War

We have entered the twilight zone where the opinion of the most absurd lawmakers is actually the correct one even though they phrased it in the stupidest way possible.

Hahhahahaa
Im waiting for Ted cruz who stands up for "rowdy parents and nazis" and their freedoms.


Theres a more relevany joke ref spmeqhere
I jist grabbed the first one.

Wise, what proportion of Ukraine is highlighted in red?  Do you truly think it is half?  I know geography isn't your strong suite, but common.

Russia got up to 27% about 2 years ago, Ukraine got this down to 15% and it's now up to 18%.

Let me tell you where you made the mistake. When calculating the areas under Russia's control, you take the red areas. But I also include the areas in light red. This is because Russia has territorial control in this region, even if it has not occupied the cities. In order to avoid too many civilian deaths, Russia does not immediately capture the cities, but they have full territorial control in these regions. If you look at the conflict area, you can see that there is no frontline war in these areas, the war is on the banks of the Dnieper River. This remains in the west of your red zone.

Let me tell you where you made the mistake.

Engaging with you?

When calculating the areas under Russia's control, you take the red areas. But I also include the areas in light red.

Yes, the 18% calculation includes the light red, it would be a lot less without.  Just look at the damn map, the red areas are clearly not half of Ukraine.

Quote from: wise on May 02, 2024, 10:48:07 PM

Let me tell you where you made the mistake.

Engaging with you?

Quote

When calculating the areas under Russia's control, you take the red areas. But I also include the areas in light red.

Yes, the 18% calculation includes the light red, it would be a lot less without.  Just look at the damn map, the red areas are clearly not half of Ukraine.

I calculated the area by drawing the map and showed this calculation. Yes, not half, but not 18% either. 35% by calculation. I did this by creating an account. You don't do anything to prove your thought other than insisting it's 18%.

Pushing too hard doesn't magically make you right.

I wonder how many Republicans still carry a pocket sized copy of the constitution these days.

None. They're trading it in for the far superior orange catholic trump Bible.

I wonder how many Republicans still carry a pocket sized copy of the constitution these days.

Haha

UK gives Ukraine green light to use British weapons inside Russia.

This gives Russia the right to allow Russian weapons to be used against Britain by Britain's enemies.

For example, Russia could donate some of its Russian nuclear submarines to the Houthis, and these ships could easily send London to the other side of the doomsday calendar. I condemn David Cameron for risking Jura's life and the whole people living in entire NATO.

UK gives Ukraine green light to use British weapons inside Russia.

This gives Russia the right to allow Russian weapons to be used against Britain by Britain's enemies.

For example, Russia could donate some of its Russian nuclear submarines to the Houthis, and these ships could easily send London to the other side of the doomsday calendar. I condemn David Cameron for risking Jura's life and the whole people living in entire NATO.

1. Russia could have done that already.  Nothing is actually stopping them.
2. The Thames isn't that deep.  You aren't getting a nuclear sub in there to blow up London.
3. Doesn't Jura live in Austrailia?

Not sure Houthis have many submarine crews.

And yes, if Russia wants nuclear armageddon they could just start it themselves.

Wise for defense minister of the Russian Federation!

Quote from: wise on May 06, 2024, 03:44:19 AM

UK gives Ukraine green light to use British weapons inside Russia.

This gives Russia the right to allow Russian weapons to be used against Britain by Britain's enemies.

For example, Russia could donate some of its Russian nuclear submarines to the Houthis, and these ships could easily send London to the other side of the doomsday calendar. I condemn David Cameron for risking Jura's life and the whole people living in entire NATO.

1. Russia could have done that already.  Nothing is actually stopping them.
2. The Thames isn't that deep.  You aren't getting a nuclear sub in there to blow up London.
3. Doesn't Jura live in Austrailia?

Thank you Wise for your concern, if the Houthis come King Arthur will rise with his knights from Glastonbury and defeat them.

Dave this just shows your mind is slipping, the fuck I am an Aussie!
Do I sound like Jacky? A brain baked twisted incell, I may not be a flag waving monarchist harping back to the days of Gloriana, building palisades on the white cliffs of dover, but the blood that courses (albeit a bit sluggishly these days) is blue, infused with tea, alcohol and a sense of mild superiority despite the sun having set long since on an empire built on blood, steam and afternoon tiffin.

Liz Truss awaiting the incoming Houthi nuclear missiles.   Ready to swat them away with her sword of justice!  We don't need no iron dome.

Russian Foreign Minister called the British Ambassador in Moscow and said that if British weapons were used against Russia, Russia would attack British targets all over the world.

What a stupid strategy. England is not openly attacking Russia. Russia could have done this with a closed method, like England did.

The Houthis appear as heroes in the side of the world's Muslims and Russia could have helped them against England in their war "against the infidels" and settled this problem quietly and Wisely. Alternatively they have Wagner. They could establish a terrorist organization like ISIS, as the Obama did, and thus they could easily respond to any country they wanted. And no one could blame them "directly". But they chose to scream like an enraged bear.

I don't understand why Putin doesn't call me as a strategic advisor. Guess he is below average in terms of intelligence.

Russian Foreign Minister called the British Ambassador in Moscow and said that if British weapons were used against Russia, Russia would attack British targets all over the world.

What a stupid strategy. England is not openly attacking Russia. Russia could have done this with a closed method, like England did.

The Houthis appear as heroes in the side of the world's Muslims and Russia could have helped them against England in their war "against the infidels" and settled this problem quietly and Wisely. Alternatively they have Wagner. They could establish a terrorist organization like ISIS, as the Obama did, and thus they could easily respond to any country they wanted. And no one could blame them "directly". But they chose to scream like an enraged bear.

I don't understand why Putin doesn't call me as a strategic advisor. Guess he is below average in terms of intelligence.

Wagner...  That's brilliant!  It worked great for Aragorn!

Quote from: Lorddave on May 06, 2024, 04:07:19 AM

Quote from: wise on May 06, 2024, 03:44:19 AM

UK gives Ukraine green light to use British weapons inside Russia.

This gives Russia the right to allow Russian weapons to be used against Britain by Britain's enemies.

For example, Russia could donate some of its Russian nuclear submarines to the Houthis, and these ships could easily send London to the other side of the doomsday calendar. I condemn David Cameron for risking Jura's life and the whole people living in entire NATO.

1. Russia could have done that already.  Nothing is actually stopping them.
2. The Thames isn't that deep.  You aren't getting a nuclear sub in there to blow up London.
3. Doesn't Jura live in Austrailia?

Thank you Wise for your concern, if the Houthis come King Arthur will rise with his knights from Glastonbury and defeat them.

Dave this just shows your mind is slipping, the fuck I am an Aussie!
Do I sound like Jacky? A brain baked twisted incell, I may not be a flag waving monarchist harping back to the days of Gloriana, building palisades on the white cliffs of dover, but the blood that courses (albeit a bit sluggishly these days) is blue, infused with tea, alcohol and a sense of mild superiority despite the sun having set long since on an empire built on blood, steam and afternoon tiffin.

My appologies.  I thought you were from Austrailia.

Dave this just shows your mind is slipping, the fuck I am an Aussie!
Do I sound like Jacky?

No, you sound far too stupid to sound like me.
But don't worry, Aussies come in all varieties. Some are smart. Some are complete imbeciles.

I did not involve in this Aussie debate. Because when I was doing a clone check on all members, I looked at who was online in which time period. Of course I've forgotten most of it now, but the Greek is really in Greece, the Swede is really in Sweden, I'm really in Turkey, Jura may not be in London but I could swear he's in England. And they're half an hour away from Junker. Junker is in a bit east of Jura. Crouton sits a little west of them and the other admins are west of crouton. They are real Americans, I'm not sure about crouton, he is maybe in Paris or Madrit. Not serious. The most possibility is that the crouton gets up too early in the morning. This is the most likely situation, because otherwise, according to the time period, he would have to sit on an island in the middle of the Ocean. Oh yeah, Jackie is in Australia, if Australia was really exist. If I work a little more I can give you coordinates. Anyway.

A Parisian!  How dare you!

UK gives Ukraine green light to use British weapons inside Russia.

This gives Russia the right to allow Russian weapons to be used against Britain by Britain's enemies.

For example, Russia could donate some of its Russian nuclear submarines to the Houthis, and these ships could easily send London to the other side of the doomsday calendar. I condemn David Cameron for risking Jura's life and the whole people living in entire NATO.

By that logic, we could vapourise Tehran for supplying weapons used to murder Ukrainians.  Of course no one would suggest anything like that, because there’s only one country that waves their nuclear dick around whilst crying that they are the victim.  The country that started this war, and could finish it today if they just told their troops to come home and rescinded their claims on Ukraine.

Russia has no right to the territories it claims to have annexed.  Ukraine does have the right to fight back, and other countries have the right to aid them.

Cameron didn’t need to actually say this of course.  It’s the usual clumsy shit from a government trying to sound tough for the home crowd after getting their arse handed to them in local elections.

Nothing’s really changed though.

Oh, finally the Americans discovered that the Persians founded Paris.

Am I the only one who noticed that Madrid doesn't cause that many problems unlike Paris?

I don't know enough about Spain to dislike them.  As far as I can tell they ceased to exist around the year 1850.  It's likely a vacant chunk of land that the rest of Europe pretends is still occupied by humans.

In this case, to dislike someone or something, you have to know them. In other words, it is enough to be known by you to be disliked by you. In this case, it's a blessing to have never met you.

It is complete nonsense that after the United Nations general assembly approves a country's membership, the decision goes to the security council. In general, it is correct and logical for the majority to approve joining the community.

Members of the United Nations security council supervise all decisions like a big brother above other members. It's like preventing it from turning into a disaster if the other members make a decision for the world's evil. The decision made by the majority must be valid, whether right or wrong.
In our example, even if 80 percent of the members accept, only one member will veto the decision because he is a member of the Security Council and Palestine will not succeed in becoming a member in its rightful cause.

This situation brings into question the role and reliability of the United Nations in general.

It is complete nonsense that after the United Nations general assembly approves a country's membership, the decision goes to the security council. In general, it is correct and logical for the majority to approve joining the community.

Members of the United Nations security council supervise all decisions like a big brother above other members. It's like preventing it from turning into a disaster if the other members make a decision for the world's evil. The decision made by the majority must be valid, whether right or wrong.
In our example, even if 80 percent of the members accept, only one member will veto the decision because he is a member of the Security Council and Palestine will not succeed in becoming a member in its rightful cause.

This situation brings into question the role and reliability of the United Nations in general.

I do not disagree.

Quote from: wise on May 11, 2024, 11:00:21 AM

It is complete nonsense that after the United Nations general assembly approves a country's membership, the decision goes to the security council. In general, it is correct and logical for the majority to approve joining the community.

Members of the United Nations security council supervise all decisions like a big brother above other members. It's like preventing it from turning into a disaster if the other members make a decision for the world's evil. The decision made by the majority must be valid, whether right or wrong.
In our example, even if 80 percent of the members accept, only one member will veto the decision because he is a member of the Security Council and Palestine will not succeed in becoming a member in its rightful cause.

This situation brings into question the role and reliability of the United Nations in general.

I do not disagree.

Wut?

Here, only I can use two negative suffixes or words in the same sentence.

Quote from: Lorddave on May 11, 2024, 11:15:55 AM

Quote from: wise on May 11, 2024, 11:00:21 AM

It is complete nonsense that after the United Nations general assembly approves a country's membership, the decision goes to the security council. In general, it is correct and logical for the majority to approve joining the community.

Members of the United Nations security council supervise all decisions like a big brother above other members. It's like preventing it from turning into a disaster if the other members make a decision for the world's evil. The decision made by the majority must be valid, whether right or wrong.
In our example, even if 80 percent of the members accept, only one member will veto the decision because he is a member of the Security Council and Palestine will not succeed in becoming a member in its rightful cause.

This situation brings into question the role and reliability of the United Nations in general.

I do not disagree.

Wut?

Here, only I can use two negative suffixes or words in the same sentence.

It means that I find no reason to disagree with you but I have not decided if I fully agree.

Quote from: wise on May 13, 2024, 01:03:12 AM

Quote from: Lorddave on May 11, 2024, 11:15:55 AM

Quote from: wise on May 11, 2024, 11:00:21 AM

It is complete nonsense that after the United Nations general assembly approves a country's membership, the decision goes to the security council. In general, it is correct and logical for the majority to approve joining the community.

Members of the United Nations security council supervise all decisions like a big brother above other members. It's like preventing it from turning into a disaster if the other members make a decision for the world's evil. The decision made by the majority must be valid, whether right or wrong.
In our example, even if 80 percent of the members accept, only one member will veto the decision because he is a member of the Security Council and Palestine will not succeed in becoming a member in its rightful cause.

This situation brings into question the role and reliability of the United Nations in general.

I do not disagree.

Wut?

Here, only I can use two negative suffixes or words in the same sentence.

It means that I find no reason to disagree with you but I have not decided if I fully agree.

I know what it means. But this meaning is used in Turkish. We use such an expression when we don't have a reason to disagree with something, when we actually need to participate, when we don't want to do it, or when we want to postpone it for now. But this is valid for Turkish.

I'm sure you're aware that this is complete nonsense for English. So much so that even I don't use it anymore from for a while.

Anyway. As the weather improved, the Russian advance began as expected. Today, 9 more villages have been liberalized by Russia from the Nazis. Nazi troops in Kharkov are desperately trying to resist.

Anyway. As the weather improved, the Russian advance began as expected. Today, 9 more villages have been liberalized by Russia from the Nazis. Nazi troops in Kharkov are desperately trying to resist.

Russia is throwing everything they have at Ukraine before US supplies start to arrive.

their losses are considerably higher than normal which signals reckless attacks.