Russian Ukraine shenanigans

[HeloDude]

1 hour ago, Lord Ratner said:

The suffering of the American people at the hands of our politicians, regardless of how incompetent, is only unique in how minimal it has been

Pretty sure we can have that without being the world’s policeman and massive defense spending every year.  And I would argue that we have less liberty and freedom in this country this bigger our government gets (and yes, thar includes defense spending).

Edited January 20, 2024 by HeloDude

[Lord Ratner]

1 hour ago, HeloDude said:

Pretty sure we can have that without being the world’s policeman and massive defense spending every year.  And I would argue that we have less liberty and freedom in this country this bigger our government gets (and yes, thar includes defense spending).

Sure we can, and yes we do. I was addressing the words he chose to use, not the ones you might have used instead.

[Clark Griswold]

6 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

The suffering of the American people at the hands of our politicians, regardless of how incompetent, is only unique in how minimal it has been

I doubt these Americans would agree with that 

https://www.foxnews.com/media/angel-moms-furious-biden-admin-illegal-immigrant-arrest-murder-texas-teen

https://www.foxnews.com/media/angel-families-unload-biden-title-42-ends-worse-third-world-country

[Lord Ratner]

2 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

I doubt these Americans would agree with that 

https://www.foxnews.com/media/angel-moms-furious-biden-admin-illegal-immigrant-arrest-murder-texas-teen

https://www.foxnews.com/media/angel-families-unload-biden-title-42-ends-worse-third-world-country

Yeah, and that sucks. Believe me, the immigration crisis is infuriating. But you think it's better in Europe? Asia? South America?

 

Something can suck and still be the best. It's a sad indictment on where we are, but it's reality.

[Clark Griswold]

Yeah, and that sucks. Believe me, the immigration crisis is infuriating. But you think it's better in Europe? Asia? South America?
 
Something can suck and still be the best. It's a sad indictment on where we are, but it's reality.

Fair enough
Don’t think it’s any better anywhere else in the Western / Developed world
“Leaders” everywhere see the people of their nations as nothing but interchangeable cogs


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BashiChuni]

12 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

Yeah, and that sucks. Believe me, the immigration crisis is infuriating. But you think it's better in Europe? Asia? South America?

 

Something can suck and still be the best. It's a sad indictment on where we are, but it's reality.

its all by design. open border wef globalists who meet in davos...

[BashiChuni]

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-duran-podcast/id1442883993

great podcast discussing ukraine events in detail. from the right side of view, but lots of facts mixed in with opinion commentary.

[busdriver]

3 hours ago, DSG said:

That being said, quite a lot of citizens were slaughtered in the war to deny the South its self-determination, as I seem to recall.  It's so funny to watch conservatives abandon that one like rats on a sinking galleon in the last 5 years.

In what corner of the world do you sit that you think conservatives abandoned the south will rise again stupidity in the last 5 years?

 

 

Go fuck yourself in the corner with a hot curling iron.

[ViperStud]

7 hours ago, DSG said:

That being said, quite a lot of citizens were slaughtered in the war to deny the South its self-determination, as I seem to recall.  It's so funny to watch conservatives abandon that one like rats on a sinking galleon in the last 5 years.

Holy shit I didn’t think this kind of anti-American stupidity still existed. Please, expand on these beliefs. 

[DSG]

5 hours ago, ViperStud said:

Holy shit I didn’t think this kind of anti-American stupidity still existed. Please, expand on these beliefs. 

Expand what?  I don’t put any particular stock in the “Lost Cause,” but it was hardly a bloodless disagreement, and one that required careful reconciliation.  And it carried the sympathy of many conservatives until roughly yesterday.  
 

Edit — I’ve been needlessly provocative, so I’ll let it go.  

Edited January 28, 2024 by DSG
Tone

[McJay Pilot]

Another Russian surface vessel that now identifies as a submarine!

If nothing else, every branch should all be thoroughly concerned with figuring out defenses against drones.

Edited February 2, 2024 by McJay Pilot
Nicht sprechen navy.

[Biff_T]

3 hours ago, McJay Pilot said:

If nothing else, every branch should all be thoroughly concerned with figuring out defenses against drones

This

[StoleIt]

8 hours ago, McJay Pilot said:

Another Russian Cruiser converted to submarine!

If nothing else, every branch should all be thoroughly concerned with figuring out defenses against drones.

Outstanding!

But one point of correction: based on the title I was thinking it was a Kirov or another Slava (remember when they sank the Moskva back in 2022) class...the ship in this video was "only" a Corvette.

[Lawman]

Outstanding!
But one point of correction: based on the title I was thinking it was a Kirov or another Slava (remember when they sank the Moskva back in 2022) class...the ship in this video was "only" a Corvette.

If they keep this up, “Flagship” will be the default title for whatever the Russians have left in the water.

That should simplify things for journalists trying to do Navy vessel identification.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[hindsight2020]

Fantastic shot. Reminds me of that [de]motivational poster lol.

Edited February 2, 2024 by hindsight2020

[gearhog]

Why is Tucker Carlson being allowed to publish his interview with Vladimir Putin tomorrow evening at 6pm EST?

If we're at war with Russia, and Tucker interviews the leader of the country we are at war with, and then publishes that interview on American media outlets, is that not Anti-American propaganda? Is it not traitorous? We already know every word Putin says in the interview will be a lie, so why would we allow anyone to see dangerous misinformation?

It only makes sense to sanction and bring charges against anyone deliberately causing harm to our national security.

[nunya]

11 minutes ago, gearhog said:

why would we allow anyone to see dangerous misinformation?

In a better world, the viewer would analyze the speaker and the message and judge accordingly. You think most of what's broadcast domestically is not propaganda and misinformation? You think most of what Trump or Pelosi or Biden or the squad chicks say is truth? I think it's a perfect opportunity to sit down with your kids (or great-grandkids, CH & Huggy) and talk about critical thinking.

[raimius]

18 minutes ago, gearhog said:

Why is Tucker Carlson being allowed to publish his interview with Vladimir Putin tomorrow evening at 6pm EST?

If we're at war with Russia, and Tucker interviews the leader of the country we are at war with, and then publishes that interview on American media outlets, is that not Anti-American propaganda? Is it not traitorous? We already know every word Putin says in the interview will be a lie, so why would we allow anyone to see dangerous misinformation?

It only makes sense to sanction and bring charges against anyone deliberately causing harm to our national security.

Because he is a free citizen and we are not at war with Russia?

I'd actually like to hear Putin's "reasons" so that we can more accurately counter his propaganda/respond appropriately to his abuses.

[Clark Griswold]

Why is Tucker Carlson being allowed to publish his interview with Vladimir Putin tomorrow evening at 6pm EST?
If we're at war with Russia, and Tucker interviews the leader of the country we are at war with, and then publishes that interview on American media outlets, is that not Anti-American propaganda? Is it not traitorous? We already know every word Putin says in the interview will be a lie, so why would we allow anyone to see dangerous misinformation?
It only makes sense to sanction and bring charges against anyone deliberately causing harm to our national security.

Kinda of an expansive definition to say talking to someone then letting others see it at their own choosing to view it or not is harmful to our national security


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[gearhog]

2 hours ago, nunya said:

In a better world, the viewer would analyze the speaker and the message and judge accordingly. You think most of what's broadcast domestically is not propaganda and misinformation? You think most of what Trump or Pelosi or Biden or the squad chicks say is truth? I think it's a perfect opportunity to sit down with your kids (or great-grandkids, CH & Huggy) and talk about critical thinking.

Unfortunately, we don't live in that world are absolutely not going to. Personally, critical thinking among children on this issue isn't anywhere near the top of my list of concerns. My concerns are with the full grown adults with actionable opinions on the matter that do not have critical thinking skills, and no one is going to sit with them. What if some of them are unable to see through the lies and actually take the interview at face value? Allowing Putin to speak freely to the American people can only be detrimental to our cause, unless equal time and questioning were given to Biden and perhaps Zalensky.

2 hours ago, raimius said:

Because he is a free citizen and we are not at war with Russia?

I'd actually like to hear Putin's "reasons" so that we can more accurately counter his propaganda/respond appropriately to his abuses.

A supplemental aid package to Ukraine worth $60 Billion is about to be approved, bringing the US total Ukraine aid to roughly $175 Billion. There are American citizens fighting in Ukraine. The majority of Ukraine war-fighting vehicles, weapons systems, and equipment are being supplied by us. I think we're in a war.

Do you believe this interview will reveal glaringly obvious flaws in Putin's rationale, or will he make sense to some people, resulting in a net loss of support for Ukraine? I believe the latter. This is bad for Ukraine, bad for NATO, and bad for our global superiority.

8 minutes ago, Clark Griswold said:

Kinda of an expansive definition to say talking to someone then letting others see it at their own choosing to view it or not is harmful to our national security
 

It's Vladamir Putin, the biggest bad guy on the planet. It's like giving Hitler a platform to explain himself. Introducing the least bit of doubt as to our righteousness could be devastating to the aid we're providing to the Ukrainians, and potentially clear a path for Putin to invade Europe.

[ViperMan]

3 hours ago, gearhog said:

Why is Tucker Carlson being allowed to publish his interview with Vladimir Putin tomorrow evening at 6pm EST?

If we're at war with Russia, and Tucker interviews the leader of the country we are at war with, and then publishes that interview on American media outlets, is that not Anti-American propaganda? Is it not traitorous? We already know every word Putin says in the interview will be a lie, so why would we allow anyone to see dangerous misinformation?

It only makes sense to sanction and bring charges against anyone deliberately causing harm to our national security.

In order to believe this you have to believe either one of two things:

1. That our media apparatus is a propaganda tool.

(or)

2. That the American public is too stupid to see through Putin's BS.

Note: both of those are likely (partially) true.

28 minutes ago, gearhog said:

Personally, critical thinking among children on this issue isn't anywhere near the top of my list of concerns. My concerns are with the full grown adults with actionable opinions on the matter that do not have critical thinking skills, and no one is going to sit with them. What if some of them are unable to see through the lies and actually take the interview at face value?

Oh, there we go. So you have misidentified the root problem here. The problem isn't with the American public hearing a foreign leader's voice - it's that the American public is too stupid to differentiate truth from fiction.

I'll just say one thing. There are plenty on this board who have never heard this interview, and yet, still, come out on the side of Putin/Russia. They have found other talking points from other outlets or other corners of the internet/pod universe that align with their worldview and have used it to reinforce it or support it in one way or another. So your lamentation that this is going to somehow be causative for some unforeseen catastrophe is a non-starter. People who want to believe Putin's propaganda have already found it, and already do.

I'd rather hear it from the horse's mouth, and then listen to other smart people analytically pick it apart and tell us why it's wrong, rather than trust the PTB to protect us from some dude's opinion.

What I personally find far more interesting is why everyone else in a powerful position is so worried that a (truly) alternate view is going to find a platform. That says something far more interesting and, frankly, concerning.

Edited February 7, 2024 by ViperMan

[kaputt]

I’m pretty sure Gearhog was being facetious. Either that or he’s had a complete reversal on his view of the Ukraine conflict. 

[Clark Griswold]

1 hour ago, gearhog said:

It's Vladamir Putin, the biggest bad guy on the planet. It's like giving Hitler a platform to explain himself. Introducing the least bit of doubt as to our righteousness could be devastating to the aid we're providing to the Ukrainians, and potentially clear a path for Putin to invade Europe.

So the least bit of doubt as to our righteousness... so should we have jailed/banned Vietnam War protesters?  Or anti-war activists for any of the conflicts we the US of A have been in or Allies we have supported in their conflicts?  

Freedom has its risks, I'd rather take this risk than the first step down the road you seem to be prodding us on to...

There are limits of course, explicit calls to arms against a legitimate government, policy, law for example but it is unreasonable to say that conversing with a foreign leader involved in a conflict with another nation and not directly at war with the United States is traitorous.  

What's next?  You don't like Orban in Hungary and interviewing him and broadcasting it is against the national interests of the USA?

[Clark Griswold]

2 minutes ago, kaputt said:

I’m pretty sure Gearhog was being facetious. Either that or he’s had a complete reversal on his view of the Ukraine conflict. 

Probably so but I see the Globablists itching for a new form of lockdown hence my pointless BO rantings...

Eurocrtats Threaten Sanctions on Tucker Carlson for Interviewing Putin (breitbart.com)

We're not that far away from thought crimes and 1984

 

[gearhog]

22 minutes ago, ViperMan said:

In order to believe this you have to believe either one of two things:

1. That our media apparatus is a propaganda tool.

(or)

2. That the American public is too stupid to see through Putin's BS.

Note: both of those are likely (partially) true.

Oh, there we go. So you have misidentified the root problem here. The problem isn't with the American public hearing a foreign leader's voice - it's that the American public is too stupid to differentiate truth from fiction.

I'll just say one thing. There are plenty on this board who have never heard this interview, and yet, still, come out on the side of Putin/Russia. They have found other talking points from other outlets or other corners of the internet/pod universe that align with their worldview and have used it to reinforce it or support it in one way or another. So your lamentation that this is going to somehow be causative for some unforeseen catastrophe is a non-starter. People who want to believe Putin's propaganda have already found it, and already do.

I'd rather hear it from the horse's mouth, and then listen to other smart people analytically pick it apart and tell us why it's wrong, rather than trust the PTB to protect us from some dude's opinion.

What I personally find far more interesting is why everyone else in a powerful position is so worried that a (truly) alternate view is going to find a platform. That says something far more interesting and, frankly, concerning.

Isn't it cynical to say the American media is propaganda and the American public is stupid. What is America if not its citizens? If it is that stupid, why would you want them becoming involved in an issue they may not understand?

This interview is only going to add to the Pro-Putin propaganda by a substantial amount and there will likely be more people who believe it than disbelieve it. It seems we have two options:

1. Decrease the amount of Pro-Putin propaganda (restrict Tucker Carlson and his ilk by some fashion)

2. Increase the amount of Pro-US/NATO propaganda. This is the more difficult option. Perhaps, as you say, we could let someone else digest it for us, but who should we listen to?

The most important thing is preserving the US, which means preserving US global leadership. I believe alternate viewpoints should be allowed on most issues, but those that threaten our national security and global dominance can't be allowed to spread unchecked.

1 minute ago, Clark Griswold said:

So the least bit of doubt as to our righteousness... so should we have jailed/banned Vietnam War protesters?  Or anti-war activists for any of the conflicts we the US of A have been in or Allies we have supported in their conflicts?  

Freedom has its risks, I'd rather take this risk than the first step down the road you seem to be prodding us on to...

There are limits of course, explicit calls to arms against a legitimate government, policy, law for example but it is unreasonable to say that conversing with a foreign leader involved in a conflict with another nation and not directly at war with the United States is traitorous.  

What's next?  You don't like Orban in Hungary and interviewing him and broadcasting it is against the national interests of the USA?

There was a large amount of anti-war sentiment during Viet-Nam, and how did that turn out for us? Lots of people began to grow weary of our involvement in AFG, and that didn't turn out so well either. I think we've learned our lesson. We jailed people for Jan 6 and I think we even shot one. There hasn't been any massive anti-government protests since.

Freedom cannot be enjoyed unless there is a government that provides it to you. Allowing anti-US sentiment to proliferate is like shooting yourself in the foot.

Assange and Snowden mishandled classified information, likely giving aid to our enemies. Neither are allowed to roam free. But giving our #1 enemy a massive platform to rationalize his actions and express his anti-US viewpoints to hundreds of millions of people is somehow less criminal? It doesn't make sense.