Comments by "Digital Nomad" (@digitalnomad9985) on "Tucker Carlson Smears Ben Shapiro & His Reaction Is Perfect" video.

  1.  @ChrisWilliams-kq9qq  "something is very wrong somewhere Israel has much not all but much of the same military capabilities as America does" Israel has much of the same expensive military equipment the US does because they have to spend US military aid in our gun store.
    3
  2.  @embracethesuck1041  "We attacked Afghanistan and Iraq, countries that had little to nothing to do with it. Saudi Arabia did." Afghanistan and Iraq were state sponsors of terror. Saudi Arabia was not, even if some of the terrorists were Saudi nationals.
    2
  3.  @americanzombie1802  "support foreign conflicts" "Support conflicts" is a weasel term. The only support aggressors need is appeasement. "you risk it escalating" Appeasement has historically encouraged escalation. Neither Hamas or Putin have honored the past assurances and agreements they've promised. "threat of nuclear war increases" Putin has nukes. He'll have more when he invades Poland, and so on and so forth. The Soviet Union had nukes, too (many of the same ones). We didn't beat them by appeasement, we beat them by containment. Since when was abandoning our allies a CONSERVATIVE position?
    1
  4.  @idwtgymn  "This idea we can pick and choose the scale of our conflicts is naive." The idea that the bad guys will eat us last is naive.
    1
  5.  @WMGIII  We've been on planet Earth. You?
    1
  6.  @chesshooligan1282  You just heard Carlson accuse Shapiro of advocating sending US troops. He said it. You can't unsay it. It's his lie. He may have said something else also, but that's not the point of contention. This thread is about the SLANDER part. And equating sending troops and sending material support to our allies is obfuscation.
    1
  7.  @So_Meh  Watch the video. Tucker Carlson.
    1
  8. We're not going to avoid WW3 by the same appeasement policies that got us into WW2. US weakness precipitated both the Ukraine conflict and the current Middle East war. Greater weakness won't get us out of it. You can continue to lie and call these facts warmongering until your tongue falls out. Yes, Putin has nukes. He'll have more when he invades Poland, and so on and so forth. He didn't honor Russia's agreements when he invaded Georgia. He didn't honor his own agreements when he invaded Crimea and Ukraine. His policy of invading NATO countries last is an efficient and just motive for his neighbors to join NATO. We won the Cold War by containment, not appeasement.
    1
  9. This is Bulverism. It's what they teach folks in school nowadays instead of critical thinking. Instead of engaging an argument you don't like you posit some ignoble or irrational motive for your opponent's position to give yourself and your readers an excuse to reject the argument without consideration. Quote from Bulverism by C. S. Lewis: You must show that a man is wrong before you start explaining why he is wrong. The modern method is to assume without discussion that he is wrong and then distract his attention from this (the only real issue) by busily explaining how he became so silly. In the course of the last fifteen years I have found this vice so common that I have had to invent a name for it. I call it "Bulverism". Some day I am going to write the biography of its imaginary inventor, Ezekiel Bulver, whose destiny was determined at the age of five when he heard his mother say to his father — who had been maintaining that two sides of a triangle were together greater than a third — "Oh you say that because you are a man." "At that moment", E. Bulver assures us, "there flashed across my opening mind the great truth that refutation is no necessary part of argument. Assume that your opponent is wrong, and explain his error, and the world will be at your feet. Attempt to prove that he is wrong or (worse still) try to find out whether he is wrong or right, and the natural dynamism of our age will thrust you to the wall." That is how Bulver became one of the makers of the Twentieth Century. Suppose I think, after doing my accounts, that I have a large balance at the bank. And suppose you want to find out whether this belief of mine is "wishful thinking." You can never come to any conclusion by examining my psychological condition. Your only chance of finding out is to sit down and work through the sum yourself. When you have checked my figures, then, and then only, will you know whether I have that balance or not. If you find my arithmetic correct, then no amount of vapouring about my psychological condition can be anything but a waste of time. If you find my arithmetic wrong, then it may be relevant to explain psychologically how I came to be so bad at my arithmetic, and the doctrine of the concealed wish will become relevant — but only after you have yourself done the sum and discovered me to be wrong on purely arithmetical grounds. It is the same with all thinking and all systems of thought. If you try to find out which are tainted by speculating about the wishes of the thinkers, you are merely making a fool of yourself. You must first find out on purely logical grounds which of them do, in fact, break down as arguments. Afterwards, if you like, go on and discover the psychological causes of the error.
    1
  10.  @idwtgymn  "Getting more involved makes war more likely" War more likely? There IS a war in both cases. Both aggressors have shown their contempt for conciliation by violating past peace agreements. It is US weakness that has precipitated both conflicts. Greater weakness won't get us out of them.
    1
  11.  @jaredcrenshaw7665  "the reason why the allies won WWII is because the Soviet Union obliterated the Nazis in the battle of Stalingrad." The reason why the Soviets squeaked by in Stalingrad was because they were already receiving aid in bulk from the western allies. The US declared war on December 11, 1941. The turning point of Germany's eastern front, prior to which Germany was totally on the offensive was the Battle of Stalingrad (23 August 1942 - 2 February 1943). By the time the Battle of Stalingrad had even begun, the US and UK were already shipping aid in bulk to the Soviet Union, mostly food a first, but constantly trucks and fuel, shipped in by Anglo-American convoys fighting through the German attempt at blockade. The defenders of Stalingrad almost starved as it was, and would certainly have starved without that aid. By the time the USSR had turned to the offensive, The US had been supplying, and continued to supply, Sherman tanks in vast numbers to all the allies including the Soviet Union. The UK also supplied the USSR with some tanks. The US and the UK also supplied the Soviets with combat and logistics aircraft. 90% of the trucks supporting the Soviet offensive logistical effort were western trucks, and the bulk of the fuel was from the US & UK as well. Without that aid the Soviet offensive would not have been possible logistically or materially. Shortly after the US declaration of war, the US sent ground forces to aid the British effort to push the Axis powers out of Northern Africa. In November of 1942, the US opened an African front of its own in Operation Torch. The Anglo-American offensive pushed the Axis out of Africa, and deprived them of their main source of oil. This began well before the end of the Stalingrad battle and the start of the Soviet offensive, and paved the way for the subsequent Anglo-American invasions of Sicily and Italy, which took Italy out of the war. This also caused Hitler to divert forces from his eastern to his southern front during the pivotal period. Moreover, any analysis of the USSRs contribution to the allied war effort is incomplete without factoring in their prior contribution to the Axis war effort. The first Soviet intervention in events was its joint operation with the Reich in the conquest of Poland, accompanied by the non-aggression pact between the USSR and Nazi Germany. Not only that, but the USSR was supporting the Reich with its propaganda and vast amounts of material aid shipped across Poland by rail. While the US was already becoming the Arsenal of Democracy by sending material aid to the UK prior to the declaration of war, the USSR was simultaneously becoming the Arsenal of Despotism by sending material aid to Hitler. The courage of the Soviet peoples in the latter part of the war was commendable, but a complete analysis of the net Soviet contribution to the war must take into account that the problem the USSR helped solve was largely a problem they helped create. The USSR didn't join the allies until they had to do so to survive, and they wouldn't have survived without allied help.
    1