The Ukraine thingy


Off-Topic Discussions

1,851 to 1,900 of 2,002 << first < prev | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | next > last >>

Vlad Koroboff wrote:

I'm actually trying to understand motivation of our resident frenchie.

You have to be blind,deaf,and possibly lobotomized not to understand that true target of this whole show is not Ukraine,and not even Russia.
It's EU.And French,as one of leaders will be hit pretty hard in one way or another.
Mad dollarz for breaking the contract AFTER supplying russian with needed technology,anyone?.
But then,France is rich,it can take it.
About 10 members of EU can't.
And chain is only as strong as it's weakest link.

Apparently, I'm blind deaf and lobotomized, because I don't even begin to understand what you mean.

The EU is the target? Whose target?

The US created and is using this crisis to hurt the EU by getting them to damage their economies with sanctions on Russia? Is that your theory here? Or something else entirely?


thejeff wrote:


The US created and is using this crisis to hurt the EU by getting them to damage their economies with sanctions on Russia?

More or less.Except sanctions are irrelevant.Civil war in major transit country is more than enough.


JohnLocke wrote:

So, you support a western-backed coup which put into power an array of neo-nazis and oligarchs? Sure, you sound like a real neo-con hater, Gallo. Is it okay if I use your username? Or am I trying to be hard and make a point if I do? You're very touchy about such subjects. And it's good you support the Kiev government and their tame fascists in their attempt to wipe out the ethnic Russians - nothing like an old-fashioned try at genocide after a foreign-backed coup, right? You sound very fair and balanced, you being left wing and all.

You say Vlad is longing for this to turn into a full scale war - are you sure you don't mean your pals in Kiev? The rebel forces now have the upper hand, and still they desire to negotiate - what does that tell you? What have Putin's repeated calls for dialogue told you?

And no links to all the "evidence" you purport to have. Post some links re: the legions of grieving Russian mothers, just as an example. Please note I've seen the story published by the independent.co.uk website; I found it funny that it quoted the Novaya Gazeta as a source for its story. Guess who owns both? Good ol' Alexander Lebedev, avowed foe of Putin and western toady. You're going to have to be more convincing, Gallo ol' buddy! Ooops, there I go using your username in vain again! Darn me to heck!

You can use my forum name all you like. It is not as though it is my real name, nor would I care if you did use my real name. In fact, feel free to use it - Andrew. If your debating technique is such that you feel the need to throw my name in all the time, then fill your boots. So, not touchy at all about my name.


JohnLocke wrote:
And it's good you support the Kiev government and their tame fascists in their attempt to wipe out the ethnic Russians - nothing like an old-fashioned try at genocide after a foreign-backed coup, right? You sound very fair and balanced, you being left wing and all.

I am curious about people throwing around the term genocide to describe the current conflict. It seems a very convenient term to throw around to attack the Ukrainian government's actions. Exactly how is the government committing genocide? Is it anything like the Ukrainian genocide of 32-33? I know at least one person in this thread thinks that never occurred.

What triggered this so-called genocide? How is this genocide occurring? You're big on evidence, so where is it?

The saddest irony of current claims of genocide is that the two regions where the conflict is occurring were among the hardest hit in the real genocide in 32-33.


JohnLocke wrote:

Duly noted, comrade. I use a variety of text codes in the long-running PbP I have going on these very boards. Thanks, though....

Wait a second ... a goblin is correcting my form on these boards? Bloody hell, how far I've fallen!

Sorry, didn't realize you were a messageboards veteran. Just trying to help, which, of course, is what we goblins are all about: being friendly and helping people out, no matter what those foul racists at Paizo say.

I didn't realize the Britishiznoid Independent was owned by a Russian. That's where I get all my Patrick Cockburn and Robert Fisk articles from (when they're not reprinted at Counterpunch)!


Soviet famine of 1932–33

I'm still having a hard time envisioning the Holodomor as an act of genocide when the famine, apparently, stretched all the way to Siberia.

[Shrugs]


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Soviet famine of 1932–33

I'm still having a hard time envisioning the Holodomor as an act of genocide when the famine, apparently, stretched all the way to Siberia.

[Shrugs]

And i thought i dispelled that Holodomor fake a hundred pages ago.Yes,it's never occurred.Unlike soviet famine of 32-33.

But,good news for me:i never had peasants in lineage for at least six generations,so my family was totally unaffected:)


Gallo wrote:
JohnLocke wrote:
And it's good you support the Kiev government and their tame fascists in their attempt to wipe out the ethnic Russians - nothing like an old-fashioned try at genocide after a foreign-backed coup, right? You sound very fair and balanced, you being left wing and all.

I am curious about people throwing around the term genocide to describe the current conflict. It seems a very convenient term to throw around to attack the Ukrainian government's actions. Exactly how is the government committing genocide? Is it anything like the Ukrainian genocide of 32-33? I know at least one person in this thread thinks that never occurred.

What triggered this so-called genocide? How is this genocide occurring? You're big on evidence, so where is it?

The saddest irony of current claims of genocide is that the two regions where the conflict is occurring were among the hardest hit in the real genocide in 32-33.

Understanding my claims of genocide require first that you understand the role of fascist/neo-nazi elements within Ukraine, including the amount of sway they hold within the government of that country. This article will give you some useful background information on that.

This article will provide you with some information re: claims of genocide against ethnic Russians in Ukraine.

In the spirit of understanding each others positions, then, may I ask why Ukraine has your sympathies in the current situation? You stated flat out that you support them - I would really like to understand why.


Vlad Koroboff wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Soviet famine of 1932–33

I'm still having a hard time envisioning the Holodomor as an act of genocide when the famine, apparently, stretched all the way to Siberia.

[Shrugs]

And i thought i dispelled that Holodomor fake a hundred pages ago.Yes,it's never occurred.Unlike soviet famine of 32-33.

But,good news for me:i never had peasants in lineage for at least six generations,so my family was totally unaffected:)

No, you said that the famine did not occur and that the Soviet regime had no role. That doesn't mean it didn't happen.

@Comrade - the famine did indeed affect more of the Soviet Union than just the Ukraine. The Soviet regime's response/actions/inaction in the Ukraine is what made the event(s) into a genocide. The fact that terrible things happened in many parts of the Soviet Union does not in any way lessen what happened in the Ukraine.


Gallo wrote:

No, you said that the famine did not occur and that the Soviet regime had no role.

No i didn't.

I said that what passes for Golodomor now wasn't a famine.And it wasn't.
It was planned tax evasion that backfired.HARD.
Also,soviet regime tried,not very successfully,to educate unwashed peasants in basic things,like that burying grain makes it unedible.
Which makes 1933 famine not a genocide,because intention was contrary.Hell,we don't know how many lives were saved by confiscations and burning of contaminated crops.
Results,well...Let's just say government learned it's lesson and the next(and,what's more important,last) famine was a)FAR less destructive and b)immediately after WW2,so i'll cut soviet government some slack.

Oh,and speaking about Golodomor,which literally translates to Death from Hunger,can anyone dig in 30s statistics and disproof this little research?


Gallo wrote:
@Comrade - the famine did indeed affect more of the Soviet Union than just the Ukraine. The Soviet regime's response/actions/inaction in the Ukraine is what made the event(s) into a genocide. The fact that terrible things happened in many parts of the Soviet Union does not in any way lessen what happened in the Ukraine.

Wikipedia again:

"Scholars disagree on the relative importance of natural factors and bad economic policies as causes of the famine and the degree to which the destruction of the Ukrainian peasantry was premeditated on the part of Joseph Stalin.[10][20][21][22] Using Holodomor in reference to the famine emphasizes its man-made aspects, arguing that actions such as rejection of outside aid, confiscation of all household foodstuffs, and restriction of population movement confer intent, defining the famine as genocide; the loss of life has been compared to the Holocaust.[by whom?] [23] If Soviet policies and actions were conclusively documented as intending to eradicate the rise of Ukrainian nationalism, they would fall under the legal definition of genocide.[24][25][26][27][28] In the absence of absolute documentary proof of intent, scholars have also made the argument that the Holodomor was ultimately a consequence of the economic problems associated with radical economic changes implemented during the period of liquidation of private property and Soviet industrialization."

No expert, but I find it hard to believe that "rejection of outside aid, confiscation of all household foodstuffs, and restriction of population movement" only applied to Ukraine.


And, to go completely off-topic again:

Solidarity with Greek cleaners

And, even further off-topic, a fun piece I watched on Vice News today:

The March on Islamabad, Part One which is, alas, a bit behind.


I found this article to be a little rambling in style, but I do love how it points out western hypocrisy.

No doubt certain folks on these boards will still see Russia's humanitarian convoy as more provocative than sending American troops into a war zone.

Remember when this guy was portrayed as being an agent of hope?

"Obama insisted no deal was possible unless Russia “stopped pretending” that it isn’t in control of the rebels, and agreed to “stop meddling” in internal Ukrainian affairs." I can hardly grasp the level of moral turpitude required for an American politician to say that.

I've made this point before, but never received a satisfactory response.

We've been lied to, misled by the government and the media time and again. And yet we're to believe that this time is different? Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Syria, the Gaza strip and now Ukraine, just to name a few. Have none of you had your fill of being treated as cattle? Your tax dollars being used to fuel war around the world? Do you really think this system is sustainable?


JohnLocke wrote:
Do you really think this system is sustainable?

Yes.At least until US reaches a critical point with Mexico and stuff.

Which may never happen:)


JohnLocke wrote:


I've made this point before, but never received a satisfactory response.

We've been lied to, misled by the government and the media time and again. And yet we're to believe that this time is different? Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Syria, the Gaza strip and now Ukraine, just to name a few. Have none of you had your fill of being treated as cattle? Your tax dollars being used to fuel war around the world? Do you really think this system is sustainable?

Assuming we have, what's the alternative? What's your prescription? What should we do?


I know what i've done first thing in adulthood:got rid of my TV set.
After that...well,i support the rebels.It's not much,but it's something,and there are tens of thousands of like-minded Crazy Ivans.


Vlad Koroboff wrote:
JohnLocke wrote:
Do you really think this system is sustainable?

Yes.At least until US reaches a critical point with Mexico and stuff.

Which may never happen:)

I disagree. As more and more nations pull away from American and European-dominated institutions things will change. The dollar won't remain the world's defacto currency forever; as that changes, the inflated standard of living in the US will come crashing down to earth. They won't be able to print money at will to cover their vast military expenditures, meaning their foul reach will decrease significantly.

And alternatives to corrupt institutions such as the IMF are beginning to be developed (e.g., the new development fund created by the BRICS nations). The IMF is a tool used to bankrupt and subordinate nations to the west's will.

A multi-polar world will be better for everyone.


JohnLocke wrote:


I disagree. As more and more nations pull away from American and European-dominated institutions things will change.

What's the difference between them and,say,China-dominated institutions?

Also,world is more or less already multi-polar.
There are US and colonies,EU and colonies,and russia-india-china and colonies.


thejeff wrote:
JohnLocke wrote:


I've made this point before, but never received a satisfactory response.

We've been lied to, misled by the government and the media time and again. And yet we're to believe that this time is different? Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Syria, the Gaza strip and now Ukraine, just to name a few. Have none of you had your fill of being treated as cattle? Your tax dollars being used to fuel war around the world? Do you really think this system is sustainable?

Assuming we have, what's the alternative? What's your prescription? What should we do?

Rise up and create real, lasting change in your own neck of the woods. Break away from your two-party system, eliminate career politicians and close the doors of government to influence from big business and foreign nations. Elect politicians who foreswear Imperialism and foreign entanglements. Make them accountable to you, the people, and always remind them that they serve, not rule. Curb your military spending and close your foreign military bases. Focus on your own pressing domestic concerns. Deal fairly with all other nations and peoples but don't seek to dominate them. Trade with other nations, engage them culturally, but don't become dependent upon them.

For a start :-)


Vlad Koroboff wrote:
JohnLocke wrote:


I disagree. As more and more nations pull away from American and European-dominated institutions things will change.

What's the difference between them and,say,China-dominated institutions?

Also,world is more or less already multi-polar.
There are US and colonies,EU and colonies,and russia-india-china and colonies.

I'm not at all sure that Russia-India-China are any more of a single pole than the US and the EU would be.


JohnLocke wrote:
thejeff wrote:
JohnLocke wrote:


I've made this point before, but never received a satisfactory response.

We've been lied to, misled by the government and the media time and again. And yet we're to believe that this time is different? Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Syria, the Gaza strip and now Ukraine, just to name a few. Have none of you had your fill of being treated as cattle? Your tax dollars being used to fuel war around the world? Do you really think this system is sustainable?

Assuming we have, what's the alternative? What's your prescription? What should we do?

Rise up and create real, lasting change in your own neck of the woods. Break away from your two-party system, eliminate career politicians and close the doors of government to influence from big business and foreign nations. Elect politicians who foreswear Imperialism and foreign entanglements. Make them accountable to you, the people, and always remind them that they serve, not rule. Curb your military spending and close your foreign military bases. Focus on your own pressing domestic concerns. Deal fairly with all other nations and peoples but don't seek to dominate them. Trade with other nations, engage them culturally, but don't become dependent upon them.

For a start :-)

I was hoping for something a little more practical in the short term. :)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't know. Sounds practical to me.

Working-Class Challenges to Big Business Democrats


Vlad Koroboff wrote:
JohnLocke wrote:


I disagree. As more and more nations pull away from American and European-dominated institutions things will change.

What's the difference between them and,say,China-dominated institutions?

Also,world is more or less already multi-polar.
There are US and colonies,EU and colonies,and russia-india-china and colonies.

For starters, the new BRICS development fund is structured far differently than, say, the world bank or IMF. Link to basic wiki overview here.

Second, the western nations are the only ones who have at this time a real ability to project conventional military power around the world. Consider all those Russian military bases in South America, and how Russia uses them to threaten the US right on it's own doorstep. Oh wait, you can't think of any? That's because they don't exist. But the US has bases all around the world, ready to strike at foreign nations who refuse to bow to it's will. Is Germany free? Is Japan? South Korea? All are occupied nations, and all act as antagonists (proxies) for American aggression.

Watch, too, how quickly Greece was broken at the hands of the IMF. Witness what the vulture funds are trying to do to Argentina. I know you're just trying to appear open-minded and not partisan, but aside from the western institutions who is attempting to dominate other nations like that?


thejeff wrote:

I'm not at all sure that Russia-India-China are any more of a single pole than the US and the EU would be.

Neither am i,which is why i say more or less.

But these are big,long-term,strategic alliances.
There are A LOT of wild cards out there,though.Iran,for example.Rich in resources,populous,and while theocracy,there are far worse examples.
Pakistan...

Also,while not exactly a base in South America...
And let's not forget Cuba!


thejeff wrote:
JohnLocke wrote:
thejeff wrote:
JohnLocke wrote:


I've made this point before, but never received a satisfactory response.

We've been lied to, misled by the government and the media time and again. And yet we're to believe that this time is different? Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Syria, the Gaza strip and now Ukraine, just to name a few. Have none of you had your fill of being treated as cattle? Your tax dollars being used to fuel war around the world? Do you really think this system is sustainable?

Assuming we have, what's the alternative? What's your prescription? What should we do?

Rise up and create real, lasting change in your own neck of the woods. Break away from your two-party system, eliminate career politicians and close the doors of government to influence from big business and foreign nations. Elect politicians who foreswear Imperialism and foreign entanglements. Make them accountable to you, the people, and always remind them that they serve, not rule. Curb your military spending and close your foreign military bases. Focus on your own pressing domestic concerns. Deal fairly with all other nations and peoples but don't seek to dominate them. Trade with other nations, engage them culturally, but don't become dependent upon them.

For a start :-)

I was hoping for something a little more practical in the short term. :)

Sorry, I know, very idealistic sounding and easy to say from the safety of my own desk. If Ferguson was any example, the US status quo will not change easily or quickly. That goes for other western nations, too. The average person just wants to be left alone to live their life, take care of their family, and try to be happy and prosperous. As long as the current standard of living holds for the majority, that's going to be a big hurdle.


Vlad Koroboff wrote:


And let's not forget Cuba!

What, the US base at Guantanamo? Who could forget, Vlad?

thejeff wrote:
I'm not at all sure that Russia-India-China are any more of a single pole than the US and the EU would be.

Quite right. India and China, for example, are long time rivals with unresolved border issues. To expect such a populous and culturally diverse pair of nations to act in lockstep as a bloc is unrealistic.


JohnLocke wrote:
To expect such a populous and culturally diverse pair of nations to act in lockstep as a bloc is unrealistic.

Until you include,say,Russia as mediator.

Which is about as culturally diverse from both I and C as possible.

In other news...no news.Well,of course there were no ceasefire,and rebels now are happily eliminating pockets and collecting loot.
There are rumors of expanding counterattack to take other Novorossian cities,but they are now just rumors.
My cat become addicted to pate from MRE's.I guess that's news.
Also,fun fact:from what i've seen,rebels use russian MRE's,while loyalists
use french ones.


Vlad Koroboff wrote:
JohnLocke wrote:
To expect such a populous and culturally diverse pair of nations to act in lockstep as a bloc is unrealistic.

Until you include,say,Russia as mediator.

Which is about as culturally diverse from both I and C as possible.

And one not particularly liked or trusted by either.


Vlad Koroboff wrote:
JohnLocke wrote:
To expect such a populous and culturally diverse pair of nations to act in lockstep as a bloc is unrealistic.

Until you include,say,Russia as mediator.

Which is about as culturally diverse from both I and C as possible.

Sure, if Russia could be counted upon to be a fair dealer and a neutral third party. But that's a big if. They've just signed a huge gas deal with China and are becoming closer militarily, as well.


thejeff wrote:
]And one not particularly liked or trusted by either.

In Russian language we have a saying"I'm not a dollar to be liked by everybody".

Mutual interests create alliances,not...liking someone.
Gorbachev really liked Margaret Thatcher and look where we all ended up.

JohnLocke wrote:
are becoming closer militarily, as well.

How much closer can you possibly become?!

In 90s,China was one of premier buyers of russian high-tech weaponry,J-20 is Mig 1.44 for Gods's sake,to say nothing about ballistic missiles!


Vlad Koroboff wrote:
JohnLocke wrote:
To expect such a populous and culturally diverse pair of nations to act in lockstep as a bloc is unrealistic.

Until you include,say,Russia as mediator.

Which is about as culturally diverse from both I and C as possible.

In other news...no news.Well,of course there were no ceasefire,and rebels now are happily eliminating pockets and collecting loot.
There are rumors of expanding counterattack to take other Novorossian cities,but they are now just rumors.
My cat become addicted to pate from MRE's.I guess that's news.
Also,fun fact:from what i've seen,rebels use russian MRE's,while loyalists
use french ones.

Ahh I love finding out what's in different countries MRE's! I could watch youtube reviews all day about them. It would be so easy to get fat from some of the Canadian and American MRE's - it's a lot of food!

Your cat sounds like he/she has discerning tastes, Vlad :-P


JohnLocke wrote:


Your cat sounds like he/she has discerning tastes, Vlad :-P

She sure is!Unlike things that you can buy in stores,pate from russian MREs are 90 percent meat,which is about 20 times more than you can get in,say,Whiskas!


Vlad Koroboff wrote:
thejeff wrote:
]And one not particularly liked or trusted by either.

In Russian language we have a saying"I'm not a dollar to be liked by everybody".

Mutual interests create alliances,not...liking someone.
Gorbachev really liked Margaret Thatcher and look where we all ended up.

JohnLocke wrote:
are becoming closer militarily, as well.

How much closer can you possibly become?!

In 90s,China was one of premier buyers of russian high-tech weaponry,J-20 i Mig 1.44 for Gods's sake,to say nothing about ballistic missiles!

Russians seem to have a saying for just about everything ;-)

Someone actually liked Thatcher???

India buys a fair bit of Russian hardware as well.


JohnLocke wrote:


Russians seem to have a saying for just about everything ;-)

I'm pretty sure most cultures have,but i have difficulty finding british analog.

JohnLocke wrote:


Someone actually liked Thatcher???

Sadly,one of the important people.

JohnLocke wrote:


India buys a fair bit of Russian hardware as well.

That's...an understatement.India has best russian fighters in the world.

Russia doesn't have them,but India does.


I was under the impression that India, under the newly elected neoliberal Hindu chauvinist and murderer Modi, was going to be moving closer to a rapprochement with U.S. imperialism.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
I was under the impression that India, under the newly elected neoliberal Hindu chauvinist and murderer Modi, was going to be moving closer to a rapprochement with U.S. imperialism.

For one man to be important in the decades-long political play,he must be truly exceptional.

Is he?


Vlad Koroboff wrote:
JohnLocke wrote:


Russians seem to have a saying for just about everything ;-)

I'm pretty sure most cultures have,but i have difficulty finding british analog.

JohnLocke wrote:


Someone actually liked Thatcher???

Sadly,one of the important people.

JohnLocke wrote:


India buys a fair bit of Russian hardware as well.

That's...an understatement.India has best russian fighters in the world.

Russia doesn't have them,but India does.

The SU-30MKI? Yeah it's world class, for sure. Russia's air force isn't anything to scoff at, though, especially with the PAK FA waiting "in the wings". Hee hee. And yes, I know India will be flying that, as well.


The United States appears to think so. For example, they have removed the ban on his entering the country that was declared after the Gujarat massacres.

United States looks forward to Narendra Modi's visit, growing economic ties with India


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
The United States appears to think so

They do not have the reputation for much forward-thinking in the last few decades)

JohnLocke wrote:
Russia's air force isn't anything to scoff at

Well,duh,but flanker-E is no flanker-H.And there are not a lot of them.


Vlad Koroboff wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
The United States appears to think so
They do not have the reputation for much forward-thinking in the last few decades)

Perhaps not, but that isn't really a counterpoint to the constant refrain of "Modi is moving closer to the United States" that I saw in all the leftie press after he was elected.


Vlad Koroboff wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
The United States appears to think so

They do not have the reputation for much forward-thinking in the last few decades)

JohnLocke wrote:
Russia's air force isn't anything to scoff at

Well,duh,but flanker-E is no flanker-H.And there are not a lot of them.

There's not a lot of F-22's either. And even fewer F-35's. Maybe never any F-35's if current trends remain true.


I've been seeing this in international news media for a while now, but in the US and Europe - silence.

If there was indeed any credible evidence of the narrative the western powers shouted from the hilltops in the days following the downing of MH 17, our tame news media would sprain themselves to put it out there.


JohnLocke wrote:

Maybe never any F-35's if current trends remain true.

That's technically a good thing because F-35 SUCKS!Except for Lockheed Martin.

But i found it hilarious that India has better fighters than both China and Russia.But then,Pakistan...
In other news,rebels performed combat recon near Mariupol,and loyalists tactically regrouped near west roads from the city.
Which is fun because recon group is in the north.


So, military spending...

Top three:
1.) USA - $640 billion per year
2.) China - $188 billion per year
3.) Russia - $87 billion per year

Just imagine what the world would be like if that money would go towards something of value, rather than spending it on weapons of war.


JohnLocke wrote:


Just imagine what the world would be like if that money would go towards something of value, rather than spending it on weapons of war.

I'd like to add that entire space program is subproduct of arms race.

As is internet,for that matter.
Or my apartment!
But then,why US needs that much overseas bases?In case of conflict,they would be taken out by backfire raid anyway,so what's the point?!
Same question about russian base in 'Nam.


Vlad Koroboff wrote:
JohnLocke wrote:


Just imagine what the world would be like if that money would go towards something of value, rather than spending it on weapons of war.

I'd like to add that entire space program is subproduct of arms race.

As is internet,for that matter.
Or my apartment!
But then,why US needs that much overseas bases?In case of conflict,they would be taken out by backfire raid anyway,so what's the point?!
Same question about russian base in 'Nam.

Yeah, that's a pretty common argument: "Where would we be, technologically, without the arms race/WW 2/vast military spending?"

My answer? Much better off. Sure, Von Braun's rockets led to both ICBM's and the rocket which got men to the moon. Why should technological development in the civilian sector (medical advances, biotech, communications, etc) be runoff from military programs? What sort of advances would we see right now if even a portion of these massive budgets be reallocated to education, infrastructure, peaceful space exploration, medical tech .....

And yes, I know, many jobs rely of the defense sector. Trust me, if that sort of money, even half, was spent on developing and maintaining infrastructure, scientific research, etc, then there would be jobs aplenty, less social discord, you name it.


JohnLocke wrote:
What sort of advances would we see right now if even a portion of these massive budgets be reallocated to education, infrastructure, peaceful space exploration, medical tech .....

I'm again must add that at least part of my education comes from that military spending,so i'm OK with it.It provides jobs,it moves science forward in a strange way,and it prevents WW3.

But then you have Bradley or F-35 programs,which just don't make sense!
Or Comanche,where each prototype costs like a fleet of helicopter carriers...Cost/efficiency is very important.Military industrial complex exists to defend nation,not to make people rich of it.
Speaking of rich...military career is probably easiest way now in which man can buy an apartment in Russia.


Vlad Koroboff wrote:
JohnLocke wrote:
What sort of advances would we see right now if even a portion of these massive budgets be reallocated to education, infrastructure, peaceful space exploration, medical tech .....

I'm again must add that at least part of my education comes from that military spending,so i'm OK with it.It provides jobs,it moves science forward in a strange way,and it prevents WW3.

But then you have Bradley or F-35 programs,which just don't make sense!
Or Comanche,where each prototype costs like a fleet of helicopter carriers...Cost/efficiency is very important.Military industrial complex exists to defend nation,not to make people rich of it.
Speaking of rich...military career is probably easiest way now in which man can buy an apartment in Russia.

Science would move forward even quicker, and more beneficially, if it weren't subordinated to the needs of war. Having military tech be cutting edge while civilian applications lag behind is ridiculous and indefensible. War is the very lowest of human activity, not it's pinnacle. We have to wean ourselves off of the idea, as a species, that the need to develop better, more effective means of violence takes precedence over more humane pursuits. The interests which keep that philosophy in play need to be excised for us to move forward.

Vlad Koroboff wrote:
Speaking of rich...military career is probably easiest way now in which man can buy an apartment in Russia.

I'm very sorry to hear that, genuinely.


Vlad Koroboff wrote:
Or Comanche,where each prototype costs like a fleet of helicopter carriers...Cost/efficiency is very important.Military industrial complex exists to defend nation,not to make people rich of it.

Not to defend the Comanche, because there were a lot of problems with that program, but prototypes are always ridiculously expensive, because you're paying the research and development costs, not just the cost of building the aircraft. If the program had been a success then that cost would have been split over hundreds of helicopters. Splitting it over two prototypes makes it look ridiculous.


thejeff wrote:
Splitting it over two prototypes makes it look ridiculous.

Because it is!

I can live with cancelled Yak-41,because at least someone make good use of
it in the end,but RAH-66 was just...wasted!
As was F-22,for that matter.
Oh,and speaking of Mariupol...
Looks like more than just a combat recon to me.

1,851 to 1,900 of 2,002 << first < prev | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / The Ukraine thingy All Messageboards