Not necessarily. There’s not necessarily an equivalence between the two situations.
Helluva similarity, tho
1 Like
But we have a tremendous amount of historical evidence that Nazi Germany was actually bent on conquest.
Sure, and the benefit of 77 years post war history
2 Likes
How do you mean?
I mean, how much historical evidence of Nazi Germany’s intention to conquest did we have before the war? Sure, we have a lot now, with 77 years to compile it.
Let’s just say Putin is having a little trouble with his Sudetenland, and Poland is getting nervous.
So is Guam
2 Likes
Well, none. It’s the same situation now with Russia. It doesn’t matter though–that was my whole point, basically. The question as I see it is if someone could argue now that Nazi Germany was provoked into war by US support for the UK. With the evidence that we actually have, you would really have to do some gymnastics to make that happen. Of course, one may argue that the same is true of Russia now based on some available evidence, but that wasn’t the point under discussion.
1 Like
The point of the discussion is given past examples of how expansionist authoritarian states act prior and during the initial phases of their conquests, and the consequences of the US not providing enough support to those being invaded to curb the violence and conflict at the earliest stages if not prior to them happening at all, how can one come to the conclusion that sitting on our hands is the best measure to prevent escalation of the conflicts coming from Russia and China. How can one claim that the US somehow provoked Russia into invading Ukraine?
That could only be the point of the discussion if you think everyone who disagrees with you on that is necessarily spreading propaganda.
I’ve given my definition of propaganda
It’s not enough to just say he actually believes this crap, so it isn’t propaganda. In the case of Dore he has to given good reasons why his points remains true despite piles of past similar situations demonstrating otherwise. He did not do so in that interview, instead he just states his position as facts. Like the US provoked Russia to invade Ukraine and is currently provoking China to invade Taiwan. I could care less if that’s what he actually believes. If he can’t demonstrate why his position is more factual when all the past examples show he is wrong, then either he is ignorant or he is insisting on perpetuating falsehood to the masses. And the later fits my definition of propaganda.
1 Like
You have a non-standard definition of propaganda. It seems to pretty much be people saying things you don’t believe are true. Also, someone can’t simultaneously be saying what they believe and lying. He’s got a brief window to say anything on Tucker. He’s on their trying to make his point, not make a complete case. You read Forumosa, I’m sure you know the arguments behind these positions. It’s not as if they do not exist.
Really? I’d like to hear what the standard definition is. Although I will not continue to reply in the Tucker Carlson thread, as I’m only interested in discussing Dore’s position on how the US is provoking Russia and Taiwan through sanctions andby providing assistance to those under threat.
In order to have that discussion you would need to be of an open mind to accept that the proposition may be true.
However I suspect that is not what would happen and no matter how many facts and evidence were presented not only would the proposition be rejected but those trying to convince you otherwise would be called all sorts of names and be accused of spreading Russian/Chinese talking points in the process.
2 Likes
A bit odd that @marco went through all the trouble of moving it, and put it here. I would have made a new thread, since there is so much non Tucker talk in here
It needed to be split from there, but maybe it could be re-named or re-split?
You guys can do whatever you want to the thread.
This is a new thread.
Strange that this thread has been named the Tucker Carlson Thread when it’s not about Tucker Carlson at all. 
Much better. 
If there is evidence pointing to how the current situation is drastically different from what was going on before World War 2, therefore the US should not provide weapons to those countries under the threat of invasion or being invaded, preferably with statistical numbers, then I’ll go over them to see if the evidence is valid. If it’s dished out as pure idealogical, and even worse, inconsistent when it comes to similar events in the past or with different aggressors, then it seems fairly clear to me what their intentions are.
Or assassinating NJ politicians, one by one.
The only way US can provoke wars is to plant a seed in the mind of the invading country that US is not going to participate (i.e., green-lighting you). Here’s why. Beware that when you say US provokes wars, it’s very different from saying a generic country or regional power provokes wars, because on planet earth only US has the overwhelming global military power. Nobody, not even Putin and Xi will admit they act willingly to invade a country if they know for sure as a result they will have to go to war with US. Unless you live in a cave and have absolutlely nothing to loose, your sanity prevails over your emotion and you inevitably decide not to go to war with US. There’s no such thing as US provokes you to go to war. You can, however, be misled into believing US will not intervene.
It’s as if a gambler saying that the casino provokes him to go roll the dice.
2 Likes