gearhog

Hey! You can be taught. I think there's hope for you yet. Instead of a 10 year old event unrelated to the current conflict, you've somehow combed through over 1800 episodes and found a 4 year old podcast unrelated to the current conflict. It ain't much, but it's something. I'm sure it took a lot of effort, so I'll commend you for it. Side thought: Are you at work today? Hmmm. Remember that comment I made about you being the high school debate team's one trick pony? You'll will never abandon your ad-hominem tactic no matter how transparent it makes your unwillingness to address the actual facts or lies. Aren't you even a little bit ashamed that that is your only defense? It only gets you so far. Because the topic of this podcast is so far out of the realm of issues that are of importance in the context of the Rus-Ukr war, I am unfamiliar with this one. But I'm willing to give it a listen and report back to you with an original take using critical thinking that I didn't have to defer to Google for. Understand I have to withold judgement until I verify that the claims within are ridiculous, and I'll even concede there is a probability of bullshit given my commitment to truth and honesty. So I'm already going in with a bias that suits your fancy. Can I get a little appreciation? At first glance, however, I'm suddenly reminded of claimed chemical attacks and WMD that were used as a pretext for going to war. You may have been a child then, so you might not remember. Anyway, thanks for the link. It's in the lineup.

We here in the US just spent $60 Billion to counter Russia, and $8 Billion for Taiwan to counter China. Today, the US is drafting sanctions against China for helping Russia. Our leadership, in their divine wisdom, is effectively forcing two world superpowers into deeper levels of cooperation. If China is going to be sanctioned for providing military assistance to Russia anyway, why would they not go ahead and open up full bore production if the US is already threatening them over the Taiwan issue? I honestly wonder who has the larger industrial production capacity, US and allies, or the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.

Intelligence source confidence is rated by assessing the accuracy and reliability information itself. How would you know what the information is if you refuse to look at it and discourage others from doing the same? For the third time, the only example you've given of anything that has a very high probability of being inaccurate is a random irrelevant event from 10 years ago. There's likely a vast amount of information out there from the Duran that has an even greater chance of being inaccurate, is more recent, and actually pertains to recent history. Do I have to go find it for you just to prove that you're lazy? You've spent more time googling dirt on the show hosts than listening to the Podcast. You could have just listened, shot down all their arguments, proved that it's all false Russian disinfo, and saved yourself an enormous amount of time, and we likely wouldn't be having this exchange. I actually listened to it, wrote it all down for you, and put it 6 inches in front of your face. Like a toddler, you scrunched up your face, shook your head, and still... still... elected not to confront the issues. If you believe someone should be forever discounted because you heard them say something idiotic once, you'd have been abandoned as a child. Perhaps you were. You most definitely would have been abandoned here on the forums multiple times over. But I and others are living proof that my approach works better. For pages now, I've been sifting through massive amount of your flawed logic and unsubstantiated assumptions. I can't remember where it is, but you did have a perspective I thought was useful on green energy or something recently. Even a broken clock is right twice per day. The rest of the information you present is mostly garbage, but I can still learn something about the methods and manner in which you deliver it. You operate on assumptions, I operate on first-hand knowledge. It's that simple. That's why you're stuck where you are in this debate and you keep talking in circles. If there is a debate about how to best find out the truth, a position that advocates for evaluating all information based on examining it's content is always, always, going to defeat an argument for dismissing information before it is heard because you don't like who delivered it. "There's not enough time to process all the bad information out there". That's a problem with you, not the method. Disinformation campaigns from Sweden and Finland? Uh, ok... Not sure how that's relevant to my aforementioned concerns about the USA, but I'd be happy to. I'm a voracious reader. Give me a link and I will thoroughly enjoy working through the details with you. That is, unless discussing details instead of broad generalizations and assumptions frightens you.

Oh, the mystery. I'll ask again, what's it like on the inside of a real-life squadron vault? Lots of old dusty scrolls and microfilms? Again, I'm super impressed by your NIPR/SIPRNet access where all the secrets of the universe are held, but claiming that you have super-dooper access to "highly-classified" intel so you can claim authority status without substantiating it is transparent. I did a year as an STS ADO working every day in the SCIF and another year TDY to the third floor vault at AMC/A3 Tactics. Both experiences were about as enlightening as watching you dodge hard questions. Your "access" is about as impressive as the Comm Sq's ability to keep the network running. What did I say "they" are "really doing"? I think it's funny that you know I'm prepared to the hilt to get into the weeds and write extensively on any of these issues, which is why you'll continue to make vague references yet never go anywhere near the specifics of any of them because you know I'll waylay your position. Real clever, and timid. I'll continue to point it out every single time.

No disclosed funding = RUSSIA! We didn't talk about the individuals... you did. I talk about information. You're the ad-hominem guy, not me. Can't you at least switch to another logical fallacy to make yourself seem slightly more interesting? You're the one-trick-pony of the high school debate team. So you're not even going to address the MIC after I've made a legitimate point and say... "Well.... uh... there were other things too!" Weak. I know you'll dodge the question for the 10th time but I'll ask anyway, what other "lines of commentary" are you whining about now? Apparently, you're easily astounded which doesn't surprise me. I have to live in this country. I simply do not care about Russians or Ukrainians. They're not the threat. Poor governmental leadership and the weak-minded sycophants who place a higher value on enforcing an acceptable narrative than the pursuing the truth are the real threat. Don't misunderstand.. I'm referring to you. I, on the other hand, will continue to critically analyze information from a variety of sources in order to have a more well-informed understanding of these events. If it hurts your feelings, you're just going to have to live with it. Neither your life, nor anyone else's is going to be endangered because someone suggested on a podcast that a corrupt corporatocracy is steering our nation away from the best interests of the American people.

But did you die? So anytime anyone mentions the flooding of the military industrial complex with cash, it's Russian Psyop to gain a battlefield advantage? Is this a new subject for you? Pretty sure the issue of war-profiteering has been around a lot longer than you have. These guys didn't invent that narrative. With that logic, you can link any dissent or criticism of US involvement in any conflict to enemy propaganda. You're only interested in stifling dissent. Are you telling me there are no critical narratives that can be had? If the truth hurts, maybe you have the problem. If it isn't the truth, show me. The military industrial complex last year (officially) spent around $12 million lobbying key pro-Ukraine war members of Congress and just received a $50 Billion windfall, in addition to the previous windfalls. https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus?ind=D There are no concerns there? You have to realize telling everyone "Don't look over there! Nothing to see here!" while implying anyone having a critical position is a Russian shill isn't giving you credibility. You're only shouting down the person, while not disputing the claims. You're only interested in one side of the argument. I want to hear all sides and draw my own conclusions. You don't want anyone doing that. It's becoming apparent that if you had your way, you'd ensure compliance with the Party rules and eliminate any unauthorized information while monitoring citizens for signs of dissent, and perhaps punish anyone who engages in thought crime or holds a belief contrary to the Party ideology. There's a term for that, but I can't remember it. Any ideas?

Good point. Invading a foreign country under false pretenses is the lowest.

Good morning. Well, here we are. My apologies, for I'm about to put you in grave danger, but it's a risk I'm willing to take in pursuit of the truth. I have a full cup of Black Rifle Coffee, Spirit of '76 roast. It's very good. The packaging is awesome, even inspiring. Let's kick this pig. The hosts are starting with the front lines. They report that Russia had broken through the Ukrainian front lines in and captured the town of Avdiivka. Did this really happen or is this false information? Fact check: True. The Russians are (were) advancing on a town called Ocheretyne, which is a small town, but lies on a hill and has a railway junction, making it strategically important. One commenter is saying this breakthough puts Russia in a strong position. He quotes a Ukrainian General that the situations at other places on the front lines are terrible. Apparently Russia is planning a large offensive, possibly to capture Kharkiv. One of the Commenters mentioned former British Colonel Hamish De-Bretton Gordon who wrote this article for the Telegraph detailing how dire the situation is. He goes on to say that the media is full of these types of articles. Now they're talking about the $61 Billion in aid. Some of the funds are for the Ukrainian economy itself, not for the war. The bulk of the money is going to the military industrial complex. He is claiming that only a small portion of the funds are going directly to Ukraine in the form of weapons, and the rest is going to defense contractors to replenish our own stockpiles. Now this is where some propaganda might be creeping in. I should check on this. So he actually underestimated the amount that is being given to the U.S. defense industrial base. He is claiming that the amount being given directly to Ukraine will be used up at once, but the time it would take to DIB to complete the manufacturing process would take years. Debatable, but possible. They discuss the gap between the rate of weapons being used and the rate of weapons being replenished while quoting JD Vance "You can't provide more weapons than you have." He quotes CIA director Williams Burns who said if Ukraine isn't given support it will collapse by the end of the year. Checks out. Their contention is that all of this is about preventing a Ukrainian collapse before the election. That's definitely a biased take, but is it possible? They ask why Mike Johnson capitulated. They assert that key Republican committee chairs have been pressuring him on behalf of the military industrial complex and he ultimately conceded to their demands. He knew that same pressure was being exerted on House Republicans who would be forced to side with the Democrats and vote against him, which would likely pressure him to resign, so he acted out of self-preservation. They again say that committee chairs are close to the defense manufacturers and that the want this appropriations bill passed. They also claim that this part of the Republican party and the MIC would rather see Biden than Trump elected. Hmmm. They say the MIC always wins. They say Mike Johnson's political career is toast for passing this bill while completely giving up on the southern border aspect. They go into what actual systems Ukraine will be getting. They were asking for 150-200 patriot systems and are only going to get a fraction. They make a biased assertion that Russia will simply knock them out with hypersonics and they'll be back to square one. The say this aid bill will slow the war down, produce and effect, the effect wears out, and then you need more. They quote President Kennedy about sending aid to Vietnam: "It's like drinking a glass of water. For a short time you fee better, but then you need another." I can't find this quote. Might be BS. They continue to reiterate that a Ukrainian collapse must be avoided by the election. Anything that happens beyond that is not a concern. And that's it. How are feeling, @Lawman? Was it as bad as you thought it was going to be? I think you're going to be fine. It wasn't a great podcast. Nothing earth-shattering. I did learn a couple things about the front lines and got a new perspective on Mike Johnson's capitulation. There was clearly heavy bias throughout the podcast, but nothing that indicates Russian disinformation. It was simply an innocuous discussion. Some of it agreeable, some of it disagreeable. Take some time to process your trauma, and if you want to comment on the specifics here or point out the false information I somehow missed, I'd be more than happy to listen. Have a good day.

What propaganda have I defended? The single solitary example of foreign propaganda that you've brought to this discussion was from 10 years ago, MH17, has nothing to do with our involvement in Ukraine, and I didn't defend it. I have never listened to the Duran and I know I've said as much. However, I will tomorrow morning over coffee just to see what you're whining about and I'll summarize if for you. I want to see how scary this information is. I'm going to post the notes here and then I'll check back for your response. That's going to be the entertaining part. Are you going to have a meltdown? Are you going act all indignant and dick dance around the issues without ever addressing them? Are you going to provide a rational, well-thought and honest rebuttle (Pffftt...LOL), or are you going to draw yet another weird analogy to eating shit and drinking piss? Three is a trend, isn't it? I guess we'll see.

How many times are you tell everyone on BO.net about how bad posting on BO.net is? Give it a rest.

This dumb shit again? You guys are incapable of learning.

That is how I feel about it. This forum could probably be a 20+ year record of my constantly shifting beliefs. What I posted back in 2002 with regard to how I felt about my career, US foreign policy, conflict was definitely much different than it is now. I've become less pragmatic and more of an idealist. I have a lot of scribbled notes on my desk, but one reads Wisdom and Knowledge, Courage, Humanity, Justice, Temperance, Transcendence. The six character traits of strength and virtue. I believe I suck at all of those things compared to where I think I should be. There are a lot of people I admire that exemplify those traits, but some of them actually worked and debated for years, often bitterly, to create a framework for an entire nation based on those traits. Maybe seeing it dismantled is what raises my ire. Maybe I have a disdain for people who are willfully ignorant that we in the US don't get to stay awesome without addressing the greater threats to our way of life. Russia hasn't tried to abridge my freedom of speech by working with media outlets to push one narrative while censoring others. Russia hasn't shown up to American's homes to inquire about their social media posts. Russia hasn't lately tried to curtail my right to bear arms. Russia doesn't have a legal policy allowing for warrantless searches and monitoring of American citizens. Russia didn't try to coerce me into taking a dangerous experimental vaccine. Russia didn't threaten my job if I didn't Russia didn't weaponize the US Justice system. Russia didn't devalue my savings. Russia didn't charge me more than twice the average American income in taxes. Russia didn't send our earnings to foreign governments and defense corporations. Russia didn't indebt my grandchildren with insane spending. Russia isn't simultaneously funding the expansion of multiple large-scale conflicts that threatens to involve people I care about. Russia didn't try to get me to comply with zero-emission climate change goals. Russia didn't intentionally create an immigration crisis. I could go on for days about what Russia didn't do, but I could easily summarize their share of the direct threat being posed to my way of life right now, where I sit: 1%. So hearing someone bitch about an unspecified bit of false information the Russian government may slipped into an obscure podcast could be making me a tad irritable. I should be better. 😄

What is wrong with you. I don't think Russian disinformation is your biggest problem. 🤣

All 172 pages of this thread pertain to the conflict between Russia and Ukraine. That conflict has been going on for over 2 years now. For much of that time, you're calling everyone who is critical of our support for the conflict shills for Russia. I've pressed you for two pages now to cough up an example. Finally, you relented. Sometime in the last few hours, you had to go searching the internet for one. How much time did you spend? What did you ultimately come up with? That someone on that podcast called into question the downing of MH17. YGBFSM. An event that happened 10 years ago and completely irrelevant to this entire thread. That's it? That's the finest example of Russian disinformation in the context of the Rus-Ukr war you could come up with? You didn't even know it existed until today, and you had to go looking for it. I even conceded that most of RT could be propaganda. Hell, even I could give you 10 better examples of Russian disinfo that actually pertain to our discussion. But citing that as the slam dunk "Gotcha!" should be embarrassing for you. But I know it's not. This debate is going circular. You don't like where some people get their information. Boo-hoo. What are you going to do about it? Nothing. But what if you could? If there was a big red button on your desk that prevented people from listening to the Duran podcast, would you push it? Your opinion is duly noted. And disregarded. If you believe there is room for debate on why and how much we should support Ukraine.... WTF do you think it is that we're doing here? Arguing for the sake of arguing? What is the opening argument that was heard on the Podcast? You just created another strawman. BC never cited any specific claim that originated from that podcast. He just said it was a good listen. Don't think so? Piss and moan all you want.

Yet here you are. Again. Claiming that participating in this forum is a waste while you, yourself, participate in the forum. How many times have you quit the forum forever now? 4,5? But I'm glad you're here. It means you read what I posted. I'm not asking expecting you to agree with it, only think about it. That's like saying you can't listen to JRE because he's had murderers, anti-semites, drug-users, Jones, Tucker, and other critics of the government. You don't have to agree with any of it. The words aren't going to hurt you, but at the very least, you can learn and understand how words and language are being manipulated to influence you. Again, I thoroughly enjoy reading your posts. I now know and understand that your method of attempting to convince people to avoid content is not to address the content, but use name-calling, ridicule, ad-hominem, ad-nauseum, genetic fallacies, circular-arguments, generalization, appeal to authority, etc, etc, etc. You appear to have checklist for all the logical debate fallacies and are doing your best to check every single one. I'm not sure if you realize you're doing it. But it's fun to watch someone use the same disingenuous tactics to tell people why they shouldn't watch/listen/read someone else's disingenuous propaganda tactics. You brought it up: Would you say your comments here are to promote government confidence, suppress civil resistance and support government function? What does that sound like to you?

I wasn't going to, but I am now. I want to see for myself what it is you're so afraid of. Actually, you do need to listen to something to understand it. Otherwise, aaagain.... you're only regurgitating someone else's conclusion. As I said, we also have intel and propaganda campaigns. Would you say those are more or less robust than those of Russia? I say more. It's also a well documented fact that those tools have been used on our own citizens. I don't give the first flying fuck about any Russian politician, soldier, or citizen. The direct threat they pose to my life is insignificant compared to my own government and people who would advocate for censorship. And I'm definitely not going to allow them or you dictate to me what I can and can't think. Wish no one would listen to Duran? Wish in one hand, shit in the other, and see which one fills up first. Perhaps you saw it, but I posted this earlier today. It's an excerpt taken from the The Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787. John Madison, June 29th. You should read some of it if your online bias check website deems it safe for you. The means of defence against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people. It is perhaps questionable, whether the best concerted system of absolute power in Europe could maintain itself, in a situation, where no alarms of external danger could tame the people to the domestic yoke. What I am suggesting here is nothing new. This was a big issue 237 years ago among our founding fathers as much as it was an issue a thousand years ago. That you so aggressively, yet naively assert that we have only the most noble of intentions on a rapidly growing list of conflicts is just proud ignorance. If I want the truth, I have to consider the perspective of someone on the outside looking in. I have a strong marriage of 26 years. Due in large part in our ability to listen and try to understand another perspective even though it may be flawed. I'm not wasting my time here. The ideas I'm submitting are for your benefit least of all. You're unreachable. You can go listen to or not listen to whatever you want. Participate in your own delusional projection of calling other people shills while simultaneously engaging in it yourself. Do not care. What you are is a generic amalgamation of bad faith and bad reasoning. Sort of boiled down Great Value version of every neocon in position of power, and I have the opportunity challenge it. Some people may not agree, but I think it's going really well.

False. You didn't answer those questions. You just named a few more sources that shouldn't be listened to without substantiating it. Now you're telling me to Google your defense. "Whatever pops up on Google Search results is what my position is." LOL Really? You can't form an original critical thought of your own? "If you want to know what I think, Google it." For the third time, you should reread your posts before you hit submit reply. Your standard for intellectual honesty is "Do you agree with me?". If content doesn't agree with your opinion, it's obviously Russian propaganda. If someone listens to that content, they're obviously a shill. And you're calling me a contrarian? Ridiculous and hypocritical. Of course I am aware of all the Russian IA. But you act as if coming into contact with it carries the same risk as getting herpes from your mom. We're all adults and we can discern the risks and bad information. Have you not also read the chilling ways in which our own Intel agencies influence public opinion? I'm not talking about Russians. F them. I mean the ways in which our govenment manipulates our people. It's out there classifed and unclassifed. "Google it." At this point, it's obvious you don't even know what the "in depth analysis" is. You've adopted a weak position and you'd rather die defending it than abandon it an seek a better one. Par for the neocon adjacent. Another dodge. Accuse me of "playing victim" for asking a question, so as to not answer the question again. I'm subscribed to Zeihan and have been since someone else on this forum recommended him about a year ago. He has some great points. He also comes up with some BS while stumbling through the mountains. I also read and have even posted content from those other sources here on this forum. Yes, there's a lot of good stuff, but there's some questionable stuff as well. I'll read it all. Again, you appear to outsource all of your bullshit detection to third party internet websites. Media bias checks? Why wouldn't you just read it for yourself and decide? You're like drop-shipper of BO.net. You're just marketing and selling other peoples products, or critical thinking skills.

There's not enough hours in the day to read all the things I want to read or watch. To be efficient with my time, I make personal choices as to where I get the most value. You likely do the same, but I wouldn't apply a label to you because of where you sift through info. I also wouldn't spend more time ridiculing you for where you seek info than it would take for me to read what you'd be referring to. In this case, the podcast that has his panties in a twist looks to be about 20 min long. The title is "Preventing Ukraine Collapse during the US election." That could be the title of any Western Neocon slanted podcast. Lawman isn't ignoring information that doesn't meet a standard, he's waving his arms like a crazy person shouting "Don't look over here!". At some point, one has to ask, "Well... why?" Now I want to know what you're acting all weird about. So if the content hasn't met a standard, can I at least know what the standard is? Maybe a few examples? That's not an unreasonable request. Pretending to be indignant because someone has the audacity to ask what your problem or why the content hasn't met your standard, doesn't automatically grant you credibility. If one of the standards is having an active interest in the conflict, shouldn't we condemning a few US media outlets as well? That's just a test for hypocrisy. If Lawman is unwilling or unable to name any, then he's a hypocrite, and deserves to be relegated to the status of RT, Pravda, and the like. He is no more honest than they.

What is this, a half dozen or so exchanges we've now had? Each time, I ask what is the specific information you're disputing. Each time, you dodge the question and choose the ad-hominem tactic. You're just keep repeating a fallacious argument. Let's look at the information in a vacuum and evaluate the thing you're upset about. So what's it like on the inside of an actual vault? Do you get to see who killed JFK? Is there a top secret file on the Duran that enlightens you to something you can only allude to, but not actually say. I wouldn't know, but I'm mystified and super impressed. Where did you get this screen shot? What was in the video? What did he say that was wrong? The best defense against bad information is good information, not no information. As should be apparent, I thoroughly... thoroughly... enjoy challenging an opposing viewpoint. A lot. I wouldn't be pursuing this if I didn't know for a fact your position was weak. I know it is because you won't go anywhere near the crux of the issue. You're trying way too hard to dismiss any threatening information wholesale before it's heard, even by you, by attacking the source. I'll even concede to you it's possible that the vast majority of info coming from these sources completely fabricated, but it's impossible that all of it is. I'll wade through a ton of BS to find an ounce of truth, even yours. What is the Russian propaganda being peddled here that you have a problem with? You've made it abundantly clear where that information is being broadcast from, I just want to know what the information is that you don't like. Let's dispense with your haughty condescending ego performance around RT and get down to brass tacks. So, let me repeat the question: What is the Russian propaganda being peddled here that you have a problem with?

I am not a military officer.

I've been making my way through this page. Fascinating debates by our founding fathers about their concerns when writing the Constitution. https://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/debcont.asp I found this passage pertaining to John Madison's speech to be particularly relevant today. It's from June 29th. "His great fear was that their Governments would then have too much energy, that these might not only be formidable in the large to the small States, but fatal to the internal liberty of all. The same causes which have rendered the old world the Theatre of incessant wars, & have banished liberty from the face of it, would soon produce the same effects here. The weakness & jealousy of the small States would quickly introduce some regular military force against sudden danger from their powerful neighbours. The example would be followed by others, and would soon become universal. In time of actual war, great discretionary powers are constantly given to the Executive Magistrate. Constant apprehension of war, has the same tendency to render the head too large for the body. A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people. It is perhaps questionable, whether the best concerted system of absolute power in Europe could maintain itself, in a situation, where no alarms of external danger could tame the people to the domestic yoke. The insular situation of G. Britain was the principal cause of her being an exception to the general fate of Europe. It has rendered less defence necessary, and admitted a kind of defence which could not be used for the purpose of oppression. -These consequences he conceived ought to be apprehended whether the States should run into a total separation from each other, or shd. enter into partial confederacies. Either event wd. be truly deplorable; & those who might be accessary to either, could never be forgiven by their Country, nor by themselves."

The only person who has mentioned or linked to RT is you. Am I wrong? Quote the post. The best you can do is... stil... a random unsourced screenshot of an unknown person claiming the podcast is linked, but by multiple layers of separation. This is called the "straw man argument" and you can add it to your growing list of dubious debate tactics. It would be so cool if you would just acknowledge, address, and debate the actual specific pieces of information you disagree with. You'll also find it's much easier than using your repertoire of tactics to do anything but. Yes, RT is an outlet for state propaganda. This is not new information and I thought it was so obvious that I didn't need to make a confession to you. We in the US, also have dozens of media outlets coordinating with government officials to censor dissenting information and distribute approved information. That shouldn't be new information, either. Do you not know this? It's just a fact of life that both sides carry water for both governments. Objectively, usable information can still be gleaned. There is virtually no unbiased information floating around out there. All of it has to be taken with a grain of salt, deconstructed, and it's parts evaluated. Not only do you refuse to do any of this, but admit that you don't even know who has deemed that info as false. And then you wave it around to everyone shouting "PROOF!" It's mind-bending. I'm not here just to be contrarian. My motivations are not a problem for me or anyone else. I'm not being creative here. Lying takes effort and this is effortless. These things are as apparent to me as going inside, pointing up and saying "Hey, the sky is blue" and being met with a chorus of angry people saying "Why did you go outside? WTF? Putin also thinks the sky is blue you Russian shill! It's not always blue, sometimes it's gray, liar! Whatabout the clouds? They're white, moron!" I only want people to consider than they're being manipulated. What is the alternative to Bashi or me or anyone else posting here with a different perspective? Would you rather have a little circle jerk with only the people who wear the same blinders you do? That's what it seems like. You're actually arguing that you don't have first hand knowledge or critical thinking skills. You just let other strange people on the internet tell you what info you should and should not look at. I find it fascinating anyone operates like that.

If it weren't for the US, wouldn't Russia win? Virtually all of our leadership has been saying this. There's countless examples of Ukrainian corruption. It's been over two years. I've lost count of the funding, but I think we're closing in on $200 Billion, yet the front lines haven't moved much at all. What are we going to get for another $200 Billion? Who exactly is bleeding whom dry? It's not apparent. I don't want to believe that maybe we're the ones being played, but I have to wonder. Just a mention of the players involved elicits an overwhelming bias. If we were somehow able to examine this exact same battlefield scenario while replacing the names of the states involved with Moravia, Tiberistan, etc.. I think many people would feel differently. One of us may post a vid of a Russian plane crash, and another responds with Ukr tank on fire. No one knows what's going on. It's all third hand information. The only thing that can be known is that the war is still raging.. when it shouldn't be. If winning this war was as important as they'd like you to believe - it'd have already been over. As I've said before: there's no money in the cure. I'd think by now people would understand the playbook. It's just routine now. 1. Find a crisis and exacerbate it. If one doesn't exist, create it. 2. Full-court press on the propaganda front to appeal to public fear and garner support. 3. Transfer hundreds of billions of dollars from the public sector to the private sector. It's like taking candy from a baby and everyone's falling for it. Every. Single. Time. Let's just admit we're completely lost in apathy and gullibility.

That restaurant metaphor wasn't mine. You seem to have this blind implicit trust in anyone that happens to be in a position of authority. Wouldn't you want to know why something was deemed unsafe rather than just accept anything someone says at face value just because they happen to be aligned with your beliefs? It's easy to fool someone, but it takes 10x the effort to convince most people that they've been fooled. You're so deep into the approved narrative that you're unwilling to even listen. In this case, the link/play button for the podcast in question was directly in front of your face, one click away. But you chose to navigate away/open up another page, do a google search, screenshot a random claim of that podcast being Russian propaganda, which was substantiated only by other media outlets making baseless claims. Then you had to copy/save/upload/post it, and act all condescending like it was the gospel, while not one step in your entire process contained an original thought of your own, a source, or specific point. It's bewildering that you, a self-proclaimed professional military officer, would try to pass this off as some sort of astute deductive reasoning. It's so glaringly intellectually dishonest, it's insulting that you would expect anyone to even consider that you might have a valid position. It seems crazy to me that you somehow thought that was the best/most honest COA. If you were correct in your assessment, it would have been far easier for you, and more difficult for me to refute, if you'd have listened to 5-10 minutes and said "Here are some of the claims being made... and they're false Russia propaganda because here are the facts..." I could respect that. But we both know why that didn't happen: When you know your position can't be adequately defended or finding a flaw in the opposing argument proves too difficult... name-calling, hyperbole, and ad hominem are the preferred tactics. Not one person on this website has ever, ever, been a cheerleader for Russia as much as you would like to paint them as such. Many of us here have, however, reasonably argued that our US leadership shares some (not all) amount of the blame for the origination of the chaos and conflict we are experiencing, as well as the continuous funding and intensification of multiple conflicts on multiple fronts. No one here hates America, and no one wants America to fail. But it's easy for our obviously corrupt leadership to lead us further into trouble when they have people like you willing to do these ridiculous logical gymnastics to justify their actions and cock block dissident voices because you don't want to be proven wrong.

Uh… yeah? I do around 8 overnights a month, and I make it a point to explore new places, look at the menu, and experience things for myself. I don’t understand how you mean that as a criticism. What would you suggest? Read a single review and repeat it to everyone I know without any first hand knowledge? This is what I meant when I asked if you read your posts from the perspective of others. I’m sure it sounded like a zinger in your own head, but….??