest has been saved.
You and others see a positive ROI from sending money and weapons to Ukraine. I absolutely do NOT agree that the ROI is positive... in fact, I think its quite negative and reflective of overall piss poor international policy by both Rs and Ds alike.
Not seeking to prevent the Ukraine War by guaranteeing Ukrainian Neutrality was a blunder of epic proportions. Instead Biden stubbornly declared “I don’t accept anybody’s red lines.” Now the world is on fire and our stockpiles are heavily depleted.pic.twitter.com/zWa9ClWqea
— David Sacks (@DavidSacks) October 12, 2023
Washington just dumped Ukraine into the waste-bin of US victim nations: “As long at it takes” is now “as long as we can” and “we are coming to the end of the rope in financing Ukraine.”
— Kim Dotcom (@KimDotcom) October 12, 2023
Hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians died for empty US promises of “unwavering support”.…
https://www.wsj.com/world/russia-goes-on-the-offense-in-ukraineand-suffers-heavy-losses-fd73202aPlaneCrashGuy said:
Any updates?
Quote:
Reports are now coming in of what appears to be a significant Ukrainian strike deep into occupied territory. Russian military bloggers are gloomily reporting that "one of the most serious blows of all time" has been dealt to the country's air-force. If the strike and the use of ATACMS is confirmed, it will be a major development.
The airfields that have reportedly been targeted are deep behind the front-line, supposedly safe from attack. But the ATACMS system can strike targets with pinpoint accuracy at a range of up to 300kms. Not so safe after all.
PlaneCrashGuy said:
Any updates?
Quote:
Ammo and munitions shortage proving a problem for Israel, where we depleted our stores to ship to Ukraine this spring and summer.
Quote:
Ammo and munitions shortage proving a problem for Israel,
GAC06 said:Quote:
Ammo and munitions shortage proving a problem for Israel, where we depleted our stores to ship to Ukraine this spring and summer.
Israel running low on 155mm for the massive artillery battles they aren't having? Also you left out the part about Hamas using Ukrainian weapons.
From very early on in this thread it was also discussed by 'war skeptics' such as myself that such supplies/reserves might in fact be crucial elsewhere, not just in Taiwan (also dismissed, though Taiwanese officials regard artillery as important as a deterrent vs. Chinese invasion), but also in places such as Israel (and elsewhere in the Middle East).Quote:
Well before you jump to a conclusion check out our obligations and track record going into this summer where even Democrats wanted to put in language into the NDAA for 2024 requiring reports and a replentishment of the stockpile for Israel due to it's depletion:Quote:
Quote:
The latest iteration of this year's National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) proposed by the House incorporates a crucial provision within which the Pentagon is mandated to submit a comprehensive report to Congress. Included in this report are the present inventory of PGMs within WRSA-I, the Defense Department's strategy for replenishing the stockpile after the transfer of munitions to Ukraine and an evaluation of whether the current stockpile aligns with the legal obligation to uphold Israel's Qualitative Military Edge (QME) as safeguarded by U.S. law.
Preserving Israel's QME stands as a crucial goal within the U.S.-Israel relationship. The overarching objective is to safeguard Israel's QME by ensuring it possesses the necessary resources to effectively tackle any future security threats. However, the transfer of the munitions stockpile to Ukraine has resulted in a diminished WRSA-I inventory for Israel.
JINSA has learned that the remaining weapons stored there are virtually useless for Israel's needs, and since 2018 has been the only organization to call for WRSA-I to be modernized and replenished with much-needed PGMs to help counter threats from Iran and/or Hezbollah.
American officials have stated repeatedly how WRSA-I helps ensure the Jewish state's ability to defend itself. Yet, according to JINSA, "the stockpile is falling dangerously short of meeting its stated purpose. Of particular concern is the stock of PGMs, especially Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) tail kits to convert unguided bombs. Israel will need abundant PGMs to compensate for limited defensive capabilities and prevail in an expected major war with Tehran and its proxies, all while minimizing collateral damage to civilians."It's not a big secret we are collectively low on 155mm ammo or JDAM's etc.Quote:
Quote:
Michael Makovsky, president and CEO of JINSA, has also noted that "the stockpile is falling dangerously short of meeting its stated purpose. Israel will need abundant PGMs to compensate for limited defensive capabilities and prevail in an expected major war with Tehran and its proxies, all while minimizing collateral damage to civilians."
He said that JINSA is "making progress on this critical issue, with strong support from both Democrats and Republicans."
"We applaud Congressman Panetta, with whom we've worked closely on this issue, for introducing this important provision into the NDAA, and we thank House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mike Rogers (R-Ala.) for his support," said Makovsky.
"Much work remains to be done before this provision becomes law, but JINSA will continue to work with our partners in Congress so this and other JINSA recommendations are included in this year's NDAA."
nortex97 said:
Read the links and get back with me about why it was put and maintained there.
I'll trust the professionals over a combat support WO and retired naval aviator about artillery in a large conflict on multiple fronts.
OR MAYBE THE ISRAELIS AND OUT OWN MILITARY ARE MAKING IT UP. forever war!
It's been discussed for years, including before we drew down this stockpile specifically. Lebanon is the biggest issue, but others as well. You've lambasted me repeatedly elsewhere for 'confirmation bias' but have you not read anything of their concerns for both artillery and precision munitions stockpiles/assets the past few years?Teslag said:nortex97 said:
Read the links and get back with me about why it was put and maintained there.
I'll trust the professionals over a combat support WO and retired naval aviator about artillery in a large conflict on multiple fronts.
OR MAYBE THE ISRAELIS AND OUT OWN MILITARY ARE MAKING IT UP. forever war!
Where have the Israelis said they are currently having supply issues with ammo?
