Jump to content

BamaATL

Full Members
  • Posts

    4540
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by BamaATL

  1. 2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

    Unfortunately, and I don't like it, I believe churches are permitted to do "political" things apart from any attempt to "influence legislation" or support or oppose a political candidate. https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organizations/exemption-requirements-501c3-organizations

    I am for tax exemption for legitimate religious and charitable organizations, but believe the rules should be strictly enforced, and maybe even strengthened.

    I'm not sure how you deal with this but's it's a big problem when it comes to the "non-profits" out there.  The vast majority of these aren't really charities, as often times only an extremely small percentage of the proceeds actually go the causes the claim to support.  Basically, they are highly profitable for the board, who gets huge salaries.   I remember a few years ago reading an article on Wounded Warrior, in theory a very noble cause, but in reality the actual charity was only seeing somewhere under 20% of the proceeds.  That's not a non-profit, nor is it a charity, that's a for profit business venture.  

    That's just one example, and unfortunately, if held under the same scrutiny, my bet is you'd find nearly 80% of the "non-profits" are just like this.  

    As for churches, sure some of them are just ordinary small town places trying to do their level best, but the mega church needs be under intense scrutiny and treated like for profit business, because that's what they are.  

    Again, I don't know the exact way to deal with all this, but some level of threshold when it comes to salaries, holding, and actual charitable acts needs to be considered.  

    • Hook 'Em 2
  2. 1 minute ago, SydneyCarton said:

    I feel like even if Ukriane made it to the plant, they'd never shut it off becuase they'd be shunned by the world community for that move. Isn't that a war crime?

    I don't know the answer to that, perhaps someone with international law does.  What I do know, is that while Russia has specifically targeted, in the case of the Zaporizhaia NPP take, and effected energy, I haven't heard anyone call that a war crime.  Then again, Russia has committed so many war crimes, it's hard to keep track of all of it.  

    • Hook 'Em 3
  3. 3 minutes ago, AUS-97HORN said:

    so with all the positives of the attack into Kursk, the downside is that the Russians have gone all-fucking-in on the Donbass attacks.   I think in many cases its gains of 2-4km over the 2 weeks

    Those vloggers are showing that over the last 2 weeks, Russian troops have slowly but continuously gained ground in the areas, and that multiple Ukr towns are now within 8 km of the Russian lines, which means they are being shelled repeatedly.

    Its kind of showing that while the other attack vector is going well, its not accomplishing the main objective which was to get Russia to pull out of that attack and redirect forces into Russia itself to defend against the Kursk incursion.

     

    and I know we originally postulated that this was Ukr tactic to allow Russia to overextend themselves and then be heavily counter-attacked before they can install all the defensive lines and minefields, that honestly doesnt look like whats happening.  its WW1-ish thinking using more mobile troop transports. 

    as cool as the Ukr offensive is, and maybe the long term bargaining chip to allow the trade back of land taken by Russia,  them losing their Southeastern "border" towns to Russia is going to end up hurting almost as much.

     

    Counter point, there is no Ukrainian political will lost by ceding a few miles of bombed out area in the Donbas they are likely to have to cede in a diplomatic resolution.  However, Russia losing half an Oblast could certainly effect the political will within Russia.  

    In my opinion, the scales don't balance.  

    • Hook 'Em 6
    • Like 2
  4. Another interesting aspect to all this is that NATO estimates the Kursk invasion group consists of 6k of front line troops, and 4k of logistics people.  Grabbing such a large swath of land with so little is incredibly well done.  

    There were rumors floating around that the Ukrainians had managed to hold back almost 3k  of some combination of heavy wheeled vehicles, tracked vehicles, etc.  Assuming that NATO numbers to be correct, even if the dipped into that pool of 3k, I doubt it's much, maybe 1k.  That would in theory leave the other 2k for any potential other moves.  

    Beyond an incursion into Belogrod, I just don't see anything that immediately stands out.  The Ukrainains may well save the reserves for later, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if we get another surprise in the next week or so.  There is still about a month or so before the mud.  

    • Hook 'Em 2
    • Like 1
  5. 15 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

    I guess it wasn’t obvious, but the question in this instance was meant to ask how Ukraine can support their Kursk  holdings after the muddy season slows/stops the active fighting. 

    That's a great question, I would presume a combination of preparation, i.e. fortifications and supply caches within them, and then as they can.  It's not something covered a ton, probably because it doesn't involve explosions and what not, but it's what wins.  I'm sure part of the reason we don't see much of this is for protective purposes, and I'm sure there is some level of secret sauce to it.  

    The one interesting aspect to all this is that apparently, the Soviets were more scared of end times than we ever were.  All thru Ukraine, there are fortified underground bunkers pretty much everywhere, so many, that there aren't even accurate records of where they all are (The Ukrainians have admitted they use those for Himars hosting, I would imagine logistics as well).  I'm gonna presume that this is also true in much of Russia, including the Kursk region.  I've already seen that the Ukrainians have seized some of these, including there weapons and tech, and those are probably just the ones they know about.  

    • Hook 'Em 3
    • Like 1
  6. 19 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

    So how do logistics chains work during the muddy season?

    Long story short, they really don't in active combat areas, or if they do its really slow.  If you notice in all the rural areas of Ukraine, all the paved roads and railroads are elevated for to prevent this from being a problem under ordinary circumstances.  However, in the combat zone, or rather within in drone range, paved roads may as well be death sentences for anyone traveling on them as they are under constant surveillance.  So basically everything slows to a crawl.  

    I remember watching the Ukrainians doing training with the Bradleys in the mud, basically it's a total quagmire.  So heavy vehicles, heavy equipment, etc, aren't going to fair well.  Lighter off road vehicles can get thru this sort of stuff with major difficulty, but obviously that means they can't haul nearly as much.  

    • Hook 'Em 2
    • Like 1
  7. 16 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

    on what planet would you believe a Russian promise not to attack your utilities as long as you quit attacking Russian oil and gas facilities?

    If it’s difficult for a pathological liar to be believed in negotiations, maybe not being a pathological liar for the entire history of your country would be a good place to start.

    There are so many problems with that article and this "negotiation".  

    1st -  Since when are the Qatari's the authority on human rights negotiation?  These guys killed thousands to have some soccer games.

    2nd - Russia is a consistent bad faith actor (see the grain deal)

    3rd - even if the power brokers realize that their biggest cash cow, oil and gas, is now in tremendous peril, any negotiating prompted by these guys could be overridden. 

    Why should the Ukrainians even bother?  

    • Hook 'Em 2
    • Like 2
  8. 2 minutes ago, MissingInAction said:

    I anxiously await F-16 freedom boner war porn.

    I saw footage yesterday of an F-16 intercepting a Shaheed with it's gun, but it was quickly pulled down, in fact so quickly it was deleted before I could even post it.  I'm not surprised they are keeping a pretty good lid on their usage.  

    • Hook 'Em 3
    • Like 2
  9. 1 hour ago, Sawbonz said:

    Regardless it will be that much more difficult for the guy who replaces him to continue to prosecute the war which is Ukraine's main problem at the moment 

    The subtitle of every Russian history book reads, "and then it got worse."  I wouldn't count on the next guy being any better, if history tells us anything with them, there is a greater chance he is more of a psycho. 

    • Hook 'Em 4
    • Like 2
×
×
  • Create New...