B-Man Posted September 9, 2023 Posted September 9, 2023 Reminder Thread Title is false. I get that they're trying to portray Musk as pro-Russia, but he said from the start that Starlink isn't meant for the military to target drones. 1
Doc Posted September 9, 2023 Posted September 9, 2023 The Logan Act. LOL! What clowns. Anyway, Musk said he ignored Ukraine's request to extend Starlink into Crimea. He didn't change/turn off anything. 1 1
John from Riverside Posted September 10, 2023 Posted September 10, 2023 9 hours ago, B-Man said: That’s not going to start a nuclear war. Relax.
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted September 10, 2023 Posted September 10, 2023 23 minutes ago, John from Riverside said: That’s not going to start a nuclear war. Relax. Jesus, John, watch a Schwarzenegger movie once in a while. This is EXACTLY how it happens. Btw, I’m not sure how I feel about all this, but feel like I understand why Musk took the position he did. On the other hand, why is Zelensky not trashing the US Response as being insufficient to assist his country? If it’s truly about turning the tide of war and saving his country, why not take his case for the US and other allies to get involved here? 1 1
John from Riverside Posted September 10, 2023 Posted September 10, 2023 (edited) 1 hour ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: Jesus, John, watch a Schwarzenegger movie once in a while. This is EXACTLY how it happens. Btw, I’m not sure how I feel about all this, but feel like I understand why Musk took the position he did. On the other hand, why is Zelensky not trashing the US Response as being insufficient to assist his country? If it’s truly about turning the tide of war and saving his country, why not take his case for the US and other allies to get involved here? It’s a unlikely is getting too much help from the US to start dishing on them now I think my whole problem with that is, if musk is against it, tell the military that he is against it. Don’t wait for an action to happen and then destroy very expensive equipment so that they don’t hit the Russians who I am not going to say he is in the lead with, but he certainly help them that day. by the way, the US getting directly involved in the conflict is one of the things that could start a nuclear war right now we are just providing them assets direct involvement would change things Edited September 10, 2023 by John from Riverside
Doc Posted September 10, 2023 Posted September 10, 2023 50 minutes ago, John from Riverside said: It’s a unlikely is getting too much help from the US to start dishing on them now I think my whole problem with that is, if musk is against it, tell the military that he is against it. Don’t wait for an action to happen and then destroy very expensive equipment so that they don’t hit the Russians who I am not going to say he is in the lead with, but he certainly help them that day. by the way, the US getting directly involved in the conflict is one of the things that could start a nuclear war right now we are just providing them assets direct involvement would change things He told them and they already knew a) it wasn't mean for military purposes and b) it didn't extend into Crimea. 1
Joe Ferguson forever Posted September 10, 2023 Author Posted September 10, 2023 (edited) 7 hours ago, B-Man said: Reminder Thread Title is false. I get that they're trying to portray Musk as pro-Russia, but he said from the start that Starlink isn't meant for the military to target drones. So wait. They're not using Starlink to coordinate missile attacks or troop movements that would be considered offensive military action? We're they doing those by morse code or walkie talkie? Why the carve out for drones. This nonsense is what the SpaceX's COO said in 2022 apparently in regards to this incident: And no one should be surprised that SpaceX was wielded like a weapon in this way, either. Gwynne Shotwell, SpaceX's chief operating officer and president, told CNBC's Michael Sheetz in 2022 that SpaceX was "really pleased to be able to provide Ukraine connectivity and help them in their fight for freedom." That sentiment was immediately undermined, however, when she waffled nonsensically, seemingly oblivious to how freedom is won in warfare. In her caveats, she noted reports of Ukrainian soldiers using Starlink "for drones" in March 2022, and said their use "for the military is fine, but our intent was never to have them use it for offensive purposes." How does Eric Pistey know the terms of service when the US Foreign aid and donors who were paying Musk have not even been identified? btw, who the hell is he? Apparently a 53 yo resident of South Carolina with no relevant credentials who follows Musk and supports his every move including Musks contention that the Chinese Ballons shot down were actually alien UFO's. https://www.republicworld.com/world-news/us-news/elon-musk-reacts-after-us-fighter-jets-shoot-down-ufo-says-some-of-my-alien-friends-dot-articleshow.html Edited September 10, 2023 by Joe Ferguson forever
John from Riverside Posted September 10, 2023 Posted September 10, 2023 2 hours ago, Doc said: He told them and they already knew a) it wasn't mean for military purposes and b) it didn't extend into Crimea. I did not know that Seems kind of weird that they would use Elon musk’s technology for anything actually after this, they might want to rethink that 1
Joe Ferguson forever Posted September 10, 2023 Author Posted September 10, 2023 9 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said: geez, you cons are so creative! what are you 13 years old? Talking about an action that resulted in babies being killed and you think it's funny. Kinda like Jan 6 or the Kashogi dismemberment. You MAGA's are disgusting and truly deplorable.
Over 29 years of fanhood Posted September 10, 2023 Posted September 10, 2023 21 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said: Talking about an action that resulted in babies being killed and you think it's funny. you must therefore be furious Biden denied the Ukrainian request for f-16s. The lack or air superiority those would have led to has yielded countless civilian deaths… and having the strike capability would have been way better in this battle scenario than some RC toy boats.
Orlando Buffalo Posted September 10, 2023 Posted September 10, 2023 7 minutes ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said: you must therefore be furious Biden denied the Ukrainian request for f-16s. The lack or air superiority those would have led to has yielded countless civilian deaths… and having the strike capability would have been way better in this battle scenario than some RC toy boats. 32 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said: geez, you cons are so creative! what are you 13 years old? Talking about an action that resulted in babies being killed and you think it's funny. Kinda like Jan 6 or the Kashogi dismemberment. You MAGA's are disgusting and truly deplorable. Joe you must also be livid at the weak response to the disaster that is coming from fentanyl across the southern border, which is killing hundreds of Americans a day. Us mocking the lying of Dems should make you happy that the truth is coming out. 1
John from Riverside Posted September 10, 2023 Posted September 10, 2023 (edited) 20 minutes ago, Orlando Tim said: Joe you must also be livid at the weak response to the disaster that is coming from fentanyl across the southern border, which is killing hundreds of Americans a day. Us mocking the lying of Dems should make you happy that the truth is coming out. First of all the majority of the drug that is coming into the United States, is going through ports of entry we need to make that distinction Second, it is an epidemic, and I actually am not against working with the Mexican government to start making tactical strikes of these dudes, not in favor of invading Mexico at all in for pressuring the Mexican government to take more action Edited September 10, 2023 by John from Riverside 1 1
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted September 10, 2023 Posted September 10, 2023 10 hours ago, John from Riverside said: It’s a unlikely is getting too much help from the US to start dishing on them now I think my whole problem with that is, if musk is against it, tell the military that he is against it. Don’t wait for an action to happen and then destroy very expensive equipment so that they don’t hit the Russians who I am not going to say he is in the lead with, but he certainly help them that day. by the way, the US getting directly involved in the conflict is one of the things that could start a nuclear war right now we are just providing them assets direct involvement would change things I don’t know much about the Russia/Ukraine conflict, beyond what I’ve read. I feel like this particular conflict has layers of complexity similar at times to what we see in the Middle East,I support the effort generally, but there is a $&*t ton of money moving internationally and some people are benefitting on a massive scale. With limited oversight and a country with a history of corruption, it would be foolish not to consider how/why this all plays out. All that aside, I’m not advocating for US involvement at all. Still, it seems logical to me that Putin would see US financial and assets support as a major problem to be dealt with and an act of hostility in that regard. It’s been established he’s a crazed murderous dictator who hates both the Ukrainians and the US. From Zelensky’s perspective, facing death, destruction and invasion on a massive scale, it’s odd that massive amounts of money are cool, calling out Musk is fine, but pleading for direct US involvement is a bridge too far.
BillsFanNC Posted September 10, 2023 Posted September 10, 2023 19 minutes ago, John from Riverside said: Second, it is an epidemic, and I actually am not against working with the Mexican government to start making tactical strikes of these dudes, not in favor of invading Mexico at all in for pressuring the Mexican government to take more action So you support the Trump administration policy. Good to know.
Recommended Posts