LaxPower Back-Up Stick

youthathletics wrote: ↑Sat Oct 19, 2024 7:38 am Propaganda or truth? https://www.reddit.com/r/heck/comments/ ... _uniforms/

Has anyone confirmed this? Meaning, confirmed that NK is contributing manpower to the Russian genocide effort in Ukraine?

Seacoaster(1) wrote: ↑Sat Oct 19, 2024 7:44 am

youthathletics wrote: ↑Sat Oct 19, 2024 7:38 am Propaganda or truth? https://www.reddit.com/r/heck/comments/ ... _uniforms/

Has anyone confirmed this? Meaning, confirmed that NK is contributing manpower to the Russian genocide effort in Ukraine?

If the Russians use these Nork forces the same way they use their own they will all be dead in a week. One has to wonder what their mission might be?

Great. Now Reddit is the new coin of the realm for information/news around here. Bravo!!!!!

Why anyone would be surprised the NK is involved in some fashion is mystifying. Of course, they are and they have told everyone.

Seacoaster(1) wrote: ↑Sat Oct 19, 2024 7:44 am

youthathletics wrote: ↑Sat Oct 19, 2024 7:38 am Propaganda or truth? https://www.reddit.com/r/heck/comments/ ... _uniforms/

Has anyone confirmed this? Meaning, confirmed that NK is contributing manpower to the Russian genocide effort in Ukraine?

It doesn’t appear to be 100% confirmed but “likely”.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/10/ ... st-ukraine

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 19, 2024 10:25 am

Seacoaster(1) wrote: ↑Sat Oct 19, 2024 7:44 am

youthathletics wrote: ↑Sat Oct 19, 2024 7:38 am Propaganda or truth? https://www.reddit.com/r/heck/comments/ ... _uniforms/

Has anyone confirmed this? Meaning, confirmed that NK is contributing manpower to the Russian genocide effort in Ukraine?

It doesn’t appear to be 100% confirmed but “likely”.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/10/ ... st-ukraine

I'm sure all of the spooks in the CIA know. They just have to figure out their purpose for being there.

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Sat Oct 19, 2024 11:05 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 19, 2024 10:25 am

Seacoaster(1) wrote: ↑Sat Oct 19, 2024 7:44 am

youthathletics wrote: ↑Sat Oct 19, 2024 7:38 am Propaganda or truth? https://www.reddit.com/r/heck/comments/ ... _uniforms/

Has anyone confirmed this? Meaning, confirmed that NK is contributing manpower to the Russian genocide effort in Ukraine?

It doesn’t appear to be 100% confirmed but “likely”.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/10/ ... st-ukraine

I'm sure all of the spooks in the CIA know. They just have to figure out their purpose for being there.

Fodder.

Seacoaster(1) wrote: ↑Sat Oct 19, 2024 11:49 am

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Sat Oct 19, 2024 11:05 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 19, 2024 10:25 am

Seacoaster(1) wrote: ↑Sat Oct 19, 2024 7:44 am

youthathletics wrote: ↑Sat Oct 19, 2024 7:38 am Propaganda or truth? https://www.reddit.com/r/heck/comments/ ... _uniforms/

Has anyone confirmed this? Meaning, confirmed that NK is contributing manpower to the Russian genocide effort in Ukraine?

It doesn’t appear to be 100% confirmed but “likely”.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/10/ ... st-ukraine

I'm sure all of the spooks in the CIA know. They just have to figure out their purpose for being there.

Fodder.

Most of the fodder the Russians have used didn't include highly trained North Korean special forces. Unless the Norks just sent over a bunch of scrubs to get annihilated on the battlefield. I'm guessing they are there for a very specific purpose. The fact that Ukraine knows they are in country may defeat their purpose.

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Sat Oct 19, 2024 12:16 pm

Seacoaster(1) wrote: ↑Sat Oct 19, 2024 11:49 am

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Sat Oct 19, 2024 11:05 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 19, 2024 10:25 am

Seacoaster(1) wrote: ↑Sat Oct 19, 2024 7:44 am

youthathletics wrote: ↑Sat Oct 19, 2024 7:38 am Propaganda or truth? https://www.reddit.com/r/heck/comments/ ... _uniforms/

Has anyone confirmed this? Meaning, confirmed that NK is contributing manpower to the Russian genocide effort in Ukraine?

It doesn’t appear to be 100% confirmed but “likely”.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/10/ ... st-ukraine

I'm sure all of the spooks in the CIA know. They just have to figure out their purpose for being there.

Fodder.

Most of the fodder the Russians have used didn't include highly trained North Korean special forces. Unless the Norks just sent over a bunch of scrubs to get annihilated on the battlefield. I'm guessing they are there for a very specific purpose. The fact that Ukraine knows they are in country may defeat their purpose.

I dunno that we know who they sent but none of the NK have been in actual warfare best that I know. Nor have their trainers been in warfare.

a fan wrote: ↑Wed Oct 16, 2024 3:58 pm

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Wed Oct 16, 2024 3:49 pm Your hypothetical is interesting to say the least. Too bad it isn't even close to being realistic.

That's what OS claimed.

Barack Obama proved you both wrong. It's why he quipped "the 80's called, and wants it's foreign policy back".

Stop trying to speak for me when you don't know what you are talking about. Make your own argument.
You can't see the difference in basing/deploying combat forces from providing a limited amount of trainers in a military assistance group.
The countries we sell arms to can buy their arms from multiple nations. You simplify complex issues to absurdity.
None of our treaties obligate us to permanently base or deploy forces in other countries.
The treaties allow us to do so when we choose to & the allied country approves.

old salt wrote: ↑Mon Oct 21, 2024 6:22 am

a fan wrote: ↑Wed Oct 16, 2024 3:58 pm

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Wed Oct 16, 2024 3:49 pm Your hypothetical is interesting to say the least. Too bad it isn't even close to being realistic.

That's what OS claimed.

Barack Obama proved you both wrong. It's why he quipped "the 80's called, and wants it's foreign policy back".

Stop trying to speak for me when you don't know what you are talking about. Make your own argument.
You can't see the difference in basing/deploying combat forces from providing a limited amount of trainers in a military assistance group.
The countries we sell arms to can buy their arms from multiple nations. You simplify complex issues to absurdity.
None of our treaties obligate us to permanently base or deploy forces in other countries.
The treaties allow us to do so when we choose to & the allied country approves.

Speaking of simplification to the absurd...

"The countries we sell arms to can buy their arms from multiple nations."

Really? Once a significant "investment" is made in the increasingly complex weapons systems the MIC offers, the purchaser is "locked-in."

But you know that. Your argument is disingenuous at best.

Or, maybe you don't. The ability to fly planes is no evidence of the ability to integrate systems. An MBA does not a systems integrator make.

PizzaSnake wrote: ↑Mon Oct 21, 2024 9:27 am

old salt wrote: ↑Mon Oct 21, 2024 6:22 am

a fan wrote: ↑Wed Oct 16, 2024 3:58 pm

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Wed Oct 16, 2024 3:49 pm Your hypothetical is interesting to say the least. Too bad it isn't even close to being realistic.

That's what OS claimed.

Barack Obama proved you both wrong. It's why he quipped "the 80's called, and wants it's foreign policy back".

Stop trying to speak for me when you don't know what you are talking about. Make your own argument.
You can't see the difference in basing/deploying combat forces from providing a limited amount of trainers in a military assistance group.
The countries we sell arms to can buy their arms from multiple nations. You simplify complex issues to absurdity.
None of our treaties obligate us to permanently base or deploy forces in other countries.
The treaties allow us to do so when we choose to & the allied country approves.

Speaking of simplification to the absurd...

"The countries we sell arms to can buy their arms from multiple nations."

Really? Once a significant "investment" is made in the increasingly complex weapons systems the MIC offers, the purchaser is "locked-in."

But you know that. Your argument is disingenuous at best.

Or, maybe you don't. The ability to fly planes is no evidence of the ability to integrate systems. An MBA does not a systems integrator make.

A buyer nation can get the same investment in complex weapons systems from other nations.
Ukraine is getting Mirage fighters from France & would prefer Gripen's from Sweden if they were available,
Both are better choices for them than used NATO F-16's They're just getting them because they're NATO surplus.
The same with warships. The new US frigate is an Italian design. Germany still makes diesel-electric subs that are the best in the world.
France had a deal to sell nuc subs to the Aussies before AUKUS became available.
Taiwan & Poland are purchasing S Korean made fighter jets.
Ukraine is getting good service from German Leopard tanks, while US Abrams tanks are too difficult to operate & maintain.
Ukraine is also using long range French & British long range air launched cruise missiles.
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/ ... ets-212890
https://dsm.forecastinternational.com/2 ... n-ukraine/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJ--Rv5U3-8

old salt wrote: ↑Mon Oct 21, 2024 6:22 am

a fan wrote: ↑Wed Oct 16, 2024 3:58 pm

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Wed Oct 16, 2024 3:49 pm Your hypothetical is interesting to say the least. Too bad it isn't even close to being realistic.

That's what OS claimed.

Barack Obama proved you both wrong. It's why he quipped "the 80's called, and wants it's foreign policy back".

Stop trying to speak for me when you don't know what you are talking about. Make your own argument.

Stop refusing to own up to what you post here.

You told me that my simple, easy, path....a path which has worked well for over 70 years is "unrealistic".

And that path is, if a foreign country's defense is important to the US either

1. pass a defensive treaty and defend said country. See: NATO. S Korea
2. do NOTHING militarily.


You have mocked this path, because you're unwilling to take five seconds off your high horse, and look at the trillions spent, and hundreds of thousands of dead we got from taking YOUR path.


So sorry mate, Obama proved you and OS BOTH wrong. What did he do about Ukraine, OS?

That's right, he followed MY path: he did NOTHING militarily, and didn't sign a treaty.

What was the result of Obama taking this path in Ukraine and Crimea that you claim is stupid?

That's right: zero casualties by American hands or arms. Not one penny spent.

Scoreboard.

Yet comically, both you and cradle are on here whining about the sh(t outcome we've gotten in Ukraine that we got from taking YOUR "arm some guy" path. You have ZERO self awareness, and are unwilling to consider that you're ever wrong, or that the things that you advocate have severe negative consequences. You think this is all a cute game.

Obama out played both you and Putin. And you can't handle it. So what do you do, instead of pointing out that "yeah, Obama got the outcome I would have preferred"??? You yell at me and call me simplistic.

I told you PRECISELY what we should do BEFORE things fell apart in Ukraine. I cheered both Obama and Trump when they did nothing but levy sanctions on Putin's clownery. Didn't care which POTUS did what I wanted them to do.

You, on the other hand, ripped Obama for his sanctions and for being "played by Putin', and bragged about how Putin was outmaneuvering both Obama and your hated Euroburgers. And then cheered Trump when he sent arms to Ukraine...... yet in the same breath, have spent the last year complaining about the outcome of Trump and Biden doing what YOU wanted them to do.

You'll never learn.

old salt wrote: ↑Mon Oct 21, 2024 6:22 am You can't see the difference in basing/deploying combat forces from providing a limited amount of trainers in a military assistance group.
The countries we sell arms to can buy their arms from multiple nations. You simplify complex issues to absurdity.

Not my fault you can't think for yourself.

I don't care if you think it's a simple path....it's comical that you see this as a flaw, and want every President to instead make knee-jerk decisions regarding arms at the drop of a hat. You're unable to understand that making it EASY to wage war....is the ENTIRE REASON we've been at nonstop war since WWII. You can't figure it out, because you're a soldier, and you think this is the ONLY path for America.

And I don't care if foreign countries buy things from other countries. I'm an American, and these choices are on my dime.

a fan wrote: ↑Mon Oct 21, 2024 11:59 am

old salt wrote: ↑Mon Oct 21, 2024 6:22 am

a fan wrote: ↑Wed Oct 16, 2024 3:58 pm

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Wed Oct 16, 2024 3:49 pm Your hypothetical is interesting to say the least. Too bad it isn't even close to being realistic.

That's what OS claimed.

Barack Obama proved you both wrong. It's why he quipped "the 80's called, and wants it's foreign policy back".

Stop trying to speak for me when you don't know what you are talking about. Make your own argument.

Stop refusing to own up to what you post here.

You told me that my simple, easy, path....a path which has worked well for over 70 years is "unrealistic".

And that path is, if a foreign country's defense is important to the US either

1. pass a defensive treaty and defend said country. See: NATO. S Korea
2. do NOTHING militarily.


You have mocked this path, because you're unwilling to take five seconds off your high horse, and look at the trillions spent, and hundreds of thousands of dead we got from taking YOUR path.


So sorry mate, Obama proved you and OS BOTH wrong. What did he do about Ukraine, OS?

That's right, he followed MY path: he did NOTHING militarily, and didn't sign a treaty.

What was the result of Obama taking this path in Ukraine and Crimea that you claim is stupid?

That's right: zero casualties by American hands or arms. Not one penny spent.

Scoreboard.

Yet comically, both you and cradle are on here whining about the sh(t outcome we've gotten in Ukraine that we got from taking YOUR "arm some guy" path. You have ZERO self awareness, and are unwilling to consider that you're ever wrong, or that the things that you advocate have severe negative consequences. You think this is all a cute game.

Obama out played both you and Putin. And you can't handle it. So what do you do, instead of pointing out that "yeah, Obama got the outcome I would have preferred"??? You yell at me and call me simplistic.

I told you PRECISELY what we should do BEFORE things fell apart in Ukraine. I cheered both Obama and Trump when they did nothing but levy sanctions on Putin's clownery. Didn't care which POTUS did what I wanted them to do.

You, on the other hand, ripped Obama for his sanctions and for being "played by Putin', and bragged about how Putin was outmaneuvering both Obama and your hated Euroburgers. And then cheered Trump when he sent arms to Ukraine...... yet in the same breath, have spent the last year complaining about the outcome of Trump and Biden do what YOU wanted them to do.

You'll never learn.

old salt wrote: ↑Mon Oct 21, 2024 6:22 am You can't see the difference in basing/deploying combat forces from providing a limited amount of trainers in a military assistance group.
The countries we sell arms to can buy their arms from multiple nations. You simplify complex issues to absurdity.

Not my fault you can't think for yourself.

I don't care if you think it's a simple path....it's comical that you see this as a flaw, and want every President to instead make knee-jerk decisions regarding arms at the drop of a hat. You're unable to understand that making it EASY to wage war....is the ENTIRE REASON we've been at nonstop war since WWII. You can't figure it out, because you're a soldier, and you think this is the ONLY path for America.

And I don't care if foreign countries buy things from other countries. I'm an American, and these choices are on my dime.

Nah, these aren't "knee-jerk" reactions, there are part of a consistent policy of promoting American exports, in this case, materiel. Let's just be honest about what America makes and exports, and why we sell to certain countries/regimes.

Oh, and Obama bucked the trends because he had the luxury of events occurring in his second term -- the real reason for single-term presidents...