The Race For 2024

[Henry-Finland]

If US leaves the front against Putin, the war will alter to a typical partisan war.

I have a question:
- When the Russians captured a village, about a dozen soldiers started searching for former Ukrainian soldiers. (There is a YouTube-video where villagers tell about this).
After interrogating the villagers, they found a family where a former soldier lived. They entered the house, chopped off the soldier's fingers with an axe and cut off his genitals with a knife. They forced the wife and children to remain in the same room.
Then, they made a "soup" from the genitals and fingers and forced the soldier to eat it, all while the wife and children were still in the room. After that, they took turns raping the wife.

What do you think the children will do to the Russian invaders when they grow up?
Will they fight with the partisans or join the Russian army?

 

[Elixir]

Putin probably set out to play a long game, getting lapdogs installed as leaders of ostensibly democratic governments and usurping power out of the view of popular media. The Ukrainians’ rejection of Pootey’s choice may have made him more aware of his own age and the time constraints it places on his plans. Then he had to get busy, and start moving some damn borders, or it wouldn’t get done.
Of course the problem was … his military was blatantly not ready to get busy whatsoever, as evidenced by his first abortive move into Ukraine. They had just enough dissidents and minorities to mount a long term campaign of terror against the civilian population, and now have lost some of “their own” territory because they can’t mount any defense. He can’t even threaten to nuke them while they’re in his house. And Pootey gets older.
It won’t end well for him, and if he gets his way it won’t end well for anyone else, unless they own their own Country.

I can’t wait to be led down the same path by the MAGATS.

 

[Henry-Finland]

If we pull support from Ukraine then western Europe has a pretty binary choice. Kick in their own money, hardware, and troops, or let Ukraine fall.

It makes me want to vomit to agree with anything the Shitpants Yam says, but there is truth to be found in NATO spending so little on its defense budget than it has for a long, long time now. It relies on U.S. military might not only to its own detriment, but also at America's expense. Of course, this is helpful to American retention of hegemony and economy with respect to defense contractors, so it's not all one sided.

However, all this talk of Leopard II tanks and the technological advantages of the West's ability to defend itself means nothing with such small numbers. Sure, Putin's an asshole, but he's not afraid of western Europe because he knows that without the U.S. to back them up, and even with the U.S. backing them up, they won't do dick.

Also, this derisive talk of how much America spends on its defense budget gets a little tired when considering the tiny amount that NATO members spend on theirs.

I believe the NATO alliance in invaluable and that the U.S. is obligated to do its part, but nations like Germany, France, and the UK also have a duty to be militarily prepared.

At this juncture, Europe doesn’t have the capacity to successfully help Ukraine by itself.

And why is that?

It's because they don't want to spend the money to be less than minimally prepared, and that's because they know the U.S. will foot the bill. The world is well post-WW2 and Europe should act accordingly. They'll whine and make fun of how much the U.S. spends on its defense budget, but then beg us for help because they haven't exercised the minimum prudence to adequately plan for Russian aggression.

"Fuck the stupid U.S.!"

Then:

"Please give us war money."

Not true (anymore).
- The problem is that EU has not enough production capacity, so we buy from USA. Many EU-countries gives more to Ukraine than USA if you count BNP/capita.

View attachment 48053

- The other problem (about Ukraine) is that USA does not sell e.g. 155 mm cluster bombs (4 million in storage that are meant for scrapping and 3.600 older Abrams that are just a reserve in the Arizona desert.)
USA has also planes that they do not use anymore (Warthdogs?)

You see, even if EU-countries are only building up their production capacity, EU is not lack of money. Uncle Sam needs only to whistle...

And what's that in terms of REAL money?

Pedantry and excuse making only proves you have a weak argument. And how much does America's military spending ensure that Europe doesn't have to? How about this: have the U.S. withhold all support from Ukraine and let's see how that goes.

You do not seem to understand:
1) We buy US-made weapons, so we pay in dollars. Also the weapons that we make ourselves has a price tag in dollars as we export as much as possible - usually in €uros or dollars.
2) I am afraid that you are a victim of propaganda. When USA promise e.g. 60 billion to Ukraine, 90% of that sum will never leave USA. It goes to the US military industry.
The military industry makes new weapons for US Army and Pentagon gives "old" weapons from US Army.
So, your factories gets orders, people have work and the workers pay taxes.

Don't believe in all "We will give..."Santa Claus-propaganda - military business is most profitable business you have.
And that "America's military spending ensure that Europe doesn't have to" is pure Trump propaganda.

Just Google:
Finland buys weapons from USA

 

[Loren Pechtel]

He looks like a person who needs glasses but refuses to get them.

So does Biden.

Both of them look like an older person unaware of the fact that squinting makes you look older than wearing glasses does.
(Adjusts trifocals as I type this…)

I use the modern term "progressive lenses" so I don't feel so old.

Which makes me wonder...what do MAGAS call their progressive lenses? Freedom goggles?

Nitpick: "progressive lenses" is not the modern term for "bifocal" or "trifocal". Bifocals have two separate lenses in the frame, each of which gives clear vision at it's designated range (typically one is at infinity and one is at reading.) Each is clear across the whole glass for it's designated range. Progressives are not a simple curve, the whole top part is set for infinity (and thus is clear wherever you look) but the curve changes as you go down the lens, the bottom is at your reading range. This means that for any distance in between there is a point where it will be in clear focus, but at the expense of the sides. There's glass there but the image does not converge properly and the area can't be used for more than rudimentary tasks.

My optimetrist wanted to sell me these, but I refused on the grounds that I have excellent peripheral vision.

Which he should know, because he tested it, and expressed surprise at the result (I got a perfect score).

If my peripheral vision isn't either corrected, or completely obscured - eg because I wear glasses with small lenses - I get headaches. So I always choose single vision glasses with wide lenses.

But he doesn't make as much profit on those.

Huh? Because my memory of the visual field test is that it was done without glasses.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Now, back to the politics! The dock-worker's strike was averted, FEMA pushed back on the false claims that the Biden administration is cutting off aid to red areas in the wake of Helene and only giving out $750 for aid, and the right wing is struggling to put a negative spin on yet another spectacular jobs report. Oh, and Marjorie Trailer Queen thinks "they" can "control the weather."

It's like there's a contest going on with the right wing to see who can say the craziest shit. Is it moving the needle as far as polling goes? Frustratingly...not much.

I actually think they should be not providing aid. What I would like to see is that all disaster aid comes with the stipulation that it only goes to states where at least one representative voted yes. If everyone rejects it it clearly isn't needed and shouldn't be sent.

 

[bilby]

He looks like a person who needs glasses but refuses to get them.

So does Biden.

Both of them look like an older person unaware of the fact that squinting makes you look older than wearing glasses does.
(Adjusts trifocals as I type this…)

I use the modern term "progressive lenses" so I don't feel so old.

Which makes me wonder...what do MAGAS call their progressive lenses? Freedom goggles?

Nitpick: "progressive lenses" is not the modern term for "bifocal" or "trifocal". Bifocals have two separate lenses in the frame, each of which gives clear vision at it's designated range (typically one is at infinity and one is at reading.) Each is clear across the whole glass for it's designated range. Progressives are not a simple curve, the whole top part is set for infinity (and thus is clear wherever you look) but the curve changes as you go down the lens, the bottom is at your reading range. This means that for any distance in between there is a point where it will be in clear focus, but at the expense of the sides. There's glass there but the image does not converge properly and the area can't be used for more than rudimentary tasks.

My optimetrist wanted to sell me these, but I refused on the grounds that I have excellent peripheral vision.

Which he should know, because he tested it, and expressed surprise at the result (I got a perfect score).

If my peripheral vision isn't either corrected, or completely obscured - eg because I wear glasses with small lenses - I get headaches. So I always choose single vision glasses with wide lenses.

But he doesn't make as much profit on those.

Huh? Because my memory of the visual field test is that it was done without glasses.

It is. What part of my post says otherwise?

 

[unapologetic]

Americans are still isolationists at heart.

People don't realize we are running 2 governments. The domestic US, and being 'the leader of the 'free' world'. (the state dept, NATO, etc)
Turning our back on our global responsibilities will bite us in the ass. We have rivals for that role. Russa and China. Who would not leave us alone in our isolation. We never voted on being 'the leader of the 'free' world'. So people think it's just a national hobby. But we're stuck with it.

The longer it takes to put Utin back in his box, and make clear that his expansionism will not be tolerated, the harder and bloodier it will become to do so. But it will have to be done eventually.

If I were Prez, (ha) My response would be to re-establish the blockade of Cuba. And tell Putin "Hay, if we're carving up territory, we'll just annex Cuba. Unless you would care to back off the Ukraine."
And just for safety, position our Pacific fleet around Alaska.