Moonbox

The math shows it's 10th as effective. Reconsider what you're trying to say here: Russia is firing 5x as many artillery shells as Ukraine, but the fact that it's 1/10th as effective is somehow a moot point? Wtf...? That's utter nonsense, and there's no point in responding to the rest of your post, or even continuing the debate if this is the logic you're running with.

I said the Elections Act didn't exist!?! 🤣 Oooookay. Everyone knows CdnFox knows, the best and most convincing lies are the ones that are too shockingly stupid for anyone to possibly believe. Take a clown-bow. You really outdid yourself here.

Who did you think you were fooling with this link? Your make-believe doesn't magically become reality because you linked the landing page for a government website. 🤣🤣 Are you trying to prove you're the dumbest person on the forum? You're making a strong case for it.

No, because 80% of Russia's casualties are caused by Ukrainian artillery, and Ukraine is firing less than 20% the amount of shells, but causing double the casualties. What does that math tell you? I've already brought this up, but you just sort of talk past me and repeat the same points in different ways... Not for the Russians. They lost them in droves last summer as they're apparently easy to locate, they have minimal capability to replace the systems because of sanctions, and they continue to lose them regularly. Not disagreeing, but how do you figure that situation is going to improve? Does arguing unwittingly on Putin's behalf about how hopeless the Ukrainian situation is, despite all evidence to the contrary, somehow help? I really don't get what you're trying to do here, and how you're failing to see that the most important battle for Putin is winning the hearts and minds of people like you by repeating the same points over and over until it's taken for granted. This is all bad logic - all of it. Ukraine is "begging" for equipment because they're not getting what they're asking for, and what they need. They're lack of gains on the ground are matched by Russia's, who despite the overwhelming and hopeless advantage they apparently have, still aren't moving.

No, what I know is that you did not quote the elections act, and that you're openly, obviously lying about that. 🤡 Because it wasn't a typo, you sad little clown. Terms are 5 years, according to your fantasy legal definition, "which is why the last election was 2020" and the next one is 2025. 🤣🤣🤣

He's always been a loser and a joke. He knows it. That's why he these arguments are all mortal conflicts for him. His ego can't handle any challenge. This forum is all he has. 🤡🤡🤡

You typed it on purpose: The frankly shocking stupidity behind this is not that you typed 2020 instead of 2021, it's that intended to do just that, insisting that a PM "term" is 5 years by your completely made up and unbelievably dumb "legal definition". It's your foolishness on perfect display. We can skip the multi-page song and dance where you bullshit and clown around about all of the reasons you can't or won't source this "legal definition". This one is so painfully and obviously wrong on its face that it doesn't even matter. 🤣 That you don't have the emotional maturity to admit you were wrong is a given. The real question now is what your inevitable meltdown is going to look like. Which previous butthurt are you going to try to dredge up? How many emojis and caps will you ROFLMAO pound out on your keyboard in your upcoming performance?

After just telling us that the last election was in 2020, I understand why you'd have to say SOMETHING!!!! 🤡🤡🤡

Sorry but that's not what you said. You said 75% of it was landing on Ukrainian troops, which obviously isn't true. Whether it's "on target" or not is probably a matter of perspective, given that Russia seems to be spraying and praying more than anything. "On target" for them probably means anything within a couple of miles. 🤣 Artillery may be king, but there's obviously a lot more to it than number of shells fired, else Russia wouldn't constantly be losing artillery duels, whining about their lack of artillery radar systems, and suffering 2:1 casualty ratios, correct? NATO doesn't need a war economy to outproduce Russia and North Korea. The US's peacetime military budget alone is bigger than Russia and North Korea's wartime economies combined. There is literally no contest there. A wartime economy is also something that's hard to sustain, and requires massive deficit and reserve spending. Russia and North Korea may be outproducing artillery shells, but this is obviously not a war-ending advantage. Producing 20,000 shells for an artillery unit doesn't count for much if your artillery radar gets knocked out by HIMARs, your shells trajectories are being tracked by enemy radar, and you take accurate return fire from out of your range, does it? You haven't though. You've shown that their making more artillery shells.

I think it would have been better if Joe showed up with some energy and with a functioning brain. The only way this gets turned into lemonade is if they very quickly find a replacement.

Yeah I don't see how anyone can view this as anything but an absolute disaster for the democrats. I turned it off after Biden's opening statement. What Trump did during the debate never really mattered. Everyone knew he was just going to rant through his regular slogans and lying BS. What everyone wanted to see was whether Biden still functioned, but he did his best impression of a vegetable.

Another useless wall of text, saying nothing. This is what you do when you've humiliated yourself - you just try to spam through and try to move the thread to the next page. 🤣

No, it really doesn't. We're doing simple math here. If Russia is firing 600,000 shells a month, as you say, and hitting Ukrainians 75% of the time as you suggest, then that's 450,000 casualties a month. The war would be over in a month or two if that were true, which it obviously isn't. They still hit stuff, and they still cause lots of casualties, but if we accept they're firing 600,000 shells per month (highly dubious), then they're not even hitting targets 5% of the time. NATO's economy (and therefore capacity to produce) outscales Russia and North Korea probably 50:1. The fact that surplus equipment and peacetime production has been enough to stall out and hold off Russian and North Korean war economies for 2 years tells you everything you need to know. Even a modest, real commitment to armament production would tip the scales. 2% of NATO's GDP towards the military would dwarf 50% of Russia's GDP towards theirs. North Korea would barely even factor into that equation. No, this is what you're referring to: "While North Korea's arms factories operate at 30 percent capacity due to shortages of raw materials and power, certain factories are operating at full capacity, which primarily produce weapons and shells for Russia," Shin said in a meeting with reporters Monday. https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/nation/2024/06/103_369559.html All this is telling you is that North Korea has prioritized supporting Russia as much as they can.

LOL!! 🤣 Let's review: Everything about this comment is retarded. First, you're saying Justin won three elections, but not three terms - which makes no sense whatsoever. Second, you're offering what you call a "legal definition" for the word "term", when anyone can do a 2 second google search and see you made it up: https://www.ourcommons.ca/procedure/our-procedure/ParliamentaryCycle/c_g_parliamentarycycle-e.html The "term" of any Parliament is not fixed, and the only mention of 5 years is that this is the Constitutional maximum limit. The best part of all of this though, is that you can't even get basic facts right: Our last election was in 2021. The next one is 2025. That's four years, you absolute assclown. Harper introduced a bill in 2007 (which has since become law) that there has to be an election 4 years after the last one. By your made-up "legal definition", "winning a term" is therefore impossible. 🤡🤡🤡

I don't even really know who she is, but she's absolutely right. Repeat a slogan enough, and the dumb and incurious will eventually believe it.

No, you were not. You made a complete assclown out of yourself, again, and conjured up your own retarded definition for what "term" means out of nowhere. 5 years is/was the Constitutional maximum term limit to a parliament, and that's since been limited to 4 years. That doesn't mean you didn't serve a term if you don't go to max. That's nothing but the standard mental gymnastics you do to assuage your ego after humiliating yourself with your clueless bullshitting.

Who is climate Barbie?

If Russia is firing 600,000 rounds per month, and 75% of it is landing on Ukrainian troops, there wouldn't be any Ukrainian troops left alive, would there? The certain, mathematical reality is that 95% of their rounds don't even scratch a Ukrainian soldier: Perhaps, but Russian accuracy was shit to start, so barrel-ware is going to affect them worse. More importantly, if they're firing at 7-10x the rate the Ukrainians are, so who's dealing with more barrel-ware? NATO production capacity dwarfs Russian and NK's. North Korean factories don't operate at capacity because they are constantly lacking raw materials, and both nations are under critical components shortages on account of their being sanctioned and unable to make any of it on their own. You can probably appreciate that there's more to military economics than the number of artillery shells you can theoretically produce, right? Long-term, this is a question of economic scale. Russia's economy can be outmatched by Canada's. North Korea's can be matched by...Uganda. Those two countries can keep up with NATO in the longer term? That's what you really think?

If you're arguing the numerical advantage of Russia's munitions, how is it a moot point that a large portion of them miss their target and turn out to be duds even if they hit? That's the exact opposite of moot. If # of artillery shells was the determining factor of the war, it would be over already. The reality is that Russian equipment has always been garbage. It was garbage during the Cold War, and they've only fallen further behind. Combine that with the fact that Russian training, leadership, C&C and intelligence is all dogshit. Look back at Summer 2023, when Russia was losing artillery systems at a 4:1 or worse ratio, despite firing 7x more shells per month. A lot of it has to do with public perception and Vladimir Putin's info ops. The slow-roll nature of all of the equipment being donated has been a direct consequence of limp escalatory threats from the Kremlin, and prevaricating on it here. The Red Line has been feebly threatened by Putin, but continuously pushed by NATO, over and over. We call their bluffs, but it's an agonizingly slow process. First it was long range artillery, then it was tanks and AA systems, then it was cluster munitions, then fighter planes, then permission to strike within Russia...the piecemeal nature has been tortuous and costly. Arguments like the ones you're making here, however, are actively making the situation worse. It's the narrative that Putin is pushing - and you're buying into it and the negative feedback loop it leads to. The situation is hopeless, so we might as well stop supplying aid, which makes to situation worse, making it seem more hopeless, and so on. I'm not sure you really have: Man, look at all that progress Russia's making...they're advancing daily...from one blade of grass to the next.

HAHAHAHA! Where?!? Twice in the same thread, you dumb muppet. I get that it's upsetting when people show how much of an assclown you are, but you do it so regularly, and so obviously, that the solution is to think before you post something stupid. Ranting emoji spam doesn't convince anyone of anything. 🤡

This is a funny matchup. Inarticulate copy-paste poster VS Deluded Conspiracy clown. Round 2... FIGHT!

I'll just leave that here again...LOL 🤡

What makes Mark Carney "elitist", by your estimation? That he's crazy smart and highly regarded around the world? When I hear someone complain about "elitists" in a context like this, what you're really telling us is that three word slogans are the key to your heart. 🙄 For the record, I don't think Mark Carney should run in the next election.

...stockpiles built up over 50 years, significantly deteriorated, with high dud rates and reportedly often stripped of de-copper and prone to warp barrels or misfire. They're coming from stockpiles. I thought that was clear. Even if they are capable of producing 600,000 shells together, Russia and North Korea can't hope to compete when the West scales up production. This is a short-term advantage. In a year it will be greatly diminished. In two years it will be gone. South Korea is now considering supplying Ukraine, and that's one of the world's largest economies vs it's third-world shithole neighbour. The fighting around Bakhmut was over a year ago. The Ukrainians have since made some gains, and the Russians have made some of their own. Look at the map. Steady progress...measured in meters and tens of thousands of thousands of monthly casualties. I heard of +$60B recently being committed by US congress in the last month or so. I also heard about +$300B in frozen Russian assets being used to finance a $50B loan worth of further military aid just for this year. This is all pennies to NATO in the West, and with it they're hobbling what's historically been its greatest adversary. The point I'm trying to make here is that it's the delays or abandonment of aid to Ukraine that's causing their problems. Vladimir Putin's info-op is to to convince people like you that there's no hope - that Russia can pay the cost of blood and outlast the West, or that properly supporting Ukraine will escalate the conflict out of hand. Neither of these are true, but there are lots of people out there unwittingly arguing these points for him. Ask yourself, is there any possible link between Russia's brutally costly foray into Kharkiv Oblast from April/May, and the fact this was when the Congress was debating the aid bill?