Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

G4YeGKBWgAASO2y?format=png&name=large

 

How do they have any kind of institutional knowledge?  All of those lieutenants should be leading companies by now instead of pushing up sunflowers, and all of those captains and majors should either leading companies or in staff or executive officer positions.

That's the equivalent of 7 years' worth of West Point grads being killed.

Edited by atomheartbevo
  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 3
Posted

keep in mind, these are just the confirmed kills. 

there is a reason the Jr LT & LT are showing fewer KIA than the Sr LTs, and thats because in many cases the junior officers familes havent been able to afford a memorial or obit that would get noticed by the folks running that page. 

 

The Jr LT rank is equivalent to a what we would call a 3rd LT- which is a ROTC or West Point Cadet in their 3rd summer training with actual troops.  They arent Warrant Officers, those would fall under the "Other" section. 

but the LT and Sr LT are what we would call a 2nd (O1) and 1st LT (O2).

 

Here is a breakdown of the officers killed in Vietnam.  We didnt often send butter bar LTs into combat, and their KIA numbers show that. basically we only had 1/3 the number of 2LT killed vs 1LT, and half the number compared to Captains.

 

but what these numbers show is that it was the PILOTS who were a massive majority of the senior officer losses. for us in Vietnam.    Air Force lost 9X the number of Full Bird Col as the Army.   Russia isnt flying sorties much anymore, mostly because their planes are short of parts, fuel or functionality. 

 

our losses below are from 1963-1972,   we lost a total of 7,877 officers in NINE years of fighting.  the Russians are getting very, very, very close to that number in just 4 years.

 

Of the 12 Generals lost in the war, only 5 were killed by enemy action, 2 of natural causes and the other 6 all died in helicoper crashes or air to air collisions. 

 

Officer casualties by rank (Army, USMC, Navy, and Air Force)
 
Rank  Army USMC Navy Air Force
O8 2 1 2 N/A
O7 5 1 1 N/A
O6 19 7 25 184
O5 117 30 92 187
O4 253 78 166 399
O3 1,017 212 167 653
O2 1,475 309 153 236
O1 496 284 18 8
W1-W4 N/A N/A N/A N/A

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 3
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
28 minutes ago, AUS-97HORN said:

Of the 12 Generals lost in the war, only 5 were killed by enemy action, 2 of natural causes and the other 6 all died in helicoper crashes or air to air collisions. 


Did someone die twice? 

  • Like 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, Chad Fuck said:

So did the B-52….but that’s crazy for a fighter.

50 minutes ago, AUS-97HORN said:

our losses below are from 1963-1972,   we lost a total of 7,877 officers in NINE years of fighting.  the Russians are getting very, very, very close to that number in just 4 years.

And the Russians are doing it in a country next door to them.  We had to go to the other side of the world to do that.

Edited by atomheartbevo
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
44 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

So did the B-52….but that’s crazy for a fighter.

And the Russians are doing it in a country next door to them.  We had to go to the other side of the world to do that.

No doubt re the B-52.  I went down the rabbit hole of planes of similar capabilities and age.  Turns out the F-5, which debuted the same year as the Mig-21, is still operated by a number of countries as well.  

Posted
1 minute ago, bolverk said:

I'm no hunter, but this guy seems like one helluva shot.

 

Damn that's some incredible marksmanship - a world champion shotgun shooter had trouble knocking them down with his specialized M4

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted

Hate to be the bearer of bad tidings.

From the Kyiv Independent: With a web of drones and infiltrating infantry, Russian troops overrun Kupiansk
image.png.7c557c3d500f7a531f318a95a6b33b75.png

 

image.thumb.png.741885abe000f027b9ed36bc9a160716.png
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/us-intelligence-agencies-see-no-sign-russia-ready-compromise-ukraine-rcna239645

Quote

 

A recent U.S. intelligence assessment warned that Russian President Vladimir Putin is more determined than ever to carry on the war in Ukraine and prevail on the battlefield, according to a senior U.S. official and a senior congressional official.

The analysis, which was communicated to members of Congress this month, indicated the agencies see no sign Russia is ready to compromise on Ukraine as President Donald Trump seeks to broker peace talks.

The assessment is consistent with how U.S. and Western intelligence agencies have viewed the Russian regime’s stance since February 2022, when Putin ordered an unprovoked invasion of Ukraine, according to two other people with knowledge of the matter.

But Putin is now believed to be more dug in than ever, according to the senior U.S. official and the senior congressional official.

Facing steep Russian troop losses and economic setbacks at home, he is committed to securing Ukrainian land and expanding his country's footprint to justify the human and financial toll, the intelligence assessment found, according to the officials.

In a sign of Trump's growing frustration, last week he called off a planned meeting with Putin in Budapest, Hungary, and for the first time since he returned to office in January he imposed punitive measures against Moscow, slapping sanctions on two major Russian oil companies.

“I just felt it was time,” Trump told reporters, describing the new sanctions as "tremendous" and adding that he had "waited a long time” to implement them but hopes "they won’t be on for long."

“We hope that the war will be settled,” he said.

The White House declined to comment on the recent intelligence assessment and pointed to Trump’s public comments on efforts to reach a peace deal.

“As the president stated, these are tremendous sanctions against their two big oil companies which he hopes will help bring about the end of the war," the official said in a statement. "He has been clear that it is time to stop the killing and make a deal to end the war. The United States will continue to advocate for a peaceful resolution to the war, and a permanent peace depends on Russia’s willingness to negotiate in good faith.”

Trump has long vowed to broker an end to the war in Ukraine, and as a candidate he promised he would secure peace within 24 hours of his return to office. But his efforts to persuade Russia to come to the negotiating table and agree to a ceasefire have failed so far.

Trump’s rhetoric has shifted in recent months, as he has expressed growing frustration and impatience with Putin, accusing him of failing to take action to back up positive statements made in their conversations.

“Every time I speak with Vladimir, I have good conversations, and then they don’t go anywhere. They just don’t go anywhere,” Trump said last week.

Trump even said publicly that he might provide long-range U.S-made Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine this month, though he later backed away from the idea after a phone conversation with Putin.

Ukraine has appealed to Washington for longer-range missiles to strike at targets inside Russia, and European powers have endorsed its request.

Ukrainian officials, European governments and Kyiv’s supporters in Congress have repeatedly urged Trump to exert pressure on Russia through arms shipments and sanctions to push Moscow to agree to a ceasefire and peace negotiations. The announcement of sanctions on Russian oil companies was the first time Trump has followed through on threats to introduce economic penalties against Moscow.

The new sanctions on Russia, Ukraine’s drone attacks on Russia’s oil and gas facilities and European efforts to provide more weapons to Kyiv’s forces could alter the Kremlin’s calculations over time, according to European diplomats, former U.S. intelligence officials and experts.

In August, the White House portrayed a summit in Alaska between Putin and Trump as a promising step toward possible peace negotiations. But the war has raged on, and Russia has stuck to the same hard-line demands that would effectively disarm Ukraine, ban it from joining the NATO alliance and block the deployment of any Western-led peacekeeping forces.

 

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Rage+1 3
Posted
40 minutes ago, bolverk said:

I'm no hunter, but this guy seems like one helluva shot.

 

Not to diminish his marksmanship, but hitting a flying object like that with iron sights is incredible.  I think it falls under the category of "it's better to be lucky than good."  

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, bolverk said:

Hate to be the bearer of bad tidings.

It's been coming for weeks now - Ukrainian forces are outnumbered anywhere from 5 up to 8-to-1.  It's one of the places that Ukraine has been using to kill a lot of Russians and destroy a lot of Russian vehicles. It's going to be a Pyrrhic victory for Russia.  They've tied up something like 10,000 - 15,000 Russian troops there, and wiped out a lot of mobile troops.

Edited by atomheartbevo
  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted
10 hours ago, Chad Fuck said:

No doubt re the B-52.  I went down the rabbit hole of planes of similar capabilities and age.  Turns out the F-5, which debuted the same year as the Mig-21, is still operated by a number of countries as well.  

northrup built the upgrade F-20 which the US basically spiked in favor of the F-16, then they took that design and mounted the wings higher and let McD run with it and thousands more of those were built. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
Russia suffered approximately 1,137,690 casualties in Ukraine between February 24, 2022 and October 27, 2025, with 800 soldiers killed or wounded in the past 24 hours.

The General Staff of the Ukrainian Armed Forces said this in a post on Facebook, Ukrinform reports.

Since the beginning of the full-scale war, Ukrainian forces have destroyed 11,293 (+2) Russian tanks, 23,480 (+3) armored fighting vehicles, 34,036 (+34) artillery systems, 1,527 (+1) multiple rocket launchers, 1,230 (+1) anti-aircraft warfare systems, and 3,880 cruise missiles. The Russian army has also lost 428 warplanes, 346 helicopters, 74,946 (+547) tactical unmanned aerial systems, 28 warships/cutters, 1 submarine, 65,655 (+138) vehicles and fuel trucks, and 3,981 pieces of special equipment.

1761542578-619.jpg
  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted

Fascinating story from the Economist today on how it's up to Europe to finance/prop up Ukraine for the next few years.  $140 billion is from frozen Rus assets, and probably another $260 billion from common bonds.  Because the US funding is basically gone.  The most interesting thing is that the focus is on funding Euro defense companies with that funding, so that less and less goes to US companies.  Nice.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 2
Posted
3 hours ago, elfenix said:

northrup built the upgrade F-20 which the US basically spiked in favor of the F-16, then they took that design and mounted the wings higher and let McD run with it and thousands more of those were built. 

 

I always thought the Tigershark was badass, I made models of it as a kid.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
  • Drool 1
Posted
2 hours ago, Hefeweizen said:

Fascinating story from the Economist today on how it's up to Europe to finance/prop up Ukraine for the next few years.  $140 billion is from frozen Rus assets, and probably another $260 billion from common bonds.  Because the US funding is basically gone.  The most interesting thing is that the focus is on funding Euro defense companies with that funding, so that less and less goes to US companies.  Nice.

I do not think it’s a coincidence that Ukraine has been announcing some high dollar defense contracts with European companies.   Arguably the Saab fighter did make better sense than anything American, but the other contracts could have went multiple ways.  We are going to get cut out of a lot of deals.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted
9 hours ago, Hefeweizen said:

Fascinating story from the Economist today on how it's up to Europe to finance/prop up Ukraine for the next few years.  $140 billion is from frozen Rus assets, and probably another $260 billion from common bonds.  Because the US funding is basically gone.  The most interesting thing is that the focus is on funding Euro defense companies with that funding, so that less and less goes to US companies.  Nice.

I'll apologize and take it to the CR if this is too hot.  I'll try to keep this opinion (albeit an disagreeing on in this case) and leave the pissbagging out.

I think it's fair for Europe to take on the largest part of the financial burden of this.  They bent the knee to Russia 30 years ago and bought all that Russian NG.  Cluck, cluck.  And with that baing the case, you can understand why Ukraine would buy European weapons.

Regarding the $140B in Russian assets.  Is that all there is?  Or can more be accessed.  All that stuff is fair game.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
13 hours ago, elfenix said:

northrup built the upgrade F-20 which the US basically spiked in favor of the F-16, then they took that design and mounted the wings higher and let McD run with it and thousands more of those were built. 

I agree re F-20 being spiked by the government in favor of the F-16, but I'm not following re McDonnell Douglas.  

Posted
37 minutes ago, Chad Fuck said:

I agree re F-20 being spiked by the government in favor of the F-16, but I'm not following re McDonnell Douglas.  

The design was further refined into the YF-17

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted
14 hours ago, Hefeweizen said:

Fascinating story from the Economist today on how it's up to Europe to finance/prop up Ukraine for the next few years.  $140 billion is from frozen Rus assets, and probably another $260 billion from common bonds.  Because the US funding is basically gone.  The most interesting thing is that the focus is on funding Euro defense companies with that funding, so that less and less goes to US companies.  Nice.

Link.  I'd like to show my "libertarian" cousin how us cutting spending on Ukraine is really punching ourselves in the nutsack by not getting defense jobs.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
12 minutes ago, Chad Fuck said:

Link.  I'd like to show my "libertarian" cousin how us cutting spending on Ukraine is really punching ourselves in the nutsack by not getting defense jobs.  

https://www.economist.com/leaders/2025/10/30/why-funding-ukraine-is-a-giant-opportunity-for-europe?utm_campaign=shared_article
 

Unfortunately I think it’s subscribers only.  Their intelligence podcast had a great summary of it and is free.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
On 10/24/2025 at 10:50 AM, Gatorubet said:

But do they really? I thought Russia paid big money to bring in western experts/companies to build their refineries..

You are correct, Sir, Russia is simply writing the checks, and international E&C Companies are doing the heavy lifting.

Russia watched the LNG Boom 15-20 years ago from the cheap seats, and decided to get in on the action.  The decision they made to monetize their World Class gas reserves and build export infrastructure was among the best decisions Russia ever made.

Invading Ukraine was by far the worst.

Though the US and Russia have somewhat comparable gas production, the last 3 years of mousing around on Google Earth has given me a different perspective. I am familiar with most producing basins in the lower 48, and Russia's reserves are on another level.

The US production is technology driven; 10,000 ft horizontal laterals on wells, coupled with using 5-10 million gallons of fluids to fracture the formation, and "Drill, baby Drill."  If you stop drilling, the gas production falls like a rock. Layer in the weather vane political climate in the US, and you end up with a tremendous resource and technological marvel hampered by the idiocy of the US, including the voters, and the officials they elect, and the mental midgets they appoint.

The gas fields in Siberia, and everywhere else in Russia, look nothing like the US in terms of the number of wells. It seems like it is more like the Middle East ~ 100 years ago, drill a well and stand back and watch the money flow. The notion that Russia has their shit together the way Chevron developed their Permian assets is so funny to even think about it.

Oil has always been a waterborne export fuel, because the supply-demand fundamentals in the Middle East were basically a 90-10 split. Produce it, put in on a boat, take it, and sell it somewhere. Targeting the Russian refineries is taking care of that.

Gas is not that way. You only produce it if you have a place to move it, store it, or sell it. There are just a few major gas pipelines between the large gas producing countries and their neighbors. The Middle East had very little demand until 20-30 years ago. The US is mostly self contained, with Canada and Mexico.

The USSR, and their satellites, was also basically self contained. Following the breakup of the USSR, Russia decided to join the real world and monetized their gas reserves, selling to Western Europe, China, and building LNG Plants and Terminals in the Arctic, in western Russia and in the Pacific.  

LNG required countries on both sides of the water to spend significant capital to deliver and receive gas. This was a big win-win for all involved. SE Asia has an insatiable demand for energy, and they also have world class engineering and construction capabilities. This is a very exclusive marketplace between countries, their nationalized energy companies, their engineering and construction companies, and the big utilities that consume the gas and produce electricity.

Russia always had the gas, they said come and get it, and they did. 

On 10/24/2025 at 5:15 PM, atomheartbevo said:

More on that large refinery @PTINS they have got to be running out of replacement hardware at some point.

I don't see much replacement until the fighting stops.

A normal refinery turnaround might have a 1,000+ temporary workers for a few months, mostly skilled laborers. And nobody is firing missiles at them. I don't think Russia had many of those guys, before they invaded Ukraine.

I'm not sure where Russia would get the 80,000 BPD refinery towers they need. My 1st guess would be South Korea, and that ain't happening.  

On 10/24/2025 at 10:24 PM, Party_Taco said:


giphy.gif

On 10/25/2025 at 1:43 PM, InkaUtexas said:

 

On 10/25/2025 at 6:11 PM, aggie08 said:

Guessing there's no chance we're going to indiscriminately bomb those boats, right?

It seems the phrase "LNG" never made it into the 19 or 20 tranches of sanctions that have been placed on Russia. For good reason.

100,000,000 bbl per day of oil is produced and sold, to make ~ 100,000,000 bbl per day of refined products, a large portion of which is seasonal demand. Once refined, it is a fungible product, that loses its identity.

LNG is complicated, for many reasons. LNG is imported by energy starved NATIONS with limited domestic production, most of which is used for power generation, and heat. Those nations include China, Japan, and South Korea, (most of SE Asia) and the "private" companies in each country, are the buyers of the LNG, the builders of the LNG facilities, and in a lot of cases, the interest owners in the LNG Plants.  In no particular order, they want a return on their investment, and they want lights, electricity, and heat. But they want all of it.

Targeting an LNG tanker and it's cargo, or any large Gas or LNG facility, could be deemed to be an "attack" on China, or Japan, or anybody else similarly situated. China, in some way, shape or form, probably put up most of the investment in the $50+ Billion Power of Siberia 1 gas project.

On paper, maybe it looks the same as the Nordstream Pipelines. But the Nordtream pipelines could be repaired in a few months, quickly, and cheap (So Russia did do it, huh?). Replacing a $10 Billion asset, would take $10+ Billion, and 5-10 years, and the replacement energy would cost ~ 50% premium. 

As Jack Ryan was told, "You're talking about several billion dollars of state property; they're going to want it back."

On 10/26/2025 at 8:43 PM, atomheartbevo said:

Want to know why they are able to hit the refineries so easily?  Because Russians can't even protect their own air defenses.

On 10/28/2025 at 8:15 PM, atomheartbevo said:

G4Ynjj5WoAATIQH?format=jpg&name=large

17 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

@PTINS they just keep on keeping on putting pressure on the system.  2 refineries, 1 gas plant, 1 fuel depot, 1 chemical plant, and a power substation.

 

Ukraine appears to have created well defined corridors through Russia, send in a bunch of drones and missiles, and blow the fuck out of everything they come across, refineries, chemical plants, industrial plants, fuel depots, power plants, electrical substations, etc.  

My map of some of the Russian infrastructure Ukraine has damaged or destroyed, ... just in the past 3 months. Texas is about 10% larger than Ukraine.

image.thumb.png.a319c480bc344f6b7757c90af6fff2d4.png

It's not hard to believe that the local towns and regions in Russia are circling the economic wagons.

No place to go work, no money, no food, no support.

When the main employers and revenue generators are no mas, and the state that provided everything stops being the state, what options are left?

Russia is fucked, no matter what they do, and no matter when they do it.

Fuck Around and Find Out. Bitch!

Edited by PTINS
typo. text.
  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Posted
Hate to be the bearer of bad tidings.
From the Kyiv Independent: With a web of drones and infiltrating infantry, Russian troops overrun Kupiansk
image.png.7c557c3d500f7a531f318a95a6b33b75.png
 
image.thumb.png.741885abe000f027b9ed36bc9a160716.png
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/us-intelligence-agencies-see-no-sign-russia-ready-compromise-ukraine-rcna239645
 
A recent U.S. intelligence assessment warned that Russian President Vladimir Putin is more determined than ever to carry on the war in Ukraine and prevail on the battlefield, according to a senior U.S. official and a senior congressional official.
The analysis, which was communicated to members of Congress this month, indicated the agencies see no sign Russia is ready to compromise on Ukraine as President Donald Trump seeks to broker peace talks.
The assessment is consistent with how U.S. and Western intelligence agencies have viewed the Russian regime’s stance since February 2022, when Putin ordered an unprovoked invasion of Ukraine, according to two other people with knowledge of the matter.
But Putin is now believed to be more dug in than ever, according to the senior U.S. official and the senior congressional official.
Facing steep Russian troop losses and economic setbacks at home, he is committed to securing Ukrainian land and expanding his country's footprint to justify the human and financial toll, the intelligence assessment found, according to the officials.
In a sign of Trump's growing frustration, last week he called off a planned meeting with Putin in Budapest, Hungary, and for the first time since he returned to office in January he imposed punitive measures against Moscow, slapping sanctions on two major Russian oil companies.
“I just felt it was time,” Trump told reporters, describing the new sanctions as "tremendous" and adding that he had "waited a long time” to implement them but hopes "they won’t be on for long."
“We hope that the war will be settled,” he said.
The White House declined to comment on the recent intelligence assessment and pointed to Trump’s public comments on efforts to reach a peace deal.
“As the president stated, these are tremendous sanctions against their two big oil companies which he hopes will help bring about the end of the war," the official said in a statement. "He has been clear that it is time to stop the killing and make a deal to end the war. The United States will continue to advocate for a peaceful resolution to the war, and a permanent peace depends on Russia’s willingness to negotiate in good faith.”
Trump has long vowed to broker an end to the war in Ukraine, and as a candidate he promised he would secure peace within 24 hours of his return to office. But his efforts to persuade Russia to come to the negotiating table and agree to a ceasefire have failed so far.
Trump’s rhetoric has shifted in recent months, as he has expressed growing frustration and impatience with Putin, accusing him of failing to take action to back up positive statements made in their conversations.
“Every time I speak with Vladimir, I have good conversations, and then they don’t go anywhere. They just don’t go anywhere,” Trump said last week.
Trump even said publicly that he might provide long-range U.S-made Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine this month, though he later backed away from the idea after a phone conversation with Putin.
Ukraine has appealed to Washington for longer-range missiles to strike at targets inside Russia, and European powers have endorsed its request.
Ukrainian officials, European governments and Kyiv’s supporters in Congress have repeatedly urged Trump to exert pressure on Russia through arms shipments and sanctions to push Moscow to agree to a ceasefire and peace negotiations. The announcement of sanctions on Russian oil companies was the first time Trump has followed through on threats to introduce economic penalties against Moscow.
The new sanctions on Russia, Ukraine’s drone attacks on Russia’s oil and gas facilities and European efforts to provide more weapons to Kyiv’s forces could alter the Kremlin’s calculations over time, according to European diplomats, former U.S. intelligence officials and experts.
In August, the White House portrayed a summit in Alaska between Putin and Trump as a promising step toward possible peace negotiations. But the war has raged on, and Russia has stuck to the same hard-line demands that would effectively disarm Ukraine, ban it from joining the NATO alliance and block the deployment of any Western-led peacekeeping forces.
 
 

No one should be surprised this is the case…

Putin is ALL IN, but at increasing cost and if I’m a betting man, I’m placing my chips on their economy collapsing before they can achieve military victory.

Ukraine won’t accept a peace that sees them ceding vast territory and winter is coming.
  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
4 minutes ago, Party_Taco said:

Putin is ALL IN, but at increasing cost and if I’m a betting man, I’m placing my chips on their economy collapsing before they can achieve military victory.

Ukraine won’t accept a peace that sees them ceding vast territory and winter is coming.

This is the play.

Militarily, Russia can continue to make gains -- small ones, but gains nonetheless -- at a heavy price.

Ukraine's strategy is, and must be, NOT to recapture/capture territory, but to make the costs to Russia across the board so steep that their economy and/or regime collapses.

Ukraine is not at war with the Russian military as much as it is at war with the Putin regime and the Russian economy.  Defeat those things, and the Russian military becomes irrelevant.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Posted
11 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

This is the play.

Militarily, Russia can continue to make gains -- small ones, but gains nonetheless -- at a heavy price.

Ukraine's strategy is, and must be, NOT to recapture/capture territory, but to make the costs to Russia across the board so steep that their economy and/or regime collapses.

Ukraine is not at war with the Russian military as much as it is at war with the Putin regime and the Russian economy.  Defeat those things, and the Russian military becomes irrelevant.

All of this.

If Russia continues across Ukraine at the current rate, it'll take a while, but there will be no Russians left to celebrate in Kyiv.  The problem is there may be very few Ukrainians as well.

 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Chad Fuck said:

All of this.

If Russia continues across Ukraine at the current rate, it'll take a while, but there will be no Russians left to celebrate in Kyiv.  The problem is there may be very few Ukrainians as well.

 

Yep.  That's the evil hell of wars of attrition.  It's less about who wins, than it is about who loses the most.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted
2 hours ago, Chad Fuck said:

Link.  I'd like to show my "libertarian" cousin how us cutting spending on Ukraine is really punching ourselves in the nutsack by not getting defense jobs.  


probably not true. If we aren’t spending money and aren’t getting any new sales, it is more likely just a wash economically.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...