Why Are We in Ukraine?

321,974 Views | 5859 Replies | Last: 3 days ago by whiterock
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sombear said:

Sam Lowry said:

sombear said:

Redbrickbear said:

sombear said:

Redbrickbear said:

sombear said:

Bizarre response. You are the one disregarding the strong majority of Ukrainians. Obviously nobody can speak for every Ukrainian. Brutal straw man there. Strange that it bothers you so much that they want to fight for their country.

I'd like to think I'd fight to defend my country. Would you?

And what do dodgers have to do with anything. That's the case in all wars. It's as old as time.



You are shilling for a war in Eastern Europe when your own country is being invaded right now.

200,000 illegal invaders over the borders monthly.

A war our own intelligence agencies in large part helped to start by overthrowing the last government in Kyiv and helping to scuttle any peace deals since.

lol give me a freaking break




And back to Nuland the Conqueror. Excellent pivot!

. . .



I have noticed you are incapable of admitting that DC was involved in anyway with regime change in Kyiv.

Anyway how is the war you wanted so badly going for Ukraine?

Looks like the DC backed faction of oligarchs in Kyiv is having to call up 55 year olds and people in bad heath conditions to keep this war going.

(Not to mention arresting at gun point any Ukrainian man that tries to flee)

How much longer until you think DC will let them negotiate an end to this war?

That spring offense you were counting on ended like a wet fart.


Go back and read my posts - then again, I'm not sure you read all of your own. You're dead wrong on both accounts.

I never jumped on the spring offensive bandwagon. That is because the sources I trust most - corp intel - thought Russia had too much time to prepare, and we and the Euros delayed sending equipment. I posted this intel several times. I've also said the pro-Putins have exaggerated the failure, as it's basically a standstill but with Russia losing considerably more soldiers and equipmwnt.

As for 2014, I've posted several times that we (and many others) tried to influence and that we expressed support for the pro-Euro/America crowd. What I have categorically rejected - b/c it's downright absurd - is that we led a coup. Not even Russia believes that. Russia created its own mess. It thought it could get away with making VV do a complete 180 and jump in bed with Russia. It was an historically bad bet, as Ukrainian voters had just overwhelmingly voted for closer Euro/U.S. relations.

It's no more absurd than the idea that we were passive observers. Even if all we did was cheerlead for a violent coup, that would be bad enough. In fact we've supported far right extremist groups for years. They owe their existence in large part to us, and they're the ones who opposed the will of the Ukrainian people as expressed in the Minsk Agreements.

Russian forces are hardly at a standstill. They've been observing the principle that when your enemy is making a mistake, you don't interrupt him. This has been painfully clear since the beginning of the counter-offensive if not well before.
Your history is way off. Violent coup? They were street protests after VY sold out to Russia, and then VY's thugs started shooting people, killing around 100. The coward fled the next day and then went to Russia (shocking!). Even members of his own party voted to impeach him.

Supported far rights extremist groups for years? And the Minsk agreements were a joke as everyone acknowledges. Nobody followed them.

There is zero evidence that Russia is right where it wants to be, unless you believe Putin's goal is a mass suicide mission . . . which actually is possible with him. I acknowledge that part of his plan - hoping the west loses interest - might be working. But, militarily, he's been badly embarrassed, hence the numerous changes to leadership, deployments, etc.
Sure, VY was responsible for all of the violence. And J6 was perfectly legal, and the BLM riots were fiery but mostly peaceful. There's no denying the power of relentless propaganda.

Russia will keep what it's taken and probably a good bit more. We've left them no choice. The sooner we learn to live with it, the better for Ukraine and for us.
Bear8084
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

sombear said:

Sam Lowry said:

sombear said:

Redbrickbear said:

sombear said:

Redbrickbear said:

sombear said:

Bizarre response. You are the one disregarding the strong majority of Ukrainians. Obviously nobody can speak for every Ukrainian. Brutal straw man there. Strange that it bothers you so much that they want to fight for their country.

I'd like to think I'd fight to defend my country. Would you?

And what do dodgers have to do with anything. That's the case in all wars. It's as old as time.



You are shilling for a war in Eastern Europe when your own country is being invaded right now.

200,000 illegal invaders over the borders monthly.

A war our own intelligence agencies in large part helped to start by overthrowing the last government in Kyiv and helping to scuttle any peace deals since.

lol give me a freaking break




And back to Nuland the Conqueror. Excellent pivot!

. . .



I have noticed you are incapable of admitting that DC was involved in anyway with regime change in Kyiv.

Anyway how is the war you wanted so badly going for Ukraine?

Looks like the DC backed faction of oligarchs in Kyiv is having to call up 55 year olds and people in bad heath conditions to keep this war going.

(Not to mention arresting at gun point any Ukrainian man that tries to flee)

How much longer until you think DC will let them negotiate an end to this war?

That spring offense you were counting on ended like a wet fart.


Go back and read my posts - then again, I'm not sure you read all of your own. You're dead wrong on both accounts.

I never jumped on the spring offensive bandwagon. That is because the sources I trust most - corp intel - thought Russia had too much time to prepare, and we and the Euros delayed sending equipment. I posted this intel several times. I've also said the pro-Putins have exaggerated the failure, as it's basically a standstill but with Russia losing considerably more soldiers and equipmwnt.

As for 2014, I've posted several times that we (and many others) tried to influence and that we expressed support for the pro-Euro/America crowd. What I have categorically rejected - b/c it's downright absurd - is that we led a coup. Not even Russia believes that. Russia created its own mess. It thought it could get away with making VV do a complete 180 and jump in bed with Russia. It was an historically bad bet, as Ukrainian voters had just overwhelmingly voted for closer Euro/U.S. relations.

It's no more absurd than the idea that we were passive observers. Even if all we did was cheerlead for a violent coup, that would be bad enough. In fact we've supported far right extremist groups for years. They owe their existence in large part to us, and they're the ones who opposed the will of the Ukrainian people as expressed in the Minsk Agreements.

Russian forces are hardly at a standstill. They've been observing the principle that when your enemy is making a mistake, you don't interrupt him. This has been painfully clear since the beginning of the counter-offensive if not well before.
Your history is way off. Violent coup? They were street protests after VY sold out to Russia, and then VY's thugs started shooting people, killing around 100. The coward fled the next day and then went to Russia (shocking!). Even members of his own party voted to impeach him.

Supported far rights extremist groups for years? And the Minsk agreements were a joke as everyone acknowledges. Nobody followed them.

There is zero evidence that Russia is right where it wants to be, unless you believe Putin's goal is a mass suicide mission . . . which actually is possible with him. I acknowledge that part of his plan - hoping the west loses interest - might be working. But, militarily, he's been badly embarrassed, hence the numerous changes to leadership, deployments, etc.


There's no denying the power of relentless propaganda.


As you keep proving here with your idiotic RU takes.
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Bear8084 said:

Sam Lowry said:

sombear said:

Sam Lowry said:

sombear said:

Redbrickbear said:

sombear said:

Redbrickbear said:

sombear said:

Bizarre response. You are the one disregarding the strong majority of Ukrainians. Obviously nobody can speak for every Ukrainian. Brutal straw man there. Strange that it bothers you so much that they want to fight for their country.

I'd like to think I'd fight to defend my country. Would you?

And what do dodgers have to do with anything. That's the case in all wars. It's as old as time.



You are shilling for a war in Eastern Europe when your own country is being invaded right now.

200,000 illegal invaders over the borders monthly.

A war our own intelligence agencies in large part helped to start by overthrowing the last government in Kyiv and helping to scuttle any peace deals since.

lol give me a freaking break




And back to Nuland the Conqueror. Excellent pivot!

. . .



I have noticed you are incapable of admitting that DC was involved in anyway with regime change in Kyiv.

Anyway how is the war you wanted so badly going for Ukraine?

Looks like the DC backed faction of oligarchs in Kyiv is having to call up 55 year olds and people in bad heath conditions to keep this war going.

(Not to mention arresting at gun point any Ukrainian man that tries to flee)

How much longer until you think DC will let them negotiate an end to this war?

That spring offense you were counting on ended like a wet fart.


Go back and read my posts - then again, I'm not sure you read all of your own. You're dead wrong on both accounts.

I never jumped on the spring offensive bandwagon. That is because the sources I trust most - corp intel - thought Russia had too much time to prepare, and we and the Euros delayed sending equipment. I posted this intel several times. I've also said the pro-Putins have exaggerated the failure, as it's basically a standstill but with Russia losing considerably more soldiers and equipmwnt.

As for 2014, I've posted several times that we (and many others) tried to influence and that we expressed support for the pro-Euro/America crowd. What I have categorically rejected - b/c it's downright absurd - is that we led a coup. Not even Russia believes that. Russia created its own mess. It thought it could get away with making VV do a complete 180 and jump in bed with Russia. It was an historically bad bet, as Ukrainian voters had just overwhelmingly voted for closer Euro/U.S. relations.

It's no more absurd than the idea that we were passive observers. Even if all we did was cheerlead for a violent coup, that would be bad enough. In fact we've supported far right extremist groups for years. They owe their existence in large part to us, and they're the ones who opposed the will of the Ukrainian people as expressed in the Minsk Agreements.

Russian forces are hardly at a standstill. They've been observing the principle that when your enemy is making a mistake, you don't interrupt him. This has been painfully clear since the beginning of the counter-offensive if not well before.
Your history is way off. Violent coup? They were street protests after VY sold out to Russia, and then VY's thugs started shooting people, killing around 100. The coward fled the next day and then went to Russia (shocking!). Even members of his own party voted to impeach him.

Supported far rights extremist groups for years? And the Minsk agreements were a joke as everyone acknowledges. Nobody followed them.

There is zero evidence that Russia is right where it wants to be, unless you believe Putin's goal is a mass suicide mission . . . which actually is possible with him. I acknowledge that part of his plan - hoping the west loses interest - might be working. But, militarily, he's been badly embarrassed, hence the numerous changes to leadership, deployments, etc.


There's no denying the power of relentless propaganda.


As you keep proving here with your idiotic RU takes.
Keep your focus on that Crimean peninsula. It'll be ours any day now.
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
"30,000 Russians tried to get into the USA last year from the southern border"

"Russia has had low birth rates for 30 years"

"Wars always cause social uncertainty, and the Ukraine war has caused social uncertainly and driven the birth rate down even more"

"Russia sells food, energy, and weapons....but you needs workers to produce those"

"Russia has sped up its demographic disaster"


Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
"it's all starting to make sense.

Not only can the Deep State not allow Trump to be President, they can't even allow him to become the CANDIDATE because his influence will get the House GOP to stand firm on halting all funding for Ukraine.

Politico just admitted it."





Realitybites
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

Slovakia already has a pro-Russian PM (head of a small party leading a coalition govt).

So was this pro-Russian government in Slovakia democratically elected by the people of Slovakia in a free and fair election?

Or was it installed by NATO after a color revolution like the pro-DC government in Ukraine?
sombear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Redbrickbear said:

"it's all starting to make sense.

Not only can the Deep State not allow Trump to be President, they can't even allow him to become the CANDIDATE because his influence will get the House GOP to stand firm on halting all funding for Ukraine.

Politico just admitted it."








Has Trump said he'd stop funding Ukraine? Remember, he was one of the few who raised possibility of sending troops.
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sombear said:

Redbrickbear said:

"it's all starting to make sense.

Not only can the Deep State not allow Trump to be President, they can't even allow him to become the CANDIDATE because his influence will get the House GOP to stand firm on halting all funding for Ukraine.

Politico just admitted it."








Has Trump said he'd stop funding Ukraine? Remember, he was one of the few who raised possibility of sending troops.



No

They are scared he will.

DC and the media have always been more terrified of the idea of Trump….than the actual policies of Trump…Trump is actually pretty moderate
sombear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Redbrickbear said:

sombear said:

Redbrickbear said:

"it's all starting to make sense.

Not only can the Deep State not allow Trump to be President, they can't even allow him to become the CANDIDATE because his influence will get the House GOP to stand firm on halting all funding for Ukraine.

Politico just admitted it."








Has Trump said he'd stop funding Ukraine? Remember, he was one of the few who raised possibility of sending troops.



No

They are scared he will.

DC and the media have always been more terrified of the idea of Trump….than the actual policies of Trump…Trump is actually pretty moderate


Thanks, makes sense
Doc Holliday
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Redbrickbear said:

sombear said:

Redbrickbear said:

"it's all starting to make sense.

Not only can the Deep State not allow Trump to be President, they can't even allow him to become the CANDIDATE because his influence will get the House GOP to stand firm on halting all funding for Ukraine.

Politico just admitted it."








Has Trump said he'd stop funding Ukraine? Remember, he was one of the few who raised possibility of sending troops.



No

They are scared he will.

DC and the media have always been more terrified of the idea of Trump….than the actual policies of Trump…Trump is actually pretty moderate
Yep. They hate the idea of not having a POTUS that is totally financially controlled.
Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
God gave us Trump

https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/111703421569603715
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
[The Two Faces Of Russia And Germany's Eastern Problems
An address delivered on February 14, 1922, at the Rhenish-Westphalian Business Convention in Essen
First published in Sp*****r, Politische Schriften (Munich, 1932)


The occasion for which Sp*****r composed his lecture entitled "The Two Faces of Russia and Germany's Eastern Problems" was a convention of captains of industry in the heart of the Ruhr district in early 1922. Before audiences such as this one he naturally indulged his penchant for oracular predictions; his remarks about "the coming religion of Russia" might strike us as amusing now that we have witnessed Soviet developments from Stalin to Khrushchev and beyond. But there is enough depth and insight to this speech to make one suppose that Sp*****r may, allowing the Russian people enough time to come to itself, carry the day after all.


"We are easily deceived by the geographic concept of "Europe," ..The real Europe ends at the Vistula river" ]




Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Some of you guys still want to give Billions in taxpayer money to this organization so it can fight proxy wars with Russia?

[I'm shocked, I tell you, shocked:
Quote:

The Army's recruiting of white soldiers has dropped significantly in the last half decade, according to internal data reviewed by Military.com, a decline that accounts for much of the service's historic recruitment slump that has become the subject of increasing concern for Army leadership and Capitol Hill.
… The rate at which white recruitment has fallen far outpaces nationwide demographic shifts, data experts and Army officials interviewed by Military.com noted. They don't see a single cause to the recruiting problem, but pointed to a confluence of issues for Army recruiting, including partisan scrutiny of the service, a growing obesity epidemic and an underfunded public education system.
Internally, some Army planners are alarmed over the data trends, but see it as a minefield to navigate given increasing partisan attacks against the military for its efforts to recruit and support a diverse force, according to interviews with several service officials.

Yes, of course: this result cannot possibly be because white potential recruits see that the military has adopted policies that actively or passively discriminate against them, because they are white, and decide that they have no interest in putting their lives on the line for a military that considers them to be second-class, owing to the color of their skin. No, the real problem, according to "some Army planners," are "partisans" who point this out...


Wherever you see "diversity, equity, and inclusion," you can know that you, as a white heterosexual, especially as a white heterosexual male, are going to be disfavored. And now the US Army has totally institutionalized this ideology.
Remember Kelisa Wing? She was the Army's chief DEI officer for education, until tweets she sent out just before she was hired in 2020 surfaced. Among the tweets, Wing wrote:

Quote:

I'm so exhausted at these white folx in these [professional development] sessions this lady actually had the CAUdacity to say black people can be racist too.

Wing was reassigned after Republicans in Congress made an issue of it. But this is the mentality that the Pentagon now institutionalizes.

Back in the summer of 2020 that is, the Summer Of Floyd I wrote this on my old TAC blog, featuring a letter from a reader who graduated from West Point. From the letter, the officer's characterization of efforts then underway, and proposed in this document, to radicalize West Point:

Quote:

Their actions are akin to those of the Red Guards in Maoist China. They are agitating to tear the Academy apart from the ground up and reorient its mission around Anti-Racism. The fact that our country's future leaders believe in this nonsense is a sign that our military is in trouble, and cannot be relied upon either to defend our country or to safeguard the interests of all Americans in the performance of their duties.

Congratulations, US military leadership, you've gotten what you wanted: a force with fewer white people in it to stink up the ranks with their whiteness.
I'm very pleased to see this result, actually. Let these diversocrats own this problem. They have taken the one institution in American public life that most everybody supported and saw as a vehicle for advancement and excellence for everyone, no matter their race, and turned it into a racial spoils system, like everywhere else. Why would any young white person seek to serve when he stands to face discrimination within the ranks? When he might be denied a promotion because he is not the correct race? When his commanding officer might have been promoted not because of his ability to lead, but because he fit a quota? In war, life and death depend on being able to trust one's leadership. And the woke Pentagon has torpedoed that.
From a 2021 report:
Quote:

During a drill weekend, unit leaders held a stand down on race -a pause in their usual training-where they taught troops about white supremacy and the importance of staying apolitical on social media. But one service member balked at the training's focus on far-right extremist groups, not other organizations like Black Lives Matter or Antifa.
"Anyone who has been face to face with them during the riots will tell you they are in fact well organized militant hate groups," the service member wrote. "However, we are encouraged to stand with them, but not groups that stand for the Constitution."
Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., says this is one of more than two dozen stories that show the military has gone too far with what another service member called "fake wokeness." In a memo from Cotton to the Senate Armed Services Committee obtained by Defense One, the senator includes 28 written complaints from troops, which could not be independently verified, about training sessions and regulations that service members argue paint the military as fundamentally racist and support left-leaning groups while labeling conservative movements as extremist. Cotton and Rep. Dan Crenshaw, R-Texas, two weeks ago set up a public whistleblower site inviting service members to complain about "woke ideology" in the military.
"Many struggle to connect on why we heavily condemned Jan 6 but refused to talk about the violent riots during the summer of 2020. Many had questions about groups like Antifa not being discussed during out [sic] extremism presentation," another service member wrote.
Could it be that white potential recruits have looked at the evidence and concluded that the Pentagon hates people like them and their families, and that they don't want to serve a racist institution? I have told you readers about the many anecdotes I've received over the past few years from both active-duty and recently retired service personnel, including officers, who say they actively discourage their family members from joining the service. Why? Because of this kind of thing. They correctly see the DEI ideology embraced by military leadership as bigotry, and they don't want to see their kids subjected to it.
Honestly, if the Chinese government wanted to destabilize and demoralize the United States, they could hardly have done better than to have converted the Pentagon brass into apostles of DEI. And as you see from the initial report I cited, the Armed Forces, like every woke institution, cannot face the possibility that potential recruits are reacting negatively to DEI as a rational decision; no, these people have to be blinded by Satan, or the equivalent. You cannot falsify DEI's claims in the eyes of its proponents. It really is a cult!
But it's worse than that: I would like to know more about the details of why whites who considered entering the military but decided against it, made that choice. What specifically turned them away? This is incredibly important. The decision not to serve in the defense of one's country says a lot about how one regards the country. Mind you, I would entirely understand potential recruits of all races hesitating to sign up for active duty, given the misuse of the US military over the past two decades by governments led by both Republicans and Democrats. Who can blame young Americans of any race wondering if it's worth it to put oneself in the way of lethal harm to follow a civilian leadership dedicated to risking world war to queer the Donbass?
(Yes, it's a provocative, hyperbolic phrase I coined, but the point I make in it is that US foreign and defense policy has been directed not towards defending America and her legitimate interests, but in large part towards "spreading democracy and human rights," meaning, trying to compel foreigners to become proper American liberals, whether they want to or not. It started with George W. Bush's crusading for liberal democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan; it continued with Barack Obama elevating LGBT advocacy to a foreign policy priority.)
The US military is facing its worst manpower crisis since the end of World War II. It cannot afford to alienate any potential recruits. Yet it has endorsed an anti-white ideology and now wonders why white young people stay away.
I cannot recommend strongly enough that you readers with an interest in this kind of thing pre-order Jeremy Carl's blockbuster upcoming book (April), The Unprotected Class: How Anti-White Racism Is Tearing America Apart. In this excerpt from his chapter on anti-white racism in the US military, Carl indicates that this kind of bigotry advanced even under Donald Trump:
Quote:

Even under Trump, the military bureaucracy was out hunting the white supremacist extremist boogeyman. "Among DVEs [domestic violent extremists], racially and ethnically motivated violent extremists specifically white supremacist extremists (WSEs)will remain the most persistent and lethal threat in the homeland," declared the official Homeland Security Threat Assessment in October 2020.
Virtually every one of the relatively few white supremacist attacks in America in recent years has been a disturbed "lone wolf" and none, to this author's knowledge, were organized efforts involving multiple members of the military.
Meanwhile, there have been multiple notable Islamist domestic attacks from within the military, most notably the Fort Hood massacre, in which Nidal Hassan killed thirteen of his fellow soldiers and wounded thirty. Despite writing to the then-head of the Islamic State requesting citizenship in 2014 (five years after the massacre), he was not charged with terrorism, proof that such charges can ultimately be political.
The Fort Hood massacre showed how much the army was already worshipping diversity at the cost of cohesion and common sense. In the wake of the killings, Army Chief of Staff George Casey, channeling Dan Quayle after the L.A. riots, said that "our diversity not only in our army, but in our country, is a strength. And as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that's worse." To sacrifice diversity was now literally worse than the mass fratricidal murder of American soldiers.
Meanwhile, highly organized Antifa and BLM groups carry out racist riots that kill people and cause property damage, often targeting whites and white-owned businesses, yet are never listed as a national security threat. Does the military think that the billions of dollars in riot damage and numerous fatalities caused by BLM are a threat to the homeland? It clearly doesn't seem so, judging by their actions.
After the death of George Floyd, every single member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff spoke out about racism. Rather than showing concern over the rioters who were at that moment wreaking havoc in the streets, today's military validated their grievances. First to speak was Air Force Chief of Staff David Goldfein who said Floyd's death was a "national tragedy" and that "every American should be outraged" by the police's conduct. Meanwhile, the chief master sergeant of the Air Force posted to Twitter a list of black men killed by police, including criminals like Michael Brown, while declaring "I am George Floyd."
"I don't have all of the answers," the chief master sergeant claimed, "but I'm committed to seeing a better future for this nation. A future where Black men no longer suffer needlessly at the hands of White police officers, & Black airmen have the same chance to succeed as their White counterparts." As we have shown elsewhere in the book, that future is already here and in fact it is white soldiers who are being denied equal opportunities as our readiness weakens in response to affirmative action. It is hard to imagine something worse for unit cohesion than asking white soldiers, those most likely to be at the "tip of the spear," to accept racial guilt for a problem that doesn't actually exist and to see racial favoritism for a case that is actually being punished.
The new military recruiting stats showing a dramatic falloff of white recruits, disproportionate to their number in the overall decline, is a powerful vote of no confidence in the Pentagon by the kind of people that same institution would expect to go into battle. This is a four-alarm national security crisis but don't expect Washington to respond in any way except to blame "partisans" for noticing. DEI cannot fail; it can only be failed.] -Rod Dreher
Whiskey Pete
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Redbrickbear said:

sombear said:

Redbrickbear said:

"it's all starting to make sense.

Not only can the Deep State not allow Trump to be President, they can't even allow him to become the CANDIDATE because his influence will get the House GOP to stand firm on halting all funding for Ukraine.

Politico just admitted it."








Has Trump said he'd stop funding Ukraine? Remember, he was one of the few who raised possibility of sending troops.



No

They are scared he will.

DC and the media have always been more terrified of the idea of Trump….than the actual policies of Trump…Trump is actually pretty moderate
But mean tweets!
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Ukraine marines recount deadly mission to free towns east of Dnieper River
By Lizzie Johnson and Serhii Korolchuk
January 4, 2024 at 1:00 a.m. EST

KHERSON, Ukraine -- On the morning of his first crossing of the Dnieper River -- his unit ordered east in a desperate effort to claw back occupied land from Russia -- the 21-year-old Ukrainian marine woke up "ready to die."

With their counteroffensive stalled, Ukraine's military and political leaders were eager to show their Western backers some progress -- any progress.

But Dmytro -- who is being identified only by his first name in keeping with Ukrainian military rules -- recounted fording a river of death for little reward, aside from some political messaging.

He described being "tossed like a piece of meat to the wolves" during the crossing, which takes 30 minutes to an hour. His account was corroborated by six others involved in the operation to gain a toehold on the river's Russian-occupied east bank.

"We bear many losses," said another marine, 22. "We simply lose people, but there is no result."

Frustrated by reports from Ukraine's Foreign Ministry -- which in November stated that troops had "managed to consolidate positions on several strongholds" along the Dnieper -- the marines recounted wounded soldiers drowning, unable to swim with their injuries or sucked to the river bottom by their heavy packs. The crossing was so dangerous that the bodies of some marines, killed in the first wave to cross the river two months ago, were left behind.

Ukraine does not publicly disclose its number of military casualties and has declined to specify how many marines were killed in the mission, which seized back just a few square kilometers of land, including a position in the fishing village of Krynky. A spokesman for the Ukrainian Marine Corps declined to comment: "We are still in silence on this matter," he said.

But the military acknowledges there have been few gains. "There are no liberated villages," on the east bank, said Capt. Natalya Humeniuk, head of the joint press center of Ukraine's Southern Defense Forces.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/01/04/kherson-marines-ukraine-villages-russia/
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
It goes without saying that the Ukrainian government is deeply corrupt and dysfunctional. Otherwise they would never cooperate in the destruction of their own country. The recent attacks on the Russian fleet in Crimea are a case in point. They won't affect Russia's dominance in the Black Sea, but they will remove any doubts the Russians might have had about the need to capture Odessa. Once denied access to the sea, what's left of Ukraine will be a third world country. Those areas under Russian control will be the luckiest of the bunch.
Bear8084
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

They won't affect Russia's dominance in the Black Sea


It goes without saying they already have you vatnik idiot. The rest is just your typical disgusting RU propaganda you always post.
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I wasn't sure Biden was capable of a bigger strategic blunder than the Iraq War. He's proven it and then some.
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
No way this is real?

Right?




sombear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Redbrickbear said:




Obvious JD didn't bother reading the article. Highlights:

* If there is an issue with tracking, it's on our end.

* it's not a huge surprise we can't track every weapon inside a war zone.

* it's $ 1 billion of equipment out of $45 billion.

* No evidence the weapons have gone other than where intended (and BTW it would be exceedingly difficult for someone to discreetly sell them elsewhere).

* It's actually encouraging that our gov conducts these audits and reports on them - even if that means someone like JD can try to twist them into something they are not.
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sombear said:

Redbrickbear said:




Obvious JD didn't bother reading the article. Highlights:


* it's not a huge surprise we can't track every weapon inside a war zone.

* it's $ 1 billion of equipment out of $45 billion.
.



Oh good just a billion..no biggie
sombear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Redbrickbear said:

sombear said:

Redbrickbear said:




Obvious JD didn't bother reading the article. Highlights:


* it's not a huge surprise we can't track every weapon inside a war zone.

* it's $ 1 billion of equipment out of $45 billion.
.



Oh good just a billion..no biggie


1 out of 45 in a freaking war zone. Not only no biggie, but impressive. Post something when we see it's reported that it ends up in the hands of someone else. I'll eat all the available crow. Hint: that won't happen.
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sombear said:

Redbrickbear said:

sombear said:

Redbrickbear said:




Obvious JD didn't bother reading the article. Highlights:


* it's not a huge surprise we can't track every weapon inside a war zone.

* it's $ 1 billion of equipment out of $45 billion.
.



Oh good just a billion..no biggie


1 out of 45 in a freaking war zone. Not only no biggie, but impressive. Post something when we see it's reported that it ends up in the hands of someone else. I'll eat all the available crow.



You are very calm about the possibility that billions in weaponry might end up on the black market while DC insiders spend the tax payer credit card on a stupid proxy war in a part of the world that is not important to our actual citizens.
sombear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Redbrickbear said:

sombear said:

Redbrickbear said:

sombear said:

Redbrickbear said:




Obvious JD didn't bother reading the article. Highlights:


* it's not a huge surprise we can't track every weapon inside a war zone.

* it's $ 1 billion of equipment out of $45 billion.
.



Oh good just a billion..no biggie


1 out of 45 in a freaking war zone. Not only no biggie, but impressive. Post something when we see it's reported that it ends up in the hands of someone else. I'll eat all the available crow.



You are very calm about the possibility that billions in weaponry might end up on the black market while DC insiders spend the tax payer credit card on a stupid proxy war in a part of the world that is not important to our actual citizens.


I'm not an int'l weapons trade expert, but I know enough to know that it would be exceedingly difficult to discreetly trade in this kind of U.S. weaponry. We give and sell weapons all over the world. There is a reason they hardly ever make the black market or end up in enemy hands. Of course, we can be our own worst enemy at times - e.g,, Afghanistan, Iraq. But it's virtually unprecedented for a receiving country to misappropriate. Again, I'll eat crow if there is another chapter to this story.
Doc Holliday
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sombear said:

Redbrickbear said:

sombear said:

Redbrickbear said:

sombear said:

Redbrickbear said:




Obvious JD didn't bother reading the article. Highlights:


* it's not a huge surprise we can't track every weapon inside a war zone.

* it's $ 1 billion of equipment out of $45 billion.
.



Oh good just a billion..no biggie


1 out of 45 in a freaking war zone. Not only no biggie, but impressive. Post something when we see it's reported that it ends up in the hands of someone else. I'll eat all the available crow.



You are very calm about the possibility that billions in weaponry might end up on the black market while DC insiders spend the tax payer credit card on a stupid proxy war in a part of the world that is not important to our actual citizens.


I'm not an int'l weapons trade expert, but I know enough to know that it would be exceedingly difficult to discreetly trade in this kind of U.S. weaponry. We give and sell weapons all over the world. There is a reason they hardly ever make the black market or end up in enemy hands. Of course, we can be our own worst enemy at times - e.g,, Afghanistan, Iraq. But it's virtually unprecedented for a receiving country to misappropriate. Again, I'll eat crow if there is another chapter to this story.
Would you pro warhawks be cool paying an extra 20% in income taxes to fund more wars?

Just curious how much you're willing to give up for war.

Also curious how you're not pissed off after watching us fund over $8 trillion in the last 20 years for war but we can't fix our own roads, build a border wall or make living affordable?
sombear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Doc Holliday said:

sombear said:

Redbrickbear said:

sombear said:

Redbrickbear said:

sombear said:

Redbrickbear said:




Obvious JD didn't bother reading the article. Highlights:


* it's not a huge surprise we can't track every weapon inside a war zone.

* it's $ 1 billion of equipment out of $45 billion.
.



Oh good just a billion..no biggie


1 out of 45 in a freaking war zone. Not only no biggie, but impressive. Post something when we see it's reported that it ends up in the hands of someone else. I'll eat all the available crow.



You are very calm about the possibility that billions in weaponry might end up on the black market while DC insiders spend the tax payer credit card on a stupid proxy war in a part of the world that is not important to our actual citizens.


I'm not an int'l weapons trade expert, but I know enough to know that it would be exceedingly difficult to discreetly trade in this kind of U.S. weaponry. We give and sell weapons all over the world. There is a reason they hardly ever make the black market or end up in enemy hands. Of course, we can be our own worst enemy at times - e.g,, Afghanistan, Iraq. But it's virtually unprecedented for a receiving country to misappropriate. Again, I'll eat crow if there is another chapter to this story.
Would you pro warhawks be cool paying an extra 20% in income taxes to fund more wars?

Just curious how much you're willing to give up for war.

Also curious how you're not pissed off after watching us fund over $8 trillion in the last 20 years for war but we can't fix our own roads, build a border wall or make living affordable?

I've posted numerous times that I totally understand the spending concern. I share that concern. I evaluate all foreign military assistance on a case-by-case basis. I think Ukraine is a good investment, and I'm willing to pay a few hundred dollars to support it at this time.

I've also posted that I think it is silly in this context to argue, "why are we spending $ on ___, when we can't even do __. " You can say that about every dollar we spend, and it's a fool's errand. That is why I evaluate everything on its own merits. If we were not supporting Ukraine, we still would not be securing the border.
Whiskey Pete
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Doc Holliday said:

sombear said:

Redbrickbear said:

sombear said:

Redbrickbear said:

sombear said:

Redbrickbear said:




Obvious JD didn't bother reading the article. Highlights:


* it's not a huge surprise we can't track every weapon inside a war zone.

* it's $ 1 billion of equipment out of $45 billion.
.



Oh good just a billion..no biggie


1 out of 45 in a freaking war zone. Not only no biggie, but impressive. Post something when we see it's reported that it ends up in the hands of someone else. I'll eat all the available crow.



You are very calm about the possibility that billions in weaponry might end up on the black market while DC insiders spend the tax payer credit card on a stupid proxy war in a part of the world that is not important to our actual citizens.


I'm not an int'l weapons trade expert, but I know enough to know that it would be exceedingly difficult to discreetly trade in this kind of U.S. weaponry. We give and sell weapons all over the world. There is a reason they hardly ever make the black market or end up in enemy hands. Of course, we can be our own worst enemy at times - e.g,, Afghanistan, Iraq. But it's virtually unprecedented for a receiving country to misappropriate. Again, I'll eat crow if there is another chapter to this story.
Would you pro warhawks be cool paying an extra 20% in income taxes to fund more wars?

Just curious how much you're willing to give up for war.

Also curious how you're not pissed off after watching us fund over $8 trillion in the last 20 years for war but we can't fix our own roads, build a border wall or make living affordable?

Wonder how all these transgenders feel about getting drafted onto the battlefield
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sombear said:

Doc Holliday said:

sombear said:

Redbrickbear said:

sombear said:

Redbrickbear said:

sombear said:

Redbrickbear said:




Obvious JD didn't bother reading the article. Highlights:


* it's not a huge surprise we can't track every weapon inside a war zone.

* it's $ 1 billion of equipment out of $45 billion.
.



Oh good just a billion..no biggie


1 out of 45 in a freaking war zone. Not only no biggie, but impressive. Post something when we see it's reported that it ends up in the hands of someone else. I'll eat all the available crow.



You are very calm about the possibility that billions in weaponry might end up on the black market while DC insiders spend the tax payer credit card on a stupid proxy war in a part of the world that is not important to our actual citizens.


I'm not an int'l weapons trade expert, but I know enough to know that it would be exceedingly difficult to discreetly trade in this kind of U.S. weaponry. We give and sell weapons all over the world. There is a reason they hardly ever make the black market or end up in enemy hands. Of course, we can be our own worst enemy at times - e.g,, Afghanistan, Iraq. But it's virtually unprecedented for a receiving country to misappropriate. Again, I'll eat crow if there is another chapter to this story.
Would you pro warhawks be cool paying an extra 20% in income taxes to fund more wars?

Just curious how much you're willing to give up for war.

Also curious how you're not pissed off after watching us fund over $8 trillion in the last 20 years for war but we can't fix our own roads, build a border wall or make living affordable?

I've posted numerous times that I totally understand the spending concern. I share that concern. I evaluate all foreign military assistance on a case-by-case basis. I think Ukraine is a good investment, and I'm willing to pay a few hundred dollars to support it at this time.

I've also posted that I think it is silly in this context to argue, "why are we spending $ on ___, when we can't even do __. " You can say that about every dollar we spend, and it's a fool's errand. That is why I evaluate everything on its own merits. If we were not supporting Ukraine, we still would not be securing the border.
Doc's point is relevant because it's the same point that Democrats use as an excuse not to secure the border. See for example their refusal to fund the border wall at the "excessive" cost of $50 billion. You can't have it both ways. If the budget was a priority then, it should be a priority now.
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

sombear said:

Doc Holliday said:

sombear said:

Redbrickbear said:

sombear said:

Redbrickbear said:

sombear said:

Redbrickbear said:




Obvious JD didn't bother reading the article. Highlights:


* it's not a huge surprise we can't track every weapon inside a war zone.

* it's $ 1 billion of equipment out of $45 billion.
.



Oh good just a billion..no biggie


1 out of 45 in a freaking war zone. Not only no biggie, but impressive. Post something when we see it's reported that it ends up in the hands of someone else. I'll eat all the available crow.



You are very calm about the possibility that billions in weaponry might end up on the black market while DC insiders spend the tax payer credit card on a stupid proxy war in a part of the world that is not important to our actual citizens.


I'm not an int'l weapons trade expert, but I know enough to know that it would be exceedingly difficult to discreetly trade in this kind of U.S. weaponry. We give and sell weapons all over the world. There is a reason they hardly ever make the black market or end up in enemy hands. Of course, we can be our own worst enemy at times - e.g,, Afghanistan, Iraq. But it's virtually unprecedented for a receiving country to misappropriate. Again, I'll eat crow if there is another chapter to this story.
Would you pro warhawks be cool paying an extra 20% in income taxes to fund more wars?

Just curious how much you're willing to give up for war.

Also curious how you're not pissed off after watching us fund over $8 trillion in the last 20 years for war but we can't fix our own roads, build a border wall or make living affordable?

I've posted numerous times that I totally understand the spending concern. I share that concern. I evaluate all foreign military assistance on a case-by-case basis. I think Ukraine is a good investment, and I'm willing to pay a few hundred dollars to support it at this time.

I've also posted that I think it is silly in this context to argue, "why are we spending $ on ___, when we can't even do __. " You can say that about every dollar we spend, and it's a fool's errand. That is why I evaluate everything on its own merits. If we were not supporting Ukraine, we still would not be securing the border.
Doc's point is relevant because it's the same point that Democrats use as an excuse not to secure the border. See for example their refusal to fund the border wall at the "excessive" cost of $50 billion. You can't have it both ways. If the budget was a priority then, it should be a priority now.


It was always such a goofy argument….

Congress: "We can't possibly afford to spend $50 billion on a wall to defend the USA!"

Congress 4 years later: "We are spending $200 billion on a proxy war on the other side of the world…something that does not effect our actual citizens"


Talk about an out of control and frankly illegitimate Federal government.
Doc Holliday
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sombear said:

Doc Holliday said:

sombear said:

Redbrickbear said:

sombear said:

Redbrickbear said:

sombear said:

Redbrickbear said:




Obvious JD didn't bother reading the article. Highlights:


* it's not a huge surprise we can't track every weapon inside a war zone.

* it's $ 1 billion of equipment out of $45 billion.
.



Oh good just a billion..no biggie


1 out of 45 in a freaking war zone. Not only no biggie, but impressive. Post something when we see it's reported that it ends up in the hands of someone else. I'll eat all the available crow.



You are very calm about the possibility that billions in weaponry might end up on the black market while DC insiders spend the tax payer credit card on a stupid proxy war in a part of the world that is not important to our actual citizens.


I'm not an int'l weapons trade expert, but I know enough to know that it would be exceedingly difficult to discreetly trade in this kind of U.S. weaponry. We give and sell weapons all over the world. There is a reason they hardly ever make the black market or end up in enemy hands. Of course, we can be our own worst enemy at times - e.g,, Afghanistan, Iraq. But it's virtually unprecedented for a receiving country to misappropriate. Again, I'll eat crow if there is another chapter to this story.
Would you pro warhawks be cool paying an extra 20% in income taxes to fund more wars?

Just curious how much you're willing to give up for war.

Also curious how you're not pissed off after watching us fund over $8 trillion in the last 20 years for war but we can't fix our own roads, build a border wall or make living affordable?

I've posted numerous times that I totally understand the spending concern. I share that concern. I evaluate all foreign military assistance on a case-by-case basis. I think Ukraine is a good investment, and I'm willing to pay a few hundred dollars to support it at this time.

I've also posted that I think it is silly in this context to argue, "why are we spending $ on ___, when we can't even do __. " You can say that about every dollar we spend, and it's a fool's errand. That is why I evaluate everything on its own merits. If we were not supporting Ukraine, we still would not be securing the border.
I think our track record and failure in Afghanistan is evidence that our spending in Ukraine is a bad investment.

Wars of the past had a clear winner, today they don't.

I don't trust that our government and military actually know what they're doing on a macro level. Leaving $80B worth of military equipment in Afghanistan and wasting $7 trillion on a failed war takes an extreme level of incompetence to achieve. The same people responsible for that are making decisions about Ukraine.

If we actually learned our lesson, people would be fired left and right. They're still here. They paid no price for an absolute fu ck up job.

I was told by many pro war guys on here that it wouldn't last as long as it already has. Media said Russia was weak and it's freaking 2024…
sombear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

sombear said:

Doc Holliday said:

sombear said:

Redbrickbear said:

sombear said:

Redbrickbear said:

sombear said:

Redbrickbear said:




Obvious JD didn't bother reading the article. Highlights:


* it's not a huge surprise we can't track every weapon inside a war zone.

* it's $ 1 billion of equipment out of $45 billion.
.



Oh good just a billion..no biggie


1 out of 45 in a freaking war zone. Not only no biggie, but impressive. Post something when we see it's reported that it ends up in the hands of someone else. I'll eat all the available crow.



You are very calm about the possibility that billions in weaponry might end up on the black market while DC insiders spend the tax payer credit card on a stupid proxy war in a part of the world that is not important to our actual citizens.


I'm not an int'l weapons trade expert, but I know enough to know that it would be exceedingly difficult to discreetly trade in this kind of U.S. weaponry. We give and sell weapons all over the world. There is a reason they hardly ever make the black market or end up in enemy hands. Of course, we can be our own worst enemy at times - e.g,, Afghanistan, Iraq. But it's virtually unprecedented for a receiving country to misappropriate. Again, I'll eat crow if there is another chapter to this story.
Would you pro warhawks be cool paying an extra 20% in income taxes to fund more wars?

Just curious how much you're willing to give up for war.

Also curious how you're not pissed off after watching us fund over $8 trillion in the last 20 years for war but we can't fix our own roads, build a border wall or make living affordable?

I've posted numerous times that I totally understand the spending concern. I share that concern. I evaluate all foreign military assistance on a case-by-case basis. I think Ukraine is a good investment, and I'm willing to pay a few hundred dollars to support it at this time.

I've also posted that I think it is silly in this context to argue, "why are we spending $ on ___, when we can't even do __. " You can say that about every dollar we spend, and it's a fool's errand. That is why I evaluate everything on its own merits. If we were not supporting Ukraine, we still would not be securing the border.
Doc's point is relevant because it's the same point that Democrats use as an excuse not to secure the border. See for example their refusal to fund the border wall at the "excessive" cost of $50 billion. You can't have it both ways. If the budget was a priority then, it should be a priority now.
If you think I'm defending, or ever will defend, congress, you're mistaken. I'm talking about debating the issue as citizens. The reality is that none of these issues are connected. Congress spends on whatever it wants with few if any trade-offs. That's why we have the debt and deficit we do. And, again, stopping every penny of Ukraine funding today would not result in another penny going to the border.
sombear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Doc Holliday said:

sombear said:

Doc Holliday said:

sombear said:

Redbrickbear said:

sombear said:

Redbrickbear said:

sombear said:

Redbrickbear said:




Obvious JD didn't bother reading the article. Highlights:


* it's not a huge surprise we can't track every weapon inside a war zone.

* it's $ 1 billion of equipment out of $45 billion.
.



Oh good just a billion..no biggie


1 out of 45 in a freaking war zone. Not only no biggie, but impressive. Post something when we see it's reported that it ends up in the hands of someone else. I'll eat all the available crow.



You are very calm about the possibility that billions in weaponry might end up on the black market while DC insiders spend the tax payer credit card on a stupid proxy war in a part of the world that is not important to our actual citizens.


I'm not an int'l weapons trade expert, but I know enough to know that it would be exceedingly difficult to discreetly trade in this kind of U.S. weaponry. We give and sell weapons all over the world. There is a reason they hardly ever make the black market or end up in enemy hands. Of course, we can be our own worst enemy at times - e.g,, Afghanistan, Iraq. But it's virtually unprecedented for a receiving country to misappropriate. Again, I'll eat crow if there is another chapter to this story.
Would you pro warhawks be cool paying an extra 20% in income taxes to fund more wars?

Just curious how much you're willing to give up for war.

Also curious how you're not pissed off after watching us fund over $8 trillion in the last 20 years for war but we can't fix our own roads, build a border wall or make living affordable?

I've posted numerous times that I totally understand the spending concern. I share that concern. I evaluate all foreign military assistance on a case-by-case basis. I think Ukraine is a good investment, and I'm willing to pay a few hundred dollars to support it at this time.

I've also posted that I think it is silly in this context to argue, "why are we spending $ on ___, when we can't even do __. " You can say that about every dollar we spend, and it's a fool's errand. That is why I evaluate everything on its own merits. If we were not supporting Ukraine, we still would not be securing the border.
I think our track record and failure in Afghanistan is evidence that our spending in Ukraine is a bad investment.

Wars of the past had a clear winner, today they don't.

I don't trust that our government and military actually know what they're doing on a macro level. Leaving $80B worth of military equipment in Afghanistan and wasting $7 trillion on a failed war takes an extreme level of incompetence to achieve. The same people responsible for that are making decisions about Ukraine.

If we actually learned our lesson, people would be fired left and right. They're still here. They paid no price for an absolute fu ck up job.

I was told by many pro war guys on here that it wouldn't last as long as it already has. Media said Russia was weak and it's freaking 2024…
Are you a Trumper? Trump claimed victory in Afghanistan and blames Biden for screwing it up.

As for Ukraine, I have followed it about as closely as a layman can, and I have seen very few analysts predict a quick Ukraine victory. 90% or more of the quick victory predictions I've seen have been for Russia. No doubt, far more predicted a more successful Ukraine spring offensive. But, as I've posted multiple times, my corporate sources, whom I trust more than any other source, were never so optimistic.
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sombear said:

Sam Lowry said:

sombear said:

Doc Holliday said:

sombear said:

Redbrickbear said:

sombear said:

Redbrickbear said:

sombear said:

Redbrickbear said:




Obvious JD didn't bother reading the article. Highlights:


* it's not a huge surprise we can't track every weapon inside a war zone.

* it's $ 1 billion of equipment out of $45 billion.
.



Oh good just a billion..no biggie


1 out of 45 in a freaking war zone. Not only no biggie, but impressive. Post something when we see it's reported that it ends up in the hands of someone else. I'll eat all the available crow.



You are very calm about the possibility that billions in weaponry might end up on the black market while DC insiders spend the tax payer credit card on a stupid proxy war in a part of the world that is not important to our actual citizens.


I'm not an int'l weapons trade expert, but I know enough to know that it would be exceedingly difficult to discreetly trade in this kind of U.S. weaponry. We give and sell weapons all over the world. There is a reason they hardly ever make the black market or end up in enemy hands. Of course, we can be our own worst enemy at times - e.g,, Afghanistan, Iraq. But it's virtually unprecedented for a receiving country to misappropriate. Again, I'll eat crow if there is another chapter to this story.
Would you pro warhawks be cool paying an extra 20% in income taxes to fund more wars?

Just curious how much you're willing to give up for war.

Also curious how you're not pissed off after watching us fund over $8 trillion in the last 20 years for war but we can't fix our own roads, build a border wall or make living affordable?

I've posted numerous times that I totally understand the spending concern. I share that concern. I evaluate all foreign military assistance on a case-by-case basis. I think Ukraine is a good investment, and I'm willing to pay a few hundred dollars to support it at this time.

I've also posted that I think it is silly in this context to argue, "why are we spending $ on ___, when we can't even do __. " You can say that about every dollar we spend, and it's a fool's errand. That is why I evaluate everything on its own merits. If we were not supporting Ukraine, we still would not be securing the border.
Doc's point is relevant because it's the same point that Democrats use as an excuse not to secure the border. See for example their refusal to fund the border wall at the "excessive" cost of $50 billion. You can't have it both ways. If the budget was a priority then, it should be a priority now.
Congress spends on whatever it wants with few if any trade-offs…again, stopping every penny of Ukraine funding today would not result in another penny going to the border.



Well if we can not get something the American people want (a secure border, an end to mass 3rd world immigration, the end of huge amounts of killing fentanyl coming in)

Then I don't care if the DC elite in Congress get what they what (a proxy war with Russia and billions in tax payer cash)


Screw DC and screw the ukriane war….I hope God confounds all their schemes
First Page Last Page
Page 53 of 168
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.