(03-18-2022 11:36 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-18-2022 11:16 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(03-18-2022 11:06 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-16-2022 12:09 PM)bullet Wrote:  Also:

"...You're the Congress and you're moved by the suffering in Ukraine. Every American is. Americans are kind people. They want to help. Civilians in Ukraine are being crushed by Vladimir Putin. That's true. How can we help? Well, why don't we send more weapons to Ukraine in the middle of a war? It doesn't sound like a bad idea, but if you're going to make that decision, you'd probably feel some kind of moral obligation to consider the ramifications. Like, what effect will this actually have? Is it possible that doing this, as well-intentioned as it is, (and it is) is it possible doing this will be counterproductive? Will it hurt the people I'm hoping to help?

Will it, for example, prolong the fighting in Ukraine at the expense of the vulnerable civilian population in Ukraine? If I do this, could I inadvertently be doing to Ukraine what the West inadvertently did to, let's say, Iraq, Syria, Libya and Afghanistan? You wouldn't want that. You'd hate to do something like that again, because that would be cruel. So, you'd want to make sure you weren't doing that. But not a single person in Washington, at least in public, appears to be asking that question. No one's allowed to ask that question. What are you a Putin defender? And in fact, as well-meaning as most Americans are—most of our lawmakers are well-meaning—you get the sense that the core figures in our foreign policy establishment don't really care. And in fact, never have cared about the effects of their policy.

We can give you a million examples. Here's one: Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright way back in 1996, shrugged off the documented deaths of half a million Iraqi children. Not a small number, half a million, because imposing sanctions on Saddam Hussein was "worth it....""

In the interest of "just asking questions" guys like Tucker-----Why is it all the esoteric "just asking questions" arguments never seem to bring up the fact we convinced Ukraine to give up its nuclear weapons arsenal with promises to secure Ukrainian sovereignty? The fact is---unless you think Russia would have attacked a bordering nation with more nukes than Russia had---then WE (as in the US) is at the very least DIRECTLY responsible for the current invasion. We certainly left them defenseless in the face of any member of the nuclear club---and then further undermined their security by opposing their entry into NATO.

Look---Ive got no interest in sending our troops to fight for Ukraine---but the truth is---this war never happens if we hadnt sold Ukraine a bill of goods that they didnt need nukes in the new world order that we would enforce. Im fine sending weapons for them to use in their defense. Its the absolute MINIMUM we should be doing. Ukraine and Russia are each run by adults. Either side can quit any time they decide they no longer wish to fight.

Tucker has asked that question on air multiple times the last several weeks. In fact he was the first person and one of the only people to ask that on national TV.

Which again goes back to the point of WHY the media are engaging in this propaganda campaign against him.

The MSM does not want those questions asked, and certainly does not want a large audience to hear them asked.

They don't want people to understand that our own actions have played a massive role in this war. We helped set the stage for the war and now there is a slow push to get us involved by the same people who helped cause it in the first place.

Read what I responded to. The 1994 security guarantees are not mentioned there. What I quoted makes it sound like the only reason the US has any business there is cuz Americans are nice and bad things are happening on TV. Im simply saying that position is disingenuous and fails to capture that OUR nations promised Ukrainian would be secure if they gave up their nukes.

I understand that, I was just pointing out that he has brought that up on air more than once in recent weeks.

Again, I'm not arguing that he is right about everything or that you should agree with him on everything. I take issue with the grossly dishonest propaganda campaign that says he is supporting Putin or sympathetic to Putin as the good guy here.

I want more voices and opinions on this, not less. I want people to feel confident they can take issue with the MSM and WH narrative on a major network and not get attacked and canceled like they are trying to do to him.

(03-18-2022 11:06 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-16-2022 12:09 PM)bullet Wrote:  Also:

"...You're the Congress and you're moved by the suffering in Ukraine. Every American is. Americans are kind people. They want to help. Civilians in Ukraine are being crushed by Vladimir Putin. That's true. How can we help? Well, why don't we send more weapons to Ukraine in the middle of a war? It doesn't sound like a bad idea, but if you're going to make that decision, you'd probably feel some kind of moral obligation to consider the ramifications. Like, what effect will this actually have? Is it possible that doing this, as well-intentioned as it is, (and it is) is it possible doing this will be counterproductive? Will it hurt the people I'm hoping to help?

Will it, for example, prolong the fighting in Ukraine at the expense of the vulnerable civilian population in Ukraine? If I do this, could I inadvertently be doing to Ukraine what the West inadvertently did to, let's say, Iraq, Syria, Libya and Afghanistan? You wouldn't want that. You'd hate to do something like that again, because that would be cruel. So, you'd want to make sure you weren't doing that. But not a single person in Washington, at least in public, appears to be asking that question. No one's allowed to ask that question. What are you a Putin defender? And in fact, as well-meaning as most Americans are—most of our lawmakers are well-meaning—you get the sense that the core figures in our foreign policy establishment don't really care. And in fact, never have cared about the effects of their policy.

We can give you a million examples. Here's one: Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright way back in 1996, shrugged off the documented deaths of half a million Iraqi children. Not a small number, half a million, because imposing sanctions on Saddam Hussein was "worth it....""

In the interest of "just asking questions" guys like Tucker-----Why is it all the esoteric "just asking questions" arguments never seem to bring up the fact we convinced Ukraine to give up its nuclear weapons arsenal with promises to secure Ukrainian sovereignty? The fact is---unless you think Russia would have attacked a bordering nation with more nukes than Russia had---then WE (as in the US) is at the very least SUBSTANTIALLY responsible for the current invasion. We certainly left them defenseless in the face of any member of the nuclear club---and then further undermined their security by opposing their entry into NATO.

Look---Ive got no interest in sending our troops to fight for Ukraine---but the truth is---this war never happens if we hadnt sold Ukraine a bill of goods that they didnt need nukes in the new world order that we would enforce. Im fine sending weapons for them to use in their defense. Its the absolute MINIMUM we should be doing. Ukraine and Russia are each run by adults. Either side can quit any time they decide they no longer wish to fight.

He actually has brought that up. He's brought up just about everything that led up to this mess but you'd have to watch his show and pay attention.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

The propaganda is both leading and subliminal. All you have to do is watch any MSM news outlet and take notice that they can NEVER report on any governmental policy without interjecting a biased opinion into the piece. It is both leading and an attempt at persuasion. It’s not factual. Only fool”s fool can’t see this form of propaganda is eating the very core of your brain.

Americans aren’t stupid although enough left leaning brainwashed utopian seeking Democratic lackeys want you to follow their Regressive religion into the dumpster fire that are the Blue cities. Most Americans are smarter than that.

https://www.poynter.org/ethics-trust/202...ort-finds/

(03-19-2022 08:14 AM)BlueDragon Wrote:  The propaganda is both leading and subliminal. All you have to do is watch any MSM news outlet and take notice that they can NEVER report on any governmental policy without interjecting a biased opinion into the piece. It is both leading and an attempt at persuasion. It’s not factual. Only fool”s fool can’t see this form of propaganda is eating the very core of your brain.

Americans aren’t stupid although enough left leaning brainwashed utopian seeking Democratic lackeys want you to follow their Regressive religion into the dumpster fire that are the Blue cities. Most Americans are smarter than that.

https://www.poynter.org/ethics-trust/202...ort-finds/

It didn't used to be that way. They were biased on what they chose to cover, but they didn't completely ignore big stories. Now, every article, even in AP, is as much editorial as reporting, filled with slanted language and erroneous assumptions.

(03-14-2022 12:46 PM)VA49er Wrote:  It would probably be a good bet to not trust anything coming out of Russia.

Or the U.S.

Why is Russia invading the Ukraine a big deal is 2022? No one gave 2 sh!ts when Putin rolled into Crimea. The reason...To take the focus off Biden.

Read 1984, then it makes perfect sense.

Big partisan gap on responses to Ukraine -

https://www.thebulwark.com/republican-vo...icy-doves/

(03-19-2022 07:53 AM)b2b Wrote:  

(03-18-2022 11:06 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-16-2022 12:09 PM)bullet Wrote:  Also:

"...You're the Congress and you're moved by the suffering in Ukraine. Every American is. Americans are kind people. They want to help. Civilians in Ukraine are being crushed by Vladimir Putin. That's true. How can we help? Well, why don't we send more weapons to Ukraine in the middle of a war? It doesn't sound like a bad idea, but if you're going to make that decision, you'd probably feel some kind of moral obligation to consider the ramifications. Like, what effect will this actually have? Is it possible that doing this, as well-intentioned as it is, (and it is) is it possible doing this will be counterproductive? Will it hurt the people I'm hoping to help?

Will it, for example, prolong the fighting in Ukraine at the expense of the vulnerable civilian population in Ukraine? If I do this, could I inadvertently be doing to Ukraine what the West inadvertently did to, let's say, Iraq, Syria, Libya and Afghanistan? You wouldn't want that. You'd hate to do something like that again, because that would be cruel. So, you'd want to make sure you weren't doing that. But not a single person in Washington, at least in public, appears to be asking that question. No one's allowed to ask that question. What are you a Putin defender? And in fact, as well-meaning as most Americans are—most of our lawmakers are well-meaning—you get the sense that the core figures in our foreign policy establishment don't really care. And in fact, never have cared about the effects of their policy.

We can give you a million examples. Here's one: Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright way back in 1996, shrugged off the documented deaths of half a million Iraqi children. Not a small number, half a million, because imposing sanctions on Saddam Hussein was "worth it....""

In the interest of "just asking questions" guys like Tucker-----Why is it all the esoteric "just asking questions" arguments never seem to bring up the fact we convinced Ukraine to give up its nuclear weapons arsenal with promises to secure Ukrainian sovereignty? The fact is---unless you think Russia would have attacked a bordering nation with more nukes than Russia had---then WE (as in the US) is at the very least SUBSTANTIALLY responsible for the current invasion. We certainly left them defenseless in the face of any member of the nuclear club---and then further undermined their security by opposing their entry into NATO.

Look---Ive got no interest in sending our troops to fight for Ukraine---but the truth is---this war never happens if we hadnt sold Ukraine a bill of goods that they didnt need nukes in the new world order that we would enforce. Im fine sending weapons for them to use in their defense. Its the absolute MINIMUM we should be doing. Ukraine and Russia are each run by adults. Either side can quit any time they decide they no longer wish to fight.

He actually has brought that up. He's brought up just about everything that led up to this mess but you'd have to watch his show and pay attention.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

Then he actually knows the reason we are involved isnt just because "Americans are nice". I dont watch his show every single day---I find it odd that anyone who points out that most of Tucker's arguments in this situation require ignoring some major facts---facts he is fully aware he is ignoring when he makes the argument. What difference does it make if he admits those facts---and then goes right on to ignore them in making his argument? Seems fairly disingenuous to me.

What exactly is your argument with what Im saying? You've admitted I am not misleading anyone. You admit Tucker agrees with the facts Ive mentioned---thus he knows why we are helping Ukraine. I completely agree with him that we have no business sending troops to Ukraine or having US pilots fly missions over that nation. Beyond that---I think a level headed assessment of the facts show we probably have a more reasonable case for some level of involvement in Ukraine than we ever did in second Iraq war. I think we are probably doing about what we should be doing---giving Ukraine the tools they need to fight the war themselves. Our most successful version of this model is not Afghanistan (as many believe)---it's actually Israel.

(03-21-2022 05:40 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  Big partisan gap on responses to Ukraine -

https://www.thebulwark.com/republican-vo...icy-doves/

When did Democrats become warhawks?

Kind of an idiot take.

I don't agree with Tucker, but its a clear, logical argument. Ukraine is not our backyard. Author of the article so hates Republicans, he is blind to logic.

(03-21-2022 05:59 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-21-2022 05:40 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  Big partisan gap on responses to Ukraine -

https://www.thebulwark.com/republican-vo...icy-doves/

When did Democrats become warhawks?

That makes perfect sense to me. Trumps "America First" thing was very popular with conservatives (and many Democrats for that matter) and plays right into avoiding foreign wars with little direct connection to US interests.