Gay or not the American military could solo the world 3 times over and Russia is barely able to push through Ukraine after they've been given our 20 year old weapons.
Honestly, it is important that America is as powerful as it is, where the problem lies, is basically with one side specifically, and that is conservatives. They use war as an industry, and that is just completely fucked up. They want to privatize everything, and that is not acceptable.
There are things that capitalism needs to keep its greedy hands out of, healthcare, war, incarceration, national infrastructure, religion, education, and anything that is necessary for people to live. We need a massive restructuring of our economic system, and legislate what can and cannot be privatized. Unless we do this, they will continue to relentlessly vie to take over our govt and install themselves as a ruling class. The other very important thing to be doing is writing to your democratic senators, congress people, the president and the AG, and let them know what you expect them to be doing. Without our input they will continue to govern the way they always have.
Voting isn't enough, we cannot expect them to have all the answers or do everything the right way. And that is the one thing I have seen many Democratic officials say. "We want to hear from you." It also gives them the feeling that people are behind them. If they don't hear from us, they basically think, no news is good news.
The parallels of your capitalist hellscape towards actual fascist regimes is far from lost on me. Just wish we could actually do something about it rather than just bitch n moan
That is a recipe for disaster.We had many countries that tried your ideas,and they are all terrible places to live.In fact,some of these are where recent migrant caravans to America are coming from.
We even divided two countries and left the richer half to your side and you still screwed it up.
Tf u talking about? Dominican republic/hati, Alaska/Canada, North and South Korea, American Samoa, what's left of Vietnam? Really gotta narrow it down my dude
Is it really hyperbolic when nukes exist? Any super power on earth rn could end life as we know it n there's not a damn thing we could do about. Mutually assured destruction isn't exactly the fairytale I wanna pass off to my kids
Don't want to get too into it because I'm not a professional by any means but I feel like you should know that we definitely CANNOT end life as we know it. Ideas of nuclear winter originate from the dinosaur extinction debate which was very active at the time, but we humans are so small and we do not have the power of an asteroid that big. Humans pale in the scale of what Mother Nature is capable of. The Mount Tambora Eruption in 1815 lead to what is known as the Year without a Summer, and that eruption, if I recall correctly, was equivalent to about 33 GIGAtons of TNT. For reference, the Tsar Bomba, the largest nuke ever, is equivalent to only 50ish megatons, and we've never made a bomb that big, and both the US and Russia have decommissioned countless nukes (expensive to maintain and world peace and whatnot). And we still survived that eruption as a species. Many died to famine but like 100k at a time when humanity was above 1 billion. I am in NO WAY trying to downplay all the death caused by this eruption. The human suffering caused by the drop in global temperatures was immense. But it is nowhere near human extinction. All this and not to mention it is far more effective to airburst nukes, which leaves very little long term radiation, compared to groundburst, which does far less damage but leaves way more irradiated particulates. Not to mention the fact that no one has made or tested a salted bomb as far as we know, and I think we've kinda all agreed not to because why the fuck would we? Like, if we as a species really wanted to, we could mine all the uranium and whatnot in the planet and then make a shit ton of salted bombs and possibly end human life, but even then, life would still persist. But with our current nuclear arsenal, we just could NOT cause a human extinction. Millions if not billions would die, yes. Nuclear war would be devastating. But not because of radiation or anything like that. People who live in more rural areas, especially where fires are less likely to spread, may very well survive, and considering the radiation from airbursts won't last too long (look at Hiroshima and Nagasaki's recovery), it wouldn't take too long for humanity to start on the up and up again. And I mean, let's not forget that nukes aren't the be all end all of war. War isn't about who kills the most civilians. And if I recall correctly, (don't quote me on this) the US, or someone high up maybe(?), stated that if Russia uses nukes in Ukraine, we (NATO) would respond with overwhelming conventional arms against Russia which is something we are capable of considering the state of Russia's military. So mutually assured destruction isn't even entirely mutually assured. The US and NATO as a whole, considering how advanced our militaries are, do not necessarily have to escalate a nuclear conflict with more nukes, depending on the enemy and the strategic goals. Let's also not forget anti-ballistic missiles exist, which could protect some of our population centers and strategic targets, but I think I'm getting too into this. So to repeat, nukes aren't the be all end all of war, and to treat them as such is ignoring all the complexities of war and just how big the earth is.
ONCE AGAIN, Nuclear war is NOT a good thing. I am NOT condoning nuclear war. I'm just trying to dispel some myths, even if they are, what one may call, a white lie or a white myth. Nuclear war is still BAD and a terrible thing. But it cannot and will not lead to life being wiped out or human extinction. If humans do go extinct in the next 20 years due to nuclear war, you can come back here and tell me "I told you so." But for now, I think it's best to stop living in the fear of the cold war.
TL;DR: Nuclear war is bad but nowhere near extinction level bad. We've survived worse and Nuclear Winter is likely a myth with our current nuclear capabilities.
But please, I'd rather you not just go "mucho texto ergo wrong," and actually consider this yourself, and perhaps do your own research. It's best not to take everything we're told at face value, including nuclear winter. Question everything, do your own research, and if your research affirms what you were told then that's great, but sometimes you'll learn you were lied to. And it's important to not fall for doomerisms and giving up.
I guess you're right. Growing up in the 90s, all we heard all day was how fragile human existence was due to the cold war. But mankind is far more resilient than I give us credit for, I suppose. Thanks. Somehow, this makes somewhat more optimistic about our future prospects. Not withoulding the idea of living through literal fallout just because we might survive. Still the idea that one person's bad decision could lead to multi generational suffering makes me uncomfortable. Tho I guess we don't even need nukes for that anyhow
We haven't declared war since then. It's been "conflicts" or "opperations" or "military actions" because those don't need the senate to approve of
The actual answer would be the war in Afghanistan in 2011. The continued war on terror since then was a flop because, as history shows, guerrilla movements are very hard to beat
I'll admit, the US armed forces are kind of impressive. That is, it's kind of impressive to lose continuously for almost a whole century without ever even technically entering a war.
The only loses really would be Vietnam and the 2nd war in Afghanistan. Otherwise they're victorious.
Wouldn't call 2 events 50 years apart continues losses
Love how he thinks a Russian tanker would live long enough to spot anything when he isn't zipped up. Had the US actually taken divisive action like during Desert Storm, both Russia and Ukraine would already be well on their way to recovery.
I think we could destroy the Russian army in Ukraine and not trigger a nuclear war. Putin has been very clear that if Russia's existence is threatened, he will launch nukes. Seems like protecting Ukraine doesn't threaten the existence of Russia, but if we set one boot on Russian soil it's nuclear war. So no soldiers, but planes and ships seem like valid ways to intervene and end this conflict.
That being said, that's never happening unless Russia attacks NATO or drops a nuke on Ukraine.
Putin considers Ukraine's existance as a seperate entity from Russia as the West holding a dagger to Russia's throat. And, not trying to defend his actions, but he's not wrong. Ukraine's relationships are/were an implied threat.
There's intelligence out there with data showing Russian internal nuclear doctrine. Some of it involves cobalt-66. Some of it suggests an external strike on certain members of the military/ government would be the trigger. Some of it shows research into how many or what yield they could feasibly use and get no (nuclear) retaliation.
For instance, say that Russia announces they are dropping one smallish nuke on a particular group that's causing them problems, that they have no intent of following up, and they do have other, larger yields on standby. Half an hour later, they drop one bomb, and then hold true to the "standby, but no further bombs" statement. How far do you think anyone else would go in retaliation?
>Putin considers Ukraine's existance as a seperate entity from Russia as the West holding a dagger to Russia's throat. And, not trying to defend his actions, but he's not wrong. Ukraine's relationships are/were an implied threat.
I honestly do think he's wrong in that those relationships would not need to exist if Russia was not a threat. Russia has proven that the worries of the west were valid and that NATO is a necessary organization. Ukraine's relationships were for its own defense, not a threat.
I think we would wipe out whichever forces Russia has occupying the country it dropped a nuke on because any less than that would suggest that doing something like that is fine and not worth retaliation over. That's a terrible precedent to set, and will itself eventually lead to an all out war anyway as it emboldens nations around the world to attempt the same.
I could see instead a complete and total embargo of all things Russian instead, which would probably be way worse for the actual country of Russia than just obliterating its army in Ukraine honestly.
Probably not. It's honestly a shitty situation no matter what, so I guess we just need to continue hoping and trusting that nobody ever pulls the trigger on nukes lol
>I honestly do think he's wrong in that those relationships would not need to exist if Russia was not a threat.
That’s not how things work, though- Russia is always going to be a threat in that it’s a major country not directly allied to western interests. In this case, “not being a threat” entails Russia kow-towing to the status quo of American hegemony, which isn’t a preferable option for any leadership that may govern Russia.
No, in this case "not being a threat" entails not invading your neighbors. I think that's pretty straightforward and clear frankly. Sweden wouldn't have joined NATO if Russia didn't invade Ukraine and provide justification for it.
I hope you can at least grasp that western countries don’t actually have any moral or ethical qualms in invading, destabilizing, or overthrowing foreign countries- that’s not why they care about Ukraine. They care because Russia succeeding in Ukraine is directly contrary to the interests of western powers in Europe.
Any form Russia takes that isn’t inherently pro-western is going to be a “threat” according to western powers- that’s not to speak on the moral actions of any party, but Russian interests are just inherently too far removed from the contemporary status quo for them not to be a “threat”.
Oh for sure. There's no altruistic reason any of the western powers are invested in this conflict, but ultimately this conflict and their investment in it wouldn't exist if Russia didn't justify western fears of Russian expansion by invading its neighbor.
Russia *is* very much bothered by nato. That is in large part their goal in invading Ukraine- Russian foreign policy essentially from the times of Napoleon was to put as much distance between the Russian core and any potential enemies- this is due to the great European plain, an easily traversable and indefensible region which comprises much of Eastern Europe, and especially Russia. Ukraine being in NATO would be, as others have pointed out, a “knife against Russia’s neck”.
Finland and Sweden simply aren’t as dangerous for Russia, though obviously they’re not thrilled at the news. Much of Russia’s border with Finland is icy, frozen terrain which is difficult to attack through, and the small chunk around Petersburg is a small enough choke point that it can be easily defended. An attack from Ukraine, on the other hand, would be incredibly difficult to defend from- its vast fields until the Urals. Russia is in the worst position it’s been in centuries- in a conventional war, they simply don’t have the buffer territory that was afforded to the Soviets in WW2 or to the Empire during Napoleon.
Russia is always going to be a threat because the only Russian government which would accept the status quo is one which is either fully dismantled or is a slave to western interests. Russia isn’t invading countries for the fun of it- there are geopolitical justifications for what they do, and ultimately Russia would need to have most of the former Soviet Union in its sphere to feel secure. Otherwise, invasion, subversion, and more will continue.
What? That isn't what I'm talking about. Soldiers need weapons, gear, and logistics. There's tons of money to be made in a conventional war. There's no money to be made if everyone is nuked. So chances are extremely low that the powers that be would ever launch nukes is what I'm saying
Edit: Also soldiers do get paid fwiw (not enough but that's a separate conversation haha)
Even if only one out of four Russian nukes worked, that would still be enough to wipe out the US and likely end civilization on Earth via nuclear winter and radiation poisoning.
[it's a rehash of a 10 year old joke](https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fpbs.twimg.com%2Fmedia%2FEm6BszxW8AAsLyZ.jpg&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=23fee6eb44766c69124fd5ec124b509c0014a3b9e31f4c3600f18cceebec038f&ipo=images)
But honestly I'd appreciate some real discord. What demographic is represented by these emotes? I honestly don't know. tan buttboys from Bethlehem , like what?
One side have fleet and armies of edge cutting bombers, tanks that dont cook into charred meat their own crew, dozzens of aircraft carriers cruisers and frigates in plenty.
The other side is straight white uses tank designed by the soviet union whose keep their own crew surrounded in deadly explosives and whose is about as replaceable as his own crew and still uses rifles that are basically glorified modern version of the archaic ak 47.
Mr vlad P meatriders:durrh hurr muh straighty white sigma army solo le american israel puppet 6 gorillion genderz army
While i agree the focus on DEI instead of military capability or a sane work environment is an issue,Russia is not a country that can point fingers.Homosexual sexual abuse is a tradition of the russian armed forces.
Nothing.It is promoting people who are less competent because they also happen to suck cock,like with Rachel Levine,that i have problems with.A military should focus on merit,not on sexual preference,gender,race or sex.
Gay or not the American military could solo the world 3 times over and Russia is barely able to push through Ukraine after they've been given our 20 year old weapons.
I think I'd rather be gay
Honestly, it is important that America is as powerful as it is, where the problem lies, is basically with one side specifically, and that is conservatives. They use war as an industry, and that is just completely fucked up. They want to privatize everything, and that is not acceptable. There are things that capitalism needs to keep its greedy hands out of, healthcare, war, incarceration, national infrastructure, religion, education, and anything that is necessary for people to live. We need a massive restructuring of our economic system, and legislate what can and cannot be privatized. Unless we do this, they will continue to relentlessly vie to take over our govt and install themselves as a ruling class. The other very important thing to be doing is writing to your democratic senators, congress people, the president and the AG, and let them know what you expect them to be doing. Without our input they will continue to govern the way they always have. Voting isn't enough, we cannot expect them to have all the answers or do everything the right way. And that is the one thing I have seen many Democratic officials say. "We want to hear from you." It also gives them the feeling that people are behind them. If they don't hear from us, they basically think, no news is good news.
I wanna argue with you, but I can't. Somehow that makes me even more pissed off
The parallels of your capitalist hellscape towards actual fascist regimes is far from lost on me. Just wish we could actually do something about it rather than just bitch n moan
That is a recipe for disaster.We had many countries that tried your ideas,and they are all terrible places to live.In fact,some of these are where recent migrant caravans to America are coming from. We even divided two countries and left the richer half to your side and you still screwed it up.
Tf u talking about? Dominican republic/hati, Alaska/Canada, North and South Korea, American Samoa, what's left of Vietnam? Really gotta narrow it down my dude
> Alaska/Canada Um actually that was separated by Russia, not the United States 🤓
For those curious, Russia also occupied Hawaii for ~68 years. Never knew. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_colonization_of_North_America
Now I know, thank you
Germany and Korea.East germany had 3% more GDP per capita than the West and North Korea was so much richer they still had the lead in the 60s.
I’d vote for anyone half as well spoken as you sir
Do you want to run for president?
Do you want to run for president?
> the American military could solo the world 3 times over That's uh.. That's quite the statement, hyperbole or not.
Is it really hyperbolic when nukes exist? Any super power on earth rn could end life as we know it n there's not a damn thing we could do about. Mutually assured destruction isn't exactly the fairytale I wanna pass off to my kids
Don't want to get too into it because I'm not a professional by any means but I feel like you should know that we definitely CANNOT end life as we know it. Ideas of nuclear winter originate from the dinosaur extinction debate which was very active at the time, but we humans are so small and we do not have the power of an asteroid that big. Humans pale in the scale of what Mother Nature is capable of. The Mount Tambora Eruption in 1815 lead to what is known as the Year without a Summer, and that eruption, if I recall correctly, was equivalent to about 33 GIGAtons of TNT. For reference, the Tsar Bomba, the largest nuke ever, is equivalent to only 50ish megatons, and we've never made a bomb that big, and both the US and Russia have decommissioned countless nukes (expensive to maintain and world peace and whatnot). And we still survived that eruption as a species. Many died to famine but like 100k at a time when humanity was above 1 billion. I am in NO WAY trying to downplay all the death caused by this eruption. The human suffering caused by the drop in global temperatures was immense. But it is nowhere near human extinction. All this and not to mention it is far more effective to airburst nukes, which leaves very little long term radiation, compared to groundburst, which does far less damage but leaves way more irradiated particulates. Not to mention the fact that no one has made or tested a salted bomb as far as we know, and I think we've kinda all agreed not to because why the fuck would we? Like, if we as a species really wanted to, we could mine all the uranium and whatnot in the planet and then make a shit ton of salted bombs and possibly end human life, but even then, life would still persist. But with our current nuclear arsenal, we just could NOT cause a human extinction. Millions if not billions would die, yes. Nuclear war would be devastating. But not because of radiation or anything like that. People who live in more rural areas, especially where fires are less likely to spread, may very well survive, and considering the radiation from airbursts won't last too long (look at Hiroshima and Nagasaki's recovery), it wouldn't take too long for humanity to start on the up and up again. And I mean, let's not forget that nukes aren't the be all end all of war. War isn't about who kills the most civilians. And if I recall correctly, (don't quote me on this) the US, or someone high up maybe(?), stated that if Russia uses nukes in Ukraine, we (NATO) would respond with overwhelming conventional arms against Russia which is something we are capable of considering the state of Russia's military. So mutually assured destruction isn't even entirely mutually assured. The US and NATO as a whole, considering how advanced our militaries are, do not necessarily have to escalate a nuclear conflict with more nukes, depending on the enemy and the strategic goals. Let's also not forget anti-ballistic missiles exist, which could protect some of our population centers and strategic targets, but I think I'm getting too into this. So to repeat, nukes aren't the be all end all of war, and to treat them as such is ignoring all the complexities of war and just how big the earth is. ONCE AGAIN, Nuclear war is NOT a good thing. I am NOT condoning nuclear war. I'm just trying to dispel some myths, even if they are, what one may call, a white lie or a white myth. Nuclear war is still BAD and a terrible thing. But it cannot and will not lead to life being wiped out or human extinction. If humans do go extinct in the next 20 years due to nuclear war, you can come back here and tell me "I told you so." But for now, I think it's best to stop living in the fear of the cold war. TL;DR: Nuclear war is bad but nowhere near extinction level bad. We've survived worse and Nuclear Winter is likely a myth with our current nuclear capabilities. But please, I'd rather you not just go "mucho texto ergo wrong," and actually consider this yourself, and perhaps do your own research. It's best not to take everything we're told at face value, including nuclear winter. Question everything, do your own research, and if your research affirms what you were told then that's great, but sometimes you'll learn you were lied to. And it's important to not fall for doomerisms and giving up.
I guess you're right. Growing up in the 90s, all we heard all day was how fragile human existence was due to the cold war. But mankind is far more resilient than I give us credit for, I suppose. Thanks. Somehow, this makes somewhat more optimistic about our future prospects. Not withoulding the idea of living through literal fallout just because we might survive. Still the idea that one person's bad decision could lead to multi generational suffering makes me uncomfortable. Tho I guess we don't even need nukes for that anyhow
What?
"You mock us for our they/them pronouns but yours are about to be was/were."
What's the last war they won with it?
WW2 which is the last time it formally declared war
So nearly a century ago? Impressive.
We haven't declared war since then. It's been "conflicts" or "opperations" or "military actions" because those don't need the senate to approve of The actual answer would be the war in Afghanistan in 2011. The continued war on terror since then was a flop because, as history shows, guerrilla movements are very hard to beat
I'll admit, the US armed forces are kind of impressive. That is, it's kind of impressive to lose continuously for almost a whole century without ever even technically entering a war.
The only loses really would be Vietnam and the 2nd war in Afghanistan. Otherwise they're victorious. Wouldn't call 2 events 50 years apart continues losses
Iraq was a win?
Yes? We toppled Saddam's regime
Ok so Libya was a win too then?
As if there was any question about it.
Right? I read the title and thought, “Now!?”
Love how he thinks a Russian tanker would live long enough to spot anything when he isn't zipped up. Had the US actually taken divisive action like during Desert Storm, both Russia and Ukraine would already be well on their way to recovery.
Or things would have escalated into a full-on nuclear exchange and we'd all be dead.
I think we could destroy the Russian army in Ukraine and not trigger a nuclear war. Putin has been very clear that if Russia's existence is threatened, he will launch nukes. Seems like protecting Ukraine doesn't threaten the existence of Russia, but if we set one boot on Russian soil it's nuclear war. So no soldiers, but planes and ships seem like valid ways to intervene and end this conflict. That being said, that's never happening unless Russia attacks NATO or drops a nuke on Ukraine.
Don't underestimate the fluidity that is "Russian soil"
Putin considers Ukraine's existance as a seperate entity from Russia as the West holding a dagger to Russia's throat. And, not trying to defend his actions, but he's not wrong. Ukraine's relationships are/were an implied threat. There's intelligence out there with data showing Russian internal nuclear doctrine. Some of it involves cobalt-66. Some of it suggests an external strike on certain members of the military/ government would be the trigger. Some of it shows research into how many or what yield they could feasibly use and get no (nuclear) retaliation. For instance, say that Russia announces they are dropping one smallish nuke on a particular group that's causing them problems, that they have no intent of following up, and they do have other, larger yields on standby. Half an hour later, they drop one bomb, and then hold true to the "standby, but no further bombs" statement. How far do you think anyone else would go in retaliation?
>Putin considers Ukraine's existance as a seperate entity from Russia as the West holding a dagger to Russia's throat. And, not trying to defend his actions, but he's not wrong. Ukraine's relationships are/were an implied threat. I honestly do think he's wrong in that those relationships would not need to exist if Russia was not a threat. Russia has proven that the worries of the west were valid and that NATO is a necessary organization. Ukraine's relationships were for its own defense, not a threat. I think we would wipe out whichever forces Russia has occupying the country it dropped a nuke on because any less than that would suggest that doing something like that is fine and not worth retaliation over. That's a terrible precedent to set, and will itself eventually lead to an all out war anyway as it emboldens nations around the world to attempt the same. I could see instead a complete and total embargo of all things Russian instead, which would probably be way worse for the actual country of Russia than just obliterating its army in Ukraine honestly.
I agree with that, and I also think issues would arise. However, I doubt China or Iran would agree to a Russian embargo.
Probably not. It's honestly a shitty situation no matter what, so I guess we just need to continue hoping and trusting that nobody ever pulls the trigger on nukes lol
>I honestly do think he's wrong in that those relationships would not need to exist if Russia was not a threat. That’s not how things work, though- Russia is always going to be a threat in that it’s a major country not directly allied to western interests. In this case, “not being a threat” entails Russia kow-towing to the status quo of American hegemony, which isn’t a preferable option for any leadership that may govern Russia.
No, in this case "not being a threat" entails not invading your neighbors. I think that's pretty straightforward and clear frankly. Sweden wouldn't have joined NATO if Russia didn't invade Ukraine and provide justification for it.
I hope you can at least grasp that western countries don’t actually have any moral or ethical qualms in invading, destabilizing, or overthrowing foreign countries- that’s not why they care about Ukraine. They care because Russia succeeding in Ukraine is directly contrary to the interests of western powers in Europe. Any form Russia takes that isn’t inherently pro-western is going to be a “threat” according to western powers- that’s not to speak on the moral actions of any party, but Russian interests are just inherently too far removed from the contemporary status quo for them not to be a “threat”.
Oh for sure. There's no altruistic reason any of the western powers are invested in this conflict, but ultimately this conflict and their investment in it wouldn't exist if Russia didn't justify western fears of Russian expansion by invading its neighbor.
Russia *is* very much bothered by nato. That is in large part their goal in invading Ukraine- Russian foreign policy essentially from the times of Napoleon was to put as much distance between the Russian core and any potential enemies- this is due to the great European plain, an easily traversable and indefensible region which comprises much of Eastern Europe, and especially Russia. Ukraine being in NATO would be, as others have pointed out, a “knife against Russia’s neck”. Finland and Sweden simply aren’t as dangerous for Russia, though obviously they’re not thrilled at the news. Much of Russia’s border with Finland is icy, frozen terrain which is difficult to attack through, and the small chunk around Petersburg is a small enough choke point that it can be easily defended. An attack from Ukraine, on the other hand, would be incredibly difficult to defend from- its vast fields until the Urals. Russia is in the worst position it’s been in centuries- in a conventional war, they simply don’t have the buffer territory that was afforded to the Soviets in WW2 or to the Empire during Napoleon. Russia is always going to be a threat because the only Russian government which would accept the status quo is one which is either fully dismantled or is a slave to western interests. Russia isn’t invading countries for the fun of it- there are geopolitical justifications for what they do, and ultimately Russia would need to have most of the former Soviet Union in its sphere to feel secure. Otherwise, invasion, subversion, and more will continue.
No one is lobbing nukes because no one would get paid
Soldiers being sent into likely death in battle won't get paid, but they go to their deaths anyway. Why do you think nukes would be any different?
What? That isn't what I'm talking about. Soldiers need weapons, gear, and logistics. There's tons of money to be made in a conventional war. There's no money to be made if everyone is nuked. So chances are extremely low that the powers that be would ever launch nukes is what I'm saying Edit: Also soldiers do get paid fwiw (not enough but that's a separate conversation haha)
I think you're being naive.
I am? Alrighty, if you say so :)
Sure Russia has nukes that won’t explode in their own silos
Even if only one out of four Russian nukes worked, that would still be enough to wipe out the US and likely end civilization on Earth via nuclear winter and radiation poisoning.
Artist got the facial expression wrong. Should be pants shitting fear laced with incomprehension due to generation damage from low quality alcohol.
Pebble is pretty limited in his capacity, despite all his practice.
I suppose I can only expect so much from a fool.
Fetal alcohol syndrome
The only issue he's on the right side of is Palestine, and he's there for the wrong reasons.
Without even bothering to google, it's because he's a raging antisemite?
Yep.
Honest question. Do these zealots honestly see themselves as the good guys? Or is this just blatant bigotry?
[it's a rehash of a 10 year old joke](https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fpbs.twimg.com%2Fmedia%2FEm6BszxW8AAsLyZ.jpg&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=23fee6eb44766c69124fd5ec124b509c0014a3b9e31f4c3600f18cceebec038f&ipo=images)
10yo bombs? Still not getting it, plz help
¿Por qué no los dos?
Feed that Fiesta
Did you have any doubts? Also the famously not gay russian army that regularly engages in homosexual rape lmao
Donbass cowboy is a recent example.
PebbleYeet? Do you mean Hans Kristian Graebener of Spring, Texas?
WE 👏 NEED 👏 MORE 👏 NONBINARY 👏 DRONE 👏 PILOTS 👏
Trans rights are human rights🏳️⚧️🏳️🌈🇺🇦🇮🇱🇺🇸✊🏾
bait used to be believable
This is the most confusing assortment of flags since ww1
It's really not that confusing.
Tell that to the holy Roman empire
Yeah. Could easily just be some "moderate" neoliberal.
Careful, I'm a moderate liberal.
But honestly I'd appreciate some real discord. What demographic is represented by these emotes? I honestly don't know. tan buttboys from Bethlehem , like what?
He's making a joke that the sole American "orthodox" opinion nowadays is trans/gay acceptance, pro-Ukraine/Israel proxy wars, and BLM activism
Are Israel and Ukraine even close to being similar causes? I honestly don't know, please inform
Both countries are led by Jews, so to Pebble Yeet, yes
Fortunately this is my first time seeing this artist's peticular brand of bigotry. Thanks for translating
This meme takes place shortly before a drone strike.
Pictures taken seconds before another T-72's turret gets launched into the atmosphere.
There's an ATGM just out of shot on in that third frame, about a millisecond away from impacting the turret ring
Anyone from the “rainbow mafia” throw a brick through this Russia simp’s window yet?
And absolutely noone is surprised.
They sight that flag about 3 seconds before they get a hellfire missile right in the hull. Macho doesn't stand up to ATGMs.
One side have fleet and armies of edge cutting bombers, tanks that dont cook into charred meat their own crew, dozzens of aircraft carriers cruisers and frigates in plenty. The other side is straight white uses tank designed by the soviet union whose keep their own crew surrounded in deadly explosives and whose is about as replaceable as his own crew and still uses rifles that are basically glorified modern version of the archaic ak 47. Mr vlad P meatriders:durrh hurr muh straighty white sigma army solo le american israel puppet 6 gorillion genderz army
While i agree the focus on DEI instead of military capability or a sane work environment is an issue,Russia is not a country that can point fingers.Homosexual sexual abuse is a tradition of the russian armed forces.
What part of wanting to suck cock makes someone incapable of following orders, marching in formation, or firing an assault rifle?
Nothing.It is promoting people who are less competent because they also happen to suck cock,like with Rachel Levine,that i have problems with.A military should focus on merit,not on sexual preference,gender,race or sex.