Tucker Carlson Goes to Moscow?

[impulse]

2 minutes ago, placeholder said:

You're kind of reasoning makes any discussion of history or relevant. Who knows? Maybe next we'll find out that Hitler installing really didn't partition Poland.

 

 

I'm just claiming that Putin disagreeing with someone's understanding of the history may not mean he's lying.  Especially if that understanding of history is from the same folks that gave us Tonkin and WMD and Russian collusion and the debunked laptop.

 

[nauseus]

11 hours ago, placeholder said:

Sure. You started out with this

"Yeah, better not watch, in case you start asking the wrong questions. Can't have that.

Be efficient and pot plants until the MSNBC fact show comes on!. 555"

 

And ended up with this:

"I expect that certain agreements had to be made in advance to get the appointment in the first place. If any of those had been broken then there would probably have been no interview aired at all."

 

From 'wrong questions' to "I expect that certain agreements had to be made in advance to get the appointment in the first place." It is to laugh.

 

 

Started out? Ended up?!

 

Those are two pieces of two separate comments/responses to two separate and different posts. 

 

You have misrepresented them as one. What is laughable is your pathetic attempt at cheating.

 

[placeholder]

19 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

 

I'm just claiming that Putin disagreeing with someone's understanding of the history may not mean he's lying.  Especially if that understanding of history is from the same folks that gave us Tonkin and WMD and Russian collusion and the debunked laptop.

 

If it was coming only from those folks you might have a point. But that's not the case, so you don't.

[placeholder]

3 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

Started out? Ended up?!

 

Those are two pieces of two separate comments/responses to two separate and different posts. 

 

You have misrepresented them as one. What is laughable is your pathetic attempt at cheating.

 

Given that I was talking about a reversal of your opinion, it would hardly make sense to infer that it occurred in one post. Not that I wouldn't put it past you

Edited February 10 by placeholder

[sirineou]

8 hours ago, placeholder said:

If you actually did know the history, you wouldn't have accepted Putin's twisted version of it.

I believe the same could be said of you  for buying the narrative put forth by the west.  

I have watched the proposition made by Mearsheimer in front of a room full of political science postdocs, not one did  dispute the claims, concerning the reasons and event  that forced Russia to invade Ukraine. 

Having studied the issue extensively I am absolutely convinced that Russia had not choice but to invade. No Choice. 

And those who support the narrative developed by the west and think they are supporting Ukraine and the Ukrainian people are doing the direct opposite, much like they did in the invasion of Iraq. 

Not only history will tell, It is already starting to tell. 

[nauseus]

7 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Given that I was talking about a reversal of your opinion, it would hardly make sense to infer that it occurred in one post. Not that I wouldn't put it past you

 

You are imagining or creating what you perceive to be my 'opinion'. My opinion was only given once. The fist 'quote' was part of a sarcastic response (not to you of course) to Jingthing's recommendation that we should not bother to watch the interview. There was nothing to reverse. You have merged my two separate comments, on separate issues, incompletely and dishonestly.

 

Now you are trying to defend doing that, so I wouldn't put it past you to do it again.

 

[Jingthing]

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

You're kind of reasoning makes any discussion of history or relevant. Who knows? Maybe next we'll find out that Hitler and Stalin really didn't partition Poland. Or were justified in doing so. Well you're pushing is just a kind of nihilism.

Yep.

Interestingly when you watch street interviews of Russians on the amazing youtube channel 1420, that attitude is very common.

[Jingthing]

48 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

You are imagining or creating what you perceive to be my 'opinion'. My opinion was only given once. The fist 'quote' was part of a sarcastic response (not to you of course) to Jingthing's recommendation that we should not bother to watch the interview. There was nothing to reverse. You have merged my two separate comments, on separate issues, incompletely and dishonestly.

 

Now you are trying to defend doing that, so I wouldn't put it past you to do it again.

 

Stop lying!

I did not say don't watch the Interview.

I did suggest because it was so long and mostly boring to watch it with inclusion of commentary of someone I admire who could explain the context.

So a viewer could save two hours that way.

Unfortunately youtube deleted such reaction videos for copyright reasons.

 

 

Edited February 10 by Jingthing

[placeholder]

54 minutes ago, sirineou said:

I believe the same could be said of you  for buying the narrative put forth by the west.  

I have watched the proposition made by Mearsheimer in front of a room full of political science postdocs, not one did  dispute the claims, concerning the reasons and event  that forced Russia to invade Ukraine. 

Having studied the issue extensively I am absolutely convinced that Russia had not choice but to invade. No Choice. 

And those who support the narrative developed by the west and think they are supporting Ukraine and the Ukrainian people are doing the direct opposite, much like they did in the invasion of Iraq. 

Not only history will tell, It is already starting to tell. 

It's amazing what people believe counts as evidence. 'Who cares about your claim that you" watched  the proposition made by Mearsheimer in front of a room full of political science postdocs, not one did dispute the claims, concerning the reasons and event  that forced Russia to invade Ukraine."

And even if so, maybe you should have listened to Mearsheimer more and watched those graduate students less.

Do you even know what Mearsheimer bases his justification of Russia's action on? I doubt it.

 

[Fat is a type of crazy]

1 hour ago, sirineou said:

I believe the same could be said of you  for buying the narrative put forth by the west.  

I have watched the proposition made by Mearsheimer in front of a room full of political science postdocs, not one did  dispute the claims, concerning the reasons and event  that forced Russia to invade Ukraine. 

Having studied the issue extensively I am absolutely convinced that Russia had not choice but to invade. No Choice. 

And those who support the narrative developed by the west and think they are supporting Ukraine and the Ukrainian people are doing the direct opposite, much like they did in the invasion of Iraq. 

Not only history will tell, It is already starting to tell. 

OK . It's your claim. What would have happened imminently  if Russia did not invade Ukraine with all the death and destruction it caused. What would have been worse. I ask because many of your opinions seem to me reasonable except this topic. 

[nauseus]

12 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Stop lying!

I did not say don't watch the Interview.

I did suggest because it was so long and mostly boring to watch it with inclusion of commentary of someone I admire who could explain the context.

So a viewer could save two hours that way.

Unfortunately youtube deleted such reaction videos for copyright reasons.

 

 

 

I'm not lying and I did not say that you said "don't watch the Interview" 

 

I took your suggestions as a recommendation from you, which is fair, I think. 

 

Your post follows:

I will add this.

I did watch it all and I would not suggest that you do the same.

Not worth the time.

What I DO suggest is to watch the live reaction that will be coming up in about five hours from the Inside Russia youtube channel.

That way you will spend your time more efficiently. Still watching the Tucker Kremlin show but getting all the B.S. called out in detail in real time.

[jvs]

All carefully fabricated by trump?

putin saying the West is really to blame and if they stop supporting the Ukraine the war will be over in days?

Does any one really believe this?

maga people probably will and it will make their religion even stronger.

There was absolutely no reason for putin to invade the Ukraine!

All of his so called reasons have been debunked but as always some people with limited analytical

capabilities will never admit they are wrong.

 

[jvs]

5 minutes ago, Robert Paulson said:

People complaining about Tucker Carlson. What about complaining about Rachel Maddow telling the world the virus stops at every vaccinated person?
 

I think it’s funny nobody even thought to put 2 and 2 together and realize how deadly of a statement that was. That could have killed tens of thousands of people. People get vaccinated and go out thinking they’re invincible. Worldwide. Due to her erroneous reporting. And she never addressed it as I mentioned. Never admonished. She actually got a raise.

 

Yet all people want to focus on is Tucker interviewing Putin, harms nobody. It’s the equivalent of covering a grown man’s ears and eyes so he doesn’t see something that you think will be bad for him. Idk I just cant comprehend these people’s positions. 

Totally of topic and nothing to do with this tucker person.

[Hamus Yaigh]

7 minutes ago, Robert Paulson said:

Yet all people want to focus on is Tucker interviewing Putin, harms nobody.

The clue is in the title thread mate. No one has heard or cares about Rachel Maddow. This thread is about a failed US journalist turned Putin puppet.

[sirineou]

46 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

OK . It's your claim. What would have happened imminently  if Russia did not invade Ukraine with all the death and destruction it caused. What would have been worse. I ask because many of your opinions seem to me reasonable except this topic. 

Russia did not do anything the US , or any country having the capacity ,would not do faced with a similar situation.

The narrative is that , this is Putin's war. and he is a bad guy. That he is a bad guy is not in dispute. 

but It is not Putin's  war ,it Russia's war. 

Warnings had be made to the American leadership for decades that western NATO expansion into Ukraine would  result  in a Russian invasion.

Ambassador to Russia and currently CIA secretary Burns.Secratery of state Gates, Angela Merkel, Former President of France  Nicolas Sarkozy

Yet the Americans persisted, then they fainted surprise that Russia invaded.

 So why invade over Ukraine and not the other countries?

 Geography and topography. Previously to Ukraine NATO misadventures , any invasion of russia would have had to come from the Suwałki Gap,(about 100 km wide ) between  Lithuania and Poland, that funnels to the gap between the Russian controlled Kaliningrad and Pro-Russia Belarus.  which is 65 km. 

Opening Ukraine to NATO would open a second , and very large front , impossible to control. 

Now you would ask. Why would NATO invade Russia, NATO  is a defencive organisation?

One does not have to invade ,to intimidate. Having the capacity to do so would intimidate Russia to play ball or........

Now let me ask you this? How often have you heard the above analysis in the  western media, and ask yourself Why?

 

 

Edited February 10 by sirineou
typos

[Mike Lister]

Off topic post removed, the subject is in the header, it is not vaccinations!

[Jingthing]

40 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

I'm not lying and I did not say that you said "don't watch the Interview" 

 

I took your suggestions as a recommendation from you, which is fair, I think. 

 

Your post follows:

I will add this.

I did watch it all and I would not suggest that you do the same.

Not worth the time.

What I DO suggest is to watch the live reaction that will be coming up in about five hours from the Inside Russia youtube channel.

That way you will spend your time more efficiently. Still watching the Tucker Kremlin show but getting all the B.S. called out in detail in real time.

Duh!

Watching a reaction video means watching the entire video merged with commentary.

Again I never suggested not watching it at all.

Why?

For example the history propaganda lecture. 

Tucker didn't know enough to rebut any of that even if he wanted to.

Only people very knowledgeable could.

So watching it combined with knowledgeable commentary included simply saves time.

[Fat is a type of crazy]

17 minutes ago, sirineou said:

Russia did not do anything the US , or any country having the capacity ,would not do faced with a similar situation.

The narrative is that , this Putin's war. and he is a bad guy. That he is a bad guy is not in dispute. 

but It is not Putin's  war / it Russia's war. 

Warnings had be made to the American leadership for decades that western NATO expansion into Ukraine would  result  in a Russian invasion.

Ambassador to Russia and currently CIA secretary Burns.Secratery of state gates, Angela Merkel, Former President of France  Nicolas Sarkozy

Yet the Americans persisted, then they fainted surprise that Russia invaded.

 So why invade over Ukraine and not the other countries?

 Geography and topography. Previously to Ukraine NATO misadventures , any invasion of russia would have had to come from the Suwałki Gap,(about 100 km wide ) between  Lithuania and Poland, that funnels to the gap between the Russian controlled Kaliningrad and Pro-Russia Belarus.  which is 65 km. 

Opening Ukraine to NATO would open a second , and very large front , impossible to control. 

Now you would ask. Why would NATO invade Russia, it is a defencive organisation. 

One does not have to invade ,to intimidate. Having the capacity to do so would intimidate Russia to play ball or........

Now let me ask you this? How often have you heard the above analysis in western media, and ask yourself Why.

 

 

Thanks. I have heard this type of thing. Personally I don't think that is the basis to invade a country as each country can do as they please e.g. Finland joining NATO .  I appreciate Russia would not like such a thing having NATO members on its borders. Your argument though seems to be that a country with genuine concerns about the maintenance of it's sovereignty, that were born out by the facts, can't take steps to do something about it as they see fit.

But, further, there didn't seem to be imminent steps to change the status quo in Ukraine in any case, no massive inevitable push to have Ukraine join NATO at that time, and this further weakens the argument. In fact I can't recall it being a major discussion point at all before Russia went on the offence. It can seem a long bow you are drawing to get from A to B to justify such a terrible outcome. 

I am sure this has all been said before in these threads, but it is up to Russia to make an airtight provable case, for the need for the war. They need  to show an imminent  certainty of Ukraine being about to join NATO, and the terrible practical existential threat that that would have on Russia , given the terrible actual cost of its actions. 

Edited February 10 by Fat is a type of crazy

[ballpoint]

In a scene eerily reminiscent of Dr Strangelove's arm, during the interview Putin's leg daydreams of which country it will trample on next, before he manages to bring it under control.

 

 

[sirineou]

7 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

Thanks. I have heard this type of thing. Personally I don't think that is the basis to invade a country as each country can do as they please e.g. Finland joining NATO . 

Such is the world and human nature. The main responsibility of any countries leader is the welfare of it's people. 

9 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

Your argument though seems to be that a country with genuine concerns about the maintenance of it's sovereignty, that were born out by the facts, can't take steps to do something about it as they see fit.

What are the options?

10 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

But, further, there didn't seem to be imminent steps to change the status quo in Ukraine in any case,

The steps had already be made. Ukraine was on in only name , a de facto NATO country, being armed and trained by them.

The game is not as simple as you think. It would take me pages and pages ro properly explore it. 

So if you are an American president, and knew that if you continued in this course of action , what would you do? Would you make Ukraine a de facto member, or would you make her a full NATO member? What would NATO required to do if one of its members is attacked? 

17 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

In fact I can't recall it being a major discussion point at all before Russia went on the offence.

Because you have not followed the minutiae of the situation. I told you of the statesmen and women who had indeed had "discussions' about this  It is very easy to google these things .

21 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

I am sure this has all been said before in these threads, but it is up to Russia to make an airtight provable case, for the need for the war.

What makes you think it has not? Do you dispute any of the things I told you? Do you think the US would act any differently faced with a similar situation. I am sure you have heard of the Monroe doctrine. 

24 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

terrible practical existential threat that that would have on Russia

What is an "existential threat" to a country?  How does one define one? 

 

Anyway I have said all I am going to say on the subject. this after all is not a thread about Ukraine. 

[candide]

7 hours ago, KhunLA said:

Reading comprehension ... nukes ?  You mentioned them, not me.

 

But as YOU point out, Türkiye has access to USA nukes and is part of NATO, so you are correct, nukes at their doorstep.... "Türkiye shares a maritime border with both Ukraine and Russia in the Black Sea."

 

Wonder why RU doesn't want UA to be part of NATO ... hmm.

 

With B1 & 2 bombers, B52s and nuke subs scattered worldwide, don't think the USA/NATO needs any more.    But again, the war that will never happen.

 

From the posts, it's obvious who did bother to listen to the interview, but yet posted their ignorance.

 

Really hard to have a discussion when most involved are still quite ignorant of the facts.  IMHO

 

Have a nice day.

I did not show any ignorance. All what I posted was factual.So we agree on that point: no expansion of NATO nukes presence at Russia's doorstep.

 

So how are missiles without nukes a fundamental threat to Russia? In particular as the ones put "at the doorstep" after the collapse of the Soviet Union (caused by Russia leaving it, BTW) were antimissile missiles? And Romania is not at the doorstep. Are you ignorant about those facts?

On top of it, how could NATO be considered as an increased threat as the US had reduced its military presence in Europe, and European members had reduced the % of GDP allocated to their army?

Edited February 10 by candide

[nauseus]

3 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Duh!

Watching a reaction video means watching the entire video merged with commentary.

Again I never suggested not watching it at all.

Why?

For example the history propaganda lecture. 

Tucker didn't know enough to rebut any of that even if he wanted to.

Only people very knowledgeable could.

So watching it combined with knowledgeable commentary included simply saves time.

 

So, does all that circumventing mean that I'm not a liar after all? 

[Jingthing]

2 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

So, does all that circumventing mean that I'm not a liar after all? 

I could care less. 

[nauseus]

1 minute ago, Jingthing said:

I could care less. 

 

Well, I can believe you on that one.

[Robert Paulson]

I still can’t believe this Putin character. He wants our tax dollars to stay at home and not used in overseas scam wars in giant money washing schemes. I tell ya idk what I’m gonna do about this Putin propaganda it’s just horrible. 
 

You really do have to wonder when the vision for your tax dollars is better calculated from a guy across the globe than from your own leaders. 

[placeholder]

4 minutes ago, Robert Paulson said:

I still can’t believe this Putin character. He wants our tax dollars to stay at home and not used in overseas scam wars in giant money washing schemes. I tell ya idk what I’m gonna do about this Putin propaganda it’s just horrible. 
 

You really do have to wonder when the vision for your tax dollars is better calculated from a guy across the globe than from your own leaders. 

His concern for Americans is as touching as is mine for the dupes who buy into his sincerity.

Edited February 10 by placeholder

[Jingthing]

18 minutes ago, Robert Paulson said:

I still can’t believe this Putin character. He wants our tax dollars to stay at home and not used in overseas scam wars in giant money washing schemes. I tell ya idk what I’m gonna do about this Putin propaganda it’s just horrible. 
 

You really do have to wonder when the vision for your tax dollars is better calculated from a guy across the globe than from your own leaders. 

His goal is to crush the USA and the collective west.

He's been explicit about that.

In that he has strong allies in Iran, China, etc.

If you want to cave to evil because you don't want to pay for a defense, well you are in a long tradition of America First isolationists like Hitler loving Lindbergh.

Edited February 10 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

14 minutes ago, placeholder said:

His concern for Americans is as touching as is mine for the dupes who buy into his sincerity.

It's funny that so called "conservatives" who consider themselves the real "patriots" are cowering in the face of evil just as they did leading up to WW2.

[Jingthing]

18 minutes ago, placeholder said:

His concern for Americans is as touching as is mine for the dupes who buy into his sincerity.

Dupes. Useful idiots for Putin. Labels don't matter. They're on the wrong side of history. 

[candide]

6 hours ago, sirineou said:

I believe the same could be said of you  for buying the narrative put forth by the west.  

I have watched the proposition made by Mearsheimer in front of a room full of political science postdocs, not one did  dispute the claims, concerning the reasons and event  that forced Russia to invade Ukraine. 

Having studied the issue extensively I am absolutely convinced that Russia had not choice but to invade. No Choice. 

And those who support the narrative developed by the west and think they are supporting Ukraine and the Ukrainian people are doing the direct opposite, much like they did in the invasion of Iraq. 

Not only history will tell, It is already starting to tell. 

There's a difference between induced to, or led to, and forced to. There may be a series of events which induced Putin to invade Ukraine, along other reasons such as his failure to develop his country. It doesn't mean Russia was "forced" to do it. NATO countries did not cause the decline of Russia and it's lack of attractivity for neighbouring countries.

 

I do not agree with your claim about the war in Iraq. Only the U.S. and UK government supported the narrative. Most other European countries (and people) which are supporting Ukraine now were also against the war in Iraq (in particular France). And I would not be surprised if our senior MAGA members used to fully support the invasion of Iraq.(I know you are part of them.