The Tucker Interviews
-
@Renauda @George-K I agree. Isolationism is a bad thing for a country to have, especially in modern times when the world is smaller than ever.
Preventing President Putin from taking Ukraine IS in the interest of the US for sure.
Maybe he is somehow related to Neville Chamberlain - "Peace in our times" and all that. That worked out pretty well, didn't it?
-
@Renauda said in The Tucker Interviews:
Putin’s quest to reclaim a Russian empire in Europe at the expense the national sovereignty of its smaller neighbours is wholly unacceptable.
Agreed.
What Carlson is asking, rather disingenuously, is whether preventing this is in the interest of the United States.
Gotta wonder how the Poles, Baltic and other countries that suffered under Soviet oppression feel about that.
The "Russia will not win this war, period" attitude is huge in the grand scheme of possibilities it leads to. I think ultimately backing that attitude among non-Ukrainians without actual skin in the game, is the faith that those more severe possibilities won't come to pass. Faith that we won't have to put anything other than tax money, where our mouths are. I have always found this full stop support of Ukraine, to be a heck of a lot of cheap talk.
Education is extremely important.
-
@Renauda said in The Tucker Interviews:
Putin’s quest to reclaim a Russian empire in Europe at the expense the national sovereignty of its smaller neighbours is wholly unacceptable.
Agreed.
What Carlson is asking, rather disingenuously, is whether preventing this is in the interest of the United States.
Gotta wonder how the Poles, Baltic and other countries that suffered under Soviet oppression feel about that.
@George-K said in The Tucker Interviews:
@Renauda said in The Tucker Interviews:
Putin’s quest to reclaim a Russian empire in Europe at the expense the national sovereignty of its smaller neighbours is wholly unacceptable.
Agreed.
What Carlson is asking, rather disingenuously, is whether preventing this is in the interest of the United States.
Gotta wonder how the Poles, Baltic and other countries that suffered under Soviet oppression feel about that.
The US itself determined that European security was in its vital interests when it became a founding member of NATO in 1949. The foundations of NATO grew out the 1941 Atlantic Charter with Britain and the Truman Doctrine in 1947 that stated the US would check communist aggression globally. Moreover, in the wake of WWII, the US was also the sole continental power other than the heavily militarised USSR in Europe. The role of the US in guaranteeing European security is very much of its own desire and choosing.
So when the likes of Carlson start spouting off like a modern day Fr. Coughlin, all it demonstrates is their total ignorance of the centre stage role the US continues to take at its own choosing regardless of who sits in the White House or which party holds the majority in either house in Congress, for over eighty years in Europe.
Carlson is a media jackass, not unlike like his clerical collared predecessor, Coughlin.
Elbows up!
-
@George-K said in The Tucker Interviews:
@Renauda said in The Tucker Interviews:
Putin’s quest to reclaim a Russian empire in Europe at the expense the national sovereignty of its smaller neighbours is wholly unacceptable.
Agreed.
What Carlson is asking, rather disingenuously, is whether preventing this is in the interest of the United States.
Gotta wonder how the Poles, Baltic and other countries that suffered under Soviet oppression feel about that.
The US itself determined that European security was in its vital interests when it became a founding member of NATO in 1949. The foundations of NATO grew out the 1941 Atlantic Charter with Britain and the Truman Doctrine in 1947 that stated the US would check communist aggression globally. Moreover, in the wake of WWII, the US was also the sole continental power other than the heavily militarised USSR in Europe. The role of the US in guaranteeing European security is very much of its own desire and choosing.
So when the likes of Carlson start spouting off like a modern day Fr. Coughlin, all it demonstrates is their total ignorance of the centre stage role the US continues to take at its own choosing regardless of who sits in the White House or which party holds the majority in either house in Congress, for over eighty years in Europe.
Carlson is a media jackass, not unlike like his clerical collared predecessor, Coughlin.
@Renauda said in The Tucker Interviews:
The US itself determined that European security was in its vital interests when it became a founding member of NATO in 1949. The foundations of NATO itself grew out the 1941 Atlantic Charter with Britain and the Truman Doctrine in 1947 that stated the US would check communist aggression globally. Moreover, in the wake of WWII, the US was also the sole continental power other than the heavily militarised USSR in Europe. The role of the US in guaranteeing European security is very much of its own desire and choosing.
Well put.
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
The "Russia will not win this war, period" attitude is huge in the grand scheme of possibilities it leads to. I think ultimately backing that attitude among non-Ukrainians without actual skin in the game, is the faith that those more severe possibilities won't come to pass. Faith that we won't have to put anything other than tax money, where our mouths are. I have always found this full stop support of Ukraine, to be a heck of a lot of cheap talk.
-
@Renauda said in The Tucker Interviews:
The US itself determined that European security was in its vital interests when it became a founding member of NATO in 1949. The foundations of NATO itself grew out the 1941 Atlantic Charter with Britain and the Truman Doctrine in 1947 that stated the US would check communist aggression globally. Moreover, in the wake of WWII, the US was also the sole continental power other than the heavily militarised USSR in Europe. The role of the US in guaranteeing European security is very much of its own desire and choosing.
Well put.
@George-K said in The Tucker Interviews:
@Renauda said in The Tucker Interviews:
The US itself determined that European security was in its vital interests when it became a founding member of NATO in 1949. The foundations of NATO itself grew out the 1941 Atlantic Charter with Britain and the Truman Doctrine in 1947 that stated the US would check communist aggression globally. Moreover, in the wake of WWII, the US was also the sole continental power other than the heavily militarised USSR in Europe. The role of the US in guaranteeing European security is very much of its own desire and choosing.
Well put.
It's a justification for the west preferring that Russia doesn't annex Ukraine. Which nobody is arguing against. It's not a justification for initiating WW3 to prevent it. Russia attacking Ukraine was not an initiation of WW3. America putting its foot down that Russia will not win, no matter what, could possibly turn into that. We're trusting that Russia is too incompetent or scared to take it that far. It's perfectly clear that the tough guy nonsense from random westerners, is faith-based that they won't have to back that talk up with anything more than tax money.
-
@George-K said in The Tucker Interviews:
@Renauda said in The Tucker Interviews:
The US itself determined that European security was in its vital interests when it became a founding member of NATO in 1949. The foundations of NATO itself grew out the 1941 Atlantic Charter with Britain and the Truman Doctrine in 1947 that stated the US would check communist aggression globally. Moreover, in the wake of WWII, the US was also the sole continental power other than the heavily militarised USSR in Europe. The role of the US in guaranteeing European security is very much of its own desire and choosing.
Well put.
It's a justification for the west preferring that Russia doesn't annex Ukraine. Which nobody is arguing against. It's not a justification for initiating WW3 to prevent it. Russia attacking Ukraine was not an initiation of WW3. America putting its foot down that Russia will not win, no matter what, could possibly turn into that. We're trusting that Russia is too incompetent or scared to take it that far. It's perfectly clear that the tough guy nonsense from random westerners, is faith-based that they won't have to back that talk up with anything more than tax money.
@Horace said in The Tucker Interviews:
Russia attacking Ukraine was not an initiation of WW3.
What a 1930s thing to say.
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
@George-K said in The Tucker Interviews:
@Renauda said in The Tucker Interviews:
Putin’s quest to reclaim a Russian empire in Europe at the expense the national sovereignty of its smaller neighbours is wholly unacceptable.
Agreed.
What Carlson is asking, rather disingenuously, is whether preventing this is in the interest of the United States.
Gotta wonder how the Poles, Baltic and other countries that suffered under Soviet oppression feel about that.
The US itself determined that European security was in its vital interests when it became a founding member of NATO in 1949. The foundations of NATO grew out the 1941 Atlantic Charter with Britain and the Truman Doctrine in 1947 that stated the US would check communist aggression globally. Moreover, in the wake of WWII, the US was also the sole continental power other than the heavily militarised USSR in Europe. The role of the US in guaranteeing European security is very much of its own desire and choosing.
So when the likes of Carlson start spouting off like a modern day Fr. Coughlin, all it demonstrates is their total ignorance of the centre stage role the US continues to take at its own choosing regardless of who sits in the White House or which party holds the majority in either house in Congress, for over eighty years in Europe.
Carlson is a media jackass, not unlike like his clerical collared predecessor, Coughlin.
@Renauda said in The Tucker Interviews:
@George-K said in The Tucker Interviews:
@Renauda said in The Tucker Interviews:
Putin’s quest to reclaim a Russian empire in Europe at the expense the national sovereignty of its smaller neighbours is wholly unacceptable.
Agreed.
What Carlson is asking, rather disingenuously, is whether preventing this is in the interest of the United States.
Gotta wonder how the Poles, Baltic and other countries that suffered under Soviet oppression feel about that.
The US itself determined that European security was in its vital interests when it became a founding member of NATO in 1949. The foundations of NATO grew out the 1941 Atlantic Charter with Britain and the Truman Doctrine in 1947 that stated the US would check communist aggression globally. Moreover, in the wake of WWII, the US was also the sole continental power other than the heavily militarised USSR in Europe. The role of the US in guaranteeing European security is very much of its own desire and choosing.
So when the likes of Carlson start spouting off like a modern day Fr. Coughlin, all it demonstrates is their total ignorance of the centre stage role the US continues to take at its own choosing regardless of who sits in the White House or which party holds the majority in either house in Congress, for over eighty years in Europe.
Carlson is a media jackass, not unlike like his clerical collared predecessor, Coughlin.
If European security is that vital to NATO nations - especially those on the West side of the Atlantic - you might wish to tell Mr. Trudeau to pony up his 2%.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/584088/defense-expenditures-of-nato-countries/
“Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”
Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton
-
@Horace said in The Tucker Interviews:
Russia attacking Ukraine was not an initiation of WW3.
What a 1930s thing to say.
@George-K said in The Tucker Interviews:
@Horace said in The Tucker Interviews:
Russia attacking Ukraine was not an initiation of WW3.
What a 1930s thing to say.
Carlson and his supporters are repeating the kind of nonsense that actually led to WW2.
You want to be a superpower? You need to fucking act like one
It might be worth asking the question ‘Who the heck is Tucker Carlson and why should we care what he thinks?’
I mean, really. He’s a pudgy little twat in tweeds. Who gives a shit what he thinks?
I was only joking
-
@Renauda said in The Tucker Interviews:
@George-K said in The Tucker Interviews:
@Renauda said in The Tucker Interviews:
Putin’s quest to reclaim a Russian empire in Europe at the expense the national sovereignty of its smaller neighbours is wholly unacceptable.
Agreed.
What Carlson is asking, rather disingenuously, is whether preventing this is in the interest of the United States.
Gotta wonder how the Poles, Baltic and other countries that suffered under Soviet oppression feel about that.
The US itself determined that European security was in its vital interests when it became a founding member of NATO in 1949. The foundations of NATO grew out the 1941 Atlantic Charter with Britain and the Truman Doctrine in 1947 that stated the US would check communist aggression globally. Moreover, in the wake of WWII, the US was also the sole continental power other than the heavily militarised USSR in Europe. The role of the US in guaranteeing European security is very much of its own desire and choosing.
So when the likes of Carlson start spouting off like a modern day Fr. Coughlin, all it demonstrates is their total ignorance of the centre stage role the US continues to take at its own choosing regardless of who sits in the White House or which party holds the majority in either house in Congress, for over eighty years in Europe.
Carlson is a media jackass, not unlike like his clerical collared predecessor, Coughlin.
If European security is that vital to NATO nations - especially those on the West side of the Atlantic - you might wish to tell Mr. Trudeau to pony up his 2%.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/584088/defense-expenditures-of-nato-countries/
If European security is that vital to NATO nations - especially those on the West side of the Atlantic - you might wish to tell Mr. Trudeau to pony up his 2%.
With all due respect let me inform you that I have written a letter or two or three or more to that effect to the PMO snd MinDef since the Chrétien era and signed numerous petitions demanding Canada at the very least meet its NATO commitments. Likewise, for the last twenty years or so, I have badgered every single federal politician who dared knock on my door begging for my vote to meet our defence commitments and spending. Conservative governments in Ottawa have been every bit as derelict as any Liberal government not just this current travesty of political irresponsibility.
So don’t include me among the complacent.
Elbows up!
-
@Horace said in The Tucker Interviews:
Russia attacking Ukraine was not an initiation of WW3.
What a 1930s thing to say.
@George-K said in The Tucker Interviews:
@Horace said in The Tucker Interviews:
Russia attacking Ukraine was not an initiation of WW3.
What a 1930s thing to say.
Not only that but it ignores the fact that Putin himself stated that in addition to Ukraine having no right to sovereignty, the US and its NATO allies were directly threatening Russia via their Ukrainian proxy. In other words, the US attacked Russia first.
-
@George-K said in The Tucker Interviews:
@Horace said in The Tucker Interviews:
Russia attacking Ukraine was not an initiation of WW3.
What a 1930s thing to say.
Carlson and his supporters are repeating the kind of nonsense that actually led to WW2.
You want to be a superpower? You need to fucking act like one
It might be worth asking the question ‘Who the heck is Tucker Carlson and why should we care what he thinks?’
I mean, really. He’s a pudgy little twat in tweeds. Who gives a shit what he thinks?
@Doctor-Phibes said in The Tucker Interviews:
@George-K said in The Tucker Interviews:
@Horace said in The Tucker Interviews:
Russia attacking Ukraine was not an initiation of WW3.
What a 1930s thing to say.
Carlson and his supporters are repeating the kind of nonsense that actually led to WW2.
You want to be a superpower? You need to fucking act like one
Boots on the ground, then? Please describe what it is to 'act like a superpower' in this case.
-
Presently, the US is acting like a responsible superpower. If you have an issue with that, make a point of voting in 2024 for a candidate with an alternative view of how a responsible superpower should act in the 21st century. There is a cornucopia of such out there.
-
Presently, the US is acting like a responsible superpower. If you have an issue with that, make a point of voting in 2024 for a candidate with an alternative view of how a responsible superpower should act in the 21st century. There is a cornucopia of such out there.
@Renauda said in The Tucker Interviews:
Presently, the US is acting like a responsible superpower. If you have an issue with that, make a point of voting in 2024 for a candidate with an alternative view of how a responsible superpower should act in the 21st century. There is a cornucopia of such out there.
I'm fine with what the US has done so far. I'm not so fine with the sneering at those who question how far we are willing to go. Most people seem to believe that we need to escalate no matter what to stop Russia. Maybe that's strategic posturing. I don't hear anything about boots on the ground, even while we imply we are all for it, if it comes to that.
I think Carlson's either/or framing of problems we could be solving in America is ridiculous. Withdrawing support from Ukraine would yield zero gains domestically on any front.
Education is extremely important.
-
I agree with what you just wrote, except that those who question just how far NATO should go present to themselves as either useful idiots for Putin or appeasers lacking any understanding of the conflict. At best though they may be just naive or terminally inarticulate in expressing themselves. Regardless, I personally think they are deserving sneers. They certainly deserve no applause or encouragement.
Thus far Russia has failed in all its stated objectives. The reason it has failed is because it came up against a greater power than it imagined. It has already lost. Putin only understands power and I suspect only now is he beginning to comprehend the power that he alone has chosen to engage militarily, politically and economically. To end the war and avoid further bloodshed and destruction Russia must return to its agreed upon borders of 1991. Reparations to Ukraine will be negotiated at the table at a later date.
At the same time Putin is free to persecute and terrorise his citizens all he wants. Someday though they may hang him by his feet. In the meantime he is not at liberty to deny his neighbours the sovereign right to decide their future for themselves. Those days of empire are gone. They ended when Gorbachev turned off his office lights for the last time back on 25 December 1991.
-
I agree with what you just wrote, except that those who question just how far NATO should go present to themselves as either useful idiots for Putin or appeasers lacking any understanding of the conflict. At best though they may be just naive or terminally inarticulate in expressing themselves. Regardless, I personally think they are deserving sneers. They certainly deserve no applause or encouragement.
Thus far Russia has failed in all its stated objectives. The reason it has failed is because it came up against a greater power than it imagined. It has already lost. Putin only understands power and I suspect only now is he beginning to comprehend the power that he alone has chosen to engage militarily, politically and economically. To end the war and avoid further bloodshed and destruction Russia must return to its agreed upon borders of 1991. Reparations to Ukraine will be negotiated at the table at a later date.
At the same time Putin is free to persecute and terrorise his citizens all he wants. Someday though they may hang him by his feet. In the meantime he is not at liberty to deny his neighbours the sovereign right to decide their future for themselves. Those days of empire are gone. They ended when Gorbachev turned off his office lights for the last time back on 25 December 1991.
@Renauda said in The Tucker Interviews:
I agree with what you just wrote, except that those who question just how far NATO should go present to themselves as either useful idiots for Putin or appeasers lacking moral fibre or any understanding of the conflict. At best though they may be just naive and terminally inarticulate in expressing themselves.
At the beginning of the conflict, when everybody thought there was a chance Russia would steamroll, I don't recall a chorus of westerners saying we'll need to go there and forcibly take it back. That bravado has evolved along with the recognition that we won't need to.
-
Even now there is no chorus - at least not a tuned in chorus - calling for NATO to assist beyond hardware and technology. At the very onset however there was a loud chorus calling for NATO to establish a no-fly zone and naval blockade of Russia but it quickly went tacit, when the implications of those two acts of complex military interdiction were explicitly explained to the choir. Thus far rational minds have steered the course. I expect that to continue.
-
Even now there is no chorus - at least not a tuned in chorus - calling for NATO to assist beyond hardware and technology. At the very onset however there was a loud chorus calling for NATO to establish a no-fly zone and naval blockade of Russia but it quickly went tacit, when the implications of those two acts of complex military interdiction were explicitly explained to the choir. Thus far rational minds have steered the course. I expect that to continue.
@Renauda said in The Tucker Interviews:
Even now there is no chorus - at least not a tuned in chorus - calling for NATO to assist beyond hardware and technology. At the very onset however there was a loud chorus calling for NATO to establish a no-fly zone and naval blockade of Russia but it quickly went tacit, when the implications of those two acts of complex military interdiction were explicitly explained to the choir. Thus far rational minds have steered the course. I expect that to continue.
All of that is fine, and it implies that there should be limits to what the west will do, to keep Ukraine out of Russia's hands. That idea doesn't exist within 'whatever it takes, Russia will not win' posturing. It's nice when ideas seem calibrated, rather than fundamentalist and existential.
-
If European security is that vital to NATO nations - especially those on the West side of the Atlantic - you might wish to tell Mr. Trudeau to pony up his 2%.
With all due respect let me inform you that I have written a letter or two or three or more to that effect to the PMO snd MinDef since the Chrétien era and signed numerous petitions demanding Canada at the very least meet its NATO commitments. Likewise, for the last twenty years or so, I have badgered every single federal politician who dared knock on my door begging for my vote to meet our defence commitments and spending. Conservative governments in Ottawa have been every bit as derelict as any Liberal government not just this current travesty of political irresponsibility.
So don’t include me among the complacent.
@Renauda said in The Tucker Interviews:
If European security is that vital to NATO nations - especially those on the West side of the Atlantic - you might wish to tell Mr. Trudeau to pony up his 2%.
With all due respect let me inform you that I have written a letter or two or three or more to that effect to the PMO snd MinDef since the Chrétien era and signed numerous petitions demanding Canada at the very least meet its NATO commitments. Likewise, for the last twenty years or so, I have badgered every single federal politician who dared knock on my door begging for my vote to meet our defence commitments and spending. Conservative governments in Ottawa have been every bit as derelict as any Liberal government not just this current travesty of political irresponsibility.
So don’t include me among the complacent.
Then good on you. There is nothing wrong with the Canadian military. There is a problem with their funding.
-
@George-K said in The Tucker Interviews:
@Horace said in The Tucker Interviews:
Russia attacking Ukraine was not an initiation of WW3.
What a 1930s thing to say.
Carlson and his supporters are repeating the kind of nonsense that actually led to WW2.
You want to be a superpower? You need to fucking act like one
It might be worth asking the question ‘Who the heck is Tucker Carlson and why should we care what he thinks?’
I mean, really. He’s a pudgy little twat in tweeds. Who gives a shit what he thinks?
@Doctor-Phibes said in The Tucker Interviews:
@George-K said in The Tucker Interviews:
@Horace said in The Tucker Interviews:
Russia attacking Ukraine was not an initiation of WW3.
What a 1930s thing to say.
Carlson and his supporters are repeating the kind of nonsense that actually led to WW2.
You want to be a superpower? You need to fucking act like one
It might be worth asking the question ‘Who the heck is Tucker Carlson and why should we care what he thinks?’
I mean, really. He’s a pudgy little twat in tweeds. Who gives a shit what he thinks?
Putin is right in one regard...Ukraine is not Poland in 1939 and the West will not view it as such.
BTW, how did that superpower stuff work out for the UK?
“Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”
Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton
