White House downplays Lavrov’s remarks on weapons shipments: “That’s a threat that he has made before”

[Chomsky]

I understand your anger towards folks like Carlson; but free speech is more important than that fool. We have not declared war on Russia, and until then its a moot point. At one time I occasional watched T.C., but since the buildup to the war I cannot and will not. Nor should anyone else with a grain of human decency.

But I don't think its useful to lambast and entire network, for what would appear to be partisan reasons, when T.C. is the problems (perhaps Ingraham as well, but I have not watched her).

Interestingly, Hannity seems to be taking a different tack - he seems pretty darn hawkish!

Which of course he's using against Biden, claiming Biden's too soft.

It's an interesting contrast, with the networks two biggest stars, with adjoining time-slots leading directly to each other, yet such different takes on the war.

BTW - Tucker has seemed to be directly & adamantly defending himself now, denying he supports Putin. In fact, he goes way out of his way to call his support for Putin to be a Democratic Hoax! In fact, he's blaming it all on the Dems - while claiming it's fabricated lies. It's pretty interesting to watch, though it seems incredulous anyone believes him, even though I know there are those that will, which I find absolutely amazing.

 

[Chomsky]

I am sorry, but free speech is not worth the loss of innocent human life. In time, we will be able to draw some lines to the carnage in Ukraine and back to Carlson.

Carlson is Fox News. The most watched hour on cable TV. He represents Fox News, even if they tell you he doesn't. The damage him and his network are doing is immeasurable. We may never know the real extent of it. But we know it's real.

He has literally emboldened a war criminal and is proud of it. He is disgusting and IMO, borderline treasonous.

Interesting. I hadn't realized tucker eclipsed Hannity in viewership, but he indeed has.

But . . . stop the presses: It seems recently The Five may have just edged past Tucker, at least as of late last year (DEC).

 

[jnug]

When the war is finally over, I'd bet my mortgage they will all agree. That is if any are left alive.

Free speech is only one of the things on the line for Ukraine.

This is a good ole' fashioned 20th Century war of conquest. Its nothing more and nothing less. Has nothing to do with NATO or denazification or Donbas, or Russian Language or bio-labs...absolutely NOTHING, It is simply a war of conquest. Ukraine if it loses will have its treasure stolen, its history banished, any evidence of its culture stamped out and its assets absconded with. They will live a life of modern day serfs to their Russian masters.

I am firmly entrenched in the 20th Century, utterly out of place in the 21st but entirely displeased that we have returned to the excesses of the early and mid-20th century as it relates to wars of conquest. One country simply trying to take another country's territory and treasure by force.

The world has dealt with wars of conquest for centuries. But in the 20th century the ability to slaughter millions of people met the traditional war of conquest. While wars of conquest in earlier times wiped out entire populations, the geopolitical impacts were fairly constrained compared to what we became capable of destroying in the 20th century.

The Cold War and the New World Order were actually a welcome respite from the usual wars of conquest. The Cold War was about ideology and as hard fought as it was, the great powers were not hurling dynamite at each other in bare faced wars of conquest. What the world did for most of the 20th century and what Putin is doing today makes the Cold War seem almost innocent, just and justified.

I am sorry to inform you 21st Century fans that we have not left the abuses and excesses of the 20th Century behind. We have not left them at all. As William Falkmer once wrote about the South were "the past is not dead, its not even past". Our awful 20th century past is not dead. Its not even past.

 

[Razoo]

I would suggest that this assistance is performed without fanfare to keep it under the radar as long as possible.

Should it be broadcast exactly what types of weapons are being sent? Does this not give Putin time to prepare accordingly?

Both humanitarian aid and military assistance is necessary.

Actually it appears there is plenty of money to support Single Payer Insurance for ALL.

 

[Craig234]

I can see a difference between this below . . .



. . . and this below here . . .




Without defending Lavrov, I do perceive a substantive difference between a convoy of military armaments and things like hospitals & kindergartens. 'No'?

You and I see that difference, my point was how little sense it makes for him to pretend to be being so careful about what's a target when they're attacking everything.

 

[Craig234]

Should it be broadcast exactly what types of weapons are being sent? Does this not give Putin time to prepare accordingly?

I don't really think so. Russians knew about Stingers in Afghanistan and couldn't counter them. They know about the anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons, and can't counter them. They know there are machine guns, it's not like Putin says "oh! Machine guns! That's a surprise, everyone gets body armor!"