Putin's War With Ukraine (and democracy, freedom, self-determination, etc.)

Bad actors pretend to express a different opinion, while in reality promote misinformation. That's where the issue lies.

I don't disagree with you there. It's a fine line to walk. But by not addressing it the potential for damage is greater.

I'm not involved in how staff choose to address it. But it should be addressed by someone whether community or staff nonetheless.

 

You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts ― Daniel Patrick Moynihan

 

Right. And just keep in mind the same justification is being used by the other side to prevent views that are probably common here from being expressed. Everyone usually thinks they're the good guys.

 

Whooooaaaaa, hold your horses there Tex (from the United Kingdom no less). There is real questioning in America, mostly among the middle class and lower class "deplorables" who actually fight Europe's wars, whether we should be in NATO at all, let alone playing the entire worlds policeman. Folks like Tucker Carlson and Tulsi Gabbard are among the few "establishment" players (media and congress) who are asking fundamental questions of the neo liberal and military industrial complex order. To this arrogant establishment Trump was a real surprise, but not to this deplorable, nor to people like Tucker Carlson.

Now you want to brand them not just "bad actors" but a traitorous part of a misinformation campaign and Putin's tool?!?

f**k you United Kingdom. Your down to just two poorly mainted nuclear boomers and your about as useful to the Ukrainians as a wet noodle, but hey, you've got moralistic crusading down in the Premier League. At least Trump (for all his faults) had the good sense to demand you pull your weight, not that it went anywhere...

British McCarthyites....what the f**k is next...

 

Nothing I am talking about is in reference to "sides", or good or bad. Though I appreciate that this can be abused. Who fact checks the fact checkers etc.

There are people with different opinions, and there are people with ulterior motives. All we can do as individuals is fact check them, investigate their track record, and look for patterns of behaviour. Some journalists do a great job of this if you can find them.

I feel we're having slightly different conversations, and going around in circles at this point.

 

You're making a lot of assumptions about me. Nothing I'm saying is motivated by politics, and everyone is open game for criticism. There's plenty of corruption in the world regardless of political party or country.

If you think Tucker Carlson is a bastion of truth I strongly advise you to improve your fact checking skills.

Say what you want, but please simmer down, otherwise the thread will just get locked.

 

f**k you.

...Insidious manipulations by proxy infiltrating public discourse must be guarded against..."

I suggest you "fact check" your own Orwellian understanding of "public discourse". It appears you would censor, silent, or worse, folks like Tulsi and Tucker because they are not down with the Globalistic Neo Liberal Crusade. You are also committing a basic category error, confusing fact with morals (variously called opinion, religion, etc.).

One of the privileges of being the worlds super-power/policeman is that our own politics determines its use and abuse, and the fact is we have enabled you folks across the pond for entirely too long, you've have been a full on dysfunctional drunk since 1991. Let Trump be a warning to you, things are a changing over here. I suggest you start building a real nuclear defense and a real army before its too late.

 

Your assumptions about me are wrong on all counts.

I'm not well informed enough on USA/UK/EU history to comment, and this may come as a surprise but I'm not responsible for the decisions of the UK government.

I'd rather not open that can of worms here right now.

 

There is no real nuclear defense, not really, as I understand.

 

Good stuff

 

Defense, deterrent, choose your word. That's all it is because you can't really use it (assuming it's credible and can reliably burn millions your enemies people thereby dismantling anything they would call a "civilization").

For the last 100 years, certainly since the end of WWII, America has been THE super power. We have invaded when and where we choose, spreading nihilistic consumerism and "freedom" to the poor backwards people of the world when and where we saw fit...except where we could not because backwards and in need of our Salvation though they may be, they had nukes. Currently we can not invade Russia, China, India, Pakistan, France, UK (though their deterrent is in such bad shape we could), North Korea (though can they really get a nuke to our soil?), and probably Israel and Japan, at least if they had time to put them together.

Since Iran is not the least interested in our Crusade, no wonder they are working hard to get nukes. Here is what will be an unpopular idea among the true believers: the more I think about it, nuclear proliferation is and will be a good thing. At the very least, it will make the Neo Liberal Global Crusade untenable as a practical matter, and countless American lives and resources will be saved, though our Euro dependents will complain of "isolationism" endlessly, possibly while they stare down Russian tanks with their wholly inadequate armies...

 

There is a difference, although they do relate in bizarre ways. The thought occurred to me that we aught to be lying about how well our missile defense system works.

If we claimed our shield could 100% defeat an all-out attack it would damage Russia and China's deterrence, and thus result in them scaling up their arsenal. The best course would be to claim the shield is a piece of dogshit that couldn't shoot down a weather balloon and then if something happens, surprise! it defeats everything. Best guess though, it probably doesn't work. Shooting bullets with bullets is probably hard.

Yup.

 

I agree it would not be the right time if we lived in Cronkite's America, Leave it to Beaver's America, or some other idealism that may or may not have existed in the past. In our time however we have the vast majority of the establishment, on both the left or right, explicitly calling for "no fly zones" (euphemism for "let's shoot down Russian Migs") and the internal assassination of the el-presidente-for-life of Russia, even though without any sense of irony and at the same time they claim the man is crazy, unhinged, and in charge of the largest nuclear stock pile in the world.

As to your second point, I agree in principal, at least when it comes to the usual and mundane, but not if a nuclear WWIII is in play. Too bad many more Republicans (I count myself among them) did not question the narrative that lead to the invasion of Iraq.

As to the last point I think your correct but so what. Mercurial tyrants are a dime a doze, and are normative throughout history and the world. It is clear that the post-soviet Neo Liberal Order got the basics wrong. We thought if you spread consumeristic peace, love, and dope throughout the world - at the point of the gun - the rest of the world would become good and peaceful Classically Liberal states/society/cultures because we are true believers and think that is man's "natural state" and to which man "progresses" toward.

I wager Putin dies in his sleep an old man in full control of Russia and at least the eastern half of Ukraine, if not all of it. We will have our hands full with an ascendant China to do much about it, other than proclaim in vain "but, but, but, the Rights of Man!!".

America needs more outsiders, more "diversity", like Tucker and Gabbard, even if they are wrong 70 or 80% of the time. We need less of the usual Neo Liberal Crusaders (who in fact control the universities, government, media, and even most of the churches) who have all the right opinions they learned at Yale and Harvard.

 

Russia already countered. Their latest ICBM spends its flight time right at the top of the atmosphere, with the extra energy/speed needed to accomplish this, giving our (mostly ship based) system a very small attack window. Numbers mean some civilization destroying amount get through. I'm probably not describing this well. Hypersonic cruise missile is another counter, though I am not aware if Russia or China has a reliable nuclear system in place yet.

 

I still don’t know why anyone would believe anything Tucker Carlson says when he successfully argued against doing so in a court of law.

https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/...y-believes-tucker-carlson-is-reporting-facts/

 

I'm done with your insults @crenca. You used to have interesting things to say and I used to enjoy reading your posts. Now you're just insulting people. I'm British. Are you telling me to f**k off, too? Grow up.

 

Why did Putin wait until Trump was out of office to invade? He would have had tons of political cover. Worse for him, it's turned into a kumbaya moment for the US and NATO.

 

pretty sure Putin was banking on Trump winning a second term.

 

The theory I've seen and believe is that Putin thought that if Trump were reelected and also managed to get a more favorable House/Senate in place (observe the ongoing strength of candidates who back him in the Republican party), he might just be able to get Trump to leave NATO without really having to do anything, and then all his other goals become a lot easier.