placeholder

So, your basic point is to attribute unworthy motivations when journalists challenge the people they interview. Just another example of right wing mind reading.

So what exactly is Carlson's function here?

I'm listening and so far it seems like Carlson is basically taking dictation. There is a transcript available, but you have to join Team Tucker to access it. That's $6 I'm not going to give him.

Whatever the gist of your comments may be, they certainly do not support Sirineou's prediction of the inevitability of decisive action being taken by the US. I don't see how a gradual step-by-step increase in pressure is compatible with that assertion. As far as I can tell, you haven't addressed that point at all but rather chosen to delineate what steps the US might take to ratchet up pressure. So, you may disagree about my contention that we basically are in agreement on the issue of decisive action, but I don't see that you have explained why that is the case. Maybe we'll have to agree to disagree about agreement.

On the basis of their comments and questions, it looks like the Justices are going to be unanimous or close to it in their overruling of the Colorado attempt to disallow Trump from being on the ballot. And their argument makes sense. The Civil War was fought over the issue of states rights vs federal government rights. And it would seem odd that the outcome of that war was an amendment that would elevate the rights of states over that of the federal govt in the case of federal elections. The justices seemed to suggest that it would take an act of Congress to empower the states to disallow candidates.

Well, in the case of the Gaza massacre, US sources affirmed they had strong intelligence that the Iranian govt was as surprised by the news. In the case of the Houthis, apart from their ideological motivation, it has given their popularity a boost. Their bad governance was doing them no favors with the citizens of Yemen. So they had motives of their own. These groups supported by Iran such as Hezbollah, the Houthis, and Hamas have their own agendas. Insofar as it might serve what the mullahs perceive to be in Iran's interest, they won't interfere.

Well, my comment on this thread began with a claim from Sirineou that America was inevitably going to take decisive action. I asked what that decisive action would like like. Nothing in his comments specified what that might be. Your comments on the other hand suggest that decisive action is not likely for the time being and certainly not inevitable. Apart from something unforeseen happening. I suppose if the Iranian regime were to collapse, that might do it. Possibly the Chinese might prevail on the Iranians since Iran sells China a lot of petroleum and the Chinese economy is more dependent than most on external trade. As for a clear victory in this matter...that would be not about overthrowing the Houthis but rather the far more modest goal of restoring free passage in the Red Sea. The 2 shipping giants, Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd, and others are currently not sending vessels through the Suez Canal. And all the experts I have read on the subject seem to agree that nothing that air and sea power are likely to accomplish will persuade them otherwise. So, for the time being, it's Houthis 1, Opponents 0.

LIke the Supreme Court? Which ruled against the forces crying election fraud in 2020? Or the 2 highly conservative judges who lambasted Aileen Cannon for her ruling that favored Trump? Conservative and liberal justices alike have repeatedly ruled against Trump.

Endorsing only positive stuff and nothing negative about a prominent figure like Putin obviously qualifies Carlson as an over-the-top fan. What kind of evidence would even satisfy the criterion you seek to impose. In fact, your request is ridiculous. And thanks for another attempt at deflection. And no, I'm not going to get into a discussion comparing the threat from China vs. the threat from Russia.

History may show it, but you haven't. Please spare us your visions of the future. Actually, if my comment about "Putin's own people" referred to the people of Russia rather than his own staff - that would make it even worse. Once again, Putin's own spokesperson said Carlson's claim about western media was false. As for the lawsuit in question, it wasn't about the election. Tucker Carlson Successfully Argues Nobody Really Believes Tucker Carlson Is Reporting Facts When Tucker Carlson says on his show “[r]emember the facts of the story; these are undisputed" no reasonable person would believe that he was about to state facts. At least, that was Tucker Carlson's own argument in defending himself from a libel suit. That argument convinced U.S. District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil, who dismissed a lawsuit brought by model and actress Karen McDougal. McDougal sued for defamation, alleging Carlson baselessly told his audience she was extorting the President. President Trump allegedly paid $150,000 to help keep quiet a year-long affair with the former Playboy model. https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/greedy-associates/tucker-carlson-successfully-argues-nobody-really-believes-tucker-carlson-is-reporting-facts/

Please share with me some remarks from Carlson about Putin that are negative. I did a search and couldn't find any. Once again, Tucker Carlson is an over-the-top fan of Vladimir Putin. And I'm not going to fall for your other comments which are just an attempt to deflect from the point I raised.

It would be no different if the interviewer was an over-the-top fan of said parties.

I'm not going to fall for your deflection in gauging Pupin's popularity. And he was fired by Fox News for knowingly promoting falsehoods. His attorneys' successful defense of him in a court case was based on the fact that, given his history, no one should expect that what Carlson says is truthful. And of course, you fail to address the main point: Carlson falsely claimed that no other western media had attempted to interview Putin. The Kremlin's own spokesperson said that this was false. That's another falsehood to add to his dismal record.

As I pointed out in my post above, even the Kremlin's spokesman said that Carlson's claim was false.

You sure about that? "Under a 2009 Obama-era executive order titled "Classified National Security Information" the vice president does have the power to declassify documents while they're in office. The order states: "The authority to classify information originally may be exercised only by: (1) the President and the Vice President [...]," as well as "agency heads and officials designated by the President." https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/biden-documents/

What kind of journalist is it who is actually more pro-Putin than Putin's own people? "Carlson, the conservative former Fox News host with a history of airing bogus “news,” claimed — falsely — that prominent U.S. newspapers and television outlets had refused to interview Putin since his invasion of Ukraine and were ignoring Russia’s perspective... “Mr. Carlson is wrong,” Peskov said during his daily briefing for reporters. “We receive many requests for interviews with the president.” https://archive.ph/EDwVt#selection-1051.0-1051.138 https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/02/07/tucker-carlson-putin-russia-ukraine/ Just to clarify: Dmitry Peskov is the Kremlin's spokesperson.

More like some of you expected that result because you have no regard for reality.

I guess they can try. If they do, it seems like a Hail Mary pass. I can't think of a country where that has worked in recent times. This isn't just an organization of terrorists. These people are the defacto rulers of most of North Yemen and the capital. And they are very tough customers by all accounts. LIke the Afghanis. Seems like a forlorn hope. If anything, their active support of Hamas seems to have given a big boost to their popularity which was fading due to their bad governance. Attacks by foreign forces most likely will serve to sustain that popularity.

They already are doing something. You have been remarkably coy about specifying what more they are likely to do. It looks like the current level of engagement isn't enough. So what's left, but landing troops? And that doesn't seem likely. And even on the off chance it does occur, what would be the prospects of that for success?

Another possible threat? Houthis may sabotage western internet cables in Red Sea, Yemen telecoms firms warn Telecom firms linked to the UN-recognised Yemen government have said they fear Houthi rebels are planning to sabotage a network of submarine cables in the Red Sea critical to the functioning of the western internet and the transmission of financial data. The warning came after a Houthi-linked Telegram channel published a map of the cables running along the bed of the Red Sea. The image was accompanied by a message: “There are maps of international cables connecting all regions of the world through the sea. It seems that Yemen is in a strategic location, as internet lines that connect entire continents – not only countries – pass near it.” https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/feb/05/houthis-may-sabotage-western-internet-cables-in-red-sea-yemen-telecoms-firms-warn

Another self-appointed spokesperson.

The issue I raised was with this from Sirineou: "Anyone who thinks the US will not react decisively is sadly mistaken." It looks to me like you're number yourself among the "sadly mistaken"? And, that, in fact, we are in agreement about this.

Is there less bombing now? I'm not saying that there isn't. I just haven't been able to find any evidence that this is the case.

I think in this case, decisively means magically. Because I haven't seen any concrete plan for how this would play out.

What does it mean for the US to act "decisively"? I don't think I've found anyone on the internet with deep knowledge of the situation there thinks that the Houthis can be bombed into submission. Is the US going to send ground forces there? That doesn't seem likely. A quagmire, more likely. And now that I've used that word, is it ever used any way but metaphorically?