The Tucker interview with Putin

29,312 Views | 486 Replies | Last: 4 mo ago by oh no
twk
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Woods Ag said:

Another thing...

This idea that Ukraine deserves to be free and we should support htem to the bitter end is laughable. I want to be free too. I don't want to pay taxes anymore and I've consulted with myself and have determined that by my own free will I declare myself my own sovereign country. The rest of the free world should protect me from any infringement on that by the USA. Right?

If they want their land to be independent of Russia let them fight for it on their own without our help. Your right to be free is only guaranteed by your ability to enforce that freedom by those that say otherwise.
You guys are setting up so many straw men, I worry about there being anything left to feed cattle next year.

I'm not in favor of defending Ukraine to the bitter end. How far they want to go fighting is up to them. How long, and how much, we want to support them is up to us. Clearly, the money spent thwarting Russia's initial invasion was pretty effective, not only in keeping Russia from threatening NATO allies that we would also have a duty to defend, but also in helping degrade the Russian threat in the future. But, that doesn't mean we have to keep supporting them forever. Western Europe should be shouldering most of the burden at this point.
Agthatbuilds
How long do you want to ignore this user?
It wouldn't. You're right. We should not invade Canada or Mexico should they join as russia/china/Iranian mutual defensive pact.

That might solve our border crisis though
Woods Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
We agree on that. Western Europe and anyone not us can support them.

I don't care about Russia's reasons or lack their of. I'm indifferent to them invading Ukraine, but this is a proxy war between the US and Russia. It was instigated by our consideration of Ukraine admittance into NATO and it was well known that Russia would see that as an act of war. If Harris didn't know that when she publicly made the statement she did that's on her.
Woods Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
it's a defensive organization in name only. defensive until it's not.
Woods Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
We don't even have to speak in hypotheticals. We saw how the US reacted to Russia's involvement in Cuba. It's wasn't tolerated, and it wouldn't be tolerated today.
Furlock Bones
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
without going through 10 pages, the op and the subsequent posts about Putin's and his comrades intentions are correct. they've also been known for well over a decade or more. we were just preoccupied with the ME.
oh no
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Woods Ag said:

We don't even have to speak in hypotheticals. We saw how the US reacted to Russia's involvement in Cuba. It's wasn't tolerated, and it wouldn't be tolerated today.
not with our current regime. we let chinese spy balloons float across the entire country, there's been chinese police stations in NYC and CA, and wasn't there supposedly a chinese base in Cuba too? all while chinese companies are buying up farm land in the USA and thousands of military aged chinese nationals are floating across our southern border.
Agthatbuilds
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Woods Ag said:

it's a defensive organization in name only. defensive until it's not.


What offensive capabilities does nato have? - hardly any unless the usa is involved. Absent a massive build up of us troops and equipment on russias border, nato isn't doing an offensive campaign

What realistic threat do they pose? Hardly any, unless the usa is there in force, which again would be a different story

Does nato have a history of invading countries? No

Paranoia.

We didn't send the Marines to take Cuba. Some half cooked Cia attempt to overthrow Castro (not dissimilar to the little green men invading Crimea in 2014).

The fact is the button wasn't pushed. We didn't invade with our military. Diplomatic ways won out, eventually.

To think the usa would have been justified in a full invasion and occupation of Cuba is asinine.
Woods Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
No, Kennedy and his top officials sat in a room and they all actively encouraged him to send the nukes. That's how the story goes? He was the lone person in the room that was hesitating and praying Russia would call and thank god they did.

Yeah, that sounds pretty dire. I think I'd settle for some small arms fire than that situation any day of the week.
Texas velvet maestro
How long do you want to ignore this user?
aggiehawg said:

Quote:

Ted Cruz would make him look like a f'ing moron
Were Ted fluent in Russian, that would be something I'd want to see and hear. Translation muddies the water too much.
What would Ted Cruz and Putin be debating? Some of our mess is hard to defend. especially in the here-and-now. Not too many countries have more and do less for their common citizens.
Agthatbuilds
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Do you think we would have been justified in such action or a full military invasion of Cuba because of the missiles?
Woods Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I think the first step would be a warning of back down or else and then we'll go from there.

Here's just a quick recap from wiki for the sake of summation:

Quote:

When this was reported to President John F. Kennedy, he convened a meeting of the nine members of the National Security Council and five other key advisers, in a group that became known as the Executive Committee of the National Security Council (EXCOMM). During this meeting, Kennedy was advised to carry out an air strike on Cuban soil in order to compromise Soviet missile supplies, followed by an invasion of the Cuban mainland. After careful consideration, he chose a less aggressive course of action, in order to avoid a declaration of war. After consultation with EXCOMM, Kennedy ordered a naval "quarantine" on 22 October to prevent further missiles from reaching Cuba.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis#cite_note-6][6][/url] By using the term "quarantine", rather than "blockade" (an act of war by legal definition), the United States was able to avoid the implications of a state of war.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis#cite_note-uslegalcaseblockadeofcuba-7][7][/url] The US announced it would not permit "offensive" weapons to be delivered to Cuba and demanded that the weapons already in Cuba be dismantled and returned to the Soviet Union.

After several days of tense negotiations, an agreement was reached between Kennedy and Khrushchev. Publicly, the Soviets would dismantle their offensive weapons in Cuba and return them to the Soviet Union, subject to United Nations verification, in exchange for a US public declaration and agreement to not invade Cuba again. Secretly, the United States agreed with the Soviets that it would dismantle all of the Jupiter MRBMs which had been deployed to Turkey. There has been debate on whether Italy was also included in the agreement. While the Soviets dismantled their missiles, some Soviet bombers remained in Cuba, and the United States kept the naval quarantine in place until 20 November 1962.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis#cite_note-uslegalcaseblockadeofcuba-7][7][/url]

But from what I understand pretty much everyone in that room was advising a bombing and invasion of Cuba, and later pretty much everyone in that room was calling for Kennedy to launch nuclear bombs on the Soviet Union. Those tense negotiations were as tense as it gets with people on our side telling Kennedy he's sending us to our deaths if we don't launch.

Everyone in that room agreed we had the justification we needed to bomb and launch a full scale invasion of Cuba. The ONLY reason we didn't is because of the threat of nuclear war, and that reason was only reason enough for Kennedy. The rest thought it was past that.

Quote:

To think the usa would have been justified in a full invasion and occupation of Cuba is asinine.
I guess every one of Kennedy's advisers were also asinine. If someone ever puts a gun to your head, you also would be asinine if you believe you have the justification to do something about it.

So, yes. I believe we had the justification we needed to take whatever action we decided to take with Cuba. Whether we act or don't, the justification was there.
PlaneCrashGuy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Agthatbuilds said:

Of course, nato expansion isn't a legitimate provocation for invading a sovereign country who is allowed to determine their own course.




This is so embarrassing. Have you even heard of the Cuban missile crisis?
Old McDonald
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Daddy said:

suburban cowboy said:

At least Russia has a leader that loves and serves his country


Absolutely
Actually elected a real competent leader that sharp as a knife that loves his country that's not putting his country up for sale whether you agree with his agenda or not as a United States citizen

I actually listen to it and said man I wish he was our president versus poopy pants who's bought and paid for by people that hate our country that are trying to implode it.


reagan's looking up at the modern gop from hell and rolling in his grave
Agthatbuilds
How long do you want to ignore this user?
PlaneCrashGuy said:

Agthatbuilds said:

Of course, nato expansion isn't a legitimate provocation for invading a sovereign country who is allowed to determine their own course.




This is so embarrassing. Have you even heard of the Cuban missile crisis?


Yes. See above. It's similar but also a very different context.

We didn't blow Cuba off the map. We didn't invade(yes, I'm aware of the bay of pigs)
PlaneCrashGuy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Agthatbuilds said:

PlaneCrashGuy said:

Agthatbuilds said:

Of course, nato expansion isn't a legitimate provocation for invading a sovereign country who is allowed to determine their own course.




This is so embarrassing. Have you even heard of the Cuban missile crisis?


Yes. See above. It's similar but also a very different context.

We didn't blow Cuba off the map. We didn't invade(yes, I'm aware of the bay of pigs)


Sorry I was a page behind. I'll let the other poster finish your discussion.
1872walker
How long do you want to ignore this user?
PlaneCrashGuy said:

Agthatbuilds said:

PlaneCrashGuy said:

Agthatbuilds said:

Of course, nato expansion isn't a legitimate provocation for invading a sovereign country who is allowed to determine their own course.




This is so embarrassing. Have you even heard of the Cuban missile crisis?


Yes. See above. It's similar but also a very different context.

We didn't blow Cuba off the map. We didn't invade(yes, I'm aware of the bay of pigs)


Sorry I was a page behind. I'll let the other poster finish you off.


Phrasing
1836er
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I would just throw this out as a counterpoint to those who claim NATO is only a defensive alliance, and therefore Russia has nothing to fear from it.

In 1995 NATO intervened offensively (via air power) in direct opposition to the Bosnian Serbs in what was essentially a Bosnian civil war.

In 1999, having allied itself with the Kosovar Albanians, NATA launched an even more destructive air war against Serbia proper. Although no ground troops were officially engaged in the conflict, NATO was literally waging war against the country that was Russia's closest ally historically, politically, religiously, and culturally in Eastern Europe.

While NATO, the Clinton Administration, and the West in general had their own justifications/explanations for going to war, the fact of the matter was that NATO waged an offensive war against Serbia which led to that country's partial territorial dismemberment.
Agthatbuilds
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Finish me off? Pfff.


It's a false comparison. The situations were totally different and the usa didn't bomb nor invade cuba any way.

Trying to seek justification for russia's current invasion because of the Cuban missile crisis is a non starter

Agthatbuilds
How long do you want to ignore this user?
1836er said:

I would just throw this out as a counterpoint to those who claim NATO is only a defensive alliance, and therefore Russia has nothing to fear from it.

In 1995 NATO intervened offensively (via air power) in direct opposition to the Bosnian Serbs in what was essentially a Bosnian civil war.

In 1999, having allied itself with the Kosovar Albanians, NATA launched an even more destructive air war against Serbia proper. Although no ground troops were officially engaged in the conflict, NATO was literally waging war against the country that was Russia's closest ally historically, politically, religiously, and culturally in Eastern Europe.

While NATO, the Clinton Administration, and the West in general had their own justifications/explanations for going to war, the fact of the matter was that NATO waged an offensive war against Serbia which led to that country's partial territorial dismemberment.


Thank you. Actual citation of offensive nato warfare.
Woods Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Yep. That's it. Cant refute so now they don't compare.

NATO can't go on the offensive bc they said they are only defensive. They can expand to 240m from their sworn enemies capital and stick nuclear weapons on the border. Thats not offensive tho. Those nukes are defensive nukes. Russia should know that and not be alarmed even if the coalitions main objective is anti-Russia.

Doesn't matter. No justification.
Agthatbuilds
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Wtf are you talking about. I've consistently said the two situations are not the same. you're making false equivalents out of them. Not me.

And even if they were, it does more to disprove your point than confirm it. Kennedy did not bomb Cuba. Kennedy did not send our armies to invade Cuba to proactively keep us safe because it was ultimately unjustifiable and the incorrect action.

Regardless, Ukraine joining NATO is not a valid reason for invading it, nor is it the actual reason for russia invading it. It's a nice little talking point for useful idiots to grab onto, however.

Woods Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Sure buddy. It's me that's the ****in idiot.

You've said the Cuban crisis was refuted. You didn't refute ***** You just got shown and then went back to "not the same.." bull*****

Close your eyes, fingers ears. See what you want to see and read what you want to read. Truth and facts be damned.

You can go back into your hole now.
Agthatbuilds
How long do you want to ignore this user?
There you go. Ad hom attacks will get you over the top.

Truth and facts. All I see you arguing are opinions.

oh no
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Agthatbuilds said:

Ad hom attacks will get you over the top.

i hope you didn't flag him for ad homming himself.
Quote:

It's me that's the ****in idiot.
Agthatbuilds
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I dont flag anyone
Woods Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Good. I don't either. It was your "useful idiots" comment indirectly pointed at me.

Doesn't matter. I gave you the closest example that we have and our response. Go back and read. EVERY ONE of them save Kennedy believed we should bomb and invade and later EVERY ONE of them thought we needed to launch nukes on the Soviet Union bc they were going to nuke us.

The only difference is that nuclear disaster was a much more real thing then as tensions between the US and the Soviet Union were much higher. Thank God they had a leader on that side as did we that didn't want to end the world and cooler heads prevailed.

Your question was did I think we had justification to invade Cuba and I showed you that not only did I, but everyone in that room did as well. And they didn't have the luxury of 60-70 years of history to see the outcome.

I am not saying that Putin didn't want his old lands back. That's true and we gave him the justification to go get them. That's clear as day and I would go as far as to speculate that our leadership knew and welcomed it.
Teslag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
oh no said:

Agthatbuilds said:

nato expansion isn't a legitimate provocation
I'm sure USA would just sit there idly by if a China-Russia-Iran evil axis alliance was installing bases in Canada or Mexico. That wouldn't be a legitimate provocation.


If Canada or Mexico aligned with China militarily we would not be justified in running armored columns into Mexico City or Toronto and then launching cruise missiles into their residential areas and targeting their civilian infrastructure in order of freeze them to death.
Woods Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Do you think we would allow the to happen?

I'd say with at least 90% certainty that we'd have something to say about it.
Teslag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Woods Ag said:

Yep. That's it. Cant refute so now they don't compare.

NATO can't go on the offensive bc they said they are only defensive. They can expand to 240m from their sworn enemies capital and stick nuclear weapons on the border. Thats not offensive tho. Those nukes are defensive nukes. Russia should know that and not be alarmed even if the coalitions main objective is anti-Russia.

Doesn't matter. No justification.


Has NATO placed nukes in Latvia, Poland, Lithuania,or any of the other former soviet block border countries?
Teslag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Woods Ag said:

Do you think we would allow the to happen?


Define allow. We would not invade with American conscripts and the 82nd airborne. Nor would we be justified.
PlaneCrashGuy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Teslag said:

oh no said:

Agthatbuilds said:

nato expansion isn't a legitimate provocation
I'm sure USA would just sit there idly by if a China-Russia-Iran evil axis alliance was installing bases in Canada or Mexico. That wouldn't be a legitimate provocation.


If Canada or Mexico aligned with China militarily we would not be justified in running armored columns into Mexico City or Toronto and then launching cruise missiles into their residential areas and targeting their civilian infrastructure in order of freeze them to death.


Don't worry Tesla, "most of what comes out of Ukraines government is propaganda," including all that.
Woods Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Idk. From what I read Poland has asked for them.

Agthatbuilds
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

Beyond the alliance's three nuclear powers, five others participate in U.S. nuclear sharing: Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey.
Woods Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Yes exactly. And Poland has requested to be another.

Thats what we can find on the internet without trying much.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.