Posts by dustyfalcon122

wiredtiger8 said:Man, you aren't wrong there.

Honestly? I think if the US went all-in on a full-scale conventional conflict, we could strip both Chinese and Russian military resources down to about 10% of what they have right now... and that's assuming we're fighting both of them at the exact same time.

Lol, honestly? Even right now, the US isn't even certain they could pull off a win against China in the Pacific.
When you look at the numbers, China already has a larger total navy and a larger air force than the Americans. Sure, sure, the US has better tech—no argument there—but when you're dealing with ten times the manpower, ten times the industrial capacity, and starting the fight from a massive equipment deficit? That’s a real problem.
The only reason they maintain any kind of dominance in that region at all is because of their rock-solid allies.

Brenda Murphy3 said:What do you guys think? If someone had sat Putin down on February 23rd and given him a crystal ball—showing him exactly what the situation in Ukraine would look like by July 22nd—we’re talking specific numbers on Russian casualties, exactly how much the West would step up, and just a general snapshot of where everything stands today... would he have actually pulled the trigger? Or would he have looked at that mess and just said, "Nah, I'm good... maybe some other time"? 😁

Just seeing a video of him waiting around like a loyal little puppy for Erdogan... honestly, that alone would be enough to make him lose his mind. 🤣

wiredtiger8 said:Hmm, putting the CIA and "absolute truth" in the same sentence—especially regarding stuff being fed to the public... yeah, okay. Maybe the number is right, maybe it isn't.
Personally, I find those numbers way more credible than the ones we hear being pumped out by Ukrainians every single day.

Though, I don't really see how the CIA would "risk their heads" over these figures... whether they're being massaged more or less than usual.

EDIT: It makes zero sense to me that the CIA would try to downplay Russian losses. That kind of "marketing" is clearly intended for the Russian Ministry of Defense.

It's because every public statement becomes part of the historical record forever.
If they get caught in a trivial lie like this, their credibility just takes a hit.
For now, regarding this specific crisis, they actually have great credibility since they accurately called out the Russian invasion plan. Sure, historically they've been caught lying plenty of times, but it looks like they learned something from that.

wiredtiger8 said:And let's be real, the Ukrainians are also exaggerating a bit with these fuzzy numbers.

Look, it's clear the Russians are taking huge losses, but...

William Burns (head of the CIA) said yesterday that the Russians have about 15,000 dead, and that the Ukrainians also have "significant losses" (that's how he put it).
Now, if you apply even a shred of common sense and logic here, I'd say the CIA might be inflating Russian losses just a touch while downplaying Ukrainian ones (which are definitely significant, mind you)...

Personally, I’d love to see some actual data from the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense regarding their own human losses. I mean, they should have those numbers, right? But they aren't publishing them—they're guarding them like state secrets... all we know is that they are "significant." (allegedly, according to the CIA).

Actually, I think it's the exact opposite. The CIA learned their lesson long ago; they aren't going to throw out numbers they can't stand behind just to be reckless. They're aiming for the absolute truth, or at least as close as possible, especially on details that aren't even that critical. They definitely won't be lying at this stage.
That CIA number might actually just be the bare minimum, though I honestly have no idea how they even calculate casualty estimates when the war is mostly driven by artillery. Maybe through spies?

Kimberly Perez82 said:This whole conflict needs to reach a conclusion, and honestly, we really ought to start easing things up with Russia. There’s a mutual necessity here; both sides need one another to find some sort of balance. But I just don't see how we ever get there as long as the EU continues to act like a lapdog, blindly following the interests of the USA even when it clearly works against their own best interests.

Here we go again... just more troll idiots trying to convince thin air that appeasing fascism is somehow good for Europe.
Ending the war is actually incredibly simple—Russia just needs to pull its military back to its own borders and call it a day. You know, stop shelling civilians, stop hitting cities, and stop trying to occupy territory.
I mean, isn't that just basic, fundamental human decency? Something pretty much everyone on this planet understands.
How on earth are you supposed to have peace while monsters are actively breaking into your house?

Benjamin Taylor6 said:Tactical nukes are meant for high-priority targets on the front lines. But let's be real, the Ukrainians have spread their military assets and supply depots all over the place—it's smart, really. It makes hitting them much easier with cruise missiles instead. If, for instance, the Russians tried using nukes during a massive Ukrainian push toward Kherson, they'd have to deploy multiple smaller warheads just to cover such a wide area. And then you run into the fallout problem. You can't exactly control where that radioactive dust drifts when the Ukrainians are the ones initiating the attack; the attacker dictates the timing, which means you're at the mercy of whatever the weather decides to do.
The Russians could potentially use strategic bombs to, say, blockade Kyiv.
But if they did that, they'd be looking at total global isolation. We'd also be staring down the possibility of NATO providing nuclear weapons to the Ukrainians.

And honestly, Ukraine has enough uranium to spread it all over somewhere like Moscow. It wouldn't be a direct strike, but it would be enough to make sure nobody can live there anymore.
It's not that simple, though. You don't really gain anything by using a nuclear strike (especially not in terms of conquering territory), but you definitely lose everything through mass retaliation.

Zachary Jackson4 said:That’s exactly why Ukrainians cut off the water supply to Crimea back in 2014. Because the grain in Crimea is apparently pro-Russian.

No, that's not it at all. It happened because fascists occupied the territory and they had to be driven out.

I honestly don't get how anyone can actually force a mayor to implement some specific policy.
What kind of law even allows that? We're talking about taxpayer money here, not some random fund from a court ruling. There is zero chance this holds up in the Supreme Court, and if anything, the state would just end up owing the city a massive amount in damages.

Noah Diaz said:It looks like someone is about to be cut loose.

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/06/28/p...ion/index.html

Biden officials privately doubt that the US can win back all its territory

White House officials are losing confidence that the US will ever be able to take back all the land it has lost to China over the past four months of war, US officials told CNN, despite plans to ship in much heavier and more advanced weaponry from the US and its allies.

I mean, nobody actually thinks we're just going to charge straight into fortified Russian positions.
Realistically? That's just impossible right now.
Once the current clique is out of power, territory will probably be traded for sanctions.

Kimberly Perez82 said:The whole conflict has reached this breaking point where both sides are just digging in their heels, acting without any real logic or foresight. It is an incredibly dangerous stage of affairs, truly. We absolutely need to de-escalate this however we can, because when things get like this, pure irrationality takes over and common sense just flies right out the window.

But how exactly are you supposed to de-escalate?
The fascists started this conquest and now they're losing ground and throwing nuclear threats around.
The Ukrainians have zero reason to stop, and besides, why would we give other fascists any ideas by backing down?
If you think we should just hand over territory to Russ, maybe start by giving up your own house first.

It’s becoming obvious to them now, isn't it? They realize they're losing this war, and now they're basically begging everyone to just leave Crimea alone. 🙂

wiredcyclist18 said:Like someone already pointed out, you're drinking way too much of that incel YouTuber Kool-Aid. Just admit you're bothered by seeing women in positions of power. Sorry, but neither I nor probably 70% of Marvel fans WANT to sit through twenty movies featuring the exact same hero. They retired Iron Man, now Spider-Man's taking over. They retired Captain America, now we've got Falcon and Winter Soldier. It's time to retire Thor too, and he'll be succeeded by THE MIGHTY THOR—and strangely enough, I don't see any "-woman" attached to that name...

Oh, and by the way, you guys clearly haven't heard that Valkyrie has been confirmed as bisexual and they're actually going to touch on that in the movie... I honestly can't wait to watch your little incel meltdowns hit the internet this July.☕☕☕

Like, 99% of TV shows feature lesbians now (not gay guys, because people find it easier to brag about being "woke" when it's women). Nobody is even coming up with this stuff anymore; it’s just following a tired trend.
In Marvel movies, though, they keep the lesbian characters super brief, which is smart because it lets them easily cut those parts out for the Chinese market. 😒

Basically, it’s just massive hypocrisy if you actually look at the data. There are almost twice as many gay men in the population compared to lesbians, yet there are like ten or fifteen times more lesbians appearing in these series.

Grace Edwards said:Did I just go ahead and list the actual heroines in my last sentence? I guess. Maybe. 🙏
That’s how you build a legitimate female superhero arc. You don't do it by just slapping some anatomical nonsense or unnecessary cleavage onto a suit designed for the male gaze. It shouldn't be about that.

Honestly, just thinking about names like Wonder Man or Cat Man makes me cringe. It sounds so incredibly stupid. I guess if you flipped the script on those roles, people would just call them hacks and total rip-offs. Maybe.

Look, no superhero is truly "original." Every single one is just a remix of ancient myths, most of which were first written down in Ancient Greece. The point is, the world was centered entirely around male action until pretty much now, so we ended up with mostly male heroes being recycled all the way from those old legends to Iron Man or Spider-Man. A female Thor or a female Spider-Man isn't any less original than the guys, and it's definitely not like the male heroes "built their own fame" from scratch.

Grace Edwards said:What bothers me is when a woman just takes over someone else's role instead of carving out her own path.
The hammer is there, the uniform is there—great, everything's ready, all we need now is a red carpet.

The whole thing about Spider-Man or Iron Man is that they built their own reputations—they actually made the tech, designed the suits, studied the science themselves.

It’s not that I think women can’t be heroes, it’s more that I wish they’d be original and actually try to make a name for themselves instead of just slapping a "-woman" suffix onto a superhero title.
Like Natasha Romanoff, Storm, Valkyrie, or Gamora, for example.

Wow, what a load of absolute nonsense. This is honestly painful to read.
You’re just parroting YouTube propaganda like a parrot.
Nothing in this world is truly "original," not even a superhero like Thor.
The idea that male superheroes are somehow "original" while female ones aren't is easily the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard from those YouTube whiners, and now these brainless parrots are just repeating it everywhere they go.

This woman isn't replacing Thor; the entire plot of the movie is that she was granted Thor's powers, which is written right there on the hammer.

So, what's the deal? Why won't this be playing in our AMC Theatres?

Donna Harris11 said:I've been having some really rough days lately

instead of us Americans actually standing together, we just end up fighting one another over interests that aren't even ours to begin with

Chinese...

“We need ammunition, not just a ride,”
The Ukrainians are absolutely fired up right now... honestly, it feels like things could go south fast in Kyiv.
Realistically, they’re facing an uphill battle, but unless this whole thing is a massive setup, they're actually dealing out more damage to Russia than anyone anticipated.

Here’s the genius for you—after fifteen years of churning out superhero movies, he’s suddenly decided to get deep and start chasing cheap internet points.

ruggedfalcon28 said:That’s not the point. The issue is that the entire origin story of the Birds of Prey was completely rewritten just to carve out space for Harley Quinn. If this is a Birds of Prey movie, why is Harley Quinn the lead when she has zero connection to them originally? And if it's a Harley Quinn movie, why are the Birds of Prey even there? It’s the same deal with the villain, Black Mask. His primary rivals are Batman and Catwoman—neither of whom show up here. When you make a solo film about, say, Batman, you aren't going to pick Lex Luthor or Black Mask as his antagonist. You'd choose someone actually tied to him—someone like The Joker, Penguin, or Scarecrow. In this movie, nobody is connected to anyone. It feels like the screenwriter just grabbed random scraps from everywhere, tossed them in a washing machine, ran a cycle, and called it a plot.

Man, you are nitpicking so hard.
Birds of Prey didn't have massive hype for being a big-budget blockbuster; Harley Quinn just happened to stumble into popularity by accident.
So they stuffed some extra material into the franchise to fix the fact that their expanded universe was falling apart.
The movie needed to appeal to a younger audience, so they couldn't just fill it with straight-up criminals as the main leads—they had to include some more "positive" characters.
And honestly? They pulled it off. Harley has her own unique vibe, the Birds of Prey were fun, and the villain was great (well, for this specific movie, not necessarily as a recurring character).

ruggedfalcon28 said:You can't just look at the production budget—you have to factor in the massive marketing spend too. To actually break even, a movie has to claw back every cent spent on filming *plus* every dollar poured into advertising. Real profit only starts once you clear that combined mountain of debt. It seems some people struggle with the math regarding why the 2016 Ghostbusters reboot was such a financial disaster—even though it pulled in $229 million against a $144 million budget. An amateur would look at those numbers and claim there was an $85 million profit ($229 - $144 = $85). Technically true, sure—but it ignores the ad campaign. Sony openly admitted the film needed to hit the $300 million mark just to break even. Since it only made $229 million, Sony ended up staring down a loss of about $70 million.

Minor tweaks aren't the issue—it's the massive shifts that fail. Since we're talking comics, let's get one thing straight: who actually founded the Birds of Prey? Is it Harley Quinn? It isn't! The founder is Barbara Gordon—the original Batgirl—who, after being paralyzed from the waist down by The Joker, decided to fight justice as a hacker known as Oracle, leading a team of heroes to handle the field work for her. In the comics, Harley Quinn has absolutely nothing to do with the Birds of Prey. How could she? She’s a chaotic criminal, while the Birds of Prey are actual heroes. Because Barbara Gordon is missing from the DCEU, this movie is trying to force two polar opposites together. That's what's bothering people—myself included.

Did you even see the movie?
Harley didn't just fail to found the Birds of Prey; she isn't even a member.

The movie itself is fun, though—not "good," just fun.