CdnFox

That makes sense from the ukrainian side but the poster was suggesting that the russian resolve might falter if their people were attacked by these kinds of raids. I'm saying i'm not sure the russian people would be LESS likely to fight if you started blowing them up, I would worry they would be MORE likely to fight. Just as the british were MORE likely to fight after germany bombed them. I'm sure from the Ukrainian side it would bolster the morale of their people.

Another person who speaks truth which confuses and enrages you? Fraid so Take an advil. Depends on the paper. Editorial staff and publishers as a rule, although often such things are reflected in the reporter's bias as well. Sure. How about this: https://nypost.com/2022/01/05/canadian-journalist-tara-henley-quit-cbc-over-woke-agenda/ There's tonnes of analysis and such on the issue. And as a former professional writer myself i can easily point out the deliberate use of emotionally charged language to either highlight or downplay something. Many stories don't get covered by the CBC or get very poor coverage if they're embarrasing to the liberals but the cpc gets prime time if they screw up. And with the CBC there's the out and out fake news. They proudly insisted that the convoy was foreign funded, despite having been told there was no real evidence of that. They insisted that Smith wrote emails to the justice department, when an independant review found that never happened. And then doubled down on it even after admitting they'd never seen them but the 'unnamed source' was just SO reliable... These aren't mistakes or the like. Those are very deliberate examples of very poor and frowned upon reporting methods. Accusations with no evidence that happen to promote a political agenda. There is no trouble finding slews of examples and it's pretty blatant at this point. The CBC has even been chewed out by the ombudsman for "editing" harper's stuff to make it look like he responed in a way he didn't. IT's not new. They're called an "editor" and it takes one.

I don't know - bombing british cities in ww2 only had the effect of hardening britian's resolve, and that may happen here. I would guess doing things like blowing up electrical facilities or bridges or other infrastructure which made life inconvenient would actually do more

I understand that sentiment but honestly that always winds up looking bad for the people doing it. Trump never won a new vote picking fights with the media the way he did. I think that they have to work better with 'friendly' media and also pursue other ways to get the message and anger out to the public. PP has had some success doing that. They need to perfect those arts

ROFLMAO!!! I love that the self avowed communist calls me a leftie And nope, first time here Poor little guy, you're following me around like a puppy now? You lost one argument and looked like a fool and it's bothering you so much you have to chase me and yap to make yourself feel better? I hope you don't expect me to pay rent living in your head like that (although it is spacious in here )

They ran pretty well last summer I"m inclined to belleve you when you say that the Ukrainians have not now nor will they be armed well enough to actually defeat the russians entirely. However they have demonstrated that they are quite capable of limited offensives that break the russians locally and force them to give up a lot of ground. I don't think they're done with that yet. The russians have mass but it seems to me just looking at it that they have horrible coordination and communication. It seems like if you hit the right peg there a lot of that house might come crashing down. I feel like the ukrainians are just waiting till better weather and draining the russians as much as they can without using up their own forces more than necessary. I feel like they could very suddenly take the land below kherson right up to the crimea border and north a fair ways.

Didn't they have that before the war?

oh good, i'd hate for you to suggest it was a negative or anything Yeash! Probably need to start paying attention then. He's put a number of things out there. Obviously he's not stupid enough to go into extreme detail this far away from an election, that's death with the liberals. But - stop "printing" money to help ease inflation, we all get how that works (even tho there's no actual printing), that makes a big difference. Address the home issues - that's not going to happen overnight but he's on the right track with it and if he follows through that will help. Cut red tape - that is a HUGE issue that holds us back, that's the so-called 'gatekeeper' issue. Get the various gov't departments working again. People should be able to get a passport or go to an airport. Address immigraiton, bringing it more in line with what our capacity is to make sure we dont' jack up rents and housing costs by bringing in more than we can absorb. There's other things he can do as well but those are ones hes touched on. All of those would make a pretty big difference. It wouldn't be the first time - Canada bucked the world wide trend during the Great Recession as well, when harper was in power. Worst recession worldwide in 80 years but Canada blew right through it. No reason we can't do it again.

Quite possible. But i doubt the russkies will like that. That real estate gives them nothing other than a chance to say they didn't completely lose the war. But they lose much having pushed the Ukrainians firmly into the us hands and military.

That will depend on the terms of the ceasefire. Russia isn't going to like the idea of giving up all the land AND having a heavily militarized ukraine. They're either going to demand some of the land or an agreement that the allies not rearm the ukrainians. That's what i meant when i said something will have to give.

I doubt very much that putin wants to antagonize the US into a wider conflict like that. And i assure you land is strategic Even britannia who ruled the waves didn't live on them Russia is even more vunerable to those kinds of games. And if something were to 'happen' to their subs.... well it would likely happen so fast they would'nt get a chance to surface or report. Meanwhile, the grind continues. He still loses gear and men faster than he can replace them every day and that means his ability to project power elsewhere is limited. It can't go on forever.

I think they probably know that's optimistic, putin has to have SOMETHING to show for the massive dead and loss of equipment. And meanwhile they won't want to leave ukraine exposed to another attack as soon as putin can build up his arsenal again. So i think they'll be looking for a different ending there than that.

Anything's possible but i think that the US won't blink this time on a nuclear stand off. I think they'll simply say 'fine, get out of ukraine and this is over. Otherwise ..... " I think they never really felt good a bout how the cuban crisis ended. And putin has been rattling his nuclear saber since the get go. As you say - this is right on their doorstep. Starting a nuclear war there would be highly questionable for them. I think this will just grind on and grind on with them losing more and more resources and slowly bleeding them to death till they're sick of it. I think you're correct (previously) and the ukraine probably wont' have the gear or numbers to out and out win, but they'll have offensives that take back land and then the russians will slowly grind their way back only to get slaughtered again and back and forth it will go. But i dont think this is sustainable forever for the russians

This is what i was thinking. The west isn't suffering any 'deaths'. For the west it's like that scene from Shreck - "Many of you will die, but that's a sacrifice i'm willing to make". I think for the west it's more about coming up with the perfect number and types of arms to keep russia in a meat grinder without them actually losing. Right now russia is turning itself into a clawless tiger by burning through all it's tanks and men and that probably works for the allies nicely.

Awww muffin - you go have a cookie and a nap, you'll be fine LOL - communists get SO dramatic when you prove they're full of it It's cute to watch, like a monkey flipping out

we'll see. His people may be buying that now, but when they have a tough time buying other things and when their kids start to come home in body bags in huge numbers then I wonder how things will go. It would be different if they were winning. I think it's quite possible we'll see some opportunists looking to make a move. But - it's not my field of study so, you may be right.

Harper had three balanced budgets actually. And his last one was after the worst recession in the last year of his time in office so he didn't "inherit" that one for sure You might argue his first one was but not his second. So seeing as you got that wrong right off the bat, kinda feel like my point is made Prior to that mulroney ran structural surpluses for most of his time in office but of course couldn't pay the interest off of trudeau (the firsts) massive deficits. And chretien ran surpluses (if we don't include just downloading costs to the provinces) by stealing 70 billion from the EI fund but mostly from the GST and trade surplus from the free trade agreement that Mulroney brought in. Both of which he promised to scrap. So if you're talking 'inherited' then i guess we'll credit those to mulroney? Meanwhile harper's surpluses didn't require the theft of any insurance premiums, and didn't require cutting services or funding to the provinces. In fact funding to the provinces went up. Anyone with half a brain knows that we had surpluses because of the Conservatives. The liberals never run anything but deficits unless they steal from other gov'ts or people. No wonder they think budgets balance themselves, other people have always done all the work and they've never had to actually make it happen themselves And NOW they've literally borrowed MORE money than EVERY OTHER PRIME MINISTER IN HISTORY COMBINED in just 7 years. Yeah - i don't think anyone will be looking to them for a balanced budget

You didn't post crap. And what you did post proved that the ukraine wasn't joining nato any time soon. What you DID prove is that putin supporters are horrible people, ukraine is in the right, and that russia had no justification for the war they are now losing. And when other people post facts you freak out. GIVE ME SOURCES SHOWING RUSSIAN CASUALTIES.! - provides him several independant sources - " Well.... err..... umm... IF YOU BELIEVE THOSE CREDIBLE SOURCES YOUR A FOOL! " (no alternative sources given ) CHINA HAS NOT HAD A MILITARY INCIDENT IN YEARS, THEY NEVER ATTACK ANYONE!! HOW MANY PEOPLE HAVE THEY ATTACKED? TELL ME! TEEEEEELLLL MEEEE!!! - posts list of chinese military attacks recently and in history. Kindly doesn't mention they're in the middle of a genocide as we speak. - HOW DAAAAAAAARRREEE YOU BRING UP CHINA'S MILITARY HISTORY!!?!?!?! See - this is why nobody likes communists. Putin started a war of conquest - and is currently getting his ass kicked. You started a dumb fight trying to defend that and likewise got your ass kicked. Thanks for playing kiddo

No I find you amusing. Liars would not find liars amusing is what i said. Jeez dude - that wasn't very complex, how did you manage to screw that up - see what I mean, liars are amusing!

Except they do And those who aren't die hard lefties know that. So when that becomes important to people that's who they turn to.

He absolutely gave his finger to the people, not reporters. He made no bones about it later.

By you. And no one else How about that! Certified imaginary by WestCanMan Nope. Not right. If they meet and the US says we're not interested then russia would be pretty stupid to think that it's happening. That's how it works. Sure. Ukraine is important. Talking to them is important. Blowing them off and snubbing them would be stupid. But that doesn't mean they're going to let them join nato ROFLMAO - there's no board, just a lobotomy candidate who thinks he knows something when he clearly doesn't. The ONLY thing you proved is you're a communist who approves of killing children in 'self defense' because biden talked to ukraine once apon a time and said you can't join nato All you're doing at this point is proving to others that putin supporters are horrible people, ukraine is in the right, and that russia had no justification for the war they are now losing. Feel free to lie to yourself about it tho to help you get to sleep at night Comrade

Well of course not. As a liar i don't imagine you'd find other liars amusing. Monkeys having a fit are probably not funny to other monkeys. I didn't stop smiling like i said, trolls are often amusing.

Give me a break. You've been arguing for quite some time about the benefits of EV's, NOT the process of electrification. In fact i haven't seen you address the issue of how to provide for that at all, despite it being brought up as a major issue when considering EV's. And it only "has to happen" if we're going to switch exclusively to current tech ev's. Otherwise a certain market segment will buy them and others will stick with ice and we don't need the grid to handle all that much. Well if there's no point fretting about it then there's no point in building out the EV infrastructure for the future either then is there. You're really losing the high ground here. Pretending that things that concern you are of primary importance and 'HAVE ' To happen while any other concern raised by anyone is completely dismissed as irrelevant even when it clearly isn't. IF anything you've convinced me we're heading down this EV path blindly and we should be discouraging the build out until people like you want to take it seriously. Let the market sort it - if people want ev charging stations they can buy them and if the grid can't handle it oh welll, buy an ICE.

Yeah - i'm no fan of the NDP or the like but this is probably a pretty solid idea. Credit where it's due.