Posts by Matthew Young35

gentlestag15 said:Go read the Budapest Memorandum—the one where they gave up the nukes
and see exactly which points Russia broke.

According to The memorandum, US and The UK confirmed their recognition of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine becoming parties to The Treaty on The Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and effectively abandoning their nuclear Arsenal to Russia and that They agreed to the following : respect Belarusian

Respect Belarusian, Kazakh and Ukrainian independence and sovereignty in the existing borders.
Refrain fra The threat or The Use of Force against Belarus, Kazakhstan or Ukraine.
Refrain fra using economic pressure on Belarus, Kazakhstan or Ukraine to influence their politics.
Seek immediate Security Council action to providjeti assistance to Belarus, Kazakhstan or Ukraine if They " should become a victim of an Act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used".

What nukes? As far as I know, Ukraine has five nuclear power plants—I might be wrong there.

I was talking about a realistic scenario: there was zero chance the Soviet Union or Russia would leave even a single usable atomic bomb in Ukraine, and at that moment, it served NATO's interests too.
Keep your nuclear fantasies for the folks over at the Krsko plant.

Nicole James said:And even if they actually had those nuclear missiles, what then? Would they just launch a handful at Russia and face nothing but a completely scorched earth in return?

If they had actually possessed them, the Russians wouldn't have even dreamed of messing with them.
There is also the reality that they couldn't have had them in the first place.
Those atomic bombs were under the control of the Soviet Union military; there was absolutely zero chance they would just leave them behind.
Technically speaking, it simply wasn't possible.
Besides, the West wasn't exactly eager to let anyone else hold onto nuclear weapons either, except for Russia.

And frankly, it’s better this way.

Nicole James said:They don't have six or seven thousand. Let's be realistic—nuclear projectiles require constant, highly specialized, and expert maintenance to remain viable. It has become painfully obvious that the Russians can barely manage to maintain the tires on their own trucks, let alone complex weaponry. While they undoubtedly possess some functional nuclear capabilities, it isn't anywhere near the level they constantly boast about. If they actually made the decision to launch an attack against NATO, it would effectively mean the end of Russia, one way or another.

Even if they did have 6,000, it's still a disaster.

William Anderson5 said:The problem lies with the Russians, not anyone else. Why hasn't this blockade happened until now? It seems like they've done something over the last few months that finally triggered these kinds of measures.

Of course the problem lies with the Russians.
I am not even questioning that.

Sean Watson3 said:God forbid we provoke the Russians by rerouting traffic through our own borders; they might just label it an act of aggression.

An act of aggression? While they’re dropping 70 tons of munitions on a sovereign nation?

They should get lost. It's the same rule with every bully: you either stand your ground or you hand over everything you own. There is no middle ground.

The real issue is that they have absolutely no intention of leaving.
And they’ve got about six or seven thousand "perfect" excuses ready to go.

I honestly don't see any version of this story where things end well.
If we move to blockade the Kaliningrad region, the Russians could easily frame it as an act of aggression.
The real question is: when does something explosive "accidentally" land on NATO territory? Once that happens, we're all in deep trouble, because nobody is going to back down or settle for a compromise.

analogbear5 said:The Falkland Islands and Guantanamo Bay probably ought to be handed back to Spain.

Didn't realize Americans had occupied Syria.

Why on earth would the Falklands belong to Spain? The first colonies there were established by the French and the British, and weren't the English the first to actually land on those islands—specifically Captain John Strong?

steelfox98 said:There’s plenty of nonsense on this forum, but this particular take deserves to be framed.
Look at Gibraltar, the Falkland Islands, or that island belonging to Mauritius—the British occupy them all.
The French hold onto half of Africa and the Caribbean, whether it's official or just behind the scenes.
Maybe it isn't old-school colonialism, but rather neo-colonialism!
And how exactly should we label the American occupation of Guantanamo, Iraq, or Syria?

Who did the Falklands actually belong to before the English moved in to occupy them?

Between his antics and his attitude, you've managed to offend both Heaven and Hell with that guy Badjun.
Honestly... he’s just a tedious individual, to put it mildly. A complete nonentity.

To say the least.

Kyle Campbell4 said:You clearly have the Caucasus or the Carpathians in mind, which means you’re going to need a massive Mastiff to protect you from wolves and bears.🤣🤣

Look, people are terrified of wild animals, but they shouldn't be. If you live out in the rural countryside, the actual danger from wildlife is effectively zero. I spent my childhood summers staying out on a farm, and I can tell you there were only ever two real concerns. First, if a hawk caught an updraft and started circling the coop, that was the immediate signal to drive the chickens back into the coop until the predator moved on. The second threat was more serious, but in a small town, someone always has a shotgun handy, and any rabid fox wandering into the village is dealt with very quickly. Rabid foxes don't fear humans and can actually be dangerous. Honestly, if I ever went back to my grandfather’s old place, I wouldn't raise livestock. I don't know the first thing about it, and frankly, I don't have the stomach for it—slaughtering a chicken, cutting its head off, and waiting for the blood to drain before scalding it in hot water? Disgusting. You buy your meat in the city; out in the country, you grow your own fruits and vegetables and tend to a beautiful flower garden.
Springtime strawberries straight from the garden—man, there isn't a city in this country that can compete with that.

The true danger in rural living is the isolation you feel when you don't have a wife and children to anchor you. The younger generation has all migrated away from these small towns, leaving behind nothing but an aging population and perhaps a few middle-aged folks scattered about. You simply have no one to socialize with. While you might be geographically cut off, having a car makes it manageable enough. It isn't like the old days when I was growing up; back then, everyone would head out to the countryside for the summer. Godparents or close family friends would drop by, and we’d spend the entire night drinking beer and wine. We kids would just sit there, wide-eyed, watching the adults drink, smoke, and play cards. You weren't even allowed to pull up a chair to the table; they’d immediately usher you over to the couch because "that's not for kids."

Just what I needed today—a drunk neighbor wielding a shotgun.

Scott Gonzalez9 said:It makes sense if the math works out, and for them, it probably does. If rent here was like $1,000$500 and a mortgage payment was $3,500, then yeah, it’s a no-brainer. Some people will definitely take the rental route and dump the leftover cash into trips.

Around here, anything under $2,800 for a rental is basically a steal. You’re looking at at least $3,000 once you add utilities, while mortgage payments are already hitting that $3,500 mark. It’s not that Germans are geniuses and Americans are idiots—there just isn't a logical calculation behind it. It’s stupid to draw a line after 20 or 30 years and realize you have absolutely nothing to show for it because most of your value went straight into someone else's pocket via rent.

@Matthew Young35 😁🙏 You cracked me up, man. Reminded me of this one story. I’ve got this little house out in the sticks, and some friends from the city came over for a BBQ. One buddy of mine is obsessed with UFC and MMA, right? Well, suddenly this cow starts charging at him and he just loses his mind running for cover! 🤣

That’s exactly my point. Seriously.
It’s funny how things work out. When people from the rural heartland head into the big city, they seem to lose all sense of how to navigate the streets. But then again, we city folk aren't exactly much better at tending to sheep or growing peppers in the backyard. We're all just specialists in our own little ways, aren't we?
On paper, it’s a breeze. You plant the pepper seeds, and they just grow. Simple, right?
In reality, the wolves just end up eating peppers and leaving you completely screwed. How was I supposed to know I needed to be setting up wolf-proof fencing?

Agriculture isn't just about soil and seeds. You need actual expertise to pull it off, and more importantly, you need the guts to deal with the wildlife that constantly tries to tear your livelihood apart.

Rural life just isn't my speed, and honestly, it’s not the vibe for most city dwellers either.

Jacob Kern2 said:👍

I truly struggle to comprehend those who choose to spend their entire lives as renters, unless they are absolutely forced by necessity into that situation.

After spending five years renting, I finally transitioned into homeownership just a few months ago. It was easily the best $50,000 I have ever invested in my life. I purchased a 1,400-square-foot house in a small town near the VK area, complete with a 7,000-square-foot yard and about 32,000 square feet of farmland right behind the property.

By putting in an extra two hours of labor on that land after my workday ends, I am able to cover a mortgage payment that stays well under $300 through the bank. From a purely market-value perspective, you can't even compare the two locations; back in a major city like New York, I was paying two grand a month in rent, and even then, I considered myself lucky because my landlord was exceptionally fair. People like that are a rare breed. 🙏

On a separate note, if anyone finds themselves in need of some fresh bell peppers, venison, or farm eggs, please reach out. They should be ready soon. I’ll be offering a special discount to the folks from the offside group. ☕

That’s easy to say, though.
It reminds me of that whole cliché about people wanting to go out and raise sheep.
What kind of damn sheep would I even be able to raise?
I was born and raised on concrete...
When I see a live sheep, I practically have a panic attack because I’m half-convinced it’s going to bite me.
And that’s just a sheep. Out in the country, there are much wilder animals. Take a cow, for instance.
Good grief.
If I saw a cow in person, I think I’d run so fast they wouldn't be able to stop me until I hit Bec.

"Just move to the country"—it's always that easy to say.

Stand with the Ukrainians against that little man!!!

Kyle Campbell4 said:Across the globe, there are individuals who claim to despise the West while simultaneously glorifying dictatorial regimes. Yet, they feel absolutely no hesitation when it comes to enjoying the many luxuries and comforts provided by the very Western systems they criticize. Make no mistake: there is zero chance that these people will suddenly pack up and relocate to Russia, China, or Korea. All this posturing about hating the West and praising the "righteous" East exists purely in the realm of theory. They would change their tune incredibly fast if they ever had to experience firsthand what life actually looks like under those systems.

Then there are the others. The ones who lose sleep over Antifa, woke culture, LGBT rights, minorities, NGOs, green politics, or the shutdown of nuclear plants. You won't find them moving to Russia, Belarus, or Iran either. No, they’d much rather settle down in Germany or Sweden.

To be perfectly honest, I wouldn't be thrilled if Mexico decided to join forces with Russia and started stockpiling weapons right on the borders of the US and Canada.
They are a sovereign nation and technically should have that right, but if I had any say in the matter, I would fight that move with everything I've got.

It sounds a bit too soft, honestly.
The Mig fighters have a much deeper, more masculine roar.

Elizabeth Mendoza said:Yeah, it was.

https://www.defense.gov/french-flyover-over-washington-dc/

I see...
So I get it now.

What on earth is flying over Washington, D.C. right now?
Those definitely aren't Mig fighters; the engine note is completely different.

Milanovic said just a moment ago...
"A Patriot system? Give me a break! Who’s going to be running the show? The transit conductors from the MTA?"

Joseph Clark37 said:Of course they would notice if we started taking down their aircraft like flies, especially if ground forces started losing high-value assets at an even higher rate than before. What do you think Putin would do then? Would he just immediately drop nukes and commit suicide for the entire Russian state and its people? Not a chance...

mellowotter36 said:What exactly would they do about it?

Well then, you might as well just commit NATO to direct involvement.
So, that leaves us with the real question: what exactly would they actually do?