Tucker Carlson, Colonel Douglas Macgregor, The Ukraine War

[lukethethird]

Nope, I’m pointing out to you that if you can’t get past the most basic first steps how can you hope to engage in an adult conversation?

Carlson begins with a series of statements that are verifiably false. You’re frightened of checking them, because your whole mental universe is based on such commonly thrown around lies. Unless you can man up and deal with that, there’s simply no point in you trying to discuss anything more complex.

Well, take one point at a time rather than make a blanket statement and demonstrate how he is wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am anti-war, I don't expect everyone to agree with me, but due to your false accusations I do not value your opinion or anything you have to say for that matter. Don't bother, you can expect a non response from me.

There is nothing wrong with being "anti-war". But you should not be anti-self defense. I am betting that if a stranger attacked you that you would fight back. Or even if it was someone you knew, you would probably defend yourself. If you answer yes then you are being more than a bit hypocritical when it comes to the war in the Ukraine. Russia attacked the Ukraine not once but twice. The Ukraine had no designs on Russia. They were not insane. How do you justify those attacks?

And you forgot that you were the first not to support your claims. How can you expect anything else when you failed utterly to support your far left new source claims?

 

[Estro Felino]

And the next time you go criticizing the bellicose behavior of the US, consider the possibility that a lot of the stability in Europe over the past 80 years had something to do with America's role in rebuilding Europe after WWII and the establishment of the NATO defense alliance, which helped put an end to the incessant fighting between Turkey and Greece.

Europe's stability has to do with the fact that after WW2 all European countries rewrote their own constitutions and established that war is admissible only as instrument of defense. So no European country attacked any other European country, after that. This is the only reason.

That said, I believe the Vietnam War was totally useless, that's why JFK was against it.
And this war fought between Ukrainians and Russians is totally useless as well...so these two nations should grow up and stop playing with human lives. They should find an agreement, a compromise.

 

[Tomef]

Well, take one point at a time rather than make a blanket statement and demonstrate how he is wrong.

Why do I have to keep repeating myself?

A: listen to what Carlson has to say about reporting about the conflict in the ‘media’, e.g. he mentions the NYT.
B: check what is actually in the media/ the NYT, or other serious publications frequently dismissed as ‘fake’ by people who’ve never read them
C: does A match B? If you believe it does, provide proof.

 

[Subduction Zone]

what a lame clown comment .. as soon as presented with info conflicting with the State Pablum Propaganda narrative .. you go running around crying "Russian Propagandist" .. Putin Stooge ... Like when Hillary called Tulsi Gabbard a Russian spy or some such thing for presenting the Truth..

State Sponsored Neo Nazi Militia were terrorizing and persecuting Ethnic Russians .. this ended up boiling over into Civil War after US backed coup which installed a Pro Western Gov't .. is just a statement of fact .. That Putin used this as part of his rational for going in .. just a statement of fact. It is called objective assessment of the situation .. and if reality conflicts with your fairy tale assessment .. its not the messenger's fault ... cry like a baby as you have ..demonizing and shooting the messenger because your necessary illusion apple cart is upset.

This war is horrible for "USA" .. ... so does that make you anti-American for your neocon position ? certainly by your logic you are 100% guilty of that and and far worse.

Wow! You sound exactly like a far right winger. In fact you may be one. The claims of Tucker's host were refuted quite a while back. You really should not be making such bogus claims about comments when you believe a "lame clown" like Tucker or anyone that he chooses to put on his show. You have to know that Tucker is always pushing a false narrative.

But I see that you are off in conspiracy land again.

 

[lukethethird]

Why do I have to keep repeating myself?

A: listen to what Carlson has to say about reporting about the conflict in the ‘media’, e.g. he mentions the NYT.
B: check what is actually in the media/ the NYT, or other serious publications frequently dismissed as ‘fake’ by people who’ve never read them
C: does A match B? If you believe it does, provide proof.

Ukraines democracy could be cause for discussion, he said sarcastically Putin is Hitler trying to take over the world, well, I don't know who says that, and I don't know who is "winning" the war, it's already lost for the many on all sides that have been killed.

 

[Sargonski]

Nope, I’m pointing out to you that if you can’t get past the most basic first steps how can you hope to engage in an adult conversation?

Carlson begins with a series of statements that are verifiably false. You’re frightened of checking them, because your whole mental universe is based on such commonly thrown around lies. Unless you can man up and deal with that, there’s simply no point in you trying to discuss anything more complex.

You are projecting Brother Tom .. you jumped into conversation about Doug .. making all kinds of accusations of lying in the interview.. Doug the one being interviewed. I asked you what lie you were referring to .. and you respond by going on about Tucker Carlson .. and some of his lies.

Tucker Carlson's lies .. do not have any bearing on Doug's comments which give good description of the war as well as the western propaganda show. You attributed this claim to Tucker .. .. which he may well have made .. and would have been correct in the making of such assessment .. your claim that this is a lie .. completely false .. Demonstrable nonsense.

So lets us review .. your claim of "Lie" is a big fat falsehood .. your claim that the US media is not full of propaganda a big fat falsehood.

This dichotomy between the necessary illusions you cling to .. like child to soother when it is long past time .. and reality is causing the hurtebutt and so this has left you unable to engage in adult conversation .. unable to get the most basic things .. such as the convo you jumped into was about Doug's assessment and not Tucker ... and the related fallacy.. but we are past that now .. I humored your fallacious deflection .. which turned out to be a big fat pile of falsehood .. and we uncovered a poison lizard that needs extracting .. this necessary illusion of yours that the US - Western media is not a propaganda show Grande ... and that you have been duped.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are projecting Brother Tom .. you jumped into conversation about Doug .. making all kinds of accusations of lying in the interview.. Doug the one being interviewed. I asked you what lie you were referring to .. and you respond by going on about Tucker Carlson .. and some of his lies.

Tucker Carlson's lies .. do not have any bearing on Doug's comments which give good description of the war as well as the western propaganda show. You attributed this claim to Tucker .. .. which he may well have made .. and would have been correct in the making of such assessment .. your claim that this is a lie .. completely false .. Demonstrable nonsense.

So lets us review .. your claim of "Lie" is a big fat falsehood .. your claim that the US media is not full of propaganda a big fat falsehood.

This dichotomy between the necessary illusions you cling to .. like child to soother when it is long past time .. and reality is causing the hurtebutt and so this has left you unable to engage in adult conversation .. unable to get the most basic things .. such as the convo you jumped into was about Doug's assessment and not Tucker ... and the related fallacy.. but we are past that now .. I humored your fallacious deflection .. which turned out to be a big fat pile of falsehood .. and we uncovered a poison lizard that needs extracting .. this necessary illusion of yours that the US - Western media is not a propaganda show Grande ... and that you have been duped.

Doug may not have been lying, but he was shown to be wrong. One does not have to lie to be wrong. Tucker is an automatic wrong machine. It is seriously a challenge to find when he was ever right in his political claims.

 

[Tomef]

You are projecting Brother Tom .. you jumped into conversation about Doug .. making all kinds of accusations of lying in the interview.. Doug the one being interviewed. I asked you what lie you were referring to .. and you respond by going on about Tucker Carlson .. and some of his lies.

Tucker Carlson's lies .. do not have any bearing on Doug's comments which give good description of the war as well as the western propaganda show. You attributed this claim to Tucker .. .. which he may well have made .. and would have been correct in the making of such assessment .. your claim that this is a lie .. completely false .. Demonstrable nonsense.

So lets us review .. your claim of "Lie" is a big fat falsehood .. your claim that the US media is not full of propaganda a big fat falsehood.

This dichotomy between the necessary illusions you cling to .. like child to soother when it is long past time .. and reality is causing the hurtebutt and so this has left you unable to engage in adult conversation .. unable to get the most basic things .. such as the convo you jumped into was about Doug's assessment and not Tucker ... and the related fallacy.. but we are past that now .. I humored your fallacious deflection .. which turned out to be a big fat pile of falsehood .. and we uncovered a poison lizard that needs extracting .. this necessary illusion of yours that the US - Western media is not a propaganda show Grande ... and that you have been dupedi

How peculiar.

So, do Carlson’s comments about the media match what is reported on in the media? Presumably you have seen some report in the NYT that you and he are referring to? If so, you can copy a link to it. We both know however that you haven’t bothered to check whether your fantasies correspond to reality. We both know you aren’t going to bother checking anything to see if it is true, or not. I’ll look forward to your next bizarre set of unrelated random comments, if you can’t say anything meaningful at least you can be entertaining.

 

[Tomef]

Ukraines democracy could be cause for discussion, he said sarcastically Putin is Hitler trying to take over the world, well, I don't know who says that, and I don't know who is "winning" the war, it's already lost for the many on all sides that have been killed.

So basically you don’t want to know if Carlson is telling the truth or not. You’d rather be lost in a hopeless confusion of vague impressions.

 

[Stevicus]

Britain and France are much more autonomous militarily.
Being the Mediterranean Sea a strategically important geographical area for the NATO's safety, it's clear Italy has more duties. It has more military bases, and more NATO bases, often filled with American soldiers. That's why I don't see any difference between Italian soldiers and American soldiers: they are both dear to me. And both risk their own lives, every day.
These people died in useless wars that had nothing to do with NATO's commitment to guarantee world peace, and particularly in that area. Iraq is a name that evokes nightmares, thinking of the NATO soldiers who died there.

I wrote that thing about Nikki Haley's speech because she doesn't understand that diplomacy is much better than winning a war at any cost. There are diplomatic instruments that can make this war terminate today.
And I guess the colonel, in the video implicitly mentioned them.

But I cannot agree with Haley...I will agree with Ramaswamy. Or with Tulsi Gabbard. And with RFK Jr on the NATO's policies.

During the Cold War, the general policy of containment, however flawed, was still pretty straightforward and followed a certain ideological pattern focusing on anti-communism. After the collapse of the Soviet Bloc, there was really nothing left to "contain," ideologically speaking. Communism no longer was presented as some kind of "grave threat" which it once was, although U.S. policy started to become more vague and erratic at that point. It's almost like we didn't know what to do with ourselves, just reflexively reacting to whatever crises happened to pop up in the world, without any real rhyme or reason - other than following the same "freedom" and "democracy" narrative. 9/11 was another turning point, which made terrorism the new object of "containment," hence the War on Terrorism.

We might as well just say that America's primary foreign and military policy objective is to "fight evil wherever it exists." Good must always prevail over evil. This is U.S. policy, in a nutshell. As I said, it's kind of vague and erratic, and does not follow any consistent, coherent, or logical pattern, which makes our government look indecisive and capricious. Naturally, this might cause other countries to look at us differently, which might explain some of the turmoil and tensions in the world today. The article I linked above indicated a decline in U.S. leadership, and I think there are reasons for that.

 

[Estro Felino]

During the Cold War, the general policy of containment, however flawed, was still pretty straightforward and followed a certain ideological pattern focusing on anti-communism. After the collapse of the Soviet Bloc, there was really nothing left to "contain," ideologically speaking. Communism no longer was presented as some kind of "grave threat" which it once was, although U.S. policy started to become more vague and erratic at that point. It's almost like we didn't know what to do with ourselves, just reflexively reacting to whatever crises happened to pop up in the world, without any real rhyme or reason - other than following the same "freedom" and "democracy" narrative. 9/11 was another turning point, which made terrorism the new object of "containment," hence the War on Terrorism.

I agree but I don't understand why Libya and Syria were targeted and destroyed during the Obama administration.
They used to be the only Arab socialist secular republics left...
which made me wondering: did that administration side with the moderates or with the radicals?
Trump said many things about Obama...this means Trump was probably right.

We might as well just say that America's primary foreign and military policy objective is to "fight evil wherever it exists." Good must always prevail over evil. This is U.S. policy, in a nutshell. As I said, it's kind of vague and erratic, and does not follow any consistent, coherent, or logical pattern, which makes our government look indecisive and capricious. Naturally, this might cause other countries to look at us differently, which might explain some of the turmoil and tensions in the world today. The article I linked above indicated a decline in U.S. leadership, and I think there are reasons for that.

Unfortunately presidents who are elected by the people are often maneuvered by industrial and financial élites...
so I guess the citizens and the presidents are often guiltless.
Each administration is different. Clinton was impeached for no reason...and he had done nothing wrong, I guess.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I agree but I don't understand why Libya and Syria were targeted and destroyed during the Obama administration.
They used to be the only Arab socialist secular republics left...
which made me wondering: did that administration side with the moderates or with the radicals?
Trump said many things about Obama...this means Trump was probably right.



Unfortunately presidents who are elected by the people are often maneuvered by industrial and financial élites...
so I guess the citizens and the presidents are often guiltless.
Each administration is different. Clinton was impeached for no reason...and he had done nothing wrong, I guess.

Clinton was impeached for lying in a lawsuit that occurred during his Presidency. Now lying about sexual affairs should not be a problem, except when one is under oath in a lawsuit. Then one's lies can only harm the person.. He should not have taken the stand. He did not need to. Should he have been impeached for that? No, I do not think so. But he should have been punished. He should have been censured. He did lose his law license as a result. It did not amount to "High crimes and treason". So it was not for "nothing" but it also did not rise to the level of being an impeachable crime.

 

[Copernicus]

Europe's stability has to do with the fact that after WW2 all European countries rewrote their own constitutions and established that war is admissible only as instrument of defense. So no European country attacked any other European country, after that. This is the only reason.

It is factually incorrect to say "So no European country attacked any other European country after that." I did give you a long list containing many counterexamples, so I don't think you are paying much attention to what I've said. In any case, let's get back to discussing the thread topic.

That said, I believe the Vietnam War was totally useless, that's why JFK was against it.

Again, you need to learn some history. JFK escalated the conflict. He is rumored to have had second thoughts before he was assassinated. The US had gotten involved under Eisenhower to help the French reestablish their colonial empire in Asia Minor and impede the spread of Communism, so they stepped in to interfere with the collapse of its remnants in Vietnam after France, a European country, lost its Indochina war. But let's go back to discussing the thread topic.

And this war fought between Ukrainians and Russians is totally useless as well...so these two nations should grow up and stop playing with human lives. They should find an agreement, a compromise.

Your understanding of the Ukraine conflict seems to be as well-informed as your understanding to the Vietnam war. In any case, the ultimate solution in the Ukraine war will be diplomatic and likely involve some kind of compromise. It probably won't happen while Putin remains in power, because any agreement he enters into is not credible.

 

[lukethethird]

So basically you don’t want to know if Carlson is telling the truth or not. You’d rather be lost in a hopeless confusion of vague impressions.

How does this translate to I don't want to know? The fog of war makes it hard to know who is "winning" the war. I've read conflicting reports about Russia's military capabilities and Ukraines. That video was a waste of time and so is Carlson but here are pretending to know something.

 

[Tomef]

How does this translate to I don't want to know? The fog of war makes it hard to know who is "winning" the war. I've read conflicting reports about Russia's military capabilities and Ukraines. That video was a waste of time and so is Carlson but here are pretending to know something.

I’m a bit confused by your posts as they don’t seem to relate to what I’m saying. If you can go back to my original post and what you responded to, maybe you can clarify what it is you’re referring to. I don’t want to spend time going off on random tangents.

 

[lukethethird]

I’m a bit confused by your posts as they don’t seem to relate to what I’m saying. If you can go back to my original post and what you responded to, maybe you can clarify what it is you’re referring to. I don’t want to spend time going off on random tangents.

Carlson said a lot things, and it was all so vague, does he warrant a response? This thread has gone off the rails from the start because no one listens to Carlson anymore, well, I suppose he has his followers but go ahead, pick one of his statements and have at it.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Got things all backwards and mixed up Brother Tom .. is the MSM picture that is the lie .. the bare faced Liars .. misrepresenters .. and spinners of falsehood ridden with Sin of Omission.

MSM? Men Who have sex with Men?

 

[Tomef]

Carlson said a lot things, and it was all so vague, does he warrant a response? This thread has gone off the rails from the start because no one listens to Carlson anymore, well, I suppose he has his followers but go ahead, pick one of his statements and have at it.

If you can’t just read and respond to my posts I don’t want to keep fiddling about repeating myself. As I’ve already said several times, Carlson misrepresents media coverage in his opening statements quite blatantly. That’s the point I made, that you originally responded to. If you’re responding to some other thing I didn’t say I can’t help you with that.

Surprising as it may be, Carlson still has an audience for his propaganda. What I’ve found is that people who take him seriously never check any of his outrageous lies and exaggerations, or his simplistic notions about the world. If someone isn’t able to fact check Carlson, they’ve got no chance with a wilier and more sophisticated propagandist like the other guy in the vid, so Carlson is the only useful place to start. Someone who takes Carlson seriously is immune to factual information, so unless that is tackled first any further discussion is pointless.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Based on their persistent track record of failure, one has to wonder if the US policymakers and decision-makers truly, honestly know what they're doing. So, when they say that something in the world is a "threat" to U.S. interests and U.S. national security, one might legitimately wonder if they really know this or understand the world well enough to be able to make these kinds of assessments.

They understand it to mean threats to the pocketbooks of those feeding them caviar.