Avoid thoughtless posting - imagine a post that you would find inspiring from others, then aim for that standard yourself. In this way the board will blossom.
- Manlobbi
Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy❤
No. of Recommendations: 2
No. of Recommendations: 4
LurkerMom: 'Take A Look Inside This MASSIVE Prison That Is Now Home For 40,000 Gang Members In El Salvador
As other news reports have pointed out, the U.S. Justice Department unsealed an indictment on Thursday against alleged MS-13 gang leaders that accuses senior Salvadoran officials of negotiating with criminal groups to curb violence, making this announcement seem very much like a loud shout of "SQUIRREL!" Salvadoran presidents have a long history of making deals with the country's gangs and here's yet another one.
According to Human Rights Watch, 'Security forces have detained hundreds of Salvadorans with no connection to gangs, held them incommunicado, tortured some of them in prison, and subjected detainees to Kafkian legal proceedings that makes it difficult, if not impossible, for them to defend themselves.' Reportedly, the grounds for arrest seem to make it possible to arrest almost anyone: having tattoos, living in neighborhoods that have gangs and looking like criminals.
Interesting resources you have there: The Gateway Pundit, the American Conservative, GangScope, and Judicial Watch. Only the American Conservative gets a clean report from Media Bias Fact Check. They don't recognize GangScope and neither do I. I skimmed though it and it's rather poorly written. The Washington Post piece seemed more like a fact-free glamour piece for ICE than real journalism.
Sources aside, again, no one disputes that immigration is a serious and challenging issue that needs to be addressed but here's the problem: republicans have no interest in legislatively addressing immigration. In 2008, the republican party platform wanted a fence on the southern border. In 2012, a double fence. In 2016, a wall. In 2020, they had no platform. Republicans senators who previously were open to immigration reform -- Rubio, Graham, Grassley, and others -- have folded like cheap suits to the Trump Cult.
No. of Recommendations: 2
Commonone said,
'Salvadoran presidents have a long history of making deals with the country's gangs and here's yet another one.'
Viewing the video it is certainly not the case with today's Salvadoran president. If this type of treatment was being done in our American prisons the left would be screaming to high Heaven.
commonone complains,
'Interesting resources you have there: The Gateway Pundit, the American Conservative, GangScope, and Judicial Watch. Only the American Conservative gets a clean report from Media Bias Fact Check.'
YaYa, your ongoing complaining of blogs and news sources of the right is soooo boring and
monotonous.
Should I go to fake news CNN for my news source? Yeah, right....Bwahahahaha
commonone, 'Republicans senators who previously were open to immigration reform -- Rubio, Graham, Grassley, and others -- have folded like cheap suits to the Trump Cult.'
commonone laments to past years and blames Trump for the horrid border crisis that exists under our current president, but does not tell us what the senators have to say about our current border crisis existing right now.
No. of Recommendations: 4
LurkerMom:
Viewing the video it is certainly not the case with today's Salvadoran president. From the Department of Justice:
As further alleged, the defendants have engaged in a litany of violent terrorist activities aimed at influencing the government of El Salvador (GOES) policy and to obtain benefits and concessions from the GOES; targeting GOES law enforcement and military officials; employing terrorist tactics such as the use of Improvised Explosive Devices ('IEDs') and grenades; operating military-style training camps for firearms and explosives; using public displays of violence to intimidate civilian populations; using violence to obtain and control territory; and manipulating the electoral process in El Salvador. Several of these defendants have played prominent roles in MS-13's past and current negotiations with the GOES.LurkerMom:
YaYa, your ongoing complaining of blogs and news sources of the right is soooo boring and monotonous.But accurate. I have in-laws who send me links which I point out to them are unreliable and incorrect, replying with multiple factual sources. Their response is to send me another lousy source. Some people prefer to live in an echo chamber because they're not interested in information and facts but simply in confirming their beliefs.
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/three-high-ranking-...
No. of Recommendations: 2
Sources aside, again, no one disputes that immigration is a serious and challenging issue that needs to be addressed but here's the problem: republicans have no interest in legislatively addressing immigration. In 2008, the republican party platform wanted a fence on the southern border. In 2012, a double fence. In 2016, a wall. In 2020, they had no platform. Republicans senators who previously were open to immigration reform -- Rubio, Graham, Grassley, and others -- have folded like cheap suits to the Trump Cult.
-------------------
Here is the reality. Until the border is secure (don't get literal on me, there always be a few sneaking in), there is no point in passing laws make it easier to come here legally or to stay here if you already came illegally. Reagan was duped by the "Amnesty Now, Security Later" ruse by the Dems. It shouldn't be repeated.
Once the border is secure, we can have rational rules to keep out the few that we don't want in (eg previously deported felons, gang members) with some assurance they will stay out. And once such a system is in place repeat offenders will be dealt with harshly. Once that is up and running, then more immigration courts, paths for dreamers, and guest worker programs, and whatever can and should be figured out.
I am all for immigration reform. But without border security, it is like passing laws with no police or criminal justice system to back it up.
No. of Recommendations: 4
YaYa, your ongoing complaining of blogs and news sources of the right is soooo boring and monotonous.
Should I go to fake news CNN for my news source? Yeah, right....Bwahahahaha
You've got it backwards. Your ongoing blind reliance on the "alternate" facts promoted by blogs and news sources of the fake-news maga-right is incredibly boring. And limiting.
I guess you haven't yet realized that CNN's orientation has become much more centrist these days. But regardless of where on the spectrum they sit, at least they have always had far more respect for the facts than the sources you unfortunately place your faith in.
No. of Recommendations: 12
"YaYa, your ongoing complaining of blogs and news sources of the right is soooo boring and
monotonous."
YaYa, your ongoing use of unreliable sources of information that are not very accurate but tell you what you want to hear is so boring and monotonous. It is the primary reason you have the poor reputation you have on this board.
Before playing the whining victim about insults, just remember that you (and only you) continually make the choice to maintain your poor reputation. I don't.
No. of Recommendations: 1
bighairymike: Reagan was duped by the "Amnesty Now, Security Later" ruse by the Dems.
Well, let's just see what Reagan himself said, shall we?
REAGAN: I believe in the idea of amnesty for those who have put down roots and lived here, even though sometime back they may have entered illegally."
Huh. Doesn't sound like the man was duped.
bighairymike: Until the border is secure (don't get literal on me, there always be a few sneaking in)...
Well, since you brought it up, please define 'border security'.
No. of Recommendations: 6
"Here is the reality."That isn't reality. It is your opinion. An opinion that is very far from reality.
"Until the border is secure (don't get literal on me, there always be a few sneaking in)"So you readily admit there will always be some sneaking in. That means subconsciously you recognize that a secure border isn't a binary thing (i.e. secure or not secure) like you are asking for, but instead a spectrum of levels of security.
So your call for a secure border first is self admittedly nonsense.
"there is no point in passing laws make it easier to come here legally or to stay here if you already came illegally."That is simply not true.
A vast large percentage of the people who sneak into the country across the southern border are people who are otherwise normal law-abiding people looking for economic opportunities. If there was some sort of seasonal worker visa system set up where these people could apply to get seasonal worker visas to come in and pick our fruit, wash our dishes, etc. and then return home only to be able to legally come back next year a large percentage of the border crossers would jump all over it. The number of illegal border crossings would plummet because those people would be crossing legally rather than illegally.
Your conservative political overlords do not want this though. For one, it will cost them money. All of those wealthy, rural, Republican California farmers don't want their workers to be legal because if they were, the workers would have legal protections. As it is now, they get the fruits of their labor (literally) while being able to take advantage of them because the workers cannot complain. The second reason your political masters don't want this is because then they couldn't keep you scared and hiding under the bed by flashing a
BORDER CRISIS chryon across the bottom of the screen every 15 minutes.
Furthermore, doing things like the Biden Administrations setting up of the Parole Process in Venezuela (
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statement... ) and expanding it to other countries has reduced the number of people from those countries trying to cross into the United States illegally. Spending more money on these programs would make a bigger difference.
So you are just plain wrong. If the goal is to reduce illegal border crossings then there are plenty of reasons to pass laws to make it easier to come here legally.
"Reagan was duped by the "Amnesty Now, Security Later" ruse by the Dems. It shouldn't be repeated."LOL The nutty things that you hear from your info sources. Even St Ronny is no longer safe and can be sacrificed in the name of using your ignorance of the topic to scare you.
"Once the border is secure, we can have rational rules to keep out the few that we don't want in (eg previously deported felons, gang members) with some assurance they will stay out."Actually we have that now. Whenever Democratic presidents sign executive orders telling prosecutors to spend what limited resources they have (remember, Republicans won't increase the money for processing illegal immigrants) to focus on the worst (the felons and the gang members) your poor information sources spin that as open borders!!!!! Democrats don't want to try and stop illegal immigration they are willing to look the other way. Your poor information sources aren't telling you that Democratic presidents are looking the other way on non-felon, non-gang member illegal immigrants because they are trying to use limited resources to handle the worst cases.
"I am all for immigration reform. But without border security, it is like passing laws with no police or criminal justice system to back it up."</I.
That is backwards. Without immigration reform you will never have relatively secure borders.
No. of Recommendations: 2
But accurate. I have in-laws who send me links which I point out to them are unreliable and incorrect, replying with multiple factual sources. Their response is to send me another lousy source. Some people prefer to live in an echo chamber because they're not interested in information and facts but simply in confirming their beliefs.
It's sad that people prefer to have their preconceived beliefs confirmed rather than learn the truth and let the chips fall where they may.
That was at least partially behind Faux Noise. In the Dominion suit they quoted memos from Faux management that they would lose audience if they reported the truth, so they lied. Lost audience == lower stock price.
She may think it's "boring", but she is also woefully misinformed due to her choice of outlets. But as long as those outlets retain viewers/readers, they don't care.
No. of Recommendations: 2
YaYa, your ongoing use of unreliable sources of information that are not very accurate but tell you what you want to hear is so boring and monotonous. It is the primary reason you have the poor reputation you have on this board.
Before playing the whining victim about insults, just remember that you (and only you) continually make the choice to maintain your poor reputation. I don't.
First of all umm, stop with your TMF Political Asylum leftover insults and putdowns.
They didn't work on me back then and neither will your insults mean anything to me now.
It was posters like you who developed my thick skin and the reason why post after post of yours were pulled.
Last I heard TMF threw you to the curb.
Time for you to grow up and have some civility in this new forum and not spoil if for everyone else.
FoxNews is number 1 in ratings for a reason. Nuff said.
No. of Recommendations: 8
FoxNews is number 1 in ratings for a reason.
That's true and the reason is simple.
They pander to the biases of the right-wing television market with lies.
When they don't pander with misinformation, the market turns the dial to cable pundits who will pander to them with misinformation.
Follow the money. Rupert Murdoch does.
No. of Recommendations: 2
She may think it's "boring", but she is also woefully misinformed due to her choice of outlets. But as long as those outlets retain viewers/readers, they don't care.
What all truthful and informative news outlets would you suggest?
No. of Recommendations: 6
LurkerMom: FoxNews is number 1 in ratings for a reason. Nuff said.
No, not enough.
Interestingly, or coincidentally, Media Matters obtained a copy of the latest Dominion filing, featuring Rupert Murdoch's deposition. Murdoch admits, under oath, that Fox News, through its hosts, endorsed the former president's "stolen election" lies.
Q. You are aware now that Fox did more than simply host these guests and give them a platform; correct?
Murdoch: I think you've shown me some material in support of that.
Q. In fact, you are now aware that Fox endorsed at times this false notion of a stolen election?
Murdoch: Not Fox, No. Not Fox. But maybe Lou Dobbs, maybe Maria, as commentators.
Q. We went through Fox hosts Maria Bartiromo, yes?
Murdoch: Yes. C'mon.
Q. Fox host Jeanine Piro?
Murdoch: I think so.
Q. Fox Business host Lou Dobbs?
Murdoch: Oh, a lot.
Q. Fox host Sean Hannity?
Murdoch: A bit.
Q. All were in the document; correct?
Murdoch: Yes, they were.
Q. About Fox endorsing the narrative of a stolen election; correct?
Murdoch: No. Some commentators were endorsing it.
Q. About their endorsement of a stolen election?
Murdoch: Yes, they endorsed.
Also within the filing, Murdoch admits that Fox made these decisions to lie for two reasons: money and ratings.
No. of Recommendations: 2
I suggest getting a variety, since every outlet will have some bias as to what they choose to cover or not cover. None can cover everything, so what they choose to cover is already a bias. NYT, NPR, Guardian, BBC, surprisingly you can get decent coverage from al Jazeera. I don't do cable news, so can't recommend any of them (and would recommend against them). VICE News can be good. There are probably some others if I thought hard about it. But those sources will call BS on a Dem or a Rep when they are spewing BS. Which is their job. I want to know the dirt, no matter whose dirt it is. I also like some international sources as they have different perspectives on American news, and are generally not carrying the banner of either US party.
I do not want an outlet that has a proven track record of lying to me, even if those are lies that I would be prone to believing. They are doing me no favors if they are lying to me. Which is why I usually try to verify a story from more than one source, and as another poster said, going to original source documents (e.g. the filings of Dominion, including company memos and depositions) is golden.
No. of Recommendations: 2
They pander to the biases of the right-wing television market with lies.
Who does CNN with the lowest ratings of all pander to?
Evidently the left-wing does not watch CNN either. I think they know better.
Advertisers go where the market is and it is not CNN nor NBC.
Apparently viewers from both sides prefer FOXNews.
No. of Recommendations: 2
I do not want an outlet that has a proven track record of lying to me, even if those are lies that I would be prone to believing. They are doing me no favors if they are lying to me. Which is why I usually try to verify a story from more than one source, and as another poster said, going to original source documents (e.g. the filings of Dominion, including company memos and depositions) is golden.
Most often what I post is already reported on by different news outlets. It is not only FOX
who reports on the same topic of current news. I've learned though it doesn't matter where I get my news source from, it is often because I lean right on left dominant Boards and will be called out on it no matter what I post about, which is okay with me. I might be persuaded to change my mind, but if adhominem remarks are thrown in, they've lost me.
Thank you onepoorguy taking the time to respond to my question. I will look into some of your suggestions. A couple I am not aware of, but sound interesting.
No. of Recommendations: 1
FoxNews is number 1 in ratings for a reason.
Yeah ' for sure, for a reason. And for totally the wrong reason. Because they give their viewers what they want to hear, instead of giving them what they need to hear.
Keep making all the excuses you want. That doesn't change the reality that Fox lies, reguarly and knowingly. And people like you make it worthwhile for them to continue doing so, since it's their profits, not their reputation, that's primary for them.
No. of Recommendations: 2
LurkerMom:
What all truthful and informative news outlets would you suggest?Here's an interactive chart of almost all news outlets:
https://adfontesmedia.com/interactive-media-bias-c...LurkerMom:
Apparently viewers from both sides prefer FOXNews.Not even remotely true. According to PEW Research, a majority of Democrats get their political news from multiple sources, preferring CNN, NPR, the NY Times, and MSNBC. The only major outlet that a majority of republicans rely on for political news is Fox.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/04/01/a...
No. of Recommendations: 6
LOL it is almost like you didn't even read what was written (another self-inflicted reason your reputation is poor).
Thank you for demonstrating the point I made about you blame me for insulting you rather than accepting responsibility for a poor choice you continually choose to make.
'FoxNews is number 1 in ratings for a reason."
Right, because they provide entertainment to a certain selection of people. They have aren't a news source because as a news source they continually fail.
What is so sad is Fox admits they will lie to and deceive their viewers, but viewers like you do not care. You prefer to be lied to rather than hear the truth.
Sorry, I prefer information over ignorance. That is the whole basis behind atheism.
No. of Recommendations: 3
"I suggest getting a variety, since every outlet will have some bias as to what they choose to cover or not cover. None can cover everything, so what they choose to cover is already a bias. NYT, NPR, Guardian, BBC, surprisingly you can get decent coverage from al Jazeera. I don't do cable news, so can't recommend any of them (and would recommend against them). VICE News can be good. There are probably some others if I thought hard about it. But those sources will call BS on a Dem or a Rep when they are spewing BS. Which is their job. I want to know the dirt, no matter whose dirt it is. I also like some international sources as they have different perspectives on American news, and are generally not carrying the banner of either US party."
What I think is more important than the sources of information a person uses is how they consume the information from those sources.
Whenever I read/watch/hear a story from a news source my mind automatically questions the information I am being given. I try and figure out how the source would be biased and take that into account. I try and understand why they are framing the information in the way they are framing it. I consider if there is information they are not telling me that might have an impact on my thinking if I knew about it (that is where diverse multiple sources are important). Short answer, the consumer should be critical of the information they consume and the news sources they consume it from. It is called critical thinking for a reason.
You probably do this in general as well without even really thinking about it.
Unfortunately there is a large segment of the population that does not do this. They either lack the knowledge, curiosity, or desire to think critically about the information they consume. Those types of people are more likely to fall prey to confirmation bias and use those sources of information.
Now to be fair, everyone falls prey to confirmation bias on occasion. It is human nature to want to have our views confirmed. The ability to recognize it and move beyond it is what makes the difference. Some people find a greater need for confirmation bias than they do for factual information.
No. of Recommendations: 2
Umm, I'm putting you on ignore. I won't see any of your posts nor any of your replies.
You can insult all you want, I won't see them, so knock yourself out.
Meanwhile I'll continue on my merry way.
Rack up the recs earned with insults and those insect next to your user name, lol.
tata
No. of Recommendations: 1
onepoorguy....One of your news outlet suggestions was al Jazeera. Took a look at the site and bookmark it.
Interesting they also ran the story about El Salvador's prison with the slant the Human Rights Group is not pleased with the treatment of the prisoners at the new prison.
snip
'Photos: Inside El Salvador's new 'mega prison' for gang members
Human rights groups have criticised a crackdown on crime, accusing the government of empowering itself to act with impunity.'
https://www.aljazeera.com/gallery/2023/2/27/photos...snip
'We are eliminating this cancer from society,' Justice and Public Security Minister Gustavo Villatoro said on Twitter about the inmates.
'Know that you will never walk out of CECOT, you will pay for what you are ' cowardly terrorists,' he said.'
No. of Recommendations: 3
Well, since you brought it up, please define 'border security'.
----------------------------------
When Tucker Carlson reports that border security has been achieved.
No. of Recommendations: 1
bighairymike: When Tucker Carlson reports that border security has been achieved.
Yeah, well, I didn't really expect a serious answer even though you repeated the phrase over and over again in post 430.
No. of Recommendations: 4
A lot of folks wrote off al Jazeera as a mouthpiece for terrorists when they first appeared. But they have proven not to be. They are (probably) more sensitive to the plights of peoples in the middle east, but for the most part their reporting seems to be accurate. As another poster said (and me, too), it's still good to verify the info with another source. That way if details are omitted from one, you can get a fuller context.
No. of Recommendations: 6
You put your trust in the wrong guy. He'll never report that it has been achieved because it's a ratings grabber. It gets people to tune-in and be outraged, which is good for ratings.
Internal memos show that Fox "news" anchors knowingly lied, repeatedly, and solely because they didn't want to alienate their inflamed audience. No one should ever trust another word said on that network. The only reason any of them shut-up about it was when Fox was hit with the Dominion suit. I hope they get what they deserve.
No. of Recommendations: 2
bighairymike: When Tucker Carlson reports that border security has been achieved.
Yeah, well, I didn't really expect a serious answer even though you repeated the phrase over and over again in post 430. - commonone--------------------------
https://i.pinimg.com/736x/95/a3/b3/95a3b322dc7b2f9...
No. of Recommendations: 5
Evidently the left-wing does not watch CNN either. I think they know better.
Yes, apparently the left wing is not attracted to extremist lie-filled radio and cable programming as the right wing is.
Several attempts by liberal political humorists have failed because they cannot gain the large audiences of gullible ditto-heads that nod along to the "Foxish" mix of lies and innuendo "just asking a question' crap.
Advertisers go where the market is and it is not CNN nor NBC.
That's nothing to be proud of. It says advertisers know where the poorly educated, uninformed, gullible eyeballs can be found.
No. of Recommendations: 1
Well, since you brought it up, please define 'border security'.
----------------------------------
When Tucker Carlson reports that border security has been achieved. When emoji are inadequate....the appropriate response:
https://media.tenor.com/jOxnPxK9oQUAAAAd/happy-chi...
No. of Recommendations: 1
I should also add that there are other potential sources on (for example) YouTube, but one has to be very careful vetting them. Any yahoo can post to YouTube. But there is some quality content if you screen.
My primary source of info for the Ukraine situation is Perun on YouTube. He does very deep dives on different aspects of the war, its economics, how it's affecting the political climate (e.g. Putin is actually strengthening NATO because at least two more nations have applied to join the alliance, and other members are increasing their defense spending). He doesn't do day-to-day reporting, but more a sum-up of the situation. He's also pretty clear on what is his opinion, and what is verifiable fact (and often the means of verification, like visual confirmation of destroyed armor, etc).
I was very leery about Perun at first (as I said, any yahoo can post). But he has been consistently solid in his analyses. His videos can be a bit dense with data, though.
No. of Recommendations: 2
I was very leery about Perun at first (as I said, any yahoo can post). But he has been consistently solid in his analyses. His videos can be a bit dense with data, though.
I will check that out too. I am very interested in the Ukraine situation and my opinion is to help them all we can, but then I hear opposing opinions, so......
I checked out Vice News and also read some con opinions about them. Looking at their news headlines a few had a slight bent to the left and not a neutral headline.
No. of Recommendations: 1
I agree. We need to support Ukraine completely. And, as one of his videos said a few months ago, we can do it almost for free. We (NATO nations) have stockpiles of armor that will never be used again, but is perfectly serviceable. Ship it over (which is what we are starting to do). Russia is emptying their depots of obsolete armor to put it on the front lines, also. There is an accounting cost to doing it, but it's mostly just moving numbers from one ledger to another. The armor is already there, isn't going to be used ever again (too old), so it's not like we have to spin out a new Abrams to send (costing millions). He really likes speaking about the economics of war.
But he does a better job of explaining that than I do.
Putin really stepped in it here. He galvanized NATO against him, and many member nations are sending tanks and artillery pieces to Ukraine (e.g. Poland, Germany). And he underestimated Ukraine, so a victory in two weeks has become failure to achieve most objectives after a year, and over 100K casualties. Now that western nations are supporting Ukraine, he can't win. It's just a question of how badly he will hurt Russia in the process of losing.
No. of Recommendations: 0
If you check the interactive bias graphic linked by another poster, VICE is almost smack in the middle with very high reliability. Not as high as NPR and some others, but respectably high.
It's a useful graphic, I think. If for no other reason than to keep in mind while reading an outlet/source.
BTW, Perun on YouTube:
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=perun...It's worth going back to some of his older videos. Like Finland and Sweden joining NATO. He's also produced a video about the changing battlefield with small drones, the Russian strategy (and failure?) about 9 days ago, etc. I went back and viewed all his Ukraine videos after I decided he was a good source (last fall).
No. of Recommendations: 1
Nobody does unintended irony better than a nutter.
No. of Recommendations: 0
I was very leery about Perun at first (as I said, any yahoo can post). But he has been consistently solid in his analyses. His videos can be a bit dense with data, though.I watched a few of Perun YouTube clips and yes, he does give a clearer and more in-depth explanation of the the Ukraine situation than that of several minutes or more of prime time news.
Then I saw a news-clip today. It was quite unsettling to me,
https://citizenfreepress.com/breaking/zelensky-u-s...Checking further Zelensky's statement was taken out of content, but still does not sit well with me....
snip
'FACT CHECK
Fact Check: Did Zelensky Say U.S. Will Send Its Kids to War for Ukraine?
The short clip is missing a lot of context'Zelensky's remarks were in response to a wider question about opinion polls in the U.S. that indicate a growing number of Americans believe the Biden administration is providing too much support to Ukraine.
Ukraine's president was asked about what his message would be to Americans with those concerns.
"Are American children any different from ours? Don't Americans enjoy the same things as we do?" he asked rhetorically. "I don't think we're very different."
Zelensky suggested that if American support for Ukraine weakened and depleted, and Kyiv went on to lose the war against Russia, NATO members including the U.S. risk being dragged into a bigger conflict.
This, Zelensky predicted, is because "Russia is going to enter Baltic states, NATO member states, and then the U.S. will have to send their sons and daughters, exactly the same way as we are sending our sons and daughters, to war.
"And they will have to fight because it's NATO that we're talking about and they will be dying, God forbid, because it's a horrible thing."
https://www.newsweek.com/zelensky-ukraine-us-russi...
No. of Recommendations: 1
Perun has mentioned that, at least in part because an official in the Russian government (I forgot who) said "Poland is next". Which motivated the Poles to send LOTS of materiel and weapons to Ukraine.
Attacking a NATO member will bring the US (and all other members) into the conflict. In which case, yes, American youth (soldiers) would go to war. Putin has exercised very questionable judgment in Ukraine, and has paid a grievous price. But I don't think he would take on a NATO member. That would be suicide, and I think he knows that. Russia would be crushed.
So I'm not too worried about that scenario.
No. of Recommendations: 3
LurkerMom:
Then I saw a news-clip today. It was quite unsettling to me,
https://citizenfreepress.com/breaking/zelensky-u-s...Well, yeah, unsettling you is one of the goals of outlets like the Citizen Free Press which, BTW, has multiple failed fact checks reported by Media Bias Fact Check.
But why would it unsettle you? The U.S. has pledged to honor Article 5, the cornerstone of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, since it was established in 1949 in the aftermath of World War II. NATO has only invoked Article 5 once in its history ' on behalf of the United States in response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.
In answering a purely hypothetical question, Zelensky said should Ukraine fall because it was abandoned by the United States, Russia would likely be emboldened to invade NATO member states and Article 5 would be invoked. If invoked, the United States and all NATO members would be drawn into war. And soldiers (sons and daughters) die in war. They would not be dying for Ukraine -- and Zelensky never said that they would be -- as the Hodgetwins claimed.
There are better sources than the extreme rightwing Citizen Free Press.
No. of Recommendations: 2
commonone: 'Well, yeah, unsettling you is one of the goals of outlets like the Citizen Free Press which, BTW, has multiple failed fact checks reported by Media Bias Fact Check.'
commonone, it would help you if you had read my entire post instead of taking it out of content. <sigh>
No. of Recommendations: 1
So I'm not too worried about that scenario.
Yes, it is quite logical Putin would lose if he went up against NATO, but then, the world is dealing with a crazy delusional man.
No. of Recommendations: 2
LurkerMom:
commonone, it would help you if you had read my entire post instead of taking it out of content [sic]. <sigh>I did. Here is what you wrote:
Then I saw a news-clip today. It was quite unsettling to me,
https://citizenfreepress.com/breaking/zelensky-u-s...
Checking further Zelensky's statement was taken out of content [sic], but still does not sit well with me....I then questioned why it would be unsettling/not sit well and went on to talk about Article 5, which was the thrust of the Zelensky comment.
No. of Recommendations: 2
Yes, it is quite logical Putin would lose if he went up against NATO, but then, the world is dealing with a crazy delusional man.
How ironic that that could refer to either of the 2 members of the TrumPutin mutual admiration society.
..and never forget.....
'I said, 'Eric, who's funding? I know no banks ' because of the recession, the Great Recession ' have touched a golf course. You know, no one's funding any kind of golf construction. It's dead in the water the last four or five years.'' the writer said.
'And this is what he said. He said, 'Well, we don't rely on American banks. We have all the funding we need out of Russia.' I said, 'Really?' And he said, 'Oh, yeah. We've got some guys that really, really love golf, and they're really invested in our programmes. We just go there all the time.''
No. of Recommendations: 1
"Attacking a NATO member will bring the US (and all other members) into the conflict. In which case, yes, American youth (soldiers) would go to war. Putin has exercised very questionable judgment in Ukraine, and has paid a grievous price. But I don't think he would take on a NATO member. That would be suicide, and I think he knows that. Russia would be crushed.
So I'm not too worried about that scenario."
If Ukraine were to somehow fall to Russia, I don't think Putin would directly attack a NATO member next. What he would do though is try and undermine their political and social structures. He would choose one of the weaker NATO border countries and heavily support opposition groups in that country. These opposition groups would become radicalized, and he would try and start a civil war. He could then send in mercenary groups to support the radicals and be able to deny Russian interference. Maybe throw in some self-sabotage (like blowing up a Russian Orthodox church in the country and then he can use that as a justification to send in Russian troops.
All of that would be gradual and be like the boiling frog. At what point does article 5 get invoked?
No. of Recommendations: 1
He would choose one of the weaker NATO border countries and heavily support opposition groups in that country.
This is already happening in Moldova. There are reports of unrest and "Russia separatists" controlling the eastern part of the country. It is very similar to what Putin did in Ukraine.
Alan
