Jump to content

Democracy’s Fiery Ordeal: The War in Ukraine 🇺🇦


Tiberius

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, Albwan said:

You've chosen to ignore content by Tiberius. Options 

You've chosen to ignore content by Tiberius. Options 

You've chosen to ignore content by Tiberius. Options 

You've chosen to ignore content by BillStime. Options 

You've chosen to ignore content by Tiberius. Options 

 

 

^^^^^^^

hatin 'merica, lovin' ukraine

 

you two and some idiot media people still trying to make some weird connection

between Trump and Putin...is that really part of the strategy for midterms?

 

Feels like this feature is failing you somehow.

  • Awesome! (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Soldiers in Mariupol 'continue to hold the defence' - Ukrainian official

As we've been reporting, there is no indication from Ukraine that it will be surrendering to Russia in the besieged city of Mariupol.

An adviser to the mayor of Mariupol, Petro Andriushchenko, said on Telegram that despite Russia's "'surrender corridor' for the remaining troops" in the city, "our defenders continue to hold the defence".

Andriushchenko added that the hostilities from Russia are not limited to the Azovstal steel plant, where Ukrainian soldiers are reported to be staying.

"During the fighting, the occupiers shelled private residential houses with heavy artillery again", he said.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-europe-61124291

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Warcodered said:

Feels like this feature is failing you somehow.

You've chosen to ignore content by Warcodered. 

 

Lets find out, slick.

We can play that cancel culture game too.

 

Edited by Albwan
  • Haha (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, PetermansRedemption said:

Especially since, from the accounts I heard, the ship didn’t even sink immediately. That would mean 442 were lost from the immediate impact of one Ukrainian missile. Like you said, seems impossible. I guess if they were all sleeping in berthing and the missile happened to hit right there? Then maybe? But not very likely. Like every single news report from this war, it’s all sensational propaganda. Everything is exaggerated one way or the other. 

It was two missiles, from what reports said. And that seems likely, as the warheads were about 350 pounds, makes since it took two to sink it, unless one missile set off a change reaction, which is entirely possible. A smaller ship, the USS Stark survived one hit from similar sized missile in 1987--actually two hit it but only one warhead exploded. 

download-29.jpg.e1efa10e9eb92c3dfce6f75ee6863960.jpgUSS_Cole_DDG-67_Departs_Al_Qaeda.thumb.jpg.fdfa83b934a99d769eaf7ba800e82071.jpg

 

 

 

 

That it may not have sunk right away doesn't mean there wouldn't of been high casualties. Some ships like the USS Hornet at the Battle of Santa Cruz was completely destroyed but it would not sink. The Bismarck might of been the same way. The Germans claimed they sank it after it's fighting ability had been destroyed. The Russians say the Moskva didn't sink right away, which means it might not have, or maybe it just blew up. Russia lies constantly. 

 

The fact that it was a Turkish ship that rescued the men in the water could be significant. If it did not sink right away then why did not Russian ships coming to the aid of this stricken ship rescue them? Maybe it did go down quickly. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tiberius said:

It was two missiles, from what reports said. And that seems likely, as the warheads were about 350 pounds, makes since it took two to sink it, unless one missile set off a change reaction, which is entirely possible. A smaller ship, the USS Stark survived one hit from similar sized missile in 1987--actually two hit it but only one warhead exploded.

 

The issue with the exocet that hit Stark and the warhead didn't detonate was that unburned rocket fuel ignited and formed a huge fire.

The other exocet's warhead exploded.

 

It's not "change reaction," it's chain reaction, which are explosions caused by other explosions/fires.

 

"Change reaction" is a medical term describing aberrant behavior by individuals that is exhibited after gender reassignment procedures.

 

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Albwan said:

You've chosen to ignore content by Warcodered. 

 

Lets find out, slick.

We can play that cancel culture game too.

 

 

Your forgot to fill out your ID-Ten-T form which blocks the people on your ignore list from being able to comment on your posts. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Motorin' said:

 

Your forgot to fill out your ID-Ten-T form which blocks the people on your ignore list from being able to comment on your posts. 

 

 

I want one of those !

 

 

😆

 

 

 

  • Haha (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, sherpa said:

 

The issue with the exocet that hit Stark and the warhead didn't detonate was that unburned rocket fuel ignited and formed a huge fire.

The other exocet's warhead exploded.

 

It's not "change reaction," it's chain reaction, which are explosions caused by other explosions/fires.

 

"Change reaction" is a medical term describing aberrant behavior by individuals that is exhibited after gender reassignment procedures.

 

Good job spotting a typo, lol. "Chain reaction" is not exactly a very technical term, so you should have easily known that was a typo. 

 

Correct on the exocet, but that doesn't contradict anything I said. 

 

I do wonder how long it will be until we get solid info on how the Moskva sank. 

 

 

John Bolton was on CNN earlier and he said that TRump's delaying of arms shipments and all the other crap hurt Ukraine and set back the defence of that nation 

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Haha (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bolton is also the moron that said that Putin didn't have the time to amass troops to invade Ukraine while Trump was in office.  Never mind that Zelenskyy was elected about 2-1/2 years into Trump's Presidency, leaving 5 years, including almost 4 full years under Barry after Crimea was annexed, to arm Ukraine.  And the aid was delayed for, what, less than 2 months?  Then there's the pesky detail of Putin not having the balls to do it while Trump was in office.  Other than that, yeah, it's all Trump's fault Johnny! :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Doc said:

Bolton is also the moron that said that Putin didn't have the time to amass troops to invade Ukraine while Trump was in office.  Never mind that Zelenskyy was elected about 2-1/2 years into Trump's Presidency, leaving 5 years, including almost 4 full years under Barry after Crimea was annexed, to arm Ukraine.  And the aid was delayed for, what, less than 2 months?  Then there's the pesky detail of Putin not having the balls to do it while Trump was in office.  Other than that, yeah, it's all Trump's fault Johnny! :lol:


Why would Putin invade Ukraine while Trump was POTUS?

 


Why would Putin F up Trumps chances of getting re-elected?

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...