JoeWeber

56 Tanks is a lot in one action, no? Outside of Kursk or somewhere on the Eastern Front has anyone lost 56 tanks in a single action?

Thin gruel, Bill. Those economists said probably. Not certainly, not without question. If that's what you hang your hat on when deciding someone is a persistent liar, best of luck to you. Of course, as repeated below for your convenience, it was concluded that it would be of limited and transitory effect. You know, as in not a factor. Sort of like letting your hound inside on a freezing day, yes, some cold air might be let inside, too, but no biggie and better than letting the poor bastard freeze. And, if in advance you told your wife it wasn't much cold air and quickly wouldn't be noticed would that make you a liar, too? I trust your jerry cans of gas haven't skyrocketed in price another 25 cents in the meantime. "However, the broad consensus among analysts has been that the bill’s inflationary impact will be modest and brief, and that over the longer term, the bill’s provisions should put little to no upward pressure on inflation".

BIGUN, TriGirl, Brent, help me out here, please. Is it possible to get significant small arms (assault rifles, anti-tank weapons etc.) supplies into Ukrainian hands in real time? As in the next few days.

First clue is I'm not Canadian. But yes, I'm a Pinot guy, foremost Burgundy--white and red. I'll leave the Molson reviews to my antagonist.

Can you get Growlers?

Again, lippy to the rescue. For sure it's a redhead thing, you know, repressed memories and such.

Your attacks are getting weaker.

And the other was a big "probably will be inflationary effects, especially in the near term" but in the next sentence "However, the broad consensus among analysts has been that the bill’s inflationary impact will be modest and brief, and that over the longer term, the bill’s provisions should put little to no upward pressure on inflation". I guess that makes her a lying Psaki of......... I give up.

Not by enough, apparently. They're also short on pragmatism. This will go over like a turd in the punch bowl but some of us, including me, need to be ready to concede to some of Brent's arguments. None of those regarding whether climate change is either happening or salubrious, on those he's dead nuts wrong. But we ought not be as anxious as we are to kill the goose that lay's the oily egg. When the facts change........

They're each supposed to be spending 2% GDP on Defense and few have ever achieved it. We always exceed it at 3%+ to 4%+. The whole of the EU spent $225Billion in 2020. Maybe that should be enough but if it is they need new procurers.

I'll make it easier for you: the world is full of paper tigers who are happy to advocate military response but are utterly clueless about who, what, where, why or how it can be accomplished or have any certainty that it wouldn't cause more harm than help. It sure sounds bold, though.

The nukes may or may not have deterred Putin. I suspect strongly that a few Nato divisions, including Americans, sprinkled along the borders would have kept his aspirations checked. But they weren't and now is too late. The Europeans need to show some strength now, not only military strength but strength of will. Every European Parliament should this moment be discussing significant defense budget increases. Nord Stream 2 should be disabled at least semi-permanently. Any and everything they can do to telegraph they are serious about their own defense and energy independence, including nuclear, should be under discussion. They might even consider kicking the Russians off of the SWIFT network as a reminder that without global payments there is limited global trade. Not only might it deter Russia from future aggression it might also give the Chinese reason to wait a few more decades for their turn. But they won't, is my guess. It's like with the Swiss. They are rich. But they don't invest even in their own Air Force. Why? Well, they reason that by the time they'd need to use it all of their allies would be overrun so whats the point?

Instead of a personal attack, better than nothing I guess, you might have honestly said you don't know which divisions you want another country to send.

You made the assertion, not I. If you think military action is required flesh it out with the Canadian response you think is appropriate. See, that's the problem. Easy to say, hard to do.

This isn't the beginning of the end, Rambo. This is the fruit of poor decisions and alliances. We've loved being the only super power for too long, and so have our allies and military. The time is nigh to be smarter against worse circumstances. We didn't protect a pawn with a bishop so we're losing a pawn. Risking a Queen because we're mad is a dumb play.

Got me, but previously you suggested that we need a military response in addition to serious, modern thinking sanctions. OK, which Canadian divisions do you think should be forward deployed, where and when?

I suspect you are perfect for attacking when told to attack. I am glad you are nowhere near the actual decision.

We must think strategically. We are giving ground, yes. But our moral compass will remain intact if we act to stop the expansion in ways that will work. We're fresh out of magic wands. Time to retrench and get after a real solution. We also need to establish with our allies that it's not on us, they need to start acting seriously.

Totally. Time for our allies to have over bloated militaries and we have free healthcare and workers protections, and I am not joking.

Of course you'll come back claiming you were joking but I won't be a buyer. I'm just glad calmer heads are in charge. Now is not the time to piss off anyone, especially Putin. I will state it again, we need to play the long game. In the immediate term, because sanctions take too long to be effective, we need to begin dismantling the Nord Stream 2 line. We need to have serious discussions with our allies, and maybe Canada, too, about countering energy levered future world conflicts. No ultimatums. No threats. No US Combat teams moved into position. None of that useless nonsense. Just act like we get it but it's over now. That will change the game.

Probably. Weaponizing new understandings against past actions is a real dicey thing. For example, I know of at least one low puller, and it ain't you DOB, that went on to become a DZO. Should they be removed and skewered?

No matter, it will be full blown theater as ever. Yes, she's highly qualified and, regardless of the opinions of the Winsor's of the world, diversity is a good thing worth working toward. That said, Kavanaugh was jerked around which was fitting because he truly is a jerk. Let's just hope comrades and Manchin and Sinema don't pee in the pool as usual.

I suspect you are right that the Democrats will treat her well. I'll be fascinated to hear Graham explain that if he knew 256 days ago what he knew now..... Or Collins explain that she's uncomfortable that Brown will support Roe... Or for Murkowski point out that she's going to reserve judgement until she knows if her vote matters.

Bipartisan support that included the now distraught she was selected Lindsey Graham. Also, voting for her were wind talkers Collins and Murkowski. That's it. Great call, you should go to Vegas.

Man, your credibility with me is near shot. Why, when you are so prone to exaggeration and seem unable to back up what you claim is true, should anyone believe what you post? Even the bit about filling up the boat and fuel cans "before prices skyrocket" is exaggerated silliness that shows your newsfeed in neon lights. You're a smart guy. You can do way better.