Tucker Carlson Takes on the Russiaphobes / Neocons & assorted Warmongers

anatta said:
Tucker Carlson examined tonight if the "hysteria" over Russian meddling in the U.S. election could end up hurting Americans.

He said that the U.S. has long had a "nuanced relationship" with Russia, which is a world power with massive energy reserves and a nuclear arsenal.

"We've done that because we had to do it, because it was in our best interests," Tucker explained. "Not anymore. Thanks to the hysteria over Trump's election, Russia is now the 'single most evil country in the history of the world.'"

"What's the cost of this hysteria to America right now?" Tucker asked. "We still have a world to run. How much harder is this making it?"

Former CIA officer Brian Dean Wright joined Tucker and said the rhetoric coming out of Washington, D.C. and the mainstream media is "either you're with Russia, or you're against it."

He said that international politics is much more complicated and nuanced than an either/or scenario.

He pointed to Syria, where we have to work - to some degree - with the Russians and even the Iranians to achieve a result that is in our best interests.

Tucker quipped that remarks like that will surely lead to being accused of "carrying water" for Russia and Iran.

"A lot of people don't understand how foreign policy works," Wright said. "We don't have friends. We have interests."

He said we can collaborate with Russia on the issues where we must, while still holding them accountable for their transgressions, such as meddling in the 2016 election.

"We're losing that nuance," Wright lamented. "And that's scary for American security in the medium to long-term."
http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/07/...-russia-relations-work-together-or-be-enemies

see video link @ site
Click to expand...

Anybody who is not a slack jawed imbecile would take a critical look at Tuck-Tuck's premise to determine the merit of his argument....

Sheep just don't get that.
 
aloysious said:
"A man who works with his hands is a laborer; a man who works with his hands and his brain is a craftsman; but a man who works with his hands and his brain and his heart is an artist.”
Click to expand...

See!

But a man who demonstrates no capacity for thought whatsoever doesn't have many options.
 
blackvegetable said:
Anybody who is not a slack jawed imbecile would take a critical look at Tuck-Tuck's premise to determine the merit of his argument....

Sheep just don't get that.
Click to expand...
the premise of managing a relationship where interests overlap/interact is formalized with the term realpolitik.
even alliances are based on common interests.

There are "friendship" based relationship like we have with Great Britain/France ("special relationships)
but they are the exception to the rule
 
anatta said:
the premise of managing a relationship where interests overlap/interact is formalized with the term realpolitik.
even alliances are based on common interests.

There are "friendship" based relationship like we have with Great Britain/France ("special relationships)
but they are the exception to the rule
Click to expand...

Exactly.

Britain and France are basically family, in historical terms lol.

Followed next by Canada and our European WWII allies [and I suppose Germany since we conquered them]---the rest are just garden variety diplomatic friends.

Enemy number one is NK, followed by Iran. Russia, since they don't make a habit of threatening to nuke us or chant 'death to America', is rightly regarded as a geopolitical foe.

Basically, they are a country that competes for hegemony with the US but war isn't on the table. War with Russia isn't even simmering on the stove in the kitchen. A Russian invasion isn't something Putin could pull off even if he felt compelled to try---he would have his a** handed to him.

Which leaves nukes. But he would need to be insane to go that route, and Putin isn't insane.

So, what does one do? Try as best you can to get along, counter them diplomatically when necessary---and if they are useful in some form or fashion, by all means use them.

Russia and the West are both threatened by radical Islam so our interests over lap there. And we both have an interest in solving Syria.

Let's not be idiots and work with them where we can.
 
Cypress said:
Bingo.

Anyone who ever voted for Bush, defended him, supported invading Iraq, is never, ever, under any circumstances allowed to lecture others about being NeoCons.

And I do include Hillary Clinton in that category, even though she came to regret the Iraq War.

The people who are allowed to lecture NeoCons are me, BlackAsCoal, Thing, Cofveve, ChristieFan, Barack Obama, Bernie Sanders, and others who were savvy enough to know beforehand that invading Iraq was going to be one of the stupidest decisions evah.
Click to expand...
I was consistently against the Iraq War, why are always such a whiny sanctimonious arsehole? If you don't believe me then ask Christiefan.
 
Cypress said:
But Hillary changed her mind too, and you still call her an Iraq War Supporter.

So you have to apply the exact same standard to your hero, Tucker. You are not allowed to cut him slack.

There are a lot of people of have the credibility and history to be in a position to lecture NeoCons.... Me. Maxine Waters. Barack Obama. BlackAsCoal. Thing. Covfefe. MottTheHoople. ChristieFan.

Tucker Carlson is not one of the people allowed to lecture NeoCons. I suspect you are not either. Something tells me you either voted for Dumbya, or defended him.
Click to expand...
You are an enormous conceited cockwomble!!
 
Corazón said:
I was consistently against the Iraq War, why are always such a whiny sanctimonious arsehole? If you don't believe me then ask Christiefan.
Click to expand...

What the fuck makes you think I was talking about you, my belligerent British bumpkin??

This seems to be a recurring theme: I write something, and some dolt imagines it is somehow all about them.

Take the chip off your shoulder, you cantankerous cretin. When I am writing something, unless I am responding directly to you, you are never on my mind, nor am I thinking about you.

The world does not revolve around you, mate!
 
Cypress said:
What the fuck makes you think I was talking about you, my belligerent British bumpkin??

This seems to be a recurring theme: I write something, and some rightwing dolt imagines it is somehow all about them.

Take the chip off your shoulder, you cantankerous cretin. When I am writing something, unless I am responding directly to you, you are never on my mind, nor am I thinking about you.

The world does not revolve around you, mate!
Click to expand...
Oh do shut the fuck up, you spewed out a list of people and then claimed that anyone not on it didn't have a leg to stand on! You are truly a sanctimonious old sod, everything is so black and white with you, no wonder you like Desh!
 
anatta said:
the premise of managing a relationship where interests overlap/interact is formalized with the term realpolitik.
even alliances are based on common interests.

There are "friendship" based relationship like we have with Great Britain/France ("special relationships)
but they are the exception to the rule
Click to expand...
What you describe is pragmatism.......realpolitik is its amoral cousin.

There is nothing, per se, wrong with building such relationships...but that is completely different from a nation, under sanctions for violating accepted norms, bribing a political candidate of a coalition nation to lift them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top