I believe he went to the Culbert school of math
1999 = 0.5 le
2012 = 0.5 les
====================
1.0 le (4th le)
By the way, Russia's demographic crisis is going to be very severe decades down the road. It'll be extremely difficult for a population of perhaps only 100-120 million to adequately patrol, populate, occupy and govern a land nearly twice the size of the United States, especially in the Far East.
Canada has 34 million people and they seem to manage ok.
tbh I more thankful Truman said those ch!nks and flexed nuts so the whole world knew who the they were dealing with
Canada faces far fewer territorial threats. Canada shares borders with only one nation, the United States, and the two neighbors are at peace with each other. Few if any nations threaten Canada militarily. And even still, you could make the case that Canada could use a lot more people.
Russia faces sticky security issues on all sides. Russia is facing a strategic rival/partner on its far East, China, who vastly outnumbers it. Russia shares borders with 12 nations. Russia faces NATO on its west, a 28-nation alliance that was historically made to contain Russia/the USSR. Russia has issues with the Chechens on the south, and also claims the Kurile Islands on its far East which Japan claims as well. On top of that there's the issue of the North Koreans at the Yalu River, also on Russia's border.
Lol at Anti spurs sons whining about lock out les
Finally, let's compare some stats:
United States GDP: $14 trillion.
Russia GDP: $1.4 trillion.
United States defense spending: Over $500 billion.
Russia defense spending: Over $60 billion.
United States population: Over 300 million.
Russia population: Over 140 million.
SONS no future at all and 0 les for your team SONS............. Oh yeah your football team is ed too lol.
son how is your football team doing?
oh and son how is that green card application process going?
Every team played the same amount of games...every team tried to win the le. '99 wasn't an asterisk...2012 won't be either. Anyway, even if it was, I'd rock that banner any day of the week, and so would any of you hypocrites that aren't fans of the silver and black
Son, that's not like you...laid to waste so you have to change the subject? What's up with that?
BR, here's to many more years of low priced season tickets for you. I hope you get floor seats for 30 a season.
How can you not say that the 1999 championship does not deserve an asterisk or note indicating that the season was only 50 games? This championship will also need an asterisk to indicate that the season was only 66 games. Why are Spurs' fans so insecure and anal about this ? No one is going to take the trophies and banners away.
lol the Spurs have hundreds of $2.00 playoff tickets available to try and fill the arena up.BR, here's to many more years of low priced season tickets for you. I hope you get floor seats for 30 a season.
The playoffs work the same regardless of how many regular season games there were. TBH, it seems like putting an asterisk by older les saying that first round series were Best of 5 instead of Best of 7, or an asterisk that says that the le occurred before the introduction of the 3-point shot. Those were the rules that season, and the team that won was the best under those rules.
Spurs fans think that an * is the kiss of death or something. It's not bad. It just indicates the amount of games played and is mainly used for record keeping. Embrace the *
Attach an asterisk if you want. As I've posted elsewhere, it doesn't bother me. I'm just saying that for me, as long as the rules are set by the league ahead of time and all the teams play by the same rules, one set of rules is as good as any other.
On the other hand, if it turns out that the winner was engaged in Olympic-style blood doping or the losing team was shaving points or something, then I'd attach a big fat asterisk.
Not 82 games
http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/MNL/1950.html
Asterisk after every season since?
trotsky and stalin were the two successors of lenin, trotsky was just a pussy ass intelectual, he wasn't strong enough to lead the party, or russa for that matter, stalin ousted him rather easily, and later had him assissinated
8.5/10
I also don't think nukes would not be as effective vs russia, because in japan they were dropped on two civilian cities who's population was concentrated. As well as, nukes were not as devastating then as they are today, since americans just started producing them, they were more of a psychological weapon. On the battlefield troops are more spread out, and so the casualty figures would not be as impressive as when you use them against concentrated civilians. Another thing, if americans started using them, russians would have sped up their own nuclear program, thereby getting them even sooner then they did historically, in order to repay the favour.
here's a good post from a military forum
"I've been a lurker here for awhile, but I just can't resist a good hypothetical discussion ;p
In my opinion, it is a rather complex issue. Rumors were abound that the Soviets were "spent" however, I think you have to be cautious when you interpret "spent". In this war, I don't think you can count on the Canadians or the Brits for any serious extra input in terms of manpower. The Commonwealth was already stretching the limit just meeting its requirements for D-Day. I think it would have come down to one thing really, the Soviets vastly outnumbered the allies in terms of raw manpower. Add to that the Soviet armies were forged in the most ruthless fighting of the war, they were used to an entirely different level of hardship and fighting that the Allies for all intents and purposes were never exposed to luckily. It is my personal opinion that the Allies would have been thrown out of Europe rather promptly and that would have ended the entire war there. The civilian outcry at losing such a massive force against a one time "ally" probably would put the breaks on any future endeavors.
There are other intangables, such as nukes, but I really feel that despite the use of nukes, the Soviets were absolutely resolved at this point in their history to not give up, especially after coming so close to utter defeat and rally back to win through.
If the allies managed to somehow hang on in Europe, and prolong the war, I think then, and only then would the allies have a chance. However that would have entailed the US entering a state of total war, in which every able bodied man aside from Farmers was conscripted and packed off to europe wholesale. Only then would I believe the allies would have had the men on the ground to batter back the "spent" Soviets ;p
I just feel that, the Soviets had been through so much, to let a miniscule force compared to what they had defeated, take ultimate salvation away from them."
nuking japs wasn't even necessary, after beating the germans in 1945, russia turned its eyes on the japs occupying china in the east, and overrun them with the outmost ease, japs were ed either way, tbhtbh I more thankful Truman said those ch!nks and flexed nuts so the whole world knew who the they were dealing with
Russia did also a find job ing Napoleon great army... ing winter
history has shown holding its borders isn't an issue, russia has been a nation for 1600 years, US for only 300, and has far more enemies in the world than russia at this time, no one is denying that US is number one at this point, but your country is very young, so lets see what the future holds, will you be able to keep your dominant position over the long haul? on the other hand, russia has already shown it can survive the ups and downs that time brings, to say the least
lol chechens
after all the effort ...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote