#5561 ·
So, this "brand new" Lada actually runs on a modified engine straight out of an old 1980s Chevy Nova...
Started by Richard Wilson4 · · 👁 625 views · 9.5K replies
dustyowl29 said:So, this "brand new" Lada actually runs on a modified engine straight out of an old 1980s Chevy Nova...
Bryan Booth82 said:Why are you taking this so far? Why didn't you pick an example closer to home?
Think about it—why were guys from Miami or Seattle on the front lines defending Memphis or San Francisco?
Maybe Mexico wouldn't have cared about those specific parts of the country... they could have just kept living off tourism in Key West or Newport Beach. Screw the US, let them deal with some place like Memphis.
Would Mexicans have ever set up shop near San Diego or Indianapolis??
Would Russians have ever stood on the border....
Oh, right—please, by all means, give us some justifications regarding Indochina and colonialism from two hundred years ago.
Best regards,
Nancy Gomez26 said:Honesty is the best policy.
brightheron64 said:Nice choice you've got there. 😁
Austria and the Czech Republic... why stop there? Let's just throw in Slovakia, Belgium, and Denmark too... then we could probably film some new episodes of 'Allo 'Allo!, maybe in some Eurovision-style format
.
That is a perfectly accurate observation. 👍
Honestly, if I hadn't been clinging to my mantra of "we have America," I don't even know where I would be right now. Where would it end? 😉
slyfox43 said:To cover tens of millions of tons of weaponry, food, and strategic raw materials, the United Kingdom ended up footing a bill exceeding a billion pounds over a fifty-year stretch!!!!!!!!!!@@@
That’s easily the most spineless piece of journalism I’ve read in a long time; the level of manipulation here is staggering. It conveniently omits the fact that everything was eventually settled with WW2 America, because acknowledging that would make their little list look far less impressive.
The British would likely have found themselves much better off avoiding that "debt" altogether, had they left it in the hands of the Berlin version of Putin back then.
dustyowl29 said:So, this "brand new" Lada actually runs on a modified engine straight out of an old 1980s Chevy Nova...
Nancy Gomez26 said:I don't see what the controversy is regarding the fact that delivered weaponry and equipment must eventually be paid for. In fact, it’s a good thing for Ukraine; it ensures there won't be any sudden retroactive claims or hidden conditions later on. Naturally, people will frame this as a massive favor, given that these are critical moments for national survival. If someone had offered us those terms back in '91—we would have jumped at it without asking a single question. When someone extends terms like these during such a decisive moment, you could call it a significant privilege. On the other hand, you could spend years trying to build up your own arsenal through slow purchases, but that carries its own heavy price tag, doesn't it? No matter how you slice it, war is expensive. The only difference here is that the weapons are available precisely when the pressure is highest—when they are needed most—and you settle the bill later, based on what was actually used. Which option is better?
Linda Collins3 said:Give me a break. They keep preaching about how Ukraine is fighting this war for them and instead of them—which is literally true—and now they want to charge them for the very weapons being used to effectively fight for US geopolitical interests too... Americans are using this conflict to reshape the global landscape, or does anyone honestly believe they're just helping Ukraine out of pure humanitarian concern?
I'm not saying Ukraine shouldn't get help—they definitely should—but we need to be realistic. Charging Ukrainians for weapons in this specific context would be pretty pathetic.
Linda Collins3 said:Give me a break. They keep preaching about how Ukraine is fighting this war for them and instead of them—which is literally true—and now they want to charge them for the very weapons being used to effectively fight for US geopolitical interests too... Americans are using this conflict to reshape the global landscape, or does anyone honestly believe they're just helping Ukraine out of pure humanitarian concern?
I'm not saying Ukraine shouldn't get help—they definitely should—but we need to be realistic. Charging Ukrainians for weapons in this specific context would be pretty pathetic.
Linda Collins3 said:Give me a break. They keep preaching about how Ukraine is fighting this war for them and instead of them—which is literally true—and now they want to charge them for the very weapons being used to effectively fight for US geopolitical interests too... Americans are using this conflict to reshape the global landscape, or does anyone honestly believe they're just helping Ukraine out of pure humanitarian concern?
I'm not saying Ukraine shouldn't get help—they definitely should—but we need to be realistic. Charging Ukrainians for weapons in this specific context would be pretty pathetic.
Linda Collins3 said:We’ll offer you a fair price for the chance to fight for our interests...
Nancy Gomez26 said:What you actually mean is they’ll be offered a favorable financial arrangement to procure weapons and gear—tools to drive the occupiers out of their own land. A clean transaction, a debt of gratitude, no hidden strings or lingering "tails" that typically haunt such arrangements.
There is this constant attempt here to push the narrative that Ukrainians are merely fighting someone else's war. They are primarily fighting for themselves and the sovereignty of their nation. For them, there is a massive distinction between living under the sphere of influence of Russia or being aligned with Western Europe. That matters deeply—and they have already made their choice.
crimsoncyclist71 said:Yesterday Dmitry Peskov claimed the only way to end the war is for Ukraine to cede territory to Russia. That confirms this is nothing more than a land grab, yet people here still insist on rambling about American interests. Unbelievable.
Nancy Gomez26 said:What you actually mean is they’ll be offered a favorable financial arrangement to procure weapons and gear—tools to drive the occupiers out of their own land. A clean transaction, a debt of gratitude, no hidden strings or lingering "tails" that typically haunt such arrangements.
There is this constant attempt here to push the narrative that Ukrainians are merely fighting someone else's war. They are primarily fighting for themselves and the sovereignty of their nation. For them, there is a massive distinction between living under the sphere of influence of Russia or being aligned with Western Europe. That matters deeply—and they have already made their choice.
Linda Collins3 said:Nobody actually claimed Ukrainians are fighting solely for outside interests—you just had to read the part where I said "effectively" and "among other things."
But like I said (since you clearly missed it), they *are* effectively fighting for outside interests too. And it’s because of that specific overlap that they get the weapons, not necessarily because of their fight for freedom. Now people act like there should be a bill sent to them for it...
MechaLiver said:The topic here is "sanctions on Russia," not some "conversation with Kocer."
Either start your own thread or just jump into the ones already running; there’s no reason to hijack this specific discussion.
electricsurfer47 said:Honestly, it might even be the exact same engine. You can't just swap things out on a whim; you need serious technical expertise for that. I highly doubt they swapped the whole motor since it's only been four months since the end of those two months.
The real question is, what else in that Lada hasn't been modernized?
What about the brakes??
And ABS?
Or ESP?