Posted on 02/04/2024 5:03:29 PM PST by marcusmaximus
Hosts on Russian state-run television recently hyped up the news that former Fox News host Tucker Carlson was spotted visiting Moscow.
-snip-
On Sunday, Julia Davis, founder of the Russian Media Monitor watchdog group, shared a clip to X from a recent broadcast of Solovyov Live in which the hosts discussed Carlson's appearance in Russia and mocked Americans in response to it.
"Americans are in shock. What is happening?" one of the hosts asked. "How did one of the best-known American journalists, Tucker Carlson, suddenly end up in Russia somehow and even went to the Bolshoi Theater to see the Spartacus ballet?"
The hosts went on to note that no official information is available as to what Carlson intends to do in Russia, while also mentioning his past claims about wanting to interview Putin, but being prevented from doing so by the U.S. government.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsweek.com ...
>They must be pretty itchy. We can only guess why.<
Lil Z might need a broad-spectrum dewormer.
That’s what I give my dogs when they scoot like that.
If Z scoots because of trauma, he could try a high fiber diet, sitz baths, and medications.
If he’s scooted for longer than 6 weeks, he needs to seek medical attention.
Disclaimer: I’m not a doctor, nor do I play one on TV. I look up stuff online.
“I forgot about that. Tucker is on Zelensky’s hit list. Gonzalo was too and now he is dead.”
Yes, Gonzalo was ‘neutralized’ (as the Ukrainians say), and so Tucker moves up the list.
(gotta love the friends that our Neocons hang out with)
What is the congressional authority that allows US to supply Ukraine with American tax dollars and weapons?
I answered it, Frick: Read my previous posts on this thread, Frick.
Now, answer my questions as posed in my post #115.
Now, show me where the NATO charter allows member states to supply military weapons to a non-member state who is engaged in a border war with another non-member state.
“no, you didn’t answer. Because you can’t”
Yeah; I did, Frick. You just can’t read.
Go back and re-read my post #113.
As for the NATO Charter? Individual NATO countries can contribute whatever they want; or they can contribute nothing; they can do it outside of NATO obligations. They can do it as sovereign nations. Some of those countries are contributing as part of their membership in the EU, not NATO.
Now, I’m going to play the game by YOUR rules, Frick; which is to always ask questions, but never answer any. Henceforth, I’m not going to answer any of your questions until you answer mine. Capisce?
I asked for the provision in the NATO charter that allows a nominally defensive alliance to interject itself into a border war between two non-member nations.
Is reading comprehension a problem for you?
“I asked for the provision in the NATO charter that allows a nominally defensive alliance to interject itself into a border war between two non-member nations.”
Are you daft, Frick? I said contributions can be made by individual NATO member states, separate from any contributions by NATO as an organization.
In any event, Article 5 of the NATO charter allows for collective defense measures, which can come into play even if NO NATO member has come under attack; it is enough that there is a NATO defense interest:
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/110496.htm
and
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_110496.htm
I get it: You don’t like it. Take it up with NATO.
“Is reading comprehension a problem for you?”
No; but it is for you.
NATO has taken collective defence measures on several occasions, including in response to the situation in Syria and the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
“Pops, this verbiage had to be added AFTER 2/24/22. It’s called moving the goal posts.”
Oh, Frick; you are so out of your league.
Per the links I sent you, “NATO has taken collective defence measures on several occasions, including in response to the situation in Syria and the Russian invasion of Ukraine.” That’s right, Frick. The links also said, “Following Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the rise of security challenges from the south, including brutal attacks by ISIL and other terrorist groups across several continents, NATO implemented the biggest increase in collective defence since the Cold War.”
Did you catch that, Frick? “Following Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea in 2014...” Last time I looked at a calendar, 2014 preceded 2022.
So, Frick, it’s not moving the goalposts; it is responding to new exigencies.
Yet again, you are wrong, because you argued the “verbiage had to be added AFTER 2/24/22.” Because, Frick, that “verbiage” existed long before 2/24/22.
You are clueless, Frick.
What part of the following don’t you understand? “Following Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the rise of security challenges from the south, including brutal attacks by ISIL and other terrorist groups across several continents, NATO implemented the biggest increase in collective defence since the Cold War.”
Frick, that means that after Russia illegally occupied and annexed Crimea (and, BTW, fomented the civil war in the Donbas) in 2014 NATO initiated collective defense measures. After Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 NATO supplemented those collective defense measures.
Frick, you are logic-impaired. You see, if B (2022 above) is a supplement of A (2014 above), they are both part of the same action. They are not separate and distinct and unrelated as you try to argue.
Frick, you REALLY need to go back to school.
Now, Frick; answer my questions as posed in previous posts on this thread.
Again, the invasion of Ukraine began on 2/24/22, while the annexation of Crimea happened in 2014. They are different events that happened seven years apart. Your instinct is to defend NATO as a defensive alliance, when their own webpage shows what patriots on my side of the argument claim; NATO is an aggressive, interventionist assembly, supported largely by US taxpayers. It’s a pity you can’t understand the words you lifted from their pages. It’s right there in front of your pudding coated nose.
Nice try, Frick.
You wanted to know what in the NATO Charter allowed NATO to take the actions it did re: Russia, and I showed you.
BTW, Russia DID invade eastern Ukraine in 2014, via infiltration of Russian Federation troops, trainers, advisors, technicians, etc.: The Little Green Men, as they wore no insignia on their uniforms). Who do you think provided the separatists with the weaponry and training that went into the separatists shooting down Malaysian Airlines Flight MH-17 in July, 2014, killing all on board (some 300 people)?
“They are different events that happened seven years apart.”
The only difference is in time and scope: 2014 in a relatively clandestine operation; and 2022 in an overt and massive operation. 2022 was an escalation of 2014.
“Your instinct is to defend NATO as a defensive alliance, when their own webpage shows what patriots on my side of the argument claim; NATO is an aggressive, interventionist assembly, supported largely by US taxpayers.”
You’re no patriot, Frick; at least, not an American patriot. So stop sullying actual American patriots by trying to insert yourself into their ranks.
NATO aggressive? It’s been in existence for 75 years, and its only aggression was in the 1990s in the Balkans; and THAT was pursuant to UN resolution. BTW: I opposed NATO involvement in that instance.
What other aggression has NATO engaged in? Korea? That was a UN action, not a NATO action (in any event, NATO was in its infancy in 1950; but BECAUSE of the Korean War and Russia’s behind-the-scenes involvement in it NATO increased its membership). NATO aggressive? For decades it has been called “toothless.” Some aggression.
I know what NATO is, Frick.
Like Biden, you fundamentally confused the events of 2/24/22 with the annexation of Crimea in 2014. It’s your allegiance to Winston Zelensky that has coated your rose-colored glasses with the colors of that husk nation in Eastern Europe. Your mental slippage is evident for all to see and I’m glad I helped to expose it. Now go line up for lunch.
Nice try, Frick.
The annexation of Crimea in 2014 was just Step One of Russia’s plan vis-a-vis Ukraine.
Tell me, Frick: Should I now start calling you Mrs. Frack? You adopted his (or her) name. One doesn’t do that unless one has “taken the plunge” into nuptial bliss.
On 24 February 2022, Russia invaded Ukraine in an escalation of the Russo-Ukrainian War that started in 2014. The invasion became the largest attack on a European country since World War II.[11][12][13] It is estimated to have caused tens of thousands of Ukrainian civilian casualties and hundreds of thousands of military casualties. By June 2022, Russian troops occupied about 20% of Ukrainian territory. About 8 million Ukrainians had been internally displaced and more than 8.2 million had fled the country by April 2023, creating Europe's largest refugee crisis since World War II. Extensive environmental damage caused by the war, widely described as an ecocide, contributed to food crises worldwide
Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation
In February and March 2014, Russia invaded the Crimean Peninsula, part of Ukraine, and then annexed it. This took place in the relative power vacuum[30] immediately following the Revolution of Dignity and was the first act of the wider Russo-Ukrainian War.
Your homies aren’t going to appreciate you quoting Wikipedia, Frick (aka Mrs. Frack).
you’ve become a sad, old man unable to admit a mistake. I hope lessons to your g’kids go differently.
Ah, Frick (aka Mrs. Frack). You just can’t handle the facts. I know they are stubborn things; and the reality of that annoys some people (you, obviously).
A bit of advice: Try not to be so emotional, and try to look at things objectively and dispassionately. You’ll feel much better.
Be sure to say “Hi!” to Frack for me; ya hear?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.