If you want to see a masterclass in completely dismantling another person's positions and arguments, watch bowtie's "interview" of Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg. And don't be fooled by the title. Tucker didn't confront anything. That's mere spin designed at obscuring the total ass-kicking Tucker took at the hands of Rees-Mogg. It was incredible.
An hour of Tucker Carlson getting owned...
5,869 Views |
110 Replies |
Last: 6 hrs ago by The_barBEARian
Mothra said:
If you want to see a masterclass in completely dismantling another person's positions and arguments, watch bowtie's "interview" of Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg. And don't be fooled by the title. It's spin designed at obscuring the total ass-kicking Tucker took at the hands of Rees-Mogg. It was incredible.
Ummm, do you still think we can control Iran and its nuclear ambitions without boots on the ground?
I humbly suggest your worldview should've recalibrated over the past year.
DallasBear9902 said:Mothra said:
If you want to see a masterclass in completely dismantling another person's positions and arguments, watch bowtie's "interview" of Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg. And don't be fooled by the title. It's spin designed at obscuring the total ass-kicking Tucker took at the hands of Rees-Mogg. It was incredible.
Ummm, do you still think we can control Iran and its nuclear ambitions without boots on the ground?
I humbly suggest your worldview should've recalibrated over the past year.
Ummm, what does that have to do with the interview? That answer for those who watched it is: nothing.
Their conversation instead focused on World War II revisionism, Winston Churchill, Russia, and British politics. Iran wasn't discussed.
Odd question. Really odd. I humbly suggest you watch the video that is the subject of the thread before commenting. That way you won't look foolish for bringing up inane and irrelevant points.
Mothra said:DallasBear9902 said:Mothra said:
If you want to see a masterclass in completely dismantling another person's positions and arguments, watch bowtie's "interview" of Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg. And don't be fooled by the title. It's spin designed at obscuring the total ass-kicking Tucker took at the hands of Rees-Mogg. It was incredible.
Ummm, do you still think we can control Iran and its nuclear ambitions without boots on the ground?
I humbly suggest your worldview should've recalibrated over the past year.
Ummm, what does that have to do with the interview? That answer for those who watched it is: nothing.
Their conversation instead focused on World War II revisionism, Winston Churchill, Russia, and British politics. Iran wasn't discussed.
Odd question. Really odd. I humbly suggest you watch the video that is the subject of the thread before commenting. That way you won't look foolish for bringing up inane and irrelevant points.
You are judging that Carlson was owned based on your worldview. Within that paradigm, your views make sense. I understand your views, simplified, as some sort of Boomer interventionism.
Carlson's views, simplified, in their essence are for nonintervention.
Given you were so adamant on these pages that (a) we could control Iran's nuclear ambitions without boots on the ground, (b) our total failure to do so after implementing your preferred military strategy, and (c) Democrats are about to win races that it would have been unthinkable for them to win at the beginning of this year in large part due to what the Iran conflict has done to oil prices and diesel, in particular…
Perhaps you have reconsidered your worldview about interventionism around the world.
That you think this Brit dude owned Carlson tells us you haven't reconsidered your views and that you seem to still academically not understand what Carlson is saying (even if you disagree with Carlson).
DallasBear9902 said:Mothra said:DallasBear9902 said:Mothra said:
If you want to see a masterclass in completely dismantling another person's positions and arguments, watch bowtie's "interview" of Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg. And don't be fooled by the title. It's spin designed at obscuring the total ass-kicking Tucker took at the hands of Rees-Mogg. It was incredible.
Ummm, do you still think we can control Iran and its nuclear ambitions without boots on the ground?
I humbly suggest your worldview should've recalibrated over the past year.
Ummm, what does that have to do with the interview? That answer for those who watched it is: nothing.
Their conversation instead focused on World War II revisionism, Winston Churchill, Russia, and British politics. Iran wasn't discussed.
Odd question. Really odd. I humbly suggest you watch the video that is the subject of the thread before commenting. That way you won't look foolish for bringing up inane and irrelevant points.
You are judging that Carlson was owned based on your worldview. Within that paradigm, your views make sense. I understand your views, simplified, as some sort of Boomer interventionism.
Carlson's views, simplified, in their essence are for nonintervention.
Given you were so adamant on these pages that (a) we could control Iran's nuclear ambitions without boots on the ground, (b) our total failure to do so after implementing your preferred military strategy, and (c) Democrats are about to win races that it would have been unthinkable for them to win at the beginning of this year in large part due to what the Iran conflict has done to oil prices and diesel, in particular…
Perhaps you have reconsidered your worldview about interventionism around the world.
That you think this Brit dude owned Carlson tells us you haven't reconsidered your views and that you seem to still academically not understand what Carlson is saying (even if you disagree with Carlson).
LOL. This is quite a retreat.
I posted about Tucker Carlson's interview with Jacob Rees-Mogg and said Rees-Mogg dismantled him. You responded by asking me about Iran, a subject that wasn't even discussed in the interview, as I pointed out.
And your response is to write several more paragraphs about Iran? LOL. That's called changing the subject and attacking a straw man.
If I've actually said that air strikes can permanently prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, quote me saying it. Otherwise stop inventing arguments for me because they're easier to attack than the one I actually made.
Now, back to Tucker.
Tucker confidently told Rees-Mogg that Russia has a "much larger economy" than Britain. Rees-Mogg corrected him. The IMF has Britain at about $4.26 trillion and Russia at $2.66 trillion in projected 2026 nominal GDP. Tucker was wrong.
Rees-Mogg cited Russian hostile activity in Britain, including Salisbury. The OPCW independently confirmed Britain's identification of the nerve agent, and Britain subsequently conducted an independent public inquiry into the Novichok death.
Tucker then asked why Britain fought World War II, minimized Hitler's invasion of Poland as essentially a territorial dispute arising from Versailles, questioned whether defeating Nazi Germany benefited Britain, and answered "Who cares?" when confronted with German domination as the alternative. Rees-Mogg finally told him he was "verging on defending Hitler."
That's why I said Tucker got owned. Because I actually watched the interview. It was brutal. Apparently, you didn't even watch the interview and ignorantly believe it's about Iran.
You are free to disagree. But try to stick to the subject. Defend Tucker's statements in the interview. Telling me what you imagine my position is on Iran, diesel prices, Democrats and "interventionism" doesn't rehabilitate a single thing he said.
So let's try this again:
What specifically did I say about the Carlson/Rees-Mogg interview that was wrong?
I'll wait.
Mothra said:DallasBear9902 said:Mothra said:DallasBear9902 said:Mothra said:
If you want to see a masterclass in completely dismantling another person's positions and arguments, watch bowtie's "interview" of Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg. And don't be fooled by the title. It's spin designed at obscuring the total ass-kicking Tucker took at the hands of Rees-Mogg. It was incredible.
Ummm, do you still think we can control Iran and its nuclear ambitions without boots on the ground?
I humbly suggest your worldview should've recalibrated over the past year.
Ummm, what does that have to do with the interview? That answer for those who watched it is: nothing.
Their conversation instead focused on World War II revisionism, Winston Churchill, Russia, and British politics. Iran wasn't discussed.
Odd question. Really odd. I humbly suggest you watch the video that is the subject of the thread before commenting. That way you won't look foolish for bringing up inane and irrelevant points.
You are judging that Carlson was owned based on your worldview. Within that paradigm, your views make sense. I understand your views, simplified, as some sort of Boomer interventionism.
Carlson's views, simplified, in their essence are for nonintervention.
Given you were so adamant on these pages that (a) we could control Iran's nuclear ambitions without boots on the ground, (b) our total failure to do so after implementing your preferred military strategy, and (c) Democrats are about to win races that it would have been unthinkable for them to win at the beginning of this year in large part due to what the Iran conflict has done to oil prices and diesel, in particular…
Perhaps you have reconsidered your worldview about interventionism around the world.
That you think this Brit dude owned Carlson tells us you haven't reconsidered your views and that you seem to still academically not understand what Carlson is saying (even if you disagree with Carlson).
LOL. This is quite a retreat.
I posted about Tucker Carlson's interview with Jacob Rees-Mogg and said Rees-Mogg dismantled him. You responded by asking me about Iran, a subject that wasn't even discussed in the interview, as I pointed out.
And your response is to write several more paragraphs about Iran? LOL. That's called changing the subject and attacking a straw man.
If I've actually said that air strikes can permanently prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, quote me saying it. Otherwise stop inventing arguments for me because they're easier to attack than the one I actually made.
Now, back to Tucker.
Tucker confidently told Rees-Mogg that Russia has a "much larger economy" than Britain. Rees-Mogg corrected him. The IMF has Britain at about $4.26 trillion and Russia at $2.66 trillion in projected 2026 nominal GDP. Tucker was wrong.
Rees-Mogg cited Russian hostile activity in Britain, including Salisbury. The OPCW independently confirmed Britain's identification of the nerve agent, and Britain subsequently conducted an independent public inquiry into the Novichok death.
Tucker then asked why Britain fought World War II, minimized Hitler's invasion of Poland as essentially a territorial dispute arising from Versailles, questioned whether defeating Nazi Germany benefited Britain, and answered "Who cares?" when confronted with German domination as the alternative. Rees-Mogg finally told him he was "verging on defending Hitler."
That's why I said Tucker got owned. Because I actually watched the interview. It was brutal. Apparently, you didn't even watch the interview and ignorantly believe it's about Iran.
You are free to disagree. But try to stick to the subject. Defend Tucker's statements in the interview. Telling me what you imagine my position is on Iran, diesel prices, Democrats and "interventionism" doesn't rehabilitate a single thing he said.
So let's try this again:
What specifically did I say about the Carlson/Rees-Mogg interview that was wrong?
I'll wait.
A lot of words to avoid answering a simple question: Do you still believe we can control Iran's nuclear ambitions without boots on the ground?
Hint: you don't need to understand the relevance or coherence of this rather simple question to answer it. You clearly know that your understanding of relevance is not a prerequisite to answering the question when discussing ideas.
To get to your specifics.
Yes, Carlson looked bad on some facts, but SRM looked bad in his own ways. TC's fundamental issue goes unanswered: the British empire crumbled after the world wars, and despite some decent ups (Thatcher and Blair and others), it has mostly been a down trend line for the British standard of living post-WWII. Most recently demonstrated by how their politics have been absolutely paralyzed for about a decade driven by the simple fact that GILT investors (foreigners!) constrain what their government can do.
So what exactly did the British people gain for sacrificing tens of thousands of their young sons? TC is essentially correct that they are not a sovereign in any meaningful sense: they cannot defend themselves and instead rely on the presence of American troops on their land to deter aggression from others. This is a fair and salient point. SRM completely avoids responding to it other than to say they'd otherwise be speaking German right now.
TC backed SRM into explicitly defending the killing of women and innocent children at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, SRM even went so far as to claim that the atomic bombings fall within the parameters of Just War Theory . A view widely rejected by the overwhelming vast majority of ethicists and the same Catholic Church out which Just War Theory came out of (Sidenote, I am not condemning dropping the atomic weapons, I would justify it as realpolitik, but only a maniac would make the argument that SRM made regarding women and innocent children in Japan being legitimate military targets. Really shows a lack of respect for life by SRM).
SRM doesn't actually address TCs points, instead resorting to accusing TC of being a nazi-sympathizer. (Sidenote, I get the difficulty in actually discerning what could have otherwise happened in history).
Anyways, if you actually listen to the ideas and worldview that TC and SRM are actually getting at, they go something like this:
TC: entanglement in foreign wars is bad and a nation's young sons and daughters should not be sent off to fight except for the strictest of standards that meet a direct benefit to the people of the country.
SRM: foreign entanglement may be necessary, including for the direct benefit of other nation states as it may prevent our need to fight that enemy at a later date. Our sons and daughters may need to die under this construct.
Here is the rub, the historical evidence is really complicated on the core points both of them are making:
Presumably we agree that:
The following foreign entanglements were unnecessary for the direct benefit of the American people and that Americans needlessly died there:
WWI
Vietnam
Iraq II (as part of the GWOT)
We presumably agree that the following entanglements directly benefitted the USA:
European theater of WWII
Iraq I
Reasonable people can disagree on the following foreign entanglements (for me at least):
Arming of the mujahadeen in Afghanistan (led to the Taliban)
Korea (though I really lean to the unnecessary side of the ledger on this one).
Afghanistan (at least to the extent we were there for nearly 20 years and engaged and tried to nation build).
Looking at that list, I don't think a reasonable person could say that either TC or SRM are absolutely correct here and own the other side. For the good of fighting WWII there is the waste of human life in WWI and Vietnam.
Question number 2 for you: do you actually believe that the women and innocent children of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate military targets under Just War Theory as SRM asserts. I concede you may not understand the relevance of this question, but please humor me. I'm trying to understand where you are coming from.
DallasBear9902 said:Mothra said:DallasBear9902 said:Mothra said:DallasBear9902 said:Mothra said:
If you want to see a masterclass in completely dismantling another person's positions and arguments, watch bowtie's "interview" of Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg. And don't be fooled by the title. It's spin designed at obscuring the total ass-kicking Tucker took at the hands of Rees-Mogg. It was incredible.
Ummm, do you still think we can control Iran and its nuclear ambitions without boots on the ground?
I humbly suggest your worldview should've recalibrated over the past year.
Ummm, what does that have to do with the interview? That answer for those who watched it is: nothing.
Their conversation instead focused on World War II revisionism, Winston Churchill, Russia, and British politics. Iran wasn't discussed.
Odd question. Really odd. I humbly suggest you watch the video that is the subject of the thread before commenting. That way you won't look foolish for bringing up inane and irrelevant points.
You are judging that Carlson was owned based on your worldview. Within that paradigm, your views make sense. I understand your views, simplified, as some sort of Boomer interventionism.
Carlson's views, simplified, in their essence are for nonintervention.
Given you were so adamant on these pages that (a) we could control Iran's nuclear ambitions without boots on the ground, (b) our total failure to do so after implementing your preferred military strategy, and (c) Democrats are about to win races that it would have been unthinkable for them to win at the beginning of this year in large part due to what the Iran conflict has done to oil prices and diesel, in particular…
Perhaps you have reconsidered your worldview about interventionism around the world.
That you think this Brit dude owned Carlson tells us you haven't reconsidered your views and that you seem to still academically not understand what Carlson is saying (even if you disagree with Carlson).
LOL. This is quite a retreat.
I posted about Tucker Carlson's interview with Jacob Rees-Mogg and said Rees-Mogg dismantled him. You responded by asking me about Iran, a subject that wasn't even discussed in the interview, as I pointed out.
And your response is to write several more paragraphs about Iran? LOL. That's called changing the subject and attacking a straw man.
If I've actually said that air strikes can permanently prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, quote me saying it. Otherwise stop inventing arguments for me because they're easier to attack than the one I actually made.
Now, back to Tucker.
Tucker confidently told Rees-Mogg that Russia has a "much larger economy" than Britain. Rees-Mogg corrected him. The IMF has Britain at about $4.26 trillion and Russia at $2.66 trillion in projected 2026 nominal GDP. Tucker was wrong.
Rees-Mogg cited Russian hostile activity in Britain, including Salisbury. The OPCW independently confirmed Britain's identification of the nerve agent, and Britain subsequently conducted an independent public inquiry into the Novichok death.
Tucker then asked why Britain fought World War II, minimized Hitler's invasion of Poland as essentially a territorial dispute arising from Versailles, questioned whether defeating Nazi Germany benefited Britain, and answered "Who cares?" when confronted with German domination as the alternative. Rees-Mogg finally told him he was "verging on defending Hitler."
That's why I said Tucker got owned. Because I actually watched the interview. It was brutal. Apparently, you didn't even watch the interview and ignorantly believe it's about Iran.
You are free to disagree. But try to stick to the subject. Defend Tucker's statements in the interview. Telling me what you imagine my position is on Iran, diesel prices, Democrats and "interventionism" doesn't rehabilitate a single thing he said.
So let's try this again:
What specifically did I say about the Carlson/Rees-Mogg interview that was wrong?
I'll wait.
A lot of words to avoid answering a simple question: Do you still believe we can control Iran's nuclear ambitions without boots on the ground?
Hint: you don't need to understand the relevance or coherence of this rather simple question to answer it. You clearly know that your understanding of relevance is not a prerequisite to answering the question when discussing ideas.
To get to your specifics.
Yes, Carlson looked bad on some facts, but SRM looked bad in his own ways. TC's fundamental issue goes unanswered: the British empire crumbled after the world wars, and despite some decent ups (Thatcher and Blair and others), it has mostly been a down trend line for the British standard of living post-WWII. Most recently demonstrated by how their politics have been absolutely paralyzed for about a decade driven by the simple fact that GILT investors (foreigners!) constrain what their government can do.
So what exactly did the British people gain for sacrificing tens of thousands of their young sons? TC is essentially correct that they are not a sovereign in any meaningful sense: they cannot defend themselves and instead rely on the presence of American troops on their land to deter aggression from others. This is a fair and salient point. SRM completely avoids responding to it other than to say they'd otherwise be speaking German right now.
TC backed SRM into explicitly defending the killing of women and innocent children at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, SRM even went so far as to claim that the atomic bombings fall within the parameters of Just War Theory . A view widely rejected by the overwhelming vast majority of ethicists and the same Catholic Church out which Just War Theory came out of (Sidenote, I am not condemning dropping the atomic weapons, I would justify it as realpolitik, but only a maniac would make the argument that SRM made regarding women and innocent children in Japan being legitimate military targets. Really shows a lack of respect for life by SRM).
SRM doesn't actually address TCs points, instead resorting to accusing TC of being a nazi-sympathizer. (Sidenote, I get the difficulty in actually discerning what could have otherwise happened in history).
Anyways, if you actually listen to the ideas and worldview that TC and SRM are actually getting at, they go something like this:
TC: entanglement in foreign wars is bad and a nation's young sons and daughters should not be sent off to fight except for the strictest of standards that meet a direct benefit to the people of the country.
SRM: foreign entanglement may be necessary, including for the direct benefit of other nation states as it may prevent our need to fight that enemy at a later date. Our sons and daughters may need to die under this construct.
Here is the rub, the historical evidence is really complicated on the core points both of them are making:
Presumably we agree that:
The following foreign entanglements were unnecessary for the direct benefit of the American people and that Americans needlessly died there:
WWI
Vietnam
Iraq II (as part of the GWOT)
We presumably agree that the following entanglements directly benefitted the USA:
European theater of WWII
Iraq I
Reasonable people can disagree on the following foreign entanglements (for me at least):
Arming of the mujahadeen in Afghanistan (led to the Taliban)
Korea (though I really lean to the unnecessary side of the ledger on this one).
Afghanistan (at least to the extent we were there for nearly 20 years and engaged and tried to nation build).
Looking at that list, I don't think a reasonable person could say that either TC or SRM are absolutely correct here and own the other side. For the good of fighting WWII there is the waste of human life in WWI and Vietnam.
Question number 2 for you: do you actually believe that the women and innocent children of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate military targets under Just War Theory as SRM asserts. I concede you may not understand the relevance of this question, but please humor me. I'm trying to understand where you are coming from.
LOL. This is getting ridiculous.
I started a thread about Tucker Carlson's interview with Jacob Rees-Mogg and said Tucker got his ass kicked.
You responded by asking me about Iran.
I pointed out that Iran had absolutely nothing to do with the interview.
Your response was to ask me about Iran again.
And now, after complaining about my "lot of words," you've written a small dissertation on Iran, WWI, Vietnam, Iraq I, Iraq II, Afghanistan, Korea, the Mujahideen, American interventionism, oil prices, Just War Theory, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I guess the irony of your response is lost on you.
I have an idea. Start your own thread.
Seriously. If you want to debate Iran or American interventionism, start a thread about it. I'll happily participate.
But none of that changes what happened in the interview I actually posted.
And after all these words, you finally concede my point:
Quote:
"Yes, Carlson looked bad on some facts."
There we go. That wasn't so hard.
I'll get to the rest of your drivel later.
Mothra said:DallasBear9902 said:Mothra said:DallasBear9902 said:Mothra said:DallasBear9902 said:Mothra said:
If you want to see a masterclass in completely dismantling another person's positions and arguments, watch bowtie's "interview" of Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg. And don't be fooled by the title. It's spin designed at obscuring the total ass-kicking Tucker took at the hands of Rees-Mogg. It was incredible.
Ummm, do you still think we can control Iran and its nuclear ambitions without boots on the ground?
I humbly suggest your worldview should've recalibrated over the past year.
Ummm, what does that have to do with the interview? That answer for those who watched it is: nothing.
Their conversation instead focused on World War II revisionism, Winston Churchill, Russia, and British politics. Iran wasn't discussed.
Odd question. Really odd. I humbly suggest you watch the video that is the subject of the thread before commenting. That way you won't look foolish for bringing up inane and irrelevant points.
You are judging that Carlson was owned based on your worldview. Within that paradigm, your views make sense. I understand your views, simplified, as some sort of Boomer interventionism.
Carlson's views, simplified, in their essence are for nonintervention.
Given you were so adamant on these pages that (a) we could control Iran's nuclear ambitions without boots on the ground, (b) our total failure to do so after implementing your preferred military strategy, and (c) Democrats are about to win races that it would have been unthinkable for them to win at the beginning of this year in large part due to what the Iran conflict has done to oil prices and diesel, in particular…
Perhaps you have reconsidered your worldview about interventionism around the world.
That you think this Brit dude owned Carlson tells us you haven't reconsidered your views and that you seem to still academically not understand what Carlson is saying (even if you disagree with Carlson).
LOL. This is quite a retreat.
I posted about Tucker Carlson's interview with Jacob Rees-Mogg and said Rees-Mogg dismantled him. You responded by asking me about Iran, a subject that wasn't even discussed in the interview, as I pointed out.
And your response is to write several more paragraphs about Iran? LOL. That's called changing the subject and attacking a straw man.
If I've actually said that air strikes can permanently prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, quote me saying it. Otherwise stop inventing arguments for me because they're easier to attack than the one I actually made.
Now, back to Tucker.
Tucker confidently told Rees-Mogg that Russia has a "much larger economy" than Britain. Rees-Mogg corrected him. The IMF has Britain at about $4.26 trillion and Russia at $2.66 trillion in projected 2026 nominal GDP. Tucker was wrong.
Rees-Mogg cited Russian hostile activity in Britain, including Salisbury. The OPCW independently confirmed Britain's identification of the nerve agent, and Britain subsequently conducted an independent public inquiry into the Novichok death.
Tucker then asked why Britain fought World War II, minimized Hitler's invasion of Poland as essentially a territorial dispute arising from Versailles, questioned whether defeating Nazi Germany benefited Britain, and answered "Who cares?" when confronted with German domination as the alternative. Rees-Mogg finally told him he was "verging on defending Hitler."
That's why I said Tucker got owned. Because I actually watched the interview. It was brutal. Apparently, you didn't even watch the interview and ignorantly believe it's about Iran.
You are free to disagree. But try to stick to the subject. Defend Tucker's statements in the interview. Telling me what you imagine my position is on Iran, diesel prices, Democrats and "interventionism" doesn't rehabilitate a single thing he said.
So let's try this again:
What specifically did I say about the Carlson/Rees-Mogg interview that was wrong?
I'll wait.
A lot of words to avoid answering a simple question: Do you still believe we can control Iran's nuclear ambitions without boots on the ground?
Hint: you don't need to understand the relevance or coherence of this rather simple question to answer it. You clearly know that your understanding of relevance is not a prerequisite to answering the question when discussing ideas.
To get to your specifics.
Yes, Carlson looked bad on some facts, but SRM looked bad in his own ways. TC's fundamental issue goes unanswered: the British empire crumbled after the world wars, and despite some decent ups (Thatcher and Blair and others), it has mostly been a down trend line for the British standard of living post-WWII. Most recently demonstrated by how their politics have been absolutely paralyzed for about a decade driven by the simple fact that GILT investors (foreigners!) constrain what their government can do.
So what exactly did the British people gain for sacrificing tens of thousands of their young sons? TC is essentially correct that they are not a sovereign in any meaningful sense: they cannot defend themselves and instead rely on the presence of American troops on their land to deter aggression from others. This is a fair and salient point. SRM completely avoids responding to it other than to say they'd otherwise be speaking German right now.
TC backed SRM into explicitly defending the killing of women and innocent children at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, SRM even went so far as to claim that the atomic bombings fall within the parameters of Just War Theory . A view widely rejected by the overwhelming vast majority of ethicists and the same Catholic Church out which Just War Theory came out of (Sidenote, I am not condemning dropping the atomic weapons, I would justify it as realpolitik, but only a maniac would make the argument that SRM made regarding women and innocent children in Japan being legitimate military targets. Really shows a lack of respect for life by SRM).
SRM doesn't actually address TCs points, instead resorting to accusing TC of being a nazi-sympathizer. (Sidenote, I get the difficulty in actually discerning what could have otherwise happened in history).
Anyways, if you actually listen to the ideas and worldview that TC and SRM are actually getting at, they go something like this:
TC: entanglement in foreign wars is bad and a nation's young sons and daughters should not be sent off to fight except for the strictest of standards that meet a direct benefit to the people of the country.
SRM: foreign entanglement may be necessary, including for the direct benefit of other nation states as it may prevent our need to fight that enemy at a later date. Our sons and daughters may need to die under this construct.
Here is the rub, the historical evidence is really complicated on the core points both of them are making:
Presumably we agree that:
The following foreign entanglements were unnecessary for the direct benefit of the American people and that Americans needlessly died there:
WWI
Vietnam
Iraq II (as part of the GWOT)
We presumably agree that the following entanglements directly benefitted the USA:
European theater of WWII
Iraq I
Reasonable people can disagree on the following foreign entanglements (for me at least):
Arming of the mujahadeen in Afghanistan (led to the Taliban)
Korea (though I really lean to the unnecessary side of the ledger on this one).
Afghanistan (at least to the extent we were there for nearly 20 years and engaged and tried to nation build).
Looking at that list, I don't think a reasonable person could say that either TC or SRM are absolutely correct here and own the other side. For the good of fighting WWII there is the waste of human life in WWI and Vietnam.
Question number 2 for you: do you actually believe that the women and innocent children of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate military targets under Just War Theory as SRM asserts. I concede you may not understand the relevance of this question, but please humor me. I'm trying to understand where you are coming from.
LOL. This is getting ridiculous.
I started a thread about Tucker Carlson's interview with Jacob Rees-Mogg and said Tucker got his ass kicked.
You responded by asking me about Iran.
I pointed out that Iran had absolutely nothing to do with the interview.
Your response was to ask me about Iran again.
And now, after complaining about my "lot of words," you've written a small dissertation on Iran, WWI, Vietnam, Iraq I, Iraq II, Afghanistan, Korea, the Mujahideen, American interventionism, oil prices, Just War Theory, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I guess the irony of your response is lost on you.
I have an idea. Start your own thread.
Seriously. If you want to debate Iran or American interventionism, start a thread about it. I'll happily participate.
But none of that changes what happened in the interview I actually posted.
And after all these words, you finally concede my point:Quote:
"Yes, Carlson looked bad on some facts."
There we go. That wasn't so hard.
I'll get to the rest of your drivel later.
Are you being obtuse? Do you really not see what these two are really arguing about? Can you not generalize coherent theories or principles from specifics?
The fundamental issues they are grappling with are:
When is it appropriate for the state to call upon its young to risk life and limb? What causes are worthy of that sacrifice? And to a lesser extent, they are debating whether increasing the risk of war is appropriate if there is a chance that the risk will ultimately prevent war.
I'm convinced you haven't watched the interview because you can't possibly be missing the points they are making.
So, let me spell it out for you:
Do you believe that SRM is putting on a "masterclass in dismantling [TCs] positions and arguments" when SRM argues to TC that the women and innocent children of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate military targets under Just War Theory? Did you catch that part of the interview?
lol Zionists, like Mothra, are obsessed with Tucker bcs he is constantly exposing their wickedness and vile nature.
Mothra said:
If you want to see a masterclass in completely dismantling another person's positions and arguments, watch bowtie's "interview" of Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg. And don't be fooled by the title. Tucker didn't confront anything. That's mere spin designed at obscuring the total ass-kicking Tucker took at the hands of Rees-Mogg. It was incredible.
It's always beautiful to watch an intelligent Brit speak.
From National Review, https://www.nationalreview.com/2026/10/tucker-carlson-is-now-a-world-war-ii-revisionist/
Tucker Carlson makes a great deal of Hitler's insistence that he "did not want to go to war with the U.K." But Carlson steadfastly ignores that not wanting to go to war was the pose that Hitler struck at every step of his journey across Europe. In September 1938, he promised in writing that acquiring the Sudetenland would satisfy Germany's territorial ambitions in Europe and then made a speech in which he declared that once that issue was settled an issue, you will note, that was only an issue because he had made it one "there will be no more territorial problems for Germany in Europe." Six months later, in flagrant violation of his vow, he invaded the rest of Czechoslovakia. Six months after that, Hitler invaded Poland a country with which he had until recently had a peace deal. This was a pattern. Nine days before his invasion of Poland, Hitler had struck a ten-year non-aggression pact with the Soviet Union a pact that, like all the others, was broken just two years later when, to the great surprise of Joseph Stalin, he invaded the Soviet Union with 3.8 million troops. Narrowly, it is accurate to suppose that, during this period, Hitler did "not want to go to war with the U.K." But it was also true that, at various points in the past, Hitler had not wanted to go to war with Czechoslovakia, Poland, or Russia or, for that matter, with Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, France, Yugoslavia, and Greece. It is fair to say, I'd venture, that in the realm of not wanting to go to war, Hitler lacked aptitude.
Tucker Carlson makes a great deal of Hitler's insistence that he "did not want to go to war with the U.K." But Carlson steadfastly ignores that not wanting to go to war was the pose that Hitler struck at every step of his journey across Europe. In September 1938, he promised in writing that acquiring the Sudetenland would satisfy Germany's territorial ambitions in Europe and then made a speech in which he declared that once that issue was settled an issue, you will note, that was only an issue because he had made it one "there will be no more territorial problems for Germany in Europe." Six months later, in flagrant violation of his vow, he invaded the rest of Czechoslovakia. Six months after that, Hitler invaded Poland a country with which he had until recently had a peace deal. This was a pattern. Nine days before his invasion of Poland, Hitler had struck a ten-year non-aggression pact with the Soviet Union a pact that, like all the others, was broken just two years later when, to the great surprise of Joseph Stalin, he invaded the Soviet Union with 3.8 million troops. Narrowly, it is accurate to suppose that, during this period, Hitler did "not want to go to war with the U.K." But it was also true that, at various points in the past, Hitler had not wanted to go to war with Czechoslovakia, Poland, or Russia or, for that matter, with Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, France, Yugoslavia, and Greece. It is fair to say, I'd venture, that in the realm of not wanting to go to war, Hitler lacked aptitude.
TC is a complete idiot.
DallasBear9902 said:Mothra said:DallasBear9902 said:Mothra said:DallasBear9902 said:Mothra said:DallasBear9902 said:Mothra said:
If you want to see a masterclass in completely dismantling another person's positions and arguments, watch bowtie's "interview" of Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg. And don't be fooled by the title. It's spin designed at obscuring the total ass-kicking Tucker took at the hands of Rees-Mogg. It was incredible.
Ummm, do you still think we can control Iran and its nuclear ambitions without boots on the ground?
I humbly suggest your worldview should've recalibrated over the past year.
Ummm, what does that have to do with the interview? That answer for those who watched it is: nothing.
Their conversation instead focused on World War II revisionism, Winston Churchill, Russia, and British politics. Iran wasn't discussed.
Odd question. Really odd. I humbly suggest you watch the video that is the subject of the thread before commenting. That way you won't look foolish for bringing up inane and irrelevant points.
You are judging that Carlson was owned based on your worldview. Within that paradigm, your views make sense. I understand your views, simplified, as some sort of Boomer interventionism.
Carlson's views, simplified, in their essence are for nonintervention.
Given you were so adamant on these pages that (a) we could control Iran's nuclear ambitions without boots on the ground, (b) our total failure to do so after implementing your preferred military strategy, and (c) Democrats are about to win races that it would have been unthinkable for them to win at the beginning of this year in large part due to what the Iran conflict has done to oil prices and diesel, in particular…
Perhaps you have reconsidered your worldview about interventionism around the world.
That you think this Brit dude owned Carlson tells us you haven't reconsidered your views and that you seem to still academically not understand what Carlson is saying (even if you disagree with Carlson).
LOL. This is quite a retreat.
I posted about Tucker Carlson's interview with Jacob Rees-Mogg and said Rees-Mogg dismantled him. You responded by asking me about Iran, a subject that wasn't even discussed in the interview, as I pointed out.
And your response is to write several more paragraphs about Iran? LOL. That's called changing the subject and attacking a straw man.
If I've actually said that air strikes can permanently prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, quote me saying it. Otherwise stop inventing arguments for me because they're easier to attack than the one I actually made.
Now, back to Tucker.
Tucker confidently told Rees-Mogg that Russia has a "much larger economy" than Britain. Rees-Mogg corrected him. The IMF has Britain at about $4.26 trillion and Russia at $2.66 trillion in projected 2026 nominal GDP. Tucker was wrong.
Rees-Mogg cited Russian hostile activity in Britain, including Salisbury. The OPCW independently confirmed Britain's identification of the nerve agent, and Britain subsequently conducted an independent public inquiry into the Novichok death.
Tucker then asked why Britain fought World War II, minimized Hitler's invasion of Poland as essentially a territorial dispute arising from Versailles, questioned whether defeating Nazi Germany benefited Britain, and answered "Who cares?" when confronted with German domination as the alternative. Rees-Mogg finally told him he was "verging on defending Hitler."
That's why I said Tucker got owned. Because I actually watched the interview. It was brutal. Apparently, you didn't even watch the interview and ignorantly believe it's about Iran.
You are free to disagree. But try to stick to the subject. Defend Tucker's statements in the interview. Telling me what you imagine my position is on Iran, diesel prices, Democrats and "interventionism" doesn't rehabilitate a single thing he said.
So let's try this again:
What specifically did I say about the Carlson/Rees-Mogg interview that was wrong?
I'll wait.
A lot of words to avoid answering a simple question: Do you still believe we can control Iran's nuclear ambitions without boots on the ground?
Hint: you don't need to understand the relevance or coherence of this rather simple question to answer it. You clearly know that your understanding of relevance is not a prerequisite to answering the question when discussing ideas.
To get to your specifics.
Yes, Carlson looked bad on some facts, but SRM looked bad in his own ways. TC's fundamental issue goes unanswered: the British empire crumbled after the world wars, and despite some decent ups (Thatcher and Blair and others), it has mostly been a down trend line for the British standard of living post-WWII. Most recently demonstrated by how their politics have been absolutely paralyzed for about a decade driven by the simple fact that GILT investors (foreigners!) constrain what their government can do.
So what exactly did the British people gain for sacrificing tens of thousands of their young sons? TC is essentially correct that they are not a sovereign in any meaningful sense: they cannot defend themselves and instead rely on the presence of American troops on their land to deter aggression from others. This is a fair and salient point. SRM completely avoids responding to it other than to say they'd otherwise be speaking German right now.
TC backed SRM into explicitly defending the killing of women and innocent children at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, SRM even went so far as to claim that the atomic bombings fall within the parameters of Just War Theory . A view widely rejected by the overwhelming vast majority of ethicists and the same Catholic Church out which Just War Theory came out of (Sidenote, I am not condemning dropping the atomic weapons, I would justify it as realpolitik, but only a maniac would make the argument that SRM made regarding women and innocent children in Japan being legitimate military targets. Really shows a lack of respect for life by SRM).
SRM doesn't actually address TCs points, instead resorting to accusing TC of being a nazi-sympathizer. (Sidenote, I get the difficulty in actually discerning what could have otherwise happened in history).
Anyways, if you actually listen to the ideas and worldview that TC and SRM are actually getting at, they go something like this:
TC: entanglement in foreign wars is bad and a nation's young sons and daughters should not be sent off to fight except for the strictest of standards that meet a direct benefit to the people of the country.
SRM: foreign entanglement may be necessary, including for the direct benefit of other nation states as it may prevent our need to fight that enemy at a later date. Our sons and daughters may need to die under this construct.
Here is the rub, the historical evidence is really complicated on the core points both of them are making:
Presumably we agree that:
The following foreign entanglements were unnecessary for the direct benefit of the American people and that Americans needlessly died there:
WWI
Vietnam
Iraq II (as part of the GWOT)
We presumably agree that the following entanglements directly benefitted the USA:
European theater of WWII
Iraq I
Reasonable people can disagree on the following foreign entanglements (for me at least):
Arming of the mujahadeen in Afghanistan (led to the Taliban)
Korea (though I really lean to the unnecessary side of the ledger on this one).
Afghanistan (at least to the extent we were there for nearly 20 years and engaged and tried to nation build).
Looking at that list, I don't think a reasonable person could say that either TC or SRM are absolutely correct here and own the other side. For the good of fighting WWII there is the waste of human life in WWI and Vietnam.
Question number 2 for you: do you actually believe that the women and innocent children of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate military targets under Just War Theory as SRM asserts. I concede you may not understand the relevance of this question, but please humor me. I'm trying to understand where you are coming from.
LOL. This is getting ridiculous.
I started a thread about Tucker Carlson's interview with Jacob Rees-Mogg and said Tucker got his ass kicked.
You responded by asking me about Iran.
I pointed out that Iran had absolutely nothing to do with the interview.
Your response was to ask me about Iran again.
And now, after complaining about my "lot of words," you've written a small dissertation on Iran, WWI, Vietnam, Iraq I, Iraq II, Afghanistan, Korea, the Mujahideen, American interventionism, oil prices, Just War Theory, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I guess the irony of your response is lost on you.
I have an idea. Start your own thread.
Seriously. If you want to debate Iran or American interventionism, start a thread about it. I'll happily participate.
But none of that changes what happened in the interview I actually posted.
And after all these words, you finally concede my point:Quote:
"Yes, Carlson looked bad on some facts."
There we go. That wasn't so hard.
I'll get to the rest of your drivel later.
Are you being obtuse? Do you really not see what these two are really arguing about? Can you not generalize coherent theories or principles from specifics?
The fundamental issues they are grappling with are:
When is it appropriate for the state to call upon its young to risk life and limb? What causes are worthy of that sacrifice? And to a lesser extent, they are debating whether increasing the risk of war is appropriate if there is a chance that the risk will ultimately prevent war.
I'm convinced you haven't watched the interview because you can't possibly be missing the points they are making.
So, let me spell it out for you:
Do you believe that SRM is putting on a "masterclass in dismantling [TCs] positions and arguments" when SRM argues to TC that the women and innocent children of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate military targets under Just War Theory? Did you catch that part of the interview?
Now you're just making stuff up. Rees-Mogg did not say women and innocent children were "legitimate military targets." Those words never came out of his mouth. Those are your words, not his.
What Rees-Mogg argued was that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified under Just War principles. Bowtie pressed him about the innocent civilians killed, including children, and Rees-Mogg continued to defend the bombings. Yet, like the intellectually-dishonest clown you are, you have converted a legitimate and reasonable argument that "the bombing was justified despite civilian deaths" into "women and innocent children were legitimate military targets." Those are very different propositions.
And spare me the "you must not have watched the interview" bull***** I've discussed what they actually said. You're the poster who keeps trying to turn it into something else.
First it was Iran, which wasn't discussed. Then it became my supposed "worldview." Now you're pretending the entire interview was really a philosophical seminar about when governments may send young people to war.
It wasn't for any intellectually honest person who watched.
They argued about Russia, Ukraine, NATO, Salisbury, Britain's defenses, WWII, Hitler, Poland, Hiroshima, and British politics. And on numerous factual and historical points, Tucker got corrected. A bunch. You've already admitted that yourself when you conceded that Tucker "looked bad on some facts." Indeed, we are in agreement.
That's what I called a dismantling.
But for the fourth time, if you want to defend Bowtie's performance in this interview, then defend it.
So far, you've done everything but that.
The_barBEARian said:
lol Zionists, like Mothra, are obsessed with Tucker bcs he is constantly exposing their wickedness and vile nature.
Congrats, Dallas. The Nazi Youth is siding with you on this one.
Only an hour?
Must just be highlights.
Must just be highlights.
Mothra said:DallasBear9902 said:Mothra said:DallasBear9902 said:Mothra said:DallasBear9902 said:Mothra said:DallasBear9902 said:Mothra said:
If you want to see a masterclass in completely dismantling another person's positions and arguments, watch bowtie's "interview" of Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg. And don't be fooled by the title. It's spin designed at obscuring the total ass-kicking Tucker took at the hands of Rees-Mogg. It was incredible.
Ummm, do you still think we can control Iran and its nuclear ambitions without boots on the ground?
I humbly suggest your worldview should've recalibrated over the past year.
Ummm, what does that have to do with the interview? That answer for those who watched it is: nothing.
Their conversation instead focused on World War II revisionism, Winston Churchill, Russia, and British politics. Iran wasn't discussed.
Odd question. Really odd. I humbly suggest you watch the video that is the subject of the thread before commenting. That way you won't look foolish for bringing up inane and irrelevant points.
You are judging that Carlson was owned based on your worldview. Within that paradigm, your views make sense. I understand your views, simplified, as some sort of Boomer interventionism.
Carlson's views, simplified, in their essence are for nonintervention.
Given you were so adamant on these pages that (a) we could control Iran's nuclear ambitions without boots on the ground, (b) our total failure to do so after implementing your preferred military strategy, and (c) Democrats are about to win races that it would have been unthinkable for them to win at the beginning of this year in large part due to what the Iran conflict has done to oil prices and diesel, in particular…
Perhaps you have reconsidered your worldview about interventionism around the world.
That you think this Brit dude owned Carlson tells us you haven't reconsidered your views and that you seem to still academically not understand what Carlson is saying (even if you disagree with Carlson).
LOL. This is quite a retreat.
I posted about Tucker Carlson's interview with Jacob Rees-Mogg and said Rees-Mogg dismantled him. You responded by asking me about Iran, a subject that wasn't even discussed in the interview, as I pointed out.
And your response is to write several more paragraphs about Iran? LOL. That's called changing the subject and attacking a straw man.
If I've actually said that air strikes can permanently prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, quote me saying it. Otherwise stop inventing arguments for me because they're easier to attack than the one I actually made.
Now, back to Tucker.
Tucker confidently told Rees-Mogg that Russia has a "much larger economy" than Britain. Rees-Mogg corrected him. The IMF has Britain at about $4.26 trillion and Russia at $2.66 trillion in projected 2026 nominal GDP. Tucker was wrong.
Rees-Mogg cited Russian hostile activity in Britain, including Salisbury. The OPCW independently confirmed Britain's identification of the nerve agent, and Britain subsequently conducted an independent public inquiry into the Novichok death.
Tucker then asked why Britain fought World War II, minimized Hitler's invasion of Poland as essentially a territorial dispute arising from Versailles, questioned whether defeating Nazi Germany benefited Britain, and answered "Who cares?" when confronted with German domination as the alternative. Rees-Mogg finally told him he was "verging on defending Hitler."
That's why I said Tucker got owned. Because I actually watched the interview. It was brutal. Apparently, you didn't even watch the interview and ignorantly believe it's about Iran.
You are free to disagree. But try to stick to the subject. Defend Tucker's statements in the interview. Telling me what you imagine my position is on Iran, diesel prices, Democrats and "interventionism" doesn't rehabilitate a single thing he said.
So let's try this again:
What specifically did I say about the Carlson/Rees-Mogg interview that was wrong?
I'll wait.
A lot of words to avoid answering a simple question: Do you still believe we can control Iran's nuclear ambitions without boots on the ground?
Hint: you don't need to understand the relevance or coherence of this rather simple question to answer it. You clearly know that your understanding of relevance is not a prerequisite to answering the question when discussing ideas.
To get to your specifics.
Yes, Carlson looked bad on some facts, but SRM looked bad in his own ways. TC's fundamental issue goes unanswered: the British empire crumbled after the world wars, and despite some decent ups (Thatcher and Blair and others), it has mostly been a down trend line for the British standard of living post-WWII. Most recently demonstrated by how their politics have been absolutely paralyzed for about a decade driven by the simple fact that GILT investors (foreigners!) constrain what their government can do.
So what exactly did the British people gain for sacrificing tens of thousands of their young sons? TC is essentially correct that they are not a sovereign in any meaningful sense: they cannot defend themselves and instead rely on the presence of American troops on their land to deter aggression from others. This is a fair and salient point. SRM completely avoids responding to it other than to say they'd otherwise be speaking German right now.
TC backed SRM into explicitly defending the killing of women and innocent children at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, SRM even went so far as to claim that the atomic bombings fall within the parameters of Just War Theory . A view widely rejected by the overwhelming vast majority of ethicists and the same Catholic Church out which Just War Theory came out of (Sidenote, I am not condemning dropping the atomic weapons, I would justify it as realpolitik, but only a maniac would make the argument that SRM made regarding women and innocent children in Japan being legitimate military targets. Really shows a lack of respect for life by SRM).
SRM doesn't actually address TCs points, instead resorting to accusing TC of being a nazi-sympathizer. (Sidenote, I get the difficulty in actually discerning what could have otherwise happened in history).
Anyways, if you actually listen to the ideas and worldview that TC and SRM are actually getting at, they go something like this:
TC: entanglement in foreign wars is bad and a nation's young sons and daughters should not be sent off to fight except for the strictest of standards that meet a direct benefit to the people of the country.
SRM: foreign entanglement may be necessary, including for the direct benefit of other nation states as it may prevent our need to fight that enemy at a later date. Our sons and daughters may need to die under this construct.
Here is the rub, the historical evidence is really complicated on the core points both of them are making:
Presumably we agree that:
The following foreign entanglements were unnecessary for the direct benefit of the American people and that Americans needlessly died there:
WWI
Vietnam
Iraq II (as part of the GWOT)
We presumably agree that the following entanglements directly benefitted the USA:
European theater of WWII
Iraq I
Reasonable people can disagree on the following foreign entanglements (for me at least):
Arming of the mujahadeen in Afghanistan (led to the Taliban)
Korea (though I really lean to the unnecessary side of the ledger on this one).
Afghanistan (at least to the extent we were there for nearly 20 years and engaged and tried to nation build).
Looking at that list, I don't think a reasonable person could say that either TC or SRM are absolutely correct here and own the other side. For the good of fighting WWII there is the waste of human life in WWI and Vietnam.
Question number 2 for you: do you actually believe that the women and innocent children of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate military targets under Just War Theory as SRM asserts. I concede you may not understand the relevance of this question, but please humor me. I'm trying to understand where you are coming from.
LOL. This is getting ridiculous.
I started a thread about Tucker Carlson's interview with Jacob Rees-Mogg and said Tucker got his ass kicked.
You responded by asking me about Iran.
I pointed out that Iran had absolutely nothing to do with the interview.
Your response was to ask me about Iran again.
And now, after complaining about my "lot of words," you've written a small dissertation on Iran, WWI, Vietnam, Iraq I, Iraq II, Afghanistan, Korea, the Mujahideen, American interventionism, oil prices, Just War Theory, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I guess the irony of your response is lost on you.
I have an idea. Start your own thread.
Seriously. If you want to debate Iran or American interventionism, start a thread about it. I'll happily participate.
But none of that changes what happened in the interview I actually posted.
And after all these words, you finally concede my point:Quote:
"Yes, Carlson looked bad on some facts."
There we go. That wasn't so hard.
I'll get to the rest of your drivel later.
Are you being obtuse? Do you really not see what these two are really arguing about? Can you not generalize coherent theories or principles from specifics?
The fundamental issues they are grappling with are:
When is it appropriate for the state to call upon its young to risk life and limb? What causes are worthy of that sacrifice? And to a lesser extent, they are debating whether increasing the risk of war is appropriate if there is a chance that the risk will ultimately prevent war.
I'm convinced you haven't watched the interview because you can't possibly be missing the points they are making.
So, let me spell it out for you:
Do you believe that SRM is putting on a "masterclass in dismantling [TCs] positions and arguments" when SRM argues to TC that the women and innocent children of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate military targets under Just War Theory? Did you catch that part of the interview?
Now you're just making stuff up. Rees-Mogg did not say women and innocent children were "legitimate military targets." Those words never came out of his mouth. Those are your words, not his.
What Rees-Mogg argued was that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified under Just War principles. Bowtie pressed him about the innocent civilians killed, including children, and Rees-Mogg continued to defend the bombings. Yet, like the intellectually-dishonest clown you are, you have converted a legitimate and reasonable argument that "the bombing was justified despite civilian deaths" into "women and innocent children were legitimate military targets." Those are very different propositions.
And spare me the "you must not have watched the interview" bull***** I've discussed what they actually said. You're the poster who keeps trying to turn it into something else.
First it was Iran, which wasn't discussed. Then it became my supposed "worldview." Now you're pretending the entire interview was really a philosophical seminar about when governments may send young people to war.
It wasn't for any intellectually honest person who watched.
They argued about Russia, Ukraine, NATO, Salisbury, Britain's defenses, WWII, Hitler, Poland, Hiroshima, and British politics. And on numerous factual and historical points, Tucker got corrected. A bunch. You've already admitted that yourself when you conceded that Tucker "looked bad on some facts." Indeed, we are in agreement.
That's what I called a dismantling.
But for the fourth time, if you want to defend Bowtie's performance in this interview, then defend it.
So far, you've done everything but that.
It is clear you haven't watched it for actual information or with an open mind. Someone told you TC got owned or whatever and you've watched it only to affirm your preconception. My paraphrase of SMR was done in charity because what he said was actually much worse and I believe he would walk it back if given the time to reflect on what he said. Here you go:
TUCKER CARLSON (00:29:03 00:29:08): We also killed tens of thousands of children in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And you're saying that's okay?
SIR JACOB REES-MOGG (00:29:08 00:29:12): I think it was justified. I think the use of nuclear weapons at the end of the Second World War
TUCKER CARLSON (00:29:12 00:29:18): So what you're saying as a Christian is, yes, it is okay to kill children who did nothing wrong.
SIR JACOB REES-MOGG (00:29:18 00:29:19): It was a proportionate response.
TUCKER CARLSON (00:29:19 00:29:21): Do you feel that that is a Christian position?
SIR JACOB REES-MOGG (00:29:21 00:29:24): Yes. I think it meets Aquinas's conditions of a just war.
The killing of women and innocent children in H and N was NOT collateral damage, but rather deliberate targeting. This was not the bombing of some arms factory or military base and some kids playing outside got caught in the damage. There is simply no legitimate worldview in which that act can be characterized as consistent with Christian ethics. I simply do not believe that Jesus would ever sign off on the deliberate, targeted killing AT SCALE of women and innocent children in war, even within the context of ending WWII. If you believe that is consistent with Christianity, by all means, please tell all of us.
********
I honestly don't know how you could have sat through the entire hour of their conversation and not realized the principles they were discussing. If it really went over your head, or if you really allowed the specifics of what they were discussing to distract you from the real points they were making, then you just aren't good at this. You just aren't. If you want to really simplify it, the principle was intervention v. isolationism. TC takes a practical approach and sort of reverse engineers to his principle: from TC's position, given that he as a matter of (justifiable) opinion believes that the British people have been worse off since the great world wars, he comes to the conclusion that interventionism is for the worse. SRM comes at it differently in which he imagines the worst alternative case possible scenario (or at least one worse than what actually happened) and then stakes out the position that intervention was clearly for the best, no matter the ultimate costs. We know from examples of history that they are both right ... and both wrong.
Like seriously, if you really missed this, don't take my word for it. I encourage you to take the transcript of the interview, feed it into your preferred AI, with a simple prompt asking for a summary of the themes and principles discussed in the interview and I guarantee you that the AI will conclude something like isolationism v interventionism, classical liberalism/security conservative v strong isolationist. You'll get bonus points for integrity when you report back that I am right.
You probably also didn't notice that they aren't all that far apart from each other, especially after SRM went to great pains at the end to elaborate on his positions of deterrence through muscular posturing. They are on the same end of the ideological spectrum, they just disagree on how to achieve peace and security. To put this in terms you can understand, one is a Bush 41 Republican and the other is a Pat Buchanan Republican. Sure, there are differences, but they reside in the same zip code.
Given that you missed the point of their conversation (perhaps TC Derangement Syndrome overwhelmed you?), I understand how you would miss that the clear modern day analogue to what they are discussing is Iran and what the west should do there.
Regardless, even if you disagree with everything I have said, this really is an easy and simple question for you to answer. Given what has happened this year, do you still believe that we can contain Iran's nuclear ambitions without putting boots on the ground?
DallasBear9902 said:Mothra said:DallasBear9902 said:Mothra said:DallasBear9902 said:Mothra said:DallasBear9902 said:Mothra said:DallasBear9902 said:Mothra said:
If you want to see a masterclass in completely dismantling another person's positions and arguments, watch bowtie's "interview" of Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg. And don't be fooled by the title. It's spin designed at obscuring the total ass-kicking Tucker took at the hands of Rees-Mogg. It was incredible.
Ummm, do you still think we can control Iran and its nuclear ambitions without boots on the ground?
I humbly suggest your worldview should've recalibrated over the past year.
Ummm, what does that have to do with the interview? That answer for those who watched it is: nothing.
Their conversation instead focused on World War II revisionism, Winston Churchill, Russia, and British politics. Iran wasn't discussed.
Odd question. Really odd. I humbly suggest you watch the video that is the subject of the thread before commenting. That way you won't look foolish for bringing up inane and irrelevant points.
You are judging that Carlson was owned based on your worldview. Within that paradigm, your views make sense. I understand your views, simplified, as some sort of Boomer interventionism.
Carlson's views, simplified, in their essence are for nonintervention.
Given you were so adamant on these pages that (a) we could control Iran's nuclear ambitions without boots on the ground, (b) our total failure to do so after implementing your preferred military strategy, and (c) Democrats are about to win races that it would have been unthinkable for them to win at the beginning of this year in large part due to what the Iran conflict has done to oil prices and diesel, in particular…
Perhaps you have reconsidered your worldview about interventionism around the world.
That you think this Brit dude owned Carlson tells us you haven't reconsidered your views and that you seem to still academically not understand what Carlson is saying (even if you disagree with Carlson).
LOL. This is quite a retreat.
I posted about Tucker Carlson's interview with Jacob Rees-Mogg and said Rees-Mogg dismantled him. You responded by asking me about Iran, a subject that wasn't even discussed in the interview, as I pointed out.
And your response is to write several more paragraphs about Iran? LOL. That's called changing the subject and attacking a straw man.
If I've actually said that air strikes can permanently prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, quote me saying it. Otherwise stop inventing arguments for me because they're easier to attack than the one I actually made.
Now, back to Tucker.
Tucker confidently told Rees-Mogg that Russia has a "much larger economy" than Britain. Rees-Mogg corrected him. The IMF has Britain at about $4.26 trillion and Russia at $2.66 trillion in projected 2026 nominal GDP. Tucker was wrong.
Rees-Mogg cited Russian hostile activity in Britain, including Salisbury. The OPCW independently confirmed Britain's identification of the nerve agent, and Britain subsequently conducted an independent public inquiry into the Novichok death.
Tucker then asked why Britain fought World War II, minimized Hitler's invasion of Poland as essentially a territorial dispute arising from Versailles, questioned whether defeating Nazi Germany benefited Britain, and answered "Who cares?" when confronted with German domination as the alternative. Rees-Mogg finally told him he was "verging on defending Hitler."
That's why I said Tucker got owned. Because I actually watched the interview. It was brutal. Apparently, you didn't even watch the interview and ignorantly believe it's about Iran.
You are free to disagree. But try to stick to the subject. Defend Tucker's statements in the interview. Telling me what you imagine my position is on Iran, diesel prices, Democrats and "interventionism" doesn't rehabilitate a single thing he said.
So let's try this again:
What specifically did I say about the Carlson/Rees-Mogg interview that was wrong?
I'll wait.
A lot of words to avoid answering a simple question: Do you still believe we can control Iran's nuclear ambitions without boots on the ground?
Hint: you don't need to understand the relevance or coherence of this rather simple question to answer it. You clearly know that your understanding of relevance is not a prerequisite to answering the question when discussing ideas.
To get to your specifics.
Yes, Carlson looked bad on some facts, but SRM looked bad in his own ways. TC's fundamental issue goes unanswered: the British empire crumbled after the world wars, and despite some decent ups (Thatcher and Blair and others), it has mostly been a down trend line for the British standard of living post-WWII. Most recently demonstrated by how their politics have been absolutely paralyzed for about a decade driven by the simple fact that GILT investors (foreigners!) constrain what their government can do.
So what exactly did the British people gain for sacrificing tens of thousands of their young sons? TC is essentially correct that they are not a sovereign in any meaningful sense: they cannot defend themselves and instead rely on the presence of American troops on their land to deter aggression from others. This is a fair and salient point. SRM completely avoids responding to it other than to say they'd otherwise be speaking German right now.
TC backed SRM into explicitly defending the killing of women and innocent children at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, SRM even went so far as to claim that the atomic bombings fall within the parameters of Just War Theory . A view widely rejected by the overwhelming vast majority of ethicists and the same Catholic Church out which Just War Theory came out of (Sidenote, I am not condemning dropping the atomic weapons, I would justify it as realpolitik, but only a maniac would make the argument that SRM made regarding women and innocent children in Japan being legitimate military targets. Really shows a lack of respect for life by SRM).
SRM doesn't actually address TCs points, instead resorting to accusing TC of being a nazi-sympathizer. (Sidenote, I get the difficulty in actually discerning what could have otherwise happened in history).
Anyways, if you actually listen to the ideas and worldview that TC and SRM are actually getting at, they go something like this:
TC: entanglement in foreign wars is bad and a nation's young sons and daughters should not be sent off to fight except for the strictest of standards that meet a direct benefit to the people of the country.
SRM: foreign entanglement may be necessary, including for the direct benefit of other nation states as it may prevent our need to fight that enemy at a later date. Our sons and daughters may need to die under this construct.
Here is the rub, the historical evidence is really complicated on the core points both of them are making:
Presumably we agree that:
The following foreign entanglements were unnecessary for the direct benefit of the American people and that Americans needlessly died there:
WWI
Vietnam
Iraq II (as part of the GWOT)
We presumably agree that the following entanglements directly benefitted the USA:
European theater of WWII
Iraq I
Reasonable people can disagree on the following foreign entanglements (for me at least):
Arming of the mujahadeen in Afghanistan (led to the Taliban)
Korea (though I really lean to the unnecessary side of the ledger on this one).
Afghanistan (at least to the extent we were there for nearly 20 years and engaged and tried to nation build).
Looking at that list, I don't think a reasonable person could say that either TC or SRM are absolutely correct here and own the other side. For the good of fighting WWII there is the waste of human life in WWI and Vietnam.
Question number 2 for you: do you actually believe that the women and innocent children of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate military targets under Just War Theory as SRM asserts. I concede you may not understand the relevance of this question, but please humor me. I'm trying to understand where you are coming from.
LOL. This is getting ridiculous.
I started a thread about Tucker Carlson's interview with Jacob Rees-Mogg and said Tucker got his ass kicked.
You responded by asking me about Iran.
I pointed out that Iran had absolutely nothing to do with the interview.
Your response was to ask me about Iran again.
And now, after complaining about my "lot of words," you've written a small dissertation on Iran, WWI, Vietnam, Iraq I, Iraq II, Afghanistan, Korea, the Mujahideen, American interventionism, oil prices, Just War Theory, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I guess the irony of your response is lost on you.
I have an idea. Start your own thread.
Seriously. If you want to debate Iran or American interventionism, start a thread about it. I'll happily participate.
But none of that changes what happened in the interview I actually posted.
And after all these words, you finally concede my point:Quote:
"Yes, Carlson looked bad on some facts."
There we go. That wasn't so hard.
I'll get to the rest of your drivel later.
Are you being obtuse? Do you really not see what these two are really arguing about? Can you not generalize coherent theories or principles from specifics?
The fundamental issues they are grappling with are:
When is it appropriate for the state to call upon its young to risk life and limb? What causes are worthy of that sacrifice? And to a lesser extent, they are debating whether increasing the risk of war is appropriate if there is a chance that the risk will ultimately prevent war.
I'm convinced you haven't watched the interview because you can't possibly be missing the points they are making.
So, let me spell it out for you:
Do you believe that SRM is putting on a "masterclass in dismantling [TCs] positions and arguments" when SRM argues to TC that the women and innocent children of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate military targets under Just War Theory? Did you catch that part of the interview?
Now you're just making stuff up. Rees-Mogg did not say women and innocent children were "legitimate military targets." Those words never came out of his mouth. Those are your words, not his.
What Rees-Mogg argued was that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified under Just War principles. Bowtie pressed him about the innocent civilians killed, including children, and Rees-Mogg continued to defend the bombings. Yet, like the intellectually-dishonest clown you are, you have converted a legitimate and reasonable argument that "the bombing was justified despite civilian deaths" into "women and innocent children were legitimate military targets." Those are very different propositions.
And spare me the "you must not have watched the interview" bull***** I've discussed what they actually said. You're the poster who keeps trying to turn it into something else.
First it was Iran, which wasn't discussed. Then it became my supposed "worldview." Now you're pretending the entire interview was really a philosophical seminar about when governments may send young people to war.
It wasn't for any intellectually honest person who watched.
They argued about Russia, Ukraine, NATO, Salisbury, Britain's defenses, WWII, Hitler, Poland, Hiroshima, and British politics. And on numerous factual and historical points, Tucker got corrected. A bunch. You've already admitted that yourself when you conceded that Tucker "looked bad on some facts." Indeed, we are in agreement.
That's what I called a dismantling.
But for the fourth time, if you want to defend Bowtie's performance in this interview, then defend it.
So far, you've done everything but that.
It is clear you haven't watched it for actual information or with an open mind. Someone told you TC got owned or whatever and you've watched it only to affirm your preconception. My paraphrase of SMR was done in charity because what he said was actually much worse and I believe he would walk it back if given the time to reflect on what he said. Here you go:
TUCKER CARLSON (00:29:03 00:29:08): We also killed tens of thousands of children in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And you're saying that's okay?
SIR JACOB REES-MOGG (00:29:08 00:29:12): I think it was justified. I think the use of nuclear weapons at the end of the Second World War
TUCKER CARLSON (00:29:12 00:29:18): So what you're saying as a Christian is, yes, it is okay to kill children who did nothing wrong.
SIR JACOB REES-MOGG (00:29:18 00:29:19): It was a proportionate response.
TUCKER CARLSON (00:29:19 00:29:21): Do you feel that that is a Christian position?
SIR JACOB REES-MOGG (00:29:21 00:29:24): Yes. I think it meets Aquinas's conditions of a just war.
The killing of women and innocent children in H and N was NOT collateral damage, but rather deliberate targeting. This was not the bombing of some arms factory or military base and some kids playing outside got caught in the damage. There is simply no legitimate worldview in which that act can be characterized as consistent with Christian ethics. I simply do not believe that Jesus would ever sign off on the deliberate, targeted killing AT SCALE of women and innocent children in war, even within the context of ending WWII. If you believe that is consistent with Christianity, by all means, please tell all of us.
********
I honestly don't know how you could have sat through the entire hour of their conversation and not realized the principles they were discussing. If it really went over your head, or if you really allowed the specifics of what they were discussing to distract you from the real points they were making, then you just aren't good at this. You just aren't. If you want to really simplify it, the principle was intervention v. isolationism. TC takes a practical approach and sort of reverse engineers to his principle: from TC's position, given that he as a matter of (justifiable) opinion believes that the British people have been worse off since the great world wars, he comes to the conclusion that interventionism is for the worse. SRM comes at it differently in which he imagines the worst alternative case possible scenario (or at least one worse than what actually happened) and then stakes out the position that intervention was clearly for the best, no matter the ultimate costs. We know from examples of history that they are both right ... and both wrong.
Like seriously, if you really missed this, don't take my word for it. I encourage you to take the transcript of the interview, feed it into your preferred AI, with a simple prompt asking for a summary of the themes and principles discussed in the interview and I guarantee you that the AI will conclude something like isolationism v interventionism, classical liberalism/security conservative v strong isolationist. You'll get bonus points for integrity when you report back that I am right.
You probably also didn't notice that they aren't all that far apart from each other, especially after SRM went to great pains at the end to elaborate on his positions of deterrence through muscular posturing. They are on the same end of the ideological spectrum, they just disagree on how to achieve peace and security. To put this in terms you can understand, one is a Bush 41 Republican and the other is a Pat Buchanan Republican. Sure, there are differences, but they reside in the same zip code.
Given that you missed the point of their conversation (perhaps TC Derangement Syndrome overwhelmed you?), I understand how you would miss that the clear modern day analogue to what they are discussing is Iran and what the west should do there.
Regardless, even if you disagree with everything I have said, this really is an easy and simple question for you to answer. Given what has happened this year, do you still believe that we can contain Iran's nuclear ambitions without putting boots on the ground?
I'm glad we dropped the bomb. Saved a ton of lives, both American and Japanese. To suggest otherwise shows a complete lack of understanding who we were fighting.
DallasBear9902 said:Mothra said:DallasBear9902 said:Mothra said:DallasBear9902 said:Mothra said:DallasBear9902 said:Mothra said:DallasBear9902 said:Mothra said:
If you want to see a masterclass in completely dismantling another person's positions and arguments, watch bowtie's "interview" of Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg. And don't be fooled by the title. It's spin designed at obscuring the total ass-kicking Tucker took at the hands of Rees-Mogg. It was incredible.
Ummm, do you still think we can control Iran and its nuclear ambitions without boots on the ground?
I humbly suggest your worldview should've recalibrated over the past year.
Ummm, what does that have to do with the interview? That answer for those who watched it is: nothing.
Their conversation instead focused on World War II revisionism, Winston Churchill, Russia, and British politics. Iran wasn't discussed.
Odd question. Really odd. I humbly suggest you watch the video that is the subject of the thread before commenting. That way you won't look foolish for bringing up inane and irrelevant points.
You are judging that Carlson was owned based on your worldview. Within that paradigm, your views make sense. I understand your views, simplified, as some sort of Boomer interventionism.
Carlson's views, simplified, in their essence are for nonintervention.
Given you were so adamant on these pages that (a) we could control Iran's nuclear ambitions without boots on the ground, (b) our total failure to do so after implementing your preferred military strategy, and (c) Democrats are about to win races that it would have been unthinkable for them to win at the beginning of this year in large part due to what the Iran conflict has done to oil prices and diesel, in particular…
Perhaps you have reconsidered your worldview about interventionism around the world.
That you think this Brit dude owned Carlson tells us you haven't reconsidered your views and that you seem to still academically not understand what Carlson is saying (even if you disagree with Carlson).
LOL. This is quite a retreat.
I posted about Tucker Carlson's interview with Jacob Rees-Mogg and said Rees-Mogg dismantled him. You responded by asking me about Iran, a subject that wasn't even discussed in the interview, as I pointed out.
And your response is to write several more paragraphs about Iran? LOL. That's called changing the subject and attacking a straw man.
If I've actually said that air strikes can permanently prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, quote me saying it. Otherwise stop inventing arguments for me because they're easier to attack than the one I actually made.
Now, back to Tucker.
Tucker confidently told Rees-Mogg that Russia has a "much larger economy" than Britain. Rees-Mogg corrected him. The IMF has Britain at about $4.26 trillion and Russia at $2.66 trillion in projected 2026 nominal GDP. Tucker was wrong.
Rees-Mogg cited Russian hostile activity in Britain, including Salisbury. The OPCW independently confirmed Britain's identification of the nerve agent, and Britain subsequently conducted an independent public inquiry into the Novichok death.
Tucker then asked why Britain fought World War II, minimized Hitler's invasion of Poland as essentially a territorial dispute arising from Versailles, questioned whether defeating Nazi Germany benefited Britain, and answered "Who cares?" when confronted with German domination as the alternative. Rees-Mogg finally told him he was "verging on defending Hitler."
That's why I said Tucker got owned. Because I actually watched the interview. It was brutal. Apparently, you didn't even watch the interview and ignorantly believe it's about Iran.
You are free to disagree. But try to stick to the subject. Defend Tucker's statements in the interview. Telling me what you imagine my position is on Iran, diesel prices, Democrats and "interventionism" doesn't rehabilitate a single thing he said.
So let's try this again:
What specifically did I say about the Carlson/Rees-Mogg interview that was wrong?
I'll wait.
A lot of words to avoid answering a simple question: Do you still believe we can control Iran's nuclear ambitions without boots on the ground?
Hint: you don't need to understand the relevance or coherence of this rather simple question to answer it. You clearly know that your understanding of relevance is not a prerequisite to answering the question when discussing ideas.
To get to your specifics.
Yes, Carlson looked bad on some facts, but SRM looked bad in his own ways. TC's fundamental issue goes unanswered: the British empire crumbled after the world wars, and despite some decent ups (Thatcher and Blair and others), it has mostly been a down trend line for the British standard of living post-WWII. Most recently demonstrated by how their politics have been absolutely paralyzed for about a decade driven by the simple fact that GILT investors (foreigners!) constrain what their government can do.
So what exactly did the British people gain for sacrificing tens of thousands of their young sons? TC is essentially correct that they are not a sovereign in any meaningful sense: they cannot defend themselves and instead rely on the presence of American troops on their land to deter aggression from others. This is a fair and salient point. SRM completely avoids responding to it other than to say they'd otherwise be speaking German right now.
TC backed SRM into explicitly defending the killing of women and innocent children at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, SRM even went so far as to claim that the atomic bombings fall within the parameters of Just War Theory . A view widely rejected by the overwhelming vast majority of ethicists and the same Catholic Church out which Just War Theory came out of (Sidenote, I am not condemning dropping the atomic weapons, I would justify it as realpolitik, but only a maniac would make the argument that SRM made regarding women and innocent children in Japan being legitimate military targets. Really shows a lack of respect for life by SRM).
SRM doesn't actually address TCs points, instead resorting to accusing TC of being a nazi-sympathizer. (Sidenote, I get the difficulty in actually discerning what could have otherwise happened in history).
Anyways, if you actually listen to the ideas and worldview that TC and SRM are actually getting at, they go something like this:
TC: entanglement in foreign wars is bad and a nation's young sons and daughters should not be sent off to fight except for the strictest of standards that meet a direct benefit to the people of the country.
SRM: foreign entanglement may be necessary, including for the direct benefit of other nation states as it may prevent our need to fight that enemy at a later date. Our sons and daughters may need to die under this construct.
Here is the rub, the historical evidence is really complicated on the core points both of them are making:
Presumably we agree that:
The following foreign entanglements were unnecessary for the direct benefit of the American people and that Americans needlessly died there:
WWI
Vietnam
Iraq II (as part of the GWOT)
We presumably agree that the following entanglements directly benefitted the USA:
European theater of WWII
Iraq I
Reasonable people can disagree on the following foreign entanglements (for me at least):
Arming of the mujahadeen in Afghanistan (led to the Taliban)
Korea (though I really lean to the unnecessary side of the ledger on this one).
Afghanistan (at least to the extent we were there for nearly 20 years and engaged and tried to nation build).
Looking at that list, I don't think a reasonable person could say that either TC or SRM are absolutely correct here and own the other side. For the good of fighting WWII there is the waste of human life in WWI and Vietnam.
Question number 2 for you: do you actually believe that the women and innocent children of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate military targets under Just War Theory as SRM asserts. I concede you may not understand the relevance of this question, but please humor me. I'm trying to understand where you are coming from.
LOL. This is getting ridiculous.
I started a thread about Tucker Carlson's interview with Jacob Rees-Mogg and said Tucker got his ass kicked.
You responded by asking me about Iran.
I pointed out that Iran had absolutely nothing to do with the interview.
Your response was to ask me about Iran again.
And now, after complaining about my "lot of words," you've written a small dissertation on Iran, WWI, Vietnam, Iraq I, Iraq II, Afghanistan, Korea, the Mujahideen, American interventionism, oil prices, Just War Theory, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I guess the irony of your response is lost on you.
I have an idea. Start your own thread.
Seriously. If you want to debate Iran or American interventionism, start a thread about it. I'll happily participate.
But none of that changes what happened in the interview I actually posted.
And after all these words, you finally concede my point:Quote:
"Yes, Carlson looked bad on some facts."
There we go. That wasn't so hard.
I'll get to the rest of your drivel later.
Are you being obtuse? Do you really not see what these two are really arguing about? Can you not generalize coherent theories or principles from specifics?
The fundamental issues they are grappling with are:
When is it appropriate for the state to call upon its young to risk life and limb? What causes are worthy of that sacrifice? And to a lesser extent, they are debating whether increasing the risk of war is appropriate if there is a chance that the risk will ultimately prevent war.
I'm convinced you haven't watched the interview because you can't possibly be missing the points they are making.
So, let me spell it out for you:
Do you believe that SRM is putting on a "masterclass in dismantling [TCs] positions and arguments" when SRM argues to TC that the women and innocent children of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate military targets under Just War Theory? Did you catch that part of the interview?
Now you're just making stuff up. Rees-Mogg did not say women and innocent children were "legitimate military targets." Those words never came out of his mouth. Those are your words, not his.
What Rees-Mogg argued was that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified under Just War principles. Bowtie pressed him about the innocent civilians killed, including children, and Rees-Mogg continued to defend the bombings. Yet, like the intellectually-dishonest clown you are, you have converted a legitimate and reasonable argument that "the bombing was justified despite civilian deaths" into "women and innocent children were legitimate military targets." Those are very different propositions.
And spare me the "you must not have watched the interview" bull***** I've discussed what they actually said. You're the poster who keeps trying to turn it into something else.
First it was Iran, which wasn't discussed. Then it became my supposed "worldview." Now you're pretending the entire interview was really a philosophical seminar about when governments may send young people to war.
It wasn't for any intellectually honest person who watched.
They argued about Russia, Ukraine, NATO, Salisbury, Britain's defenses, WWII, Hitler, Poland, Hiroshima, and British politics. And on numerous factual and historical points, Tucker got corrected. A bunch. You've already admitted that yourself when you conceded that Tucker "looked bad on some facts." Indeed, we are in agreement.
That's what I called a dismantling.
But for the fourth time, if you want to defend Bowtie's performance in this interview, then defend it.
So far, you've done everything but that.
It is clear you haven't watched it for actual information or with an open mind. Someone told you TC got owned or whatever and you've watched it only to affirm your preconception. My paraphrase of SMR was done in charity because what he said was actually much worse and I believe he would walk it back if given the time to reflect on what he said. Here you go:
TUCKER CARLSON (00:29:03 00:29:08): We also killed tens of thousands of children in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And you're saying that's okay?
SIR JACOB REES-MOGG (00:29:08 00:29:12): I think it was justified. I think the use of nuclear weapons at the end of the Second World War
TUCKER CARLSON (00:29:12 00:29:18): So what you're saying as a Christian is, yes, it is okay to kill children who did nothing wrong.
SIR JACOB REES-MOGG (00:29:18 00:29:19): It was a proportionate response.
TUCKER CARLSON (00:29:19 00:29:21): Do you feel that that is a Christian position?
SIR JACOB REES-MOGG (00:29:21 00:29:24): Yes. I think it meets Aquinas's conditions of a just war.
The killing of women and innocent children in H and N was NOT collateral damage, but rather deliberate targeting. This was not the bombing of some arms factory or military base and some kids playing outside got caught in the damage. There is simply no legitimate worldview in which that act can be characterized as consistent with Christian ethics. I simply do not believe that Jesus would ever sign off on the deliberate, targeted killing AT SCALE of women and innocent children in war, even within the context of ending WWII. If you believe that is consistent with Christianity, by all means, please tell all of us.
********
I honestly don't know how you could have sat through the entire hour of their conversation and not realized the principles they were discussing. If it really went over your head, or if you really allowed the specifics of what they were discussing to distract you from the real points they were making, then you just aren't good at this. You just aren't. If you want to really simplify it, the principle was intervention v. isolationism. TC takes a practical approach and sort of reverse engineers to his principle: from TC's position, given that he as a matter of (justifiable) opinion believes that the British people have been worse off since the great world wars, he comes to the conclusion that interventionism is for the worse. SRM comes at it differently in which he imagines the worst alternative case possible scenario (or at least one worse than what actually happened) and then stakes out the position that intervention was clearly for the best, no matter the ultimate costs. We know from examples of history that they are both right ... and both wrong.
Like seriously, if you really missed this, don't take my word for it. I encourage you to take the transcript of the interview, feed it into your preferred AI, with a simple prompt asking for a summary of the themes and principles discussed in the interview and I guarantee you that the AI will conclude something like isolationism v interventionism, classical liberalism/security conservative v strong isolationist. You'll get bonus points for integrity when you report back that I am right.
You probably also didn't notice that they aren't all that far apart from each other, especially after SRM went to great pains at the end to elaborate on his positions of deterrence through muscular posturing. They are on the same end of the ideological spectrum, they just disagree on how to achieve peace and security. To put this in terms you can understand, one is a Bush 41 Republican and the other is a Pat Buchanan Republican. Sure, there are differences, but they reside in the same zip code.
Given that you missed the point of their conversation (perhaps TC Derangement Syndrome overwhelmed you?), I understand how you would miss that the clear modern day analogue to what they are discussing is Iran and what the west should do there.
Regardless, even if you disagree with everything I have said, this really is an easy and simple question for you to answer. Given what has happened this year, do you still believe that we can contain Iran's nuclear ambitions without putting boots on the ground?
LOL. Thank you for posting the transcript that proves exactly what I said and not what you said.
You claimed Rees-Mogg argued that women and innocent children were "legitimate military targets."
So where is that in your transcript?
Nowhere.
Rees-Mogg said the bombings were justified and proportionate under Just War Theory. Tucker then characterized that as saying it was "okay to kill children." Just like I said. And now you've transformed it yet again into Rees-Mogg supposedly declaring those children "legitimate military targets."
He never said that. You did.
And I especially enjoyed the pivot from being caught misrepresenting what he said to another 500 words explaining what the interview was really about, followed, inevitably, by Iran again.
You're an absolute bore.
If you want to discuss Iran, start a thread about Iran. In this one, perhaps begin by accurately representing what people actually said instead of lying.
You're both intellectually dishonest and a clown. It's pointless having a serious discussion with someone who lies about basic, easily verifiable facts and then, when challenged, posts the transcript that proves his own characterization false.
Tempus Edax Rerum said:DallasBear9902 said:Mothra said:DallasBear9902 said:Mothra said:DallasBear9902 said:Mothra said:DallasBear9902 said:Mothra said:DallasBear9902 said:Mothra said:
If you want to see a masterclass in completely dismantling another person's positions and arguments, watch bowtie's "interview" of Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg. And don't be fooled by the title. It's spin designed at obscuring the total ass-kicking Tucker took at the hands of Rees-Mogg. It was incredible.
Ummm, do you still think we can control Iran and its nuclear ambitions without boots on the ground?
I humbly suggest your worldview should've recalibrated over the past year.
Ummm, what does that have to do with the interview? That answer for those who watched it is: nothing.
Their conversation instead focused on World War II revisionism, Winston Churchill, Russia, and British politics. Iran wasn't discussed.
Odd question. Really odd. I humbly suggest you watch the video that is the subject of the thread before commenting. That way you won't look foolish for bringing up inane and irrelevant points.
You are judging that Carlson was owned based on your worldview. Within that paradigm, your views make sense. I understand your views, simplified, as some sort of Boomer interventionism.
Carlson's views, simplified, in their essence are for nonintervention.
Given you were so adamant on these pages that (a) we could control Iran's nuclear ambitions without boots on the ground, (b) our total failure to do so after implementing your preferred military strategy, and (c) Democrats are about to win races that it would have been unthinkable for them to win at the beginning of this year in large part due to what the Iran conflict has done to oil prices and diesel, in particular…
Perhaps you have reconsidered your worldview about interventionism around the world.
That you think this Brit dude owned Carlson tells us you haven't reconsidered your views and that you seem to still academically not understand what Carlson is saying (even if you disagree with Carlson).
LOL. This is quite a retreat.
I posted about Tucker Carlson's interview with Jacob Rees-Mogg and said Rees-Mogg dismantled him. You responded by asking me about Iran, a subject that wasn't even discussed in the interview, as I pointed out.
And your response is to write several more paragraphs about Iran? LOL. That's called changing the subject and attacking a straw man.
If I've actually said that air strikes can permanently prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, quote me saying it. Otherwise stop inventing arguments for me because they're easier to attack than the one I actually made.
Now, back to Tucker.
Tucker confidently told Rees-Mogg that Russia has a "much larger economy" than Britain. Rees-Mogg corrected him. The IMF has Britain at about $4.26 trillion and Russia at $2.66 trillion in projected 2026 nominal GDP. Tucker was wrong.
Rees-Mogg cited Russian hostile activity in Britain, including Salisbury. The OPCW independently confirmed Britain's identification of the nerve agent, and Britain subsequently conducted an independent public inquiry into the Novichok death.
Tucker then asked why Britain fought World War II, minimized Hitler's invasion of Poland as essentially a territorial dispute arising from Versailles, questioned whether defeating Nazi Germany benefited Britain, and answered "Who cares?" when confronted with German domination as the alternative. Rees-Mogg finally told him he was "verging on defending Hitler."
That's why I said Tucker got owned. Because I actually watched the interview. It was brutal. Apparently, you didn't even watch the interview and ignorantly believe it's about Iran.
You are free to disagree. But try to stick to the subject. Defend Tucker's statements in the interview. Telling me what you imagine my position is on Iran, diesel prices, Democrats and "interventionism" doesn't rehabilitate a single thing he said.
So let's try this again:
What specifically did I say about the Carlson/Rees-Mogg interview that was wrong?
I'll wait.
A lot of words to avoid answering a simple question: Do you still believe we can control Iran's nuclear ambitions without boots on the ground?
Hint: you don't need to understand the relevance or coherence of this rather simple question to answer it. You clearly know that your understanding of relevance is not a prerequisite to answering the question when discussing ideas.
To get to your specifics.
Yes, Carlson looked bad on some facts, but SRM looked bad in his own ways. TC's fundamental issue goes unanswered: the British empire crumbled after the world wars, and despite some decent ups (Thatcher and Blair and others), it has mostly been a down trend line for the British standard of living post-WWII. Most recently demonstrated by how their politics have been absolutely paralyzed for about a decade driven by the simple fact that GILT investors (foreigners!) constrain what their government can do.
So what exactly did the British people gain for sacrificing tens of thousands of their young sons? TC is essentially correct that they are not a sovereign in any meaningful sense: they cannot defend themselves and instead rely on the presence of American troops on their land to deter aggression from others. This is a fair and salient point. SRM completely avoids responding to it other than to say they'd otherwise be speaking German right now.
TC backed SRM into explicitly defending the killing of women and innocent children at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, SRM even went so far as to claim that the atomic bombings fall within the parameters of Just War Theory . A view widely rejected by the overwhelming vast majority of ethicists and the same Catholic Church out which Just War Theory came out of (Sidenote, I am not condemning dropping the atomic weapons, I would justify it as realpolitik, but only a maniac would make the argument that SRM made regarding women and innocent children in Japan being legitimate military targets. Really shows a lack of respect for life by SRM).
SRM doesn't actually address TCs points, instead resorting to accusing TC of being a nazi-sympathizer. (Sidenote, I get the difficulty in actually discerning what could have otherwise happened in history).
Anyways, if you actually listen to the ideas and worldview that TC and SRM are actually getting at, they go something like this:
TC: entanglement in foreign wars is bad and a nation's young sons and daughters should not be sent off to fight except for the strictest of standards that meet a direct benefit to the people of the country.
SRM: foreign entanglement may be necessary, including for the direct benefit of other nation states as it may prevent our need to fight that enemy at a later date. Our sons and daughters may need to die under this construct.
Here is the rub, the historical evidence is really complicated on the core points both of them are making:
Presumably we agree that:
The following foreign entanglements were unnecessary for the direct benefit of the American people and that Americans needlessly died there:
WWI
Vietnam
Iraq II (as part of the GWOT)
We presumably agree that the following entanglements directly benefitted the USA:
European theater of WWII
Iraq I
Reasonable people can disagree on the following foreign entanglements (for me at least):
Arming of the mujahadeen in Afghanistan (led to the Taliban)
Korea (though I really lean to the unnecessary side of the ledger on this one).
Afghanistan (at least to the extent we were there for nearly 20 years and engaged and tried to nation build).
Looking at that list, I don't think a reasonable person could say that either TC or SRM are absolutely correct here and own the other side. For the good of fighting WWII there is the waste of human life in WWI and Vietnam.
Question number 2 for you: do you actually believe that the women and innocent children of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate military targets under Just War Theory as SRM asserts. I concede you may not understand the relevance of this question, but please humor me. I'm trying to understand where you are coming from.
LOL. This is getting ridiculous.
I started a thread about Tucker Carlson's interview with Jacob Rees-Mogg and said Tucker got his ass kicked.
You responded by asking me about Iran.
I pointed out that Iran had absolutely nothing to do with the interview.
Your response was to ask me about Iran again.
And now, after complaining about my "lot of words," you've written a small dissertation on Iran, WWI, Vietnam, Iraq I, Iraq II, Afghanistan, Korea, the Mujahideen, American interventionism, oil prices, Just War Theory, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I guess the irony of your response is lost on you.
I have an idea. Start your own thread.
Seriously. If you want to debate Iran or American interventionism, start a thread about it. I'll happily participate.
But none of that changes what happened in the interview I actually posted.
And after all these words, you finally concede my point:Quote:
"Yes, Carlson looked bad on some facts."
There we go. That wasn't so hard.
I'll get to the rest of your drivel later.
Are you being obtuse? Do you really not see what these two are really arguing about? Can you not generalize coherent theories or principles from specifics?
The fundamental issues they are grappling with are:
When is it appropriate for the state to call upon its young to risk life and limb? What causes are worthy of that sacrifice? And to a lesser extent, they are debating whether increasing the risk of war is appropriate if there is a chance that the risk will ultimately prevent war.
I'm convinced you haven't watched the interview because you can't possibly be missing the points they are making.
So, let me spell it out for you:
Do you believe that SRM is putting on a "masterclass in dismantling [TCs] positions and arguments" when SRM argues to TC that the women and innocent children of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate military targets under Just War Theory? Did you catch that part of the interview?
Now you're just making stuff up. Rees-Mogg did not say women and innocent children were "legitimate military targets." Those words never came out of his mouth. Those are your words, not his.
What Rees-Mogg argued was that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified under Just War principles. Bowtie pressed him about the innocent civilians killed, including children, and Rees-Mogg continued to defend the bombings. Yet, like the intellectually-dishonest clown you are, you have converted a legitimate and reasonable argument that "the bombing was justified despite civilian deaths" into "women and innocent children were legitimate military targets." Those are very different propositions.
And spare me the "you must not have watched the interview" bull***** I've discussed what they actually said. You're the poster who keeps trying to turn it into something else.
First it was Iran, which wasn't discussed. Then it became my supposed "worldview." Now you're pretending the entire interview was really a philosophical seminar about when governments may send young people to war.
It wasn't for any intellectually honest person who watched.
They argued about Russia, Ukraine, NATO, Salisbury, Britain's defenses, WWII, Hitler, Poland, Hiroshima, and British politics. And on numerous factual and historical points, Tucker got corrected. A bunch. You've already admitted that yourself when you conceded that Tucker "looked bad on some facts." Indeed, we are in agreement.
That's what I called a dismantling.
But for the fourth time, if you want to defend Bowtie's performance in this interview, then defend it.
So far, you've done everything but that.
It is clear you haven't watched it for actual information or with an open mind. Someone told you TC got owned or whatever and you've watched it only to affirm your preconception. My paraphrase of SMR was done in charity because what he said was actually much worse and I believe he would walk it back if given the time to reflect on what he said. Here you go:
TUCKER CARLSON (00:29:03 00:29:08): We also killed tens of thousands of children in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And you're saying that's okay?
SIR JACOB REES-MOGG (00:29:08 00:29:12): I think it was justified. I think the use of nuclear weapons at the end of the Second World War
TUCKER CARLSON (00:29:12 00:29:18): So what you're saying as a Christian is, yes, it is okay to kill children who did nothing wrong.
SIR JACOB REES-MOGG (00:29:18 00:29:19): It was a proportionate response.
TUCKER CARLSON (00:29:19 00:29:21): Do you feel that that is a Christian position?
SIR JACOB REES-MOGG (00:29:21 00:29:24): Yes. I think it meets Aquinas's conditions of a just war.
The killing of women and innocent children in H and N was NOT collateral damage, but rather deliberate targeting. This was not the bombing of some arms factory or military base and some kids playing outside got caught in the damage. There is simply no legitimate worldview in which that act can be characterized as consistent with Christian ethics. I simply do not believe that Jesus would ever sign off on the deliberate, targeted killing AT SCALE of women and innocent children in war, even within the context of ending WWII. If you believe that is consistent with Christianity, by all means, please tell all of us.
********
I honestly don't know how you could have sat through the entire hour of their conversation and not realized the principles they were discussing. If it really went over your head, or if you really allowed the specifics of what they were discussing to distract you from the real points they were making, then you just aren't good at this. You just aren't. If you want to really simplify it, the principle was intervention v. isolationism. TC takes a practical approach and sort of reverse engineers to his principle: from TC's position, given that he as a matter of (justifiable) opinion believes that the British people have been worse off since the great world wars, he comes to the conclusion that interventionism is for the worse. SRM comes at it differently in which he imagines the worst alternative case possible scenario (or at least one worse than what actually happened) and then stakes out the position that intervention was clearly for the best, no matter the ultimate costs. We know from examples of history that they are both right ... and both wrong.
Like seriously, if you really missed this, don't take my word for it. I encourage you to take the transcript of the interview, feed it into your preferred AI, with a simple prompt asking for a summary of the themes and principles discussed in the interview and I guarantee you that the AI will conclude something like isolationism v interventionism, classical liberalism/security conservative v strong isolationist. You'll get bonus points for integrity when you report back that I am right.
You probably also didn't notice that they aren't all that far apart from each other, especially after SRM went to great pains at the end to elaborate on his positions of deterrence through muscular posturing. They are on the same end of the ideological spectrum, they just disagree on how to achieve peace and security. To put this in terms you can understand, one is a Bush 41 Republican and the other is a Pat Buchanan Republican. Sure, there are differences, but they reside in the same zip code.
Given that you missed the point of their conversation (perhaps TC Derangement Syndrome overwhelmed you?), I understand how you would miss that the clear modern day analogue to what they are discussing is Iran and what the west should do there.
Regardless, even if you disagree with everything I have said, this really is an easy and simple question for you to answer. Given what has happened this year, do you still believe that we can contain Iran's nuclear ambitions without putting boots on the ground?
I'm glad we dropped the bomb. Saved a ton of lives, both American and Japanese. To suggest otherwise shows a complete lack of understanding who we were fighting.
Indeed. Saved my grandad's life.
And of course, if there can never be collateral damage, then under his ridiculous theory (which isn't Just War BTW), pretty much no military strike would ever be justified.
His position - like most of his positions - is just utterly absurd. He lives in fantasyland.
Mothra said:
If you want to see a masterclass in completely dismantling another person's positions and arguments, watch bowtie's "interview" of Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg. And don't be fooled by the title. Tucker didn't confront anything. That's mere spin designed at obscuring the total ass-kicking Tucker took at the hands of Rees-Mogg. It was incredible.
I like Tucker, but this wasn't one of this best interviews. He was far too gracious to Rees-Mogg and his canned talking points.
Tempus Edax Rerum said:DallasBear9902 said:Mothra said:DallasBear9902 said:Mothra said:DallasBear9902 said:Mothra said:DallasBear9902 said:Mothra said:DallasBear9902 said:Mothra said:
If you want to see a masterclass in completely dismantling another person's positions and arguments, watch bowtie's "interview" of Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg. And don't be fooled by the title. It's spin designed at obscuring the total ass-kicking Tucker took at the hands of Rees-Mogg. It was incredible.
Ummm, do you still think we can control Iran and its nuclear ambitions without boots on the ground?
I humbly suggest your worldview should've recalibrated over the past year.
Ummm, what does that have to do with the interview? That answer for those who watched it is: nothing.
Their conversation instead focused on World War II revisionism, Winston Churchill, Russia, and British politics. Iran wasn't discussed.
Odd question. Really odd. I humbly suggest you watch the video that is the subject of the thread before commenting. That way you won't look foolish for bringing up inane and irrelevant points.
You are judging that Carlson was owned based on your worldview. Within that paradigm, your views make sense. I understand your views, simplified, as some sort of Boomer interventionism.
Carlson's views, simplified, in their essence are for nonintervention.
Given you were so adamant on these pages that (a) we could control Iran's nuclear ambitions without boots on the ground, (b) our total failure to do so after implementing your preferred military strategy, and (c) Democrats are about to win races that it would have been unthinkable for them to win at the beginning of this year in large part due to what the Iran conflict has done to oil prices and diesel, in particular…
Perhaps you have reconsidered your worldview about interventionism around the world.
That you think this Brit dude owned Carlson tells us you haven't reconsidered your views and that you seem to still academically not understand what Carlson is saying (even if you disagree with Carlson).
LOL. This is quite a retreat.
I posted about Tucker Carlson's interview with Jacob Rees-Mogg and said Rees-Mogg dismantled him. You responded by asking me about Iran, a subject that wasn't even discussed in the interview, as I pointed out.
And your response is to write several more paragraphs about Iran? LOL. That's called changing the subject and attacking a straw man.
If I've actually said that air strikes can permanently prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, quote me saying it. Otherwise stop inventing arguments for me because they're easier to attack than the one I actually made.
Now, back to Tucker.
Tucker confidently told Rees-Mogg that Russia has a "much larger economy" than Britain. Rees-Mogg corrected him. The IMF has Britain at about $4.26 trillion and Russia at $2.66 trillion in projected 2026 nominal GDP. Tucker was wrong.
Rees-Mogg cited Russian hostile activity in Britain, including Salisbury. The OPCW independently confirmed Britain's identification of the nerve agent, and Britain subsequently conducted an independent public inquiry into the Novichok death.
Tucker then asked why Britain fought World War II, minimized Hitler's invasion of Poland as essentially a territorial dispute arising from Versailles, questioned whether defeating Nazi Germany benefited Britain, and answered "Who cares?" when confronted with German domination as the alternative. Rees-Mogg finally told him he was "verging on defending Hitler."
That's why I said Tucker got owned. Because I actually watched the interview. It was brutal. Apparently, you didn't even watch the interview and ignorantly believe it's about Iran.
You are free to disagree. But try to stick to the subject. Defend Tucker's statements in the interview. Telling me what you imagine my position is on Iran, diesel prices, Democrats and "interventionism" doesn't rehabilitate a single thing he said.
So let's try this again:
What specifically did I say about the Carlson/Rees-Mogg interview that was wrong?
I'll wait.
A lot of words to avoid answering a simple question: Do you still believe we can control Iran's nuclear ambitions without boots on the ground?
Hint: you don't need to understand the relevance or coherence of this rather simple question to answer it. You clearly know that your understanding of relevance is not a prerequisite to answering the question when discussing ideas.
To get to your specifics.
Yes, Carlson looked bad on some facts, but SRM looked bad in his own ways. TC's fundamental issue goes unanswered: the British empire crumbled after the world wars, and despite some decent ups (Thatcher and Blair and others), it has mostly been a down trend line for the British standard of living post-WWII. Most recently demonstrated by how their politics have been absolutely paralyzed for about a decade driven by the simple fact that GILT investors (foreigners!) constrain what their government can do.
So what exactly did the British people gain for sacrificing tens of thousands of their young sons? TC is essentially correct that they are not a sovereign in any meaningful sense: they cannot defend themselves and instead rely on the presence of American troops on their land to deter aggression from others. This is a fair and salient point. SRM completely avoids responding to it other than to say they'd otherwise be speaking German right now.
TC backed SRM into explicitly defending the killing of women and innocent children at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, SRM even went so far as to claim that the atomic bombings fall within the parameters of Just War Theory . A view widely rejected by the overwhelming vast majority of ethicists and the same Catholic Church out which Just War Theory came out of (Sidenote, I am not condemning dropping the atomic weapons, I would justify it as realpolitik, but only a maniac would make the argument that SRM made regarding women and innocent children in Japan being legitimate military targets. Really shows a lack of respect for life by SRM).
SRM doesn't actually address TCs points, instead resorting to accusing TC of being a nazi-sympathizer. (Sidenote, I get the difficulty in actually discerning what could have otherwise happened in history).
Anyways, if you actually listen to the ideas and worldview that TC and SRM are actually getting at, they go something like this:
TC: entanglement in foreign wars is bad and a nation's young sons and daughters should not be sent off to fight except for the strictest of standards that meet a direct benefit to the people of the country.
SRM: foreign entanglement may be necessary, including for the direct benefit of other nation states as it may prevent our need to fight that enemy at a later date. Our sons and daughters may need to die under this construct.
Here is the rub, the historical evidence is really complicated on the core points both of them are making:
Presumably we agree that:
The following foreign entanglements were unnecessary for the direct benefit of the American people and that Americans needlessly died there:
WWI
Vietnam
Iraq II (as part of the GWOT)
We presumably agree that the following entanglements directly benefitted the USA:
European theater of WWII
Iraq I
Reasonable people can disagree on the following foreign entanglements (for me at least):
Arming of the mujahadeen in Afghanistan (led to the Taliban)
Korea (though I really lean to the unnecessary side of the ledger on this one).
Afghanistan (at least to the extent we were there for nearly 20 years and engaged and tried to nation build).
Looking at that list, I don't think a reasonable person could say that either TC or SRM are absolutely correct here and own the other side. For the good of fighting WWII there is the waste of human life in WWI and Vietnam.
Question number 2 for you: do you actually believe that the women and innocent children of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate military targets under Just War Theory as SRM asserts. I concede you may not understand the relevance of this question, but please humor me. I'm trying to understand where you are coming from.
LOL. This is getting ridiculous.
I started a thread about Tucker Carlson's interview with Jacob Rees-Mogg and said Tucker got his ass kicked.
You responded by asking me about Iran.
I pointed out that Iran had absolutely nothing to do with the interview.
Your response was to ask me about Iran again.
And now, after complaining about my "lot of words," you've written a small dissertation on Iran, WWI, Vietnam, Iraq I, Iraq II, Afghanistan, Korea, the Mujahideen, American interventionism, oil prices, Just War Theory, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I guess the irony of your response is lost on you.
I have an idea. Start your own thread.
Seriously. If you want to debate Iran or American interventionism, start a thread about it. I'll happily participate.
But none of that changes what happened in the interview I actually posted.
And after all these words, you finally concede my point:Quote:
"Yes, Carlson looked bad on some facts."
There we go. That wasn't so hard.
I'll get to the rest of your drivel later.
Are you being obtuse? Do you really not see what these two are really arguing about? Can you not generalize coherent theories or principles from specifics?
The fundamental issues they are grappling with are:
When is it appropriate for the state to call upon its young to risk life and limb? What causes are worthy of that sacrifice? And to a lesser extent, they are debating whether increasing the risk of war is appropriate if there is a chance that the risk will ultimately prevent war.
I'm convinced you haven't watched the interview because you can't possibly be missing the points they are making.
So, let me spell it out for you:
Do you believe that SRM is putting on a "masterclass in dismantling [TCs] positions and arguments" when SRM argues to TC that the women and innocent children of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate military targets under Just War Theory? Did you catch that part of the interview?
Now you're just making stuff up. Rees-Mogg did not say women and innocent children were "legitimate military targets." Those words never came out of his mouth. Those are your words, not his.
What Rees-Mogg argued was that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified under Just War principles. Bowtie pressed him about the innocent civilians killed, including children, and Rees-Mogg continued to defend the bombings. Yet, like the intellectually-dishonest clown you are, you have converted a legitimate and reasonable argument that "the bombing was justified despite civilian deaths" into "women and innocent children were legitimate military targets." Those are very different propositions.
And spare me the "you must not have watched the interview" bull***** I've discussed what they actually said. You're the poster who keeps trying to turn it into something else.
First it was Iran, which wasn't discussed. Then it became my supposed "worldview." Now you're pretending the entire interview was really a philosophical seminar about when governments may send young people to war.
It wasn't for any intellectually honest person who watched.
They argued about Russia, Ukraine, NATO, Salisbury, Britain's defenses, WWII, Hitler, Poland, Hiroshima, and British politics. And on numerous factual and historical points, Tucker got corrected. A bunch. You've already admitted that yourself when you conceded that Tucker "looked bad on some facts." Indeed, we are in agreement.
That's what I called a dismantling.
But for the fourth time, if you want to defend Bowtie's performance in this interview, then defend it.
So far, you've done everything but that.
It is clear you haven't watched it for actual information or with an open mind. Someone told you TC got owned or whatever and you've watched it only to affirm your preconception. My paraphrase of SMR was done in charity because what he said was actually much worse and I believe he would walk it back if given the time to reflect on what he said. Here you go:
TUCKER CARLSON (00:29:03 00:29:08): We also killed tens of thousands of children in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And you're saying that's okay?
SIR JACOB REES-MOGG (00:29:08 00:29:12): I think it was justified. I think the use of nuclear weapons at the end of the Second World War
TUCKER CARLSON (00:29:12 00:29:18): So what you're saying as a Christian is, yes, it is okay to kill children who did nothing wrong.
SIR JACOB REES-MOGG (00:29:18 00:29:19): It was a proportionate response.
TUCKER CARLSON (00:29:19 00:29:21): Do you feel that that is a Christian position?
SIR JACOB REES-MOGG (00:29:21 00:29:24): Yes. I think it meets Aquinas's conditions of a just war.
The killing of women and innocent children in H and N was NOT collateral damage, but rather deliberate targeting. This was not the bombing of some arms factory or military base and some kids playing outside got caught in the damage. There is simply no legitimate worldview in which that act can be characterized as consistent with Christian ethics. I simply do not believe that Jesus would ever sign off on the deliberate, targeted killing AT SCALE of women and innocent children in war, even within the context of ending WWII. If you believe that is consistent with Christianity, by all means, please tell all of us.
********
I honestly don't know how you could have sat through the entire hour of their conversation and not realized the principles they were discussing. If it really went over your head, or if you really allowed the specifics of what they were discussing to distract you from the real points they were making, then you just aren't good at this. You just aren't. If you want to really simplify it, the principle was intervention v. isolationism. TC takes a practical approach and sort of reverse engineers to his principle: from TC's position, given that he as a matter of (justifiable) opinion believes that the British people have been worse off since the great world wars, he comes to the conclusion that interventionism is for the worse. SRM comes at it differently in which he imagines the worst alternative case possible scenario (or at least one worse than what actually happened) and then stakes out the position that intervention was clearly for the best, no matter the ultimate costs. We know from examples of history that they are both right ... and both wrong.
Like seriously, if you really missed this, don't take my word for it. I encourage you to take the transcript of the interview, feed it into your preferred AI, with a simple prompt asking for a summary of the themes and principles discussed in the interview and I guarantee you that the AI will conclude something like isolationism v interventionism, classical liberalism/security conservative v strong isolationist. You'll get bonus points for integrity when you report back that I am right.
You probably also didn't notice that they aren't all that far apart from each other, especially after SRM went to great pains at the end to elaborate on his positions of deterrence through muscular posturing. They are on the same end of the ideological spectrum, they just disagree on how to achieve peace and security. To put this in terms you can understand, one is a Bush 41 Republican and the other is a Pat Buchanan Republican. Sure, there are differences, but they reside in the same zip code.
Given that you missed the point of their conversation (perhaps TC Derangement Syndrome overwhelmed you?), I understand how you would miss that the clear modern day analogue to what they are discussing is Iran and what the west should do there.
Regardless, even if you disagree with everything I have said, this really is an easy and simple question for you to answer. Given what has happened this year, do you still believe that we can contain Iran's nuclear ambitions without putting boots on the ground?
I'm glad we dropped the bomb. Saved a ton of lives, both American and Japanese. To suggest otherwise shows a complete lack of understanding who we were fighting.
Who has suggested that the bombs didn't end the war or save lives?
That is a different argument from suggesting that deliberate targeting of women and children is justified under Christian ethics or Just War Theory. Note, I'm not suggesting your position is invalid or immoral (essentially you are making a tribal argument). I think your position is a defensible position to take.
But do you think Jesus would say it was a good thing that women and children were deliberately killed at scale in order to preserve American troops? Do you really think it was proportionate to what Japan had done?
Mothra said:DallasBear9902 said:Mothra said:DallasBear9902 said:Mothra said:DallasBear9902 said:Mothra said:DallasBear9902 said:Mothra said:DallasBear9902 said:Mothra said:
If you want to see a masterclass in completely dismantling another person's positions and arguments, watch bowtie's "interview" of Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg. And don't be fooled by the title. It's spin designed at obscuring the total ass-kicking Tucker took at the hands of Rees-Mogg. It was incredible.
Ummm, do you still think we can control Iran and its nuclear ambitions without boots on the ground?
I humbly suggest your worldview should've recalibrated over the past year.
Ummm, what does that have to do with the interview? That answer for those who watched it is: nothing.
Their conversation instead focused on World War II revisionism, Winston Churchill, Russia, and British politics. Iran wasn't discussed.
Odd question. Really odd. I humbly suggest you watch the video that is the subject of the thread before commenting. That way you won't look foolish for bringing up inane and irrelevant points.
You are judging that Carlson was owned based on your worldview. Within that paradigm, your views make sense. I understand your views, simplified, as some sort of Boomer interventionism.
Carlson's views, simplified, in their essence are for nonintervention.
Given you were so adamant on these pages that (a) we could control Iran's nuclear ambitions without boots on the ground, (b) our total failure to do so after implementing your preferred military strategy, and (c) Democrats are about to win races that it would have been unthinkable for them to win at the beginning of this year in large part due to what the Iran conflict has done to oil prices and diesel, in particular…
Perhaps you have reconsidered your worldview about interventionism around the world.
That you think this Brit dude owned Carlson tells us you haven't reconsidered your views and that you seem to still academically not understand what Carlson is saying (even if you disagree with Carlson).
LOL. This is quite a retreat.
I posted about Tucker Carlson's interview with Jacob Rees-Mogg and said Rees-Mogg dismantled him. You responded by asking me about Iran, a subject that wasn't even discussed in the interview, as I pointed out.
And your response is to write several more paragraphs about Iran? LOL. That's called changing the subject and attacking a straw man.
If I've actually said that air strikes can permanently prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, quote me saying it. Otherwise stop inventing arguments for me because they're easier to attack than the one I actually made.
Now, back to Tucker.
Tucker confidently told Rees-Mogg that Russia has a "much larger economy" than Britain. Rees-Mogg corrected him. The IMF has Britain at about $4.26 trillion and Russia at $2.66 trillion in projected 2026 nominal GDP. Tucker was wrong.
Rees-Mogg cited Russian hostile activity in Britain, including Salisbury. The OPCW independently confirmed Britain's identification of the nerve agent, and Britain subsequently conducted an independent public inquiry into the Novichok death.
Tucker then asked why Britain fought World War II, minimized Hitler's invasion of Poland as essentially a territorial dispute arising from Versailles, questioned whether defeating Nazi Germany benefited Britain, and answered "Who cares?" when confronted with German domination as the alternative. Rees-Mogg finally told him he was "verging on defending Hitler."
That's why I said Tucker got owned. Because I actually watched the interview. It was brutal. Apparently, you didn't even watch the interview and ignorantly believe it's about Iran.
You are free to disagree. But try to stick to the subject. Defend Tucker's statements in the interview. Telling me what you imagine my position is on Iran, diesel prices, Democrats and "interventionism" doesn't rehabilitate a single thing he said.
So let's try this again:
What specifically did I say about the Carlson/Rees-Mogg interview that was wrong?
I'll wait.
A lot of words to avoid answering a simple question: Do you still believe we can control Iran's nuclear ambitions without boots on the ground?
Hint: you don't need to understand the relevance or coherence of this rather simple question to answer it. You clearly know that your understanding of relevance is not a prerequisite to answering the question when discussing ideas.
To get to your specifics.
Yes, Carlson looked bad on some facts, but SRM looked bad in his own ways. TC's fundamental issue goes unanswered: the British empire crumbled after the world wars, and despite some decent ups (Thatcher and Blair and others), it has mostly been a down trend line for the British standard of living post-WWII. Most recently demonstrated by how their politics have been absolutely paralyzed for about a decade driven by the simple fact that GILT investors (foreigners!) constrain what their government can do.
So what exactly did the British people gain for sacrificing tens of thousands of their young sons? TC is essentially correct that they are not a sovereign in any meaningful sense: they cannot defend themselves and instead rely on the presence of American troops on their land to deter aggression from others. This is a fair and salient point. SRM completely avoids responding to it other than to say they'd otherwise be speaking German right now.
TC backed SRM into explicitly defending the killing of women and innocent children at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, SRM even went so far as to claim that the atomic bombings fall within the parameters of Just War Theory . A view widely rejected by the overwhelming vast majority of ethicists and the same Catholic Church out which Just War Theory came out of (Sidenote, I am not condemning dropping the atomic weapons, I would justify it as realpolitik, but only a maniac would make the argument that SRM made regarding women and innocent children in Japan being legitimate military targets. Really shows a lack of respect for life by SRM).
SRM doesn't actually address TCs points, instead resorting to accusing TC of being a nazi-sympathizer. (Sidenote, I get the difficulty in actually discerning what could have otherwise happened in history).
Anyways, if you actually listen to the ideas and worldview that TC and SRM are actually getting at, they go something like this:
TC: entanglement in foreign wars is bad and a nation's young sons and daughters should not be sent off to fight except for the strictest of standards that meet a direct benefit to the people of the country.
SRM: foreign entanglement may be necessary, including for the direct benefit of other nation states as it may prevent our need to fight that enemy at a later date. Our sons and daughters may need to die under this construct.
Here is the rub, the historical evidence is really complicated on the core points both of them are making:
Presumably we agree that:
The following foreign entanglements were unnecessary for the direct benefit of the American people and that Americans needlessly died there:
WWI
Vietnam
Iraq II (as part of the GWOT)
We presumably agree that the following entanglements directly benefitted the USA:
European theater of WWII
Iraq I
Reasonable people can disagree on the following foreign entanglements (for me at least):
Arming of the mujahadeen in Afghanistan (led to the Taliban)
Korea (though I really lean to the unnecessary side of the ledger on this one).
Afghanistan (at least to the extent we were there for nearly 20 years and engaged and tried to nation build).
Looking at that list, I don't think a reasonable person could say that either TC or SRM are absolutely correct here and own the other side. For the good of fighting WWII there is the waste of human life in WWI and Vietnam.
Question number 2 for you: do you actually believe that the women and innocent children of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate military targets under Just War Theory as SRM asserts. I concede you may not understand the relevance of this question, but please humor me. I'm trying to understand where you are coming from.
LOL. This is getting ridiculous.
I started a thread about Tucker Carlson's interview with Jacob Rees-Mogg and said Tucker got his ass kicked.
You responded by asking me about Iran.
I pointed out that Iran had absolutely nothing to do with the interview.
Your response was to ask me about Iran again.
And now, after complaining about my "lot of words," you've written a small dissertation on Iran, WWI, Vietnam, Iraq I, Iraq II, Afghanistan, Korea, the Mujahideen, American interventionism, oil prices, Just War Theory, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I guess the irony of your response is lost on you.
I have an idea. Start your own thread.
Seriously. If you want to debate Iran or American interventionism, start a thread about it. I'll happily participate.
But none of that changes what happened in the interview I actually posted.
And after all these words, you finally concede my point:Quote:
"Yes, Carlson looked bad on some facts."
There we go. That wasn't so hard.
I'll get to the rest of your drivel later.
Are you being obtuse? Do you really not see what these two are really arguing about? Can you not generalize coherent theories or principles from specifics?
The fundamental issues they are grappling with are:
When is it appropriate for the state to call upon its young to risk life and limb? What causes are worthy of that sacrifice? And to a lesser extent, they are debating whether increasing the risk of war is appropriate if there is a chance that the risk will ultimately prevent war.
I'm convinced you haven't watched the interview because you can't possibly be missing the points they are making.
So, let me spell it out for you:
Do you believe that SRM is putting on a "masterclass in dismantling [TCs] positions and arguments" when SRM argues to TC that the women and innocent children of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate military targets under Just War Theory? Did you catch that part of the interview?
Now you're just making stuff up. Rees-Mogg did not say women and innocent children were "legitimate military targets." Those words never came out of his mouth. Those are your words, not his.
What Rees-Mogg argued was that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified under Just War principles. Bowtie pressed him about the innocent civilians killed, including children, and Rees-Mogg continued to defend the bombings. Yet, like the intellectually-dishonest clown you are, you have converted a legitimate and reasonable argument that "the bombing was justified despite civilian deaths" into "women and innocent children were legitimate military targets." Those are very different propositions.
And spare me the "you must not have watched the interview" bull***** I've discussed what they actually said. You're the poster who keeps trying to turn it into something else.
First it was Iran, which wasn't discussed. Then it became my supposed "worldview." Now you're pretending the entire interview was really a philosophical seminar about when governments may send young people to war.
It wasn't for any intellectually honest person who watched.
They argued about Russia, Ukraine, NATO, Salisbury, Britain's defenses, WWII, Hitler, Poland, Hiroshima, and British politics. And on numerous factual and historical points, Tucker got corrected. A bunch. You've already admitted that yourself when you conceded that Tucker "looked bad on some facts." Indeed, we are in agreement.
That's what I called a dismantling.
But for the fourth time, if you want to defend Bowtie's performance in this interview, then defend it.
So far, you've done everything but that.
It is clear you haven't watched it for actual information or with an open mind. Someone told you TC got owned or whatever and you've watched it only to affirm your preconception. My paraphrase of SMR was done in charity because what he said was actually much worse and I believe he would walk it back if given the time to reflect on what he said. Here you go:
TUCKER CARLSON (00:29:03 00:29:08): We also killed tens of thousands of children in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And you're saying that's okay?
SIR JACOB REES-MOGG (00:29:08 00:29:12): I think it was justified. I think the use of nuclear weapons at the end of the Second World War
TUCKER CARLSON (00:29:12 00:29:18): So what you're saying as a Christian is, yes, it is okay to kill children who did nothing wrong.
SIR JACOB REES-MOGG (00:29:18 00:29:19): It was a proportionate response.
TUCKER CARLSON (00:29:19 00:29:21): Do you feel that that is a Christian position?
SIR JACOB REES-MOGG (00:29:21 00:29:24): Yes. I think it meets Aquinas's conditions of a just war.
The killing of women and innocent children in H and N was NOT collateral damage, but rather deliberate targeting. This was not the bombing of some arms factory or military base and some kids playing outside got caught in the damage. There is simply no legitimate worldview in which that act can be characterized as consistent with Christian ethics. I simply do not believe that Jesus would ever sign off on the deliberate, targeted killing AT SCALE of women and innocent children in war, even within the context of ending WWII. If you believe that is consistent with Christianity, by all means, please tell all of us.
********
I honestly don't know how you could have sat through the entire hour of their conversation and not realized the principles they were discussing. If it really went over your head, or if you really allowed the specifics of what they were discussing to distract you from the real points they were making, then you just aren't good at this. You just aren't. If you want to really simplify it, the principle was intervention v. isolationism. TC takes a practical approach and sort of reverse engineers to his principle: from TC's position, given that he as a matter of (justifiable) opinion believes that the British people have been worse off since the great world wars, he comes to the conclusion that interventionism is for the worse. SRM comes at it differently in which he imagines the worst alternative case possible scenario (or at least one worse than what actually happened) and then stakes out the position that intervention was clearly for the best, no matter the ultimate costs. We know from examples of history that they are both right ... and both wrong.
Like seriously, if you really missed this, don't take my word for it. I encourage you to take the transcript of the interview, feed it into your preferred AI, with a simple prompt asking for a summary of the themes and principles discussed in the interview and I guarantee you that the AI will conclude something like isolationism v interventionism, classical liberalism/security conservative v strong isolationist. You'll get bonus points for integrity when you report back that I am right.
You probably also didn't notice that they aren't all that far apart from each other, especially after SRM went to great pains at the end to elaborate on his positions of deterrence through muscular posturing. They are on the same end of the ideological spectrum, they just disagree on how to achieve peace and security. To put this in terms you can understand, one is a Bush 41 Republican and the other is a Pat Buchanan Republican. Sure, there are differences, but they reside in the same zip code.
Given that you missed the point of their conversation (perhaps TC Derangement Syndrome overwhelmed you?), I understand how you would miss that the clear modern day analogue to what they are discussing is Iran and what the west should do there.
Regardless, even if you disagree with everything I have said, this really is an easy and simple question for you to answer. Given what has happened this year, do you still believe that we can contain Iran's nuclear ambitions without putting boots on the ground?
LOL. Thank you for posting the transcript that proves exactly what I said and not what you said.
You claimed Rees-Mogg argued that women and innocent children were "legitimate military targets."
So where is that in your transcript?
Nowhere.
Rees-Mogg said the bombings were justified and proportionate under Just War Theory. Tucker then characterized that as saying it was "okay to kill children." Just like I said. And now you've transformed it yet again into Rees-Mogg supposedly declaring those children "legitimate military targets."
He never said that. You did.
And I especially enjoyed the pivot from being caught misrepresenting what he said to another 500 words explaining what the interview was really about, followed, inevitably, by Iran again.
You're an absolute bore.
If you want to discuss Iran, start a thread about Iran. In this one, perhaps begin by accurately representing what people actually said instead of lying.
You're both intellectually dishonest and a clown. It's pointless having a serious discussion with someone who lies about basic, easily verifiable facts and then, when challenged, posts the transcript that proves his own characterization false.
Okay, now I understand why this is all going over your head:
When responding to TC's question SRM tells you that "killing tens of thousands of children" ... "was justified".
When responding to TC's question SRM tells you that "as a Christian killing children who did nothing wrong" ..."was proportionate".
and then responding to TC's question SRM tells you that the above statements are "a Christian position."
If you read the above and don't understand that SRM it telling you that women and innocent children are legitimate military targets (at least within the context of ending the pacific theater in WWII), then their entire conversation is going to fly 30,000 feet over your head.
So let's stop here and try to build to something.
In your own words, what is your interpretation of what SRM is saying here?
Mothra said:Tempus Edax Rerum said:DallasBear9902 said:Mothra said:DallasBear9902 said:Mothra said:DallasBear9902 said:Mothra said:DallasBear9902 said:Mothra said:DallasBear9902 said:Mothra said:
If you want to see a masterclass in completely dismantling another person's positions and arguments, watch bowtie's "interview" of Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg. And don't be fooled by the title. It's spin designed at obscuring the total ass-kicking Tucker took at the hands of Rees-Mogg. It was incredible.
Ummm, do you still think we can control Iran and its nuclear ambitions without boots on the ground?
I humbly suggest your worldview should've recalibrated over the past year.
Ummm, what does that have to do with the interview? That answer for those who watched it is: nothing.
Their conversation instead focused on World War II revisionism, Winston Churchill, Russia, and British politics. Iran wasn't discussed.
Odd question. Really odd. I humbly suggest you watch the video that is the subject of the thread before commenting. That way you won't look foolish for bringing up inane and irrelevant points.
You are judging that Carlson was owned based on your worldview. Within that paradigm, your views make sense. I understand your views, simplified, as some sort of Boomer interventionism.
Carlson's views, simplified, in their essence are for nonintervention.
Given you were so adamant on these pages that (a) we could control Iran's nuclear ambitions without boots on the ground, (b) our total failure to do so after implementing your preferred military strategy, and (c) Democrats are about to win races that it would have been unthinkable for them to win at the beginning of this year in large part due to what the Iran conflict has done to oil prices and diesel, in particular…
Perhaps you have reconsidered your worldview about interventionism around the world.
That you think this Brit dude owned Carlson tells us you haven't reconsidered your views and that you seem to still academically not understand what Carlson is saying (even if you disagree with Carlson).
LOL. This is quite a retreat.
I posted about Tucker Carlson's interview with Jacob Rees-Mogg and said Rees-Mogg dismantled him. You responded by asking me about Iran, a subject that wasn't even discussed in the interview, as I pointed out.
And your response is to write several more paragraphs about Iran? LOL. That's called changing the subject and attacking a straw man.
If I've actually said that air strikes can permanently prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, quote me saying it. Otherwise stop inventing arguments for me because they're easier to attack than the one I actually made.
Now, back to Tucker.
Tucker confidently told Rees-Mogg that Russia has a "much larger economy" than Britain. Rees-Mogg corrected him. The IMF has Britain at about $4.26 trillion and Russia at $2.66 trillion in projected 2026 nominal GDP. Tucker was wrong.
Rees-Mogg cited Russian hostile activity in Britain, including Salisbury. The OPCW independently confirmed Britain's identification of the nerve agent, and Britain subsequently conducted an independent public inquiry into the Novichok death.
Tucker then asked why Britain fought World War II, minimized Hitler's invasion of Poland as essentially a territorial dispute arising from Versailles, questioned whether defeating Nazi Germany benefited Britain, and answered "Who cares?" when confronted with German domination as the alternative. Rees-Mogg finally told him he was "verging on defending Hitler."
That's why I said Tucker got owned. Because I actually watched the interview. It was brutal. Apparently, you didn't even watch the interview and ignorantly believe it's about Iran.
You are free to disagree. But try to stick to the subject. Defend Tucker's statements in the interview. Telling me what you imagine my position is on Iran, diesel prices, Democrats and "interventionism" doesn't rehabilitate a single thing he said.
So let's try this again:
What specifically did I say about the Carlson/Rees-Mogg interview that was wrong?
I'll wait.
A lot of words to avoid answering a simple question: Do you still believe we can control Iran's nuclear ambitions without boots on the ground?
Hint: you don't need to understand the relevance or coherence of this rather simple question to answer it. You clearly know that your understanding of relevance is not a prerequisite to answering the question when discussing ideas.
To get to your specifics.
Yes, Carlson looked bad on some facts, but SRM looked bad in his own ways. TC's fundamental issue goes unanswered: the British empire crumbled after the world wars, and despite some decent ups (Thatcher and Blair and others), it has mostly been a down trend line for the British standard of living post-WWII. Most recently demonstrated by how their politics have been absolutely paralyzed for about a decade driven by the simple fact that GILT investors (foreigners!) constrain what their government can do.
So what exactly did the British people gain for sacrificing tens of thousands of their young sons? TC is essentially correct that they are not a sovereign in any meaningful sense: they cannot defend themselves and instead rely on the presence of American troops on their land to deter aggression from others. This is a fair and salient point. SRM completely avoids responding to it other than to say they'd otherwise be speaking German right now.
TC backed SRM into explicitly defending the killing of women and innocent children at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, SRM even went so far as to claim that the atomic bombings fall within the parameters of Just War Theory . A view widely rejected by the overwhelming vast majority of ethicists and the same Catholic Church out which Just War Theory came out of (Sidenote, I am not condemning dropping the atomic weapons, I would justify it as realpolitik, but only a maniac would make the argument that SRM made regarding women and innocent children in Japan being legitimate military targets. Really shows a lack of respect for life by SRM).
SRM doesn't actually address TCs points, instead resorting to accusing TC of being a nazi-sympathizer. (Sidenote, I get the difficulty in actually discerning what could have otherwise happened in history).
Anyways, if you actually listen to the ideas and worldview that TC and SRM are actually getting at, they go something like this:
TC: entanglement in foreign wars is bad and a nation's young sons and daughters should not be sent off to fight except for the strictest of standards that meet a direct benefit to the people of the country.
SRM: foreign entanglement may be necessary, including for the direct benefit of other nation states as it may prevent our need to fight that enemy at a later date. Our sons and daughters may need to die under this construct.
Here is the rub, the historical evidence is really complicated on the core points both of them are making:
Presumably we agree that:
The following foreign entanglements were unnecessary for the direct benefit of the American people and that Americans needlessly died there:
WWI
Vietnam
Iraq II (as part of the GWOT)
We presumably agree that the following entanglements directly benefitted the USA:
European theater of WWII
Iraq I
Reasonable people can disagree on the following foreign entanglements (for me at least):
Arming of the mujahadeen in Afghanistan (led to the Taliban)
Korea (though I really lean to the unnecessary side of the ledger on this one).
Afghanistan (at least to the extent we were there for nearly 20 years and engaged and tried to nation build).
Looking at that list, I don't think a reasonable person could say that either TC or SRM are absolutely correct here and own the other side. For the good of fighting WWII there is the waste of human life in WWI and Vietnam.
Question number 2 for you: do you actually believe that the women and innocent children of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate military targets under Just War Theory as SRM asserts. I concede you may not understand the relevance of this question, but please humor me. I'm trying to understand where you are coming from.
LOL. This is getting ridiculous.
I started a thread about Tucker Carlson's interview with Jacob Rees-Mogg and said Tucker got his ass kicked.
You responded by asking me about Iran.
I pointed out that Iran had absolutely nothing to do with the interview.
Your response was to ask me about Iran again.
And now, after complaining about my "lot of words," you've written a small dissertation on Iran, WWI, Vietnam, Iraq I, Iraq II, Afghanistan, Korea, the Mujahideen, American interventionism, oil prices, Just War Theory, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I guess the irony of your response is lost on you.
I have an idea. Start your own thread.
Seriously. If you want to debate Iran or American interventionism, start a thread about it. I'll happily participate.
But none of that changes what happened in the interview I actually posted.
And after all these words, you finally concede my point:Quote:
"Yes, Carlson looked bad on some facts."
There we go. That wasn't so hard.
I'll get to the rest of your drivel later.
Are you being obtuse? Do you really not see what these two are really arguing about? Can you not generalize coherent theories or principles from specifics?
The fundamental issues they are grappling with are:
When is it appropriate for the state to call upon its young to risk life and limb? What causes are worthy of that sacrifice? And to a lesser extent, they are debating whether increasing the risk of war is appropriate if there is a chance that the risk will ultimately prevent war.
I'm convinced you haven't watched the interview because you can't possibly be missing the points they are making.
So, let me spell it out for you:
Do you believe that SRM is putting on a "masterclass in dismantling [TCs] positions and arguments" when SRM argues to TC that the women and innocent children of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate military targets under Just War Theory? Did you catch that part of the interview?
Now you're just making stuff up. Rees-Mogg did not say women and innocent children were "legitimate military targets." Those words never came out of his mouth. Those are your words, not his.
What Rees-Mogg argued was that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified under Just War principles. Bowtie pressed him about the innocent civilians killed, including children, and Rees-Mogg continued to defend the bombings. Yet, like the intellectually-dishonest clown you are, you have converted a legitimate and reasonable argument that "the bombing was justified despite civilian deaths" into "women and innocent children were legitimate military targets." Those are very different propositions.
And spare me the "you must not have watched the interview" bull***** I've discussed what they actually said. You're the poster who keeps trying to turn it into something else.
First it was Iran, which wasn't discussed. Then it became my supposed "worldview." Now you're pretending the entire interview was really a philosophical seminar about when governments may send young people to war.
It wasn't for any intellectually honest person who watched.
They argued about Russia, Ukraine, NATO, Salisbury, Britain's defenses, WWII, Hitler, Poland, Hiroshima, and British politics. And on numerous factual and historical points, Tucker got corrected. A bunch. You've already admitted that yourself when you conceded that Tucker "looked bad on some facts." Indeed, we are in agreement.
That's what I called a dismantling.
But for the fourth time, if you want to defend Bowtie's performance in this interview, then defend it.
So far, you've done everything but that.
It is clear you haven't watched it for actual information or with an open mind. Someone told you TC got owned or whatever and you've watched it only to affirm your preconception. My paraphrase of SMR was done in charity because what he said was actually much worse and I believe he would walk it back if given the time to reflect on what he said. Here you go:
TUCKER CARLSON (00:29:03 00:29:08): We also killed tens of thousands of children in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And you're saying that's okay?
SIR JACOB REES-MOGG (00:29:08 00:29:12): I think it was justified. I think the use of nuclear weapons at the end of the Second World War
TUCKER CARLSON (00:29:12 00:29:18): So what you're saying as a Christian is, yes, it is okay to kill children who did nothing wrong.
SIR JACOB REES-MOGG (00:29:18 00:29:19): It was a proportionate response.
TUCKER CARLSON (00:29:19 00:29:21): Do you feel that that is a Christian position?
SIR JACOB REES-MOGG (00:29:21 00:29:24): Yes. I think it meets Aquinas's conditions of a just war.
The killing of women and innocent children in H and N was NOT collateral damage, but rather deliberate targeting. This was not the bombing of some arms factory or military base and some kids playing outside got caught in the damage. There is simply no legitimate worldview in which that act can be characterized as consistent with Christian ethics. I simply do not believe that Jesus would ever sign off on the deliberate, targeted killing AT SCALE of women and innocent children in war, even within the context of ending WWII. If you believe that is consistent with Christianity, by all means, please tell all of us.
********
I honestly don't know how you could have sat through the entire hour of their conversation and not realized the principles they were discussing. If it really went over your head, or if you really allowed the specifics of what they were discussing to distract you from the real points they were making, then you just aren't good at this. You just aren't. If you want to really simplify it, the principle was intervention v. isolationism. TC takes a practical approach and sort of reverse engineers to his principle: from TC's position, given that he as a matter of (justifiable) opinion believes that the British people have been worse off since the great world wars, he comes to the conclusion that interventionism is for the worse. SRM comes at it differently in which he imagines the worst alternative case possible scenario (or at least one worse than what actually happened) and then stakes out the position that intervention was clearly for the best, no matter the ultimate costs. We know from examples of history that they are both right ... and both wrong.
Like seriously, if you really missed this, don't take my word for it. I encourage you to take the transcript of the interview, feed it into your preferred AI, with a simple prompt asking for a summary of the themes and principles discussed in the interview and I guarantee you that the AI will conclude something like isolationism v interventionism, classical liberalism/security conservative v strong isolationist. You'll get bonus points for integrity when you report back that I am right.
You probably also didn't notice that they aren't all that far apart from each other, especially after SRM went to great pains at the end to elaborate on his positions of deterrence through muscular posturing. They are on the same end of the ideological spectrum, they just disagree on how to achieve peace and security. To put this in terms you can understand, one is a Bush 41 Republican and the other is a Pat Buchanan Republican. Sure, there are differences, but they reside in the same zip code.
Given that you missed the point of their conversation (perhaps TC Derangement Syndrome overwhelmed you?), I understand how you would miss that the clear modern day analogue to what they are discussing is Iran and what the west should do there.
Regardless, even if you disagree with everything I have said, this really is an easy and simple question for you to answer. Given what has happened this year, do you still believe that we can contain Iran's nuclear ambitions without putting boots on the ground?
I'm glad we dropped the bomb. Saved a ton of lives, both American and Japanese. To suggest otherwise shows a complete lack of understanding who we were fighting.
Indeed. Saved my grandad's life.
And of course, if there can never be collateral damage, then under his ridiculous theory (which isn't Just War BTW), pretty much no military strike would ever be justified.
His position - like most of his positions - is just utterly absurd. He lives in fantasyland.
This is bad faith or failure to understand words. I never said there can never be collateral damage. I said what happened to women and children at H and N was NOT collateral damage.
"Collateral damage is a military and civilian term for incidental, unintentional death, injury, or destruction of non-military targets (such as civilians or civilian property) during an operation. The term was coined by military strategist Thomas Schelling in 1961 and became widely used during the Vietnam War."
I don't see how anybody could possibly argue that the killing of women and innocent children at H and N was incidental, unintentional death, or injury during an operation.
Collateral damage is tragic and regrettable but part of the nature of war. If you are crazy enough to argue that the women and children of H and N were just collateral damage, please share with us the logic steps on how you get there.
I'm a little surprised that people watch Tucker and more surprised that they are influenced by him
Realitybites said:Mothra said:
If you want to see a masterclass in completely dismantling another person's positions and arguments, watch bowtie's "interview" of Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg. And don't be fooled by the title. Tucker didn't confront anything. That's mere spin designed at obscuring the total ass-kicking Tucker took at the hands of Rees-Mogg. It was incredible.
I like Tucker, but this wasn't one of this best interviews. He was far too gracious to Rees-Mogg and his canned talking points.
Tucker lacks the intellect and moral decency to counter a much smarter man's position.
Mothra said:Tempus Edax Rerum said:DallasBear9902 said:Mothra said:DallasBear9902 said:Mothra said:DallasBear9902 said:Mothra said:DallasBear9902 said:Mothra said:DallasBear9902 said:Mothra said:
If you want to see a masterclass in completely dismantling another person's positions and arguments, watch bowtie's "interview" of Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg. And don't be fooled by the title. It's spin designed at obscuring the total ass-kicking Tucker took at the hands of Rees-Mogg. It was incredible.
Ummm, do you still think we can control Iran and its nuclear ambitions without boots on the ground?
I humbly suggest your worldview should've recalibrated over the past year.
Ummm, what does that have to do with the interview? That answer for those who watched it is: nothing.
Their conversation instead focused on World War II revisionism, Winston Churchill, Russia, and British politics. Iran wasn't discussed.
Odd question. Really odd. I humbly suggest you watch the video that is the subject of the thread before commenting. That way you won't look foolish for bringing up inane and irrelevant points.
You are judging that Carlson was owned based on your worldview. Within that paradigm, your views make sense. I understand your views, simplified, as some sort of Boomer interventionism.
Carlson's views, simplified, in their essence are for nonintervention.
Given you were so adamant on these pages that (a) we could control Iran's nuclear ambitions without boots on the ground, (b) our total failure to do so after implementing your preferred military strategy, and (c) Democrats are about to win races that it would have been unthinkable for them to win at the beginning of this year in large part due to what the Iran conflict has done to oil prices and diesel, in particular…
Perhaps you have reconsidered your worldview about interventionism around the world.
That you think this Brit dude owned Carlson tells us you haven't reconsidered your views and that you seem to still academically not understand what Carlson is saying (even if you disagree with Carlson).
LOL. This is quite a retreat.
I posted about Tucker Carlson's interview with Jacob Rees-Mogg and said Rees-Mogg dismantled him. You responded by asking me about Iran, a subject that wasn't even discussed in the interview, as I pointed out.
And your response is to write several more paragraphs about Iran? LOL. That's called changing the subject and attacking a straw man.
If I've actually said that air strikes can permanently prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, quote me saying it. Otherwise stop inventing arguments for me because they're easier to attack than the one I actually made.
Now, back to Tucker.
Tucker confidently told Rees-Mogg that Russia has a "much larger economy" than Britain. Rees-Mogg corrected him. The IMF has Britain at about $4.26 trillion and Russia at $2.66 trillion in projected 2026 nominal GDP. Tucker was wrong.
Rees-Mogg cited Russian hostile activity in Britain, including Salisbury. The OPCW independently confirmed Britain's identification of the nerve agent, and Britain subsequently conducted an independent public inquiry into the Novichok death.
Tucker then asked why Britain fought World War II, minimized Hitler's invasion of Poland as essentially a territorial dispute arising from Versailles, questioned whether defeating Nazi Germany benefited Britain, and answered "Who cares?" when confronted with German domination as the alternative. Rees-Mogg finally told him he was "verging on defending Hitler."
That's why I said Tucker got owned. Because I actually watched the interview. It was brutal. Apparently, you didn't even watch the interview and ignorantly believe it's about Iran.
You are free to disagree. But try to stick to the subject. Defend Tucker's statements in the interview. Telling me what you imagine my position is on Iran, diesel prices, Democrats and "interventionism" doesn't rehabilitate a single thing he said.
So let's try this again:
What specifically did I say about the Carlson/Rees-Mogg interview that was wrong?
I'll wait.
A lot of words to avoid answering a simple question: Do you still believe we can control Iran's nuclear ambitions without boots on the ground?
Hint: you don't need to understand the relevance or coherence of this rather simple question to answer it. You clearly know that your understanding of relevance is not a prerequisite to answering the question when discussing ideas.
To get to your specifics.
Yes, Carlson looked bad on some facts, but SRM looked bad in his own ways. TC's fundamental issue goes unanswered: the British empire crumbled after the world wars, and despite some decent ups (Thatcher and Blair and others), it has mostly been a down trend line for the British standard of living post-WWII. Most recently demonstrated by how their politics have been absolutely paralyzed for about a decade driven by the simple fact that GILT investors (foreigners!) constrain what their government can do.
So what exactly did the British people gain for sacrificing tens of thousands of their young sons? TC is essentially correct that they are not a sovereign in any meaningful sense: they cannot defend themselves and instead rely on the presence of American troops on their land to deter aggression from others. This is a fair and salient point. SRM completely avoids responding to it other than to say they'd otherwise be speaking German right now.
TC backed SRM into explicitly defending the killing of women and innocent children at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, SRM even went so far as to claim that the atomic bombings fall within the parameters of Just War Theory . A view widely rejected by the overwhelming vast majority of ethicists and the same Catholic Church out which Just War Theory came out of (Sidenote, I am not condemning dropping the atomic weapons, I would justify it as realpolitik, but only a maniac would make the argument that SRM made regarding women and innocent children in Japan being legitimate military targets. Really shows a lack of respect for life by SRM).
SRM doesn't actually address TCs points, instead resorting to accusing TC of being a nazi-sympathizer. (Sidenote, I get the difficulty in actually discerning what could have otherwise happened in history).
Anyways, if you actually listen to the ideas and worldview that TC and SRM are actually getting at, they go something like this:
TC: entanglement in foreign wars is bad and a nation's young sons and daughters should not be sent off to fight except for the strictest of standards that meet a direct benefit to the people of the country.
SRM: foreign entanglement may be necessary, including for the direct benefit of other nation states as it may prevent our need to fight that enemy at a later date. Our sons and daughters may need to die under this construct.
Here is the rub, the historical evidence is really complicated on the core points both of them are making:
Presumably we agree that:
The following foreign entanglements were unnecessary for the direct benefit of the American people and that Americans needlessly died there:
WWI
Vietnam
Iraq II (as part of the GWOT)
We presumably agree that the following entanglements directly benefitted the USA:
European theater of WWII
Iraq I
Reasonable people can disagree on the following foreign entanglements (for me at least):
Arming of the mujahadeen in Afghanistan (led to the Taliban)
Korea (though I really lean to the unnecessary side of the ledger on this one).
Afghanistan (at least to the extent we were there for nearly 20 years and engaged and tried to nation build).
Looking at that list, I don't think a reasonable person could say that either TC or SRM are absolutely correct here and own the other side. For the good of fighting WWII there is the waste of human life in WWI and Vietnam.
Question number 2 for you: do you actually believe that the women and innocent children of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate military targets under Just War Theory as SRM asserts. I concede you may not understand the relevance of this question, but please humor me. I'm trying to understand where you are coming from.
LOL. This is getting ridiculous.
I started a thread about Tucker Carlson's interview with Jacob Rees-Mogg and said Tucker got his ass kicked.
You responded by asking me about Iran.
I pointed out that Iran had absolutely nothing to do with the interview.
Your response was to ask me about Iran again.
And now, after complaining about my "lot of words," you've written a small dissertation on Iran, WWI, Vietnam, Iraq I, Iraq II, Afghanistan, Korea, the Mujahideen, American interventionism, oil prices, Just War Theory, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I guess the irony of your response is lost on you.
I have an idea. Start your own thread.
Seriously. If you want to debate Iran or American interventionism, start a thread about it. I'll happily participate.
But none of that changes what happened in the interview I actually posted.
And after all these words, you finally concede my point:Quote:
"Yes, Carlson looked bad on some facts."
There we go. That wasn't so hard.
I'll get to the rest of your drivel later.
Are you being obtuse? Do you really not see what these two are really arguing about? Can you not generalize coherent theories or principles from specifics?
The fundamental issues they are grappling with are:
When is it appropriate for the state to call upon its young to risk life and limb? What causes are worthy of that sacrifice? And to a lesser extent, they are debating whether increasing the risk of war is appropriate if there is a chance that the risk will ultimately prevent war.
I'm convinced you haven't watched the interview because you can't possibly be missing the points they are making.
So, let me spell it out for you:
Do you believe that SRM is putting on a "masterclass in dismantling [TCs] positions and arguments" when SRM argues to TC that the women and innocent children of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate military targets under Just War Theory? Did you catch that part of the interview?
Now you're just making stuff up. Rees-Mogg did not say women and innocent children were "legitimate military targets." Those words never came out of his mouth. Those are your words, not his.
What Rees-Mogg argued was that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified under Just War principles. Bowtie pressed him about the innocent civilians killed, including children, and Rees-Mogg continued to defend the bombings. Yet, like the intellectually-dishonest clown you are, you have converted a legitimate and reasonable argument that "the bombing was justified despite civilian deaths" into "women and innocent children were legitimate military targets." Those are very different propositions.
And spare me the "you must not have watched the interview" bull***** I've discussed what they actually said. You're the poster who keeps trying to turn it into something else.
First it was Iran, which wasn't discussed. Then it became my supposed "worldview." Now you're pretending the entire interview was really a philosophical seminar about when governments may send young people to war.
It wasn't for any intellectually honest person who watched.
They argued about Russia, Ukraine, NATO, Salisbury, Britain's defenses, WWII, Hitler, Poland, Hiroshima, and British politics. And on numerous factual and historical points, Tucker got corrected. A bunch. You've already admitted that yourself when you conceded that Tucker "looked bad on some facts." Indeed, we are in agreement.
That's what I called a dismantling.
But for the fourth time, if you want to defend Bowtie's performance in this interview, then defend it.
So far, you've done everything but that.
It is clear you haven't watched it for actual information or with an open mind. Someone told you TC got owned or whatever and you've watched it only to affirm your preconception. My paraphrase of SMR was done in charity because what he said was actually much worse and I believe he would walk it back if given the time to reflect on what he said. Here you go:
TUCKER CARLSON (00:29:03 00:29:08): We also killed tens of thousands of children in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And you're saying that's okay?
SIR JACOB REES-MOGG (00:29:08 00:29:12): I think it was justified. I think the use of nuclear weapons at the end of the Second World War
TUCKER CARLSON (00:29:12 00:29:18): So what you're saying as a Christian is, yes, it is okay to kill children who did nothing wrong.
SIR JACOB REES-MOGG (00:29:18 00:29:19): It was a proportionate response.
TUCKER CARLSON (00:29:19 00:29:21): Do you feel that that is a Christian position?
SIR JACOB REES-MOGG (00:29:21 00:29:24): Yes. I think it meets Aquinas's conditions of a just war.
The killing of women and innocent children in H and N was NOT collateral damage, but rather deliberate targeting. This was not the bombing of some arms factory or military base and some kids playing outside got caught in the damage. There is simply no legitimate worldview in which that act can be characterized as consistent with Christian ethics. I simply do not believe that Jesus would ever sign off on the deliberate, targeted killing AT SCALE of women and innocent children in war, even within the context of ending WWII. If you believe that is consistent with Christianity, by all means, please tell all of us.
********
I honestly don't know how you could have sat through the entire hour of their conversation and not realized the principles they were discussing. If it really went over your head, or if you really allowed the specifics of what they were discussing to distract you from the real points they were making, then you just aren't good at this. You just aren't. If you want to really simplify it, the principle was intervention v. isolationism. TC takes a practical approach and sort of reverse engineers to his principle: from TC's position, given that he as a matter of (justifiable) opinion believes that the British people have been worse off since the great world wars, he comes to the conclusion that interventionism is for the worse. SRM comes at it differently in which he imagines the worst alternative case possible scenario (or at least one worse than what actually happened) and then stakes out the position that intervention was clearly for the best, no matter the ultimate costs. We know from examples of history that they are both right ... and both wrong.
Like seriously, if you really missed this, don't take my word for it. I encourage you to take the transcript of the interview, feed it into your preferred AI, with a simple prompt asking for a summary of the themes and principles discussed in the interview and I guarantee you that the AI will conclude something like isolationism v interventionism, classical liberalism/security conservative v strong isolationist. You'll get bonus points for integrity when you report back that I am right.
You probably also didn't notice that they aren't all that far apart from each other, especially after SRM went to great pains at the end to elaborate on his positions of deterrence through muscular posturing. They are on the same end of the ideological spectrum, they just disagree on how to achieve peace and security. To put this in terms you can understand, one is a Bush 41 Republican and the other is a Pat Buchanan Republican. Sure, there are differences, but they reside in the same zip code.
Given that you missed the point of their conversation (perhaps TC Derangement Syndrome overwhelmed you?), I understand how you would miss that the clear modern day analogue to what they are discussing is Iran and what the west should do there.
Regardless, even if you disagree with everything I have said, this really is an easy and simple question for you to answer. Given what has happened this year, do you still believe that we can contain Iran's nuclear ambitions without putting boots on the ground?
I'm glad we dropped the bomb. Saved a ton of lives, both American and Japanese. To suggest otherwise shows a complete lack of understanding who we were fighting.
Indeed. Saved my grandad's life.
And of course, if there can never be collateral damage, then under his ridiculous theory (which isn't Just War BTW), pretty much no military strike would ever be justified.
His position - like most of his positions - is just utterly absurd. He lives in fantasyland.
The Germans saved your grandfather's life despite him traveling halfway around the world to kill them.
The_barBEARian said:Mothra said:Tempus Edax Rerum said:DallasBear9902 said:Mothra said:DallasBear9902 said:Mothra said:DallasBear9902 said:Mothra said:DallasBear9902 said:Mothra said:DallasBear9902 said:Mothra said:
If you want to see a masterclass in completely dismantling another person's positions and arguments, watch bowtie's "interview" of Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg. And don't be fooled by the title. It's spin designed at obscuring the total ass-kicking Tucker took at the hands of Rees-Mogg. It was incredible.
Ummm, do you still think we can control Iran and its nuclear ambitions without boots on the ground?
I humbly suggest your worldview should've recalibrated over the past year.
Ummm, what does that have to do with the interview? That answer for those who watched it is: nothing.
Their conversation instead focused on World War II revisionism, Winston Churchill, Russia, and British politics. Iran wasn't discussed.
Odd question. Really odd. I humbly suggest you watch the video that is the subject of the thread before commenting. That way you won't look foolish for bringing up inane and irrelevant points.
You are judging that Carlson was owned based on your worldview. Within that paradigm, your views make sense. I understand your views, simplified, as some sort of Boomer interventionism.
Carlson's views, simplified, in their essence are for nonintervention.
Given you were so adamant on these pages that (a) we could control Iran's nuclear ambitions without boots on the ground, (b) our total failure to do so after implementing your preferred military strategy, and (c) Democrats are about to win races that it would have been unthinkable for them to win at the beginning of this year in large part due to what the Iran conflict has done to oil prices and diesel, in particular…
Perhaps you have reconsidered your worldview about interventionism around the world.
That you think this Brit dude owned Carlson tells us you haven't reconsidered your views and that you seem to still academically not understand what Carlson is saying (even if you disagree with Carlson).
LOL. This is quite a retreat.
I posted about Tucker Carlson's interview with Jacob Rees-Mogg and said Rees-Mogg dismantled him. You responded by asking me about Iran, a subject that wasn't even discussed in the interview, as I pointed out.
And your response is to write several more paragraphs about Iran? LOL. That's called changing the subject and attacking a straw man.
If I've actually said that air strikes can permanently prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, quote me saying it. Otherwise stop inventing arguments for me because they're easier to attack than the one I actually made.
Now, back to Tucker.
Tucker confidently told Rees-Mogg that Russia has a "much larger economy" than Britain. Rees-Mogg corrected him. The IMF has Britain at about $4.26 trillion and Russia at $2.66 trillion in projected 2026 nominal GDP. Tucker was wrong.
Rees-Mogg cited Russian hostile activity in Britain, including Salisbury. The OPCW independently confirmed Britain's identification of the nerve agent, and Britain subsequently conducted an independent public inquiry into the Novichok death.
Tucker then asked why Britain fought World War II, minimized Hitler's invasion of Poland as essentially a territorial dispute arising from Versailles, questioned whether defeating Nazi Germany benefited Britain, and answered "Who cares?" when confronted with German domination as the alternative. Rees-Mogg finally told him he was "verging on defending Hitler."
That's why I said Tucker got owned. Because I actually watched the interview. It was brutal. Apparently, you didn't even watch the interview and ignorantly believe it's about Iran.
You are free to disagree. But try to stick to the subject. Defend Tucker's statements in the interview. Telling me what you imagine my position is on Iran, diesel prices, Democrats and "interventionism" doesn't rehabilitate a single thing he said.
So let's try this again:
What specifically did I say about the Carlson/Rees-Mogg interview that was wrong?
I'll wait.
A lot of words to avoid answering a simple question: Do you still believe we can control Iran's nuclear ambitions without boots on the ground?
Hint: you don't need to understand the relevance or coherence of this rather simple question to answer it. You clearly know that your understanding of relevance is not a prerequisite to answering the question when discussing ideas.
To get to your specifics.
Yes, Carlson looked bad on some facts, but SRM looked bad in his own ways. TC's fundamental issue goes unanswered: the British empire crumbled after the world wars, and despite some decent ups (Thatcher and Blair and others), it has mostly been a down trend line for the British standard of living post-WWII. Most recently demonstrated by how their politics have been absolutely paralyzed for about a decade driven by the simple fact that GILT investors (foreigners!) constrain what their government can do.
So what exactly did the British people gain for sacrificing tens of thousands of their young sons? TC is essentially correct that they are not a sovereign in any meaningful sense: they cannot defend themselves and instead rely on the presence of American troops on their land to deter aggression from others. This is a fair and salient point. SRM completely avoids responding to it other than to say they'd otherwise be speaking German right now.
TC backed SRM into explicitly defending the killing of women and innocent children at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, SRM even went so far as to claim that the atomic bombings fall within the parameters of Just War Theory . A view widely rejected by the overwhelming vast majority of ethicists and the same Catholic Church out which Just War Theory came out of (Sidenote, I am not condemning dropping the atomic weapons, I would justify it as realpolitik, but only a maniac would make the argument that SRM made regarding women and innocent children in Japan being legitimate military targets. Really shows a lack of respect for life by SRM).
SRM doesn't actually address TCs points, instead resorting to accusing TC of being a nazi-sympathizer. (Sidenote, I get the difficulty in actually discerning what could have otherwise happened in history).
Anyways, if you actually listen to the ideas and worldview that TC and SRM are actually getting at, they go something like this:
TC: entanglement in foreign wars is bad and a nation's young sons and daughters should not be sent off to fight except for the strictest of standards that meet a direct benefit to the people of the country.
SRM: foreign entanglement may be necessary, including for the direct benefit of other nation states as it may prevent our need to fight that enemy at a later date. Our sons and daughters may need to die under this construct.
Here is the rub, the historical evidence is really complicated on the core points both of them are making:
Presumably we agree that:
The following foreign entanglements were unnecessary for the direct benefit of the American people and that Americans needlessly died there:
WWI
Vietnam
Iraq II (as part of the GWOT)
We presumably agree that the following entanglements directly benefitted the USA:
European theater of WWII
Iraq I
Reasonable people can disagree on the following foreign entanglements (for me at least):
Arming of the mujahadeen in Afghanistan (led to the Taliban)
Korea (though I really lean to the unnecessary side of the ledger on this one).
Afghanistan (at least to the extent we were there for nearly 20 years and engaged and tried to nation build).
Looking at that list, I don't think a reasonable person could say that either TC or SRM are absolutely correct here and own the other side. For the good of fighting WWII there is the waste of human life in WWI and Vietnam.
Question number 2 for you: do you actually believe that the women and innocent children of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate military targets under Just War Theory as SRM asserts. I concede you may not understand the relevance of this question, but please humor me. I'm trying to understand where you are coming from.
LOL. This is getting ridiculous.
I started a thread about Tucker Carlson's interview with Jacob Rees-Mogg and said Tucker got his ass kicked.
You responded by asking me about Iran.
I pointed out that Iran had absolutely nothing to do with the interview.
Your response was to ask me about Iran again.
And now, after complaining about my "lot of words," you've written a small dissertation on Iran, WWI, Vietnam, Iraq I, Iraq II, Afghanistan, Korea, the Mujahideen, American interventionism, oil prices, Just War Theory, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I guess the irony of your response is lost on you.
I have an idea. Start your own thread.
Seriously. If you want to debate Iran or American interventionism, start a thread about it. I'll happily participate.
But none of that changes what happened in the interview I actually posted.
And after all these words, you finally concede my point:Quote:
"Yes, Carlson looked bad on some facts."
There we go. That wasn't so hard.
I'll get to the rest of your drivel later.
Are you being obtuse? Do you really not see what these two are really arguing about? Can you not generalize coherent theories or principles from specifics?
The fundamental issues they are grappling with are:
When is it appropriate for the state to call upon its young to risk life and limb? What causes are worthy of that sacrifice? And to a lesser extent, they are debating whether increasing the risk of war is appropriate if there is a chance that the risk will ultimately prevent war.
I'm convinced you haven't watched the interview because you can't possibly be missing the points they are making.
So, let me spell it out for you:
Do you believe that SRM is putting on a "masterclass in dismantling [TCs] positions and arguments" when SRM argues to TC that the women and innocent children of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate military targets under Just War Theory? Did you catch that part of the interview?
Now you're just making stuff up. Rees-Mogg did not say women and innocent children were "legitimate military targets." Those words never came out of his mouth. Those are your words, not his.
What Rees-Mogg argued was that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified under Just War principles. Bowtie pressed him about the innocent civilians killed, including children, and Rees-Mogg continued to defend the bombings. Yet, like the intellectually-dishonest clown you are, you have converted a legitimate and reasonable argument that "the bombing was justified despite civilian deaths" into "women and innocent children were legitimate military targets." Those are very different propositions.
And spare me the "you must not have watched the interview" bull***** I've discussed what they actually said. You're the poster who keeps trying to turn it into something else.
First it was Iran, which wasn't discussed. Then it became my supposed "worldview." Now you're pretending the entire interview was really a philosophical seminar about when governments may send young people to war.
It wasn't for any intellectually honest person who watched.
They argued about Russia, Ukraine, NATO, Salisbury, Britain's defenses, WWII, Hitler, Poland, Hiroshima, and British politics. And on numerous factual and historical points, Tucker got corrected. A bunch. You've already admitted that yourself when you conceded that Tucker "looked bad on some facts." Indeed, we are in agreement.
That's what I called a dismantling.
But for the fourth time, if you want to defend Bowtie's performance in this interview, then defend it.
So far, you've done everything but that.
It is clear you haven't watched it for actual information or with an open mind. Someone told you TC got owned or whatever and you've watched it only to affirm your preconception. My paraphrase of SMR was done in charity because what he said was actually much worse and I believe he would walk it back if given the time to reflect on what he said. Here you go:
TUCKER CARLSON (00:29:03 00:29:08): We also killed tens of thousands of children in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And you're saying that's okay?
SIR JACOB REES-MOGG (00:29:08 00:29:12): I think it was justified. I think the use of nuclear weapons at the end of the Second World War
TUCKER CARLSON (00:29:12 00:29:18): So what you're saying as a Christian is, yes, it is okay to kill children who did nothing wrong.
SIR JACOB REES-MOGG (00:29:18 00:29:19): It was a proportionate response.
TUCKER CARLSON (00:29:19 00:29:21): Do you feel that that is a Christian position?
SIR JACOB REES-MOGG (00:29:21 00:29:24): Yes. I think it meets Aquinas's conditions of a just war.
The killing of women and innocent children in H and N was NOT collateral damage, but rather deliberate targeting. This was not the bombing of some arms factory or military base and some kids playing outside got caught in the damage. There is simply no legitimate worldview in which that act can be characterized as consistent with Christian ethics. I simply do not believe that Jesus would ever sign off on the deliberate, targeted killing AT SCALE of women and innocent children in war, even within the context of ending WWII. If you believe that is consistent with Christianity, by all means, please tell all of us.
********
I honestly don't know how you could have sat through the entire hour of their conversation and not realized the principles they were discussing. If it really went over your head, or if you really allowed the specifics of what they were discussing to distract you from the real points they were making, then you just aren't good at this. You just aren't. If you want to really simplify it, the principle was intervention v. isolationism. TC takes a practical approach and sort of reverse engineers to his principle: from TC's position, given that he as a matter of (justifiable) opinion believes that the British people have been worse off since the great world wars, he comes to the conclusion that interventionism is for the worse. SRM comes at it differently in which he imagines the worst alternative case possible scenario (or at least one worse than what actually happened) and then stakes out the position that intervention was clearly for the best, no matter the ultimate costs. We know from examples of history that they are both right ... and both wrong.
Like seriously, if you really missed this, don't take my word for it. I encourage you to take the transcript of the interview, feed it into your preferred AI, with a simple prompt asking for a summary of the themes and principles discussed in the interview and I guarantee you that the AI will conclude something like isolationism v interventionism, classical liberalism/security conservative v strong isolationist. You'll get bonus points for integrity when you report back that I am right.
You probably also didn't notice that they aren't all that far apart from each other, especially after SRM went to great pains at the end to elaborate on his positions of deterrence through muscular posturing. They are on the same end of the ideological spectrum, they just disagree on how to achieve peace and security. To put this in terms you can understand, one is a Bush 41 Republican and the other is a Pat Buchanan Republican. Sure, there are differences, but they reside in the same zip code.
Given that you missed the point of their conversation (perhaps TC Derangement Syndrome overwhelmed you?), I understand how you would miss that the clear modern day analogue to what they are discussing is Iran and what the west should do there.
Regardless, even if you disagree with everything I have said, this really is an easy and simple question for you to answer. Given what has happened this year, do you still believe that we can contain Iran's nuclear ambitions without putting boots on the ground?
I'm glad we dropped the bomb. Saved a ton of lives, both American and Japanese. To suggest otherwise shows a complete lack of understanding who we were fighting.
Indeed. Saved my grandad's life.
And of course, if there can never be collateral damage, then under his ridiculous theory (which isn't Just War BTW), pretty much no military strike would ever be justified.
His position - like most of his positions - is just utterly absurd. He lives in fantasyland.
The Germans saved your grandfather's life despite him traveling halfway around the world to kill them.
Those sweet Nazis, so constrained by the Geneva convention. You know you have me convinced. Hitler and the Nazis were great people.
It's a good thing. He wasn't a Jew.
Mothra said:The_barBEARian said:Mothra said:Tempus Edax Rerum said:DallasBear9902 said:Mothra said:DallasBear9902 said:Mothra said:DallasBear9902 said:Mothra said:DallasBear9902 said:Mothra said:DallasBear9902 said:Mothra said:
If you want to see a masterclass in completely dismantling another person's positions and arguments, watch bowtie's "interview" of Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg. And don't be fooled by the title. It's spin designed at obscuring the total ass-kicking Tucker took at the hands of Rees-Mogg. It was incredible.
Ummm, do you still think we can control Iran and its nuclear ambitions without boots on the ground?
I humbly suggest your worldview should've recalibrated over the past year.
Ummm, what does that have to do with the interview? That answer for those who watched it is: nothing.
Their conversation instead focused on World War II revisionism, Winston Churchill, Russia, and British politics. Iran wasn't discussed.
Odd question. Really odd. I humbly suggest you watch the video that is the subject of the thread before commenting. That way you won't look foolish for bringing up inane and irrelevant points.
You are judging that Carlson was owned based on your worldview. Within that paradigm, your views make sense. I understand your views, simplified, as some sort of Boomer interventionism.
Carlson's views, simplified, in their essence are for nonintervention.
Given you were so adamant on these pages that (a) we could control Iran's nuclear ambitions without boots on the ground, (b) our total failure to do so after implementing your preferred military strategy, and (c) Democrats are about to win races that it would have been unthinkable for them to win at the beginning of this year in large part due to what the Iran conflict has done to oil prices and diesel, in particular…
Perhaps you have reconsidered your worldview about interventionism around the world.
That you think this Brit dude owned Carlson tells us you haven't reconsidered your views and that you seem to still academically not understand what Carlson is saying (even if you disagree with Carlson).
LOL. This is quite a retreat.
I posted about Tucker Carlson's interview with Jacob Rees-Mogg and said Rees-Mogg dismantled him. You responded by asking me about Iran, a subject that wasn't even discussed in the interview, as I pointed out.
And your response is to write several more paragraphs about Iran? LOL. That's called changing the subject and attacking a straw man.
If I've actually said that air strikes can permanently prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, quote me saying it. Otherwise stop inventing arguments for me because they're easier to attack than the one I actually made.
Now, back to Tucker.
Tucker confidently told Rees-Mogg that Russia has a "much larger economy" than Britain. Rees-Mogg corrected him. The IMF has Britain at about $4.26 trillion and Russia at $2.66 trillion in projected 2026 nominal GDP. Tucker was wrong.
Rees-Mogg cited Russian hostile activity in Britain, including Salisbury. The OPCW independently confirmed Britain's identification of the nerve agent, and Britain subsequently conducted an independent public inquiry into the Novichok death.
Tucker then asked why Britain fought World War II, minimized Hitler's invasion of Poland as essentially a territorial dispute arising from Versailles, questioned whether defeating Nazi Germany benefited Britain, and answered "Who cares?" when confronted with German domination as the alternative. Rees-Mogg finally told him he was "verging on defending Hitler."
That's why I said Tucker got owned. Because I actually watched the interview. It was brutal. Apparently, you didn't even watch the interview and ignorantly believe it's about Iran.
You are free to disagree. But try to stick to the subject. Defend Tucker's statements in the interview. Telling me what you imagine my position is on Iran, diesel prices, Democrats and "interventionism" doesn't rehabilitate a single thing he said.
So let's try this again:
What specifically did I say about the Carlson/Rees-Mogg interview that was wrong?
I'll wait.
A lot of words to avoid answering a simple question: Do you still believe we can control Iran's nuclear ambitions without boots on the ground?
Hint: you don't need to understand the relevance or coherence of this rather simple question to answer it. You clearly know that your understanding of relevance is not a prerequisite to answering the question when discussing ideas.
To get to your specifics.
Yes, Carlson looked bad on some facts, but SRM looked bad in his own ways. TC's fundamental issue goes unanswered: the British empire crumbled after the world wars, and despite some decent ups (Thatcher and Blair and others), it has mostly been a down trend line for the British standard of living post-WWII. Most recently demonstrated by how their politics have been absolutely paralyzed for about a decade driven by the simple fact that GILT investors (foreigners!) constrain what their government can do.
So what exactly did the British people gain for sacrificing tens of thousands of their young sons? TC is essentially correct that they are not a sovereign in any meaningful sense: they cannot defend themselves and instead rely on the presence of American troops on their land to deter aggression from others. This is a fair and salient point. SRM completely avoids responding to it other than to say they'd otherwise be speaking German right now.
TC backed SRM into explicitly defending the killing of women and innocent children at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, SRM even went so far as to claim that the atomic bombings fall within the parameters of Just War Theory . A view widely rejected by the overwhelming vast majority of ethicists and the same Catholic Church out which Just War Theory came out of (Sidenote, I am not condemning dropping the atomic weapons, I would justify it as realpolitik, but only a maniac would make the argument that SRM made regarding women and innocent children in Japan being legitimate military targets. Really shows a lack of respect for life by SRM).
SRM doesn't actually address TCs points, instead resorting to accusing TC of being a nazi-sympathizer. (Sidenote, I get the difficulty in actually discerning what could have otherwise happened in history).
Anyways, if you actually listen to the ideas and worldview that TC and SRM are actually getting at, they go something like this:
TC: entanglement in foreign wars is bad and a nation's young sons and daughters should not be sent off to fight except for the strictest of standards that meet a direct benefit to the people of the country.
SRM: foreign entanglement may be necessary, including for the direct benefit of other nation states as it may prevent our need to fight that enemy at a later date. Our sons and daughters may need to die under this construct.
Here is the rub, the historical evidence is really complicated on the core points both of them are making:
Presumably we agree that:
The following foreign entanglements were unnecessary for the direct benefit of the American people and that Americans needlessly died there:
WWI
Vietnam
Iraq II (as part of the GWOT)
We presumably agree that the following entanglements directly benefitted the USA:
European theater of WWII
Iraq I
Reasonable people can disagree on the following foreign entanglements (for me at least):
Arming of the mujahadeen in Afghanistan (led to the Taliban)
Korea (though I really lean to the unnecessary side of the ledger on this one).
Afghanistan (at least to the extent we were there for nearly 20 years and engaged and tried to nation build).
Looking at that list, I don't think a reasonable person could say that either TC or SRM are absolutely correct here and own the other side. For the good of fighting WWII there is the waste of human life in WWI and Vietnam.
Question number 2 for you: do you actually believe that the women and innocent children of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate military targets under Just War Theory as SRM asserts. I concede you may not understand the relevance of this question, but please humor me. I'm trying to understand where you are coming from.
LOL. This is getting ridiculous.
I started a thread about Tucker Carlson's interview with Jacob Rees-Mogg and said Tucker got his ass kicked.
You responded by asking me about Iran.
I pointed out that Iran had absolutely nothing to do with the interview.
Your response was to ask me about Iran again.
And now, after complaining about my "lot of words," you've written a small dissertation on Iran, WWI, Vietnam, Iraq I, Iraq II, Afghanistan, Korea, the Mujahideen, American interventionism, oil prices, Just War Theory, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I guess the irony of your response is lost on you.
I have an idea. Start your own thread.
Seriously. If you want to debate Iran or American interventionism, start a thread about it. I'll happily participate.
But none of that changes what happened in the interview I actually posted.
And after all these words, you finally concede my point:Quote:
"Yes, Carlson looked bad on some facts."
There we go. That wasn't so hard.
I'll get to the rest of your drivel later.
Are you being obtuse? Do you really not see what these two are really arguing about? Can you not generalize coherent theories or principles from specifics?
The fundamental issues they are grappling with are:
When is it appropriate for the state to call upon its young to risk life and limb? What causes are worthy of that sacrifice? And to a lesser extent, they are debating whether increasing the risk of war is appropriate if there is a chance that the risk will ultimately prevent war.
I'm convinced you haven't watched the interview because you can't possibly be missing the points they are making.
So, let me spell it out for you:
Do you believe that SRM is putting on a "masterclass in dismantling [TCs] positions and arguments" when SRM argues to TC that the women and innocent children of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate military targets under Just War Theory? Did you catch that part of the interview?
Now you're just making stuff up. Rees-Mogg did not say women and innocent children were "legitimate military targets." Those words never came out of his mouth. Those are your words, not his.
What Rees-Mogg argued was that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified under Just War principles. Bowtie pressed him about the innocent civilians killed, including children, and Rees-Mogg continued to defend the bombings. Yet, like the intellectually-dishonest clown you are, you have converted a legitimate and reasonable argument that "the bombing was justified despite civilian deaths" into "women and innocent children were legitimate military targets." Those are very different propositions.
And spare me the "you must not have watched the interview" bull***** I've discussed what they actually said. You're the poster who keeps trying to turn it into something else.
First it was Iran, which wasn't discussed. Then it became my supposed "worldview." Now you're pretending the entire interview was really a philosophical seminar about when governments may send young people to war.
It wasn't for any intellectually honest person who watched.
They argued about Russia, Ukraine, NATO, Salisbury, Britain's defenses, WWII, Hitler, Poland, Hiroshima, and British politics. And on numerous factual and historical points, Tucker got corrected. A bunch. You've already admitted that yourself when you conceded that Tucker "looked bad on some facts." Indeed, we are in agreement.
That's what I called a dismantling.
But for the fourth time, if you want to defend Bowtie's performance in this interview, then defend it.
So far, you've done everything but that.
It is clear you haven't watched it for actual information or with an open mind. Someone told you TC got owned or whatever and you've watched it only to affirm your preconception. My paraphrase of SMR was done in charity because what he said was actually much worse and I believe he would walk it back if given the time to reflect on what he said. Here you go:
TUCKER CARLSON (00:29:03 00:29:08): We also killed tens of thousands of children in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And you're saying that's okay?
SIR JACOB REES-MOGG (00:29:08 00:29:12): I think it was justified. I think the use of nuclear weapons at the end of the Second World War
TUCKER CARLSON (00:29:12 00:29:18): So what you're saying as a Christian is, yes, it is okay to kill children who did nothing wrong.
SIR JACOB REES-MOGG (00:29:18 00:29:19): It was a proportionate response.
TUCKER CARLSON (00:29:19 00:29:21): Do you feel that that is a Christian position?
SIR JACOB REES-MOGG (00:29:21 00:29:24): Yes. I think it meets Aquinas's conditions of a just war.
The killing of women and innocent children in H and N was NOT collateral damage, but rather deliberate targeting. This was not the bombing of some arms factory or military base and some kids playing outside got caught in the damage. There is simply no legitimate worldview in which that act can be characterized as consistent with Christian ethics. I simply do not believe that Jesus would ever sign off on the deliberate, targeted killing AT SCALE of women and innocent children in war, even within the context of ending WWII. If you believe that is consistent with Christianity, by all means, please tell all of us.
********
I honestly don't know how you could have sat through the entire hour of their conversation and not realized the principles they were discussing. If it really went over your head, or if you really allowed the specifics of what they were discussing to distract you from the real points they were making, then you just aren't good at this. You just aren't. If you want to really simplify it, the principle was intervention v. isolationism. TC takes a practical approach and sort of reverse engineers to his principle: from TC's position, given that he as a matter of (justifiable) opinion believes that the British people have been worse off since the great world wars, he comes to the conclusion that interventionism is for the worse. SRM comes at it differently in which he imagines the worst alternative case possible scenario (or at least one worse than what actually happened) and then stakes out the position that intervention was clearly for the best, no matter the ultimate costs. We know from examples of history that they are both right ... and both wrong.
Like seriously, if you really missed this, don't take my word for it. I encourage you to take the transcript of the interview, feed it into your preferred AI, with a simple prompt asking for a summary of the themes and principles discussed in the interview and I guarantee you that the AI will conclude something like isolationism v interventionism, classical liberalism/security conservative v strong isolationist. You'll get bonus points for integrity when you report back that I am right.
You probably also didn't notice that they aren't all that far apart from each other, especially after SRM went to great pains at the end to elaborate on his positions of deterrence through muscular posturing. They are on the same end of the ideological spectrum, they just disagree on how to achieve peace and security. To put this in terms you can understand, one is a Bush 41 Republican and the other is a Pat Buchanan Republican. Sure, there are differences, but they reside in the same zip code.
Given that you missed the point of their conversation (perhaps TC Derangement Syndrome overwhelmed you?), I understand how you would miss that the clear modern day analogue to what they are discussing is Iran and what the west should do there.
Regardless, even if you disagree with everything I have said, this really is an easy and simple question for you to answer. Given what has happened this year, do you still believe that we can contain Iran's nuclear ambitions without putting boots on the ground?
I'm glad we dropped the bomb. Saved a ton of lives, both American and Japanese. To suggest otherwise shows a complete lack of understanding who we were fighting.
Indeed. Saved my grandad's life.
And of course, if there can never be collateral damage, then under his ridiculous theory (which isn't Just War BTW), pretty much no military strike would ever be justified.
His position - like most of his positions - is just utterly absurd. He lives in fantasyland.
The Germans saved your grandfather's life despite him traveling halfway around the world to kill them.
Those sweet Nazis, so constrained by the Geneva convention. You know you have me convinced. Hitler and the Nazis were great people.
It's a good thing. He wasn't a Jew.
If he was a jew he wouldn't have been on the front lines or anywhere near a position of imminent danger.
The_barBEARian said:Mothra said:The_barBEARian said:Mothra said:Tempus Edax Rerum said:DallasBear9902 said:Mothra said:DallasBear9902 said:Mothra said:DallasBear9902 said:Mothra said:DallasBear9902 said:Mothra said:DallasBear9902 said:Mothra said:
If you want to see a masterclass in completely dismantling another person's positions and arguments, watch bowtie's "interview" of Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg. And don't be fooled by the title. It's spin designed at obscuring the total ass-kicking Tucker took at the hands of Rees-Mogg. It was incredible.
Ummm, do you still think we can control Iran and its nuclear ambitions without boots on the ground?
I humbly suggest your worldview should've recalibrated over the past year.
Ummm, what does that have to do with the interview? That answer for those who watched it is: nothing.
Their conversation instead focused on World War II revisionism, Winston Churchill, Russia, and British politics. Iran wasn't discussed.
Odd question. Really odd. I humbly suggest you watch the video that is the subject of the thread before commenting. That way you won't look foolish for bringing up inane and irrelevant points.
You are judging that Carlson was owned based on your worldview. Within that paradigm, your views make sense. I understand your views, simplified, as some sort of Boomer interventionism.
Carlson's views, simplified, in their essence are for nonintervention.
Given you were so adamant on these pages that (a) we could control Iran's nuclear ambitions without boots on the ground, (b) our total failure to do so after implementing your preferred military strategy, and (c) Democrats are about to win races that it would have been unthinkable for them to win at the beginning of this year in large part due to what the Iran conflict has done to oil prices and diesel, in particular…
Perhaps you have reconsidered your worldview about interventionism around the world.
That you think this Brit dude owned Carlson tells us you haven't reconsidered your views and that you seem to still academically not understand what Carlson is saying (even if you disagree with Carlson).
LOL. This is quite a retreat.
I posted about Tucker Carlson's interview with Jacob Rees-Mogg and said Rees-Mogg dismantled him. You responded by asking me about Iran, a subject that wasn't even discussed in the interview, as I pointed out.
And your response is to write several more paragraphs about Iran? LOL. That's called changing the subject and attacking a straw man.
If I've actually said that air strikes can permanently prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, quote me saying it. Otherwise stop inventing arguments for me because they're easier to attack than the one I actually made.
Now, back to Tucker.
Tucker confidently told Rees-Mogg that Russia has a "much larger economy" than Britain. Rees-Mogg corrected him. The IMF has Britain at about $4.26 trillion and Russia at $2.66 trillion in projected 2026 nominal GDP. Tucker was wrong.
Rees-Mogg cited Russian hostile activity in Britain, including Salisbury. The OPCW independently confirmed Britain's identification of the nerve agent, and Britain subsequently conducted an independent public inquiry into the Novichok death.
Tucker then asked why Britain fought World War II, minimized Hitler's invasion of Poland as essentially a territorial dispute arising from Versailles, questioned whether defeating Nazi Germany benefited Britain, and answered "Who cares?" when confronted with German domination as the alternative. Rees-Mogg finally told him he was "verging on defending Hitler."
That's why I said Tucker got owned. Because I actually watched the interview. It was brutal. Apparently, you didn't even watch the interview and ignorantly believe it's about Iran.
You are free to disagree. But try to stick to the subject. Defend Tucker's statements in the interview. Telling me what you imagine my position is on Iran, diesel prices, Democrats and "interventionism" doesn't rehabilitate a single thing he said.
So let's try this again:
What specifically did I say about the Carlson/Rees-Mogg interview that was wrong?
I'll wait.
A lot of words to avoid answering a simple question: Do you still believe we can control Iran's nuclear ambitions without boots on the ground?
Hint: you don't need to understand the relevance or coherence of this rather simple question to answer it. You clearly know that your understanding of relevance is not a prerequisite to answering the question when discussing ideas.
To get to your specifics.
Yes, Carlson looked bad on some facts, but SRM looked bad in his own ways. TC's fundamental issue goes unanswered: the British empire crumbled after the world wars, and despite some decent ups (Thatcher and Blair and others), it has mostly been a down trend line for the British standard of living post-WWII. Most recently demonstrated by how their politics have been absolutely paralyzed for about a decade driven by the simple fact that GILT investors (foreigners!) constrain what their government can do.
So what exactly did the British people gain for sacrificing tens of thousands of their young sons? TC is essentially correct that they are not a sovereign in any meaningful sense: they cannot defend themselves and instead rely on the presence of American troops on their land to deter aggression from others. This is a fair and salient point. SRM completely avoids responding to it other than to say they'd otherwise be speaking German right now.
TC backed SRM into explicitly defending the killing of women and innocent children at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, SRM even went so far as to claim that the atomic bombings fall within the parameters of Just War Theory . A view widely rejected by the overwhelming vast majority of ethicists and the same Catholic Church out which Just War Theory came out of (Sidenote, I am not condemning dropping the atomic weapons, I would justify it as realpolitik, but only a maniac would make the argument that SRM made regarding women and innocent children in Japan being legitimate military targets. Really shows a lack of respect for life by SRM).
SRM doesn't actually address TCs points, instead resorting to accusing TC of being a nazi-sympathizer. (Sidenote, I get the difficulty in actually discerning what could have otherwise happened in history).
Anyways, if you actually listen to the ideas and worldview that TC and SRM are actually getting at, they go something like this:
TC: entanglement in foreign wars is bad and a nation's young sons and daughters should not be sent off to fight except for the strictest of standards that meet a direct benefit to the people of the country.
SRM: foreign entanglement may be necessary, including for the direct benefit of other nation states as it may prevent our need to fight that enemy at a later date. Our sons and daughters may need to die under this construct.
Here is the rub, the historical evidence is really complicated on the core points both of them are making:
Presumably we agree that:
The following foreign entanglements were unnecessary for the direct benefit of the American people and that Americans needlessly died there:
WWI
Vietnam
Iraq II (as part of the GWOT)
We presumably agree that the following entanglements directly benefitted the USA:
European theater of WWII
Iraq I
Reasonable people can disagree on the following foreign entanglements (for me at least):
Arming of the mujahadeen in Afghanistan (led to the Taliban)
Korea (though I really lean to the unnecessary side of the ledger on this one).
Afghanistan (at least to the extent we were there for nearly 20 years and engaged and tried to nation build).
Looking at that list, I don't think a reasonable person could say that either TC or SRM are absolutely correct here and own the other side. For the good of fighting WWII there is the waste of human life in WWI and Vietnam.
Question number 2 for you: do you actually believe that the women and innocent children of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate military targets under Just War Theory as SRM asserts. I concede you may not understand the relevance of this question, but please humor me. I'm trying to understand where you are coming from.
LOL. This is getting ridiculous.
I started a thread about Tucker Carlson's interview with Jacob Rees-Mogg and said Tucker got his ass kicked.
You responded by asking me about Iran.
I pointed out that Iran had absolutely nothing to do with the interview.
Your response was to ask me about Iran again.
And now, after complaining about my "lot of words," you've written a small dissertation on Iran, WWI, Vietnam, Iraq I, Iraq II, Afghanistan, Korea, the Mujahideen, American interventionism, oil prices, Just War Theory, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I guess the irony of your response is lost on you.
I have an idea. Start your own thread.
Seriously. If you want to debate Iran or American interventionism, start a thread about it. I'll happily participate.
But none of that changes what happened in the interview I actually posted.
And after all these words, you finally concede my point:Quote:
"Yes, Carlson looked bad on some facts."
There we go. That wasn't so hard.
I'll get to the rest of your drivel later.
Are you being obtuse? Do you really not see what these two are really arguing about? Can you not generalize coherent theories or principles from specifics?
The fundamental issues they are grappling with are:
When is it appropriate for the state to call upon its young to risk life and limb? What causes are worthy of that sacrifice? And to a lesser extent, they are debating whether increasing the risk of war is appropriate if there is a chance that the risk will ultimately prevent war.
I'm convinced you haven't watched the interview because you can't possibly be missing the points they are making.
So, let me spell it out for you:
Do you believe that SRM is putting on a "masterclass in dismantling [TCs] positions and arguments" when SRM argues to TC that the women and innocent children of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate military targets under Just War Theory? Did you catch that part of the interview?
Now you're just making stuff up. Rees-Mogg did not say women and innocent children were "legitimate military targets." Those words never came out of his mouth. Those are your words, not his.
What Rees-Mogg argued was that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified under Just War principles. Bowtie pressed him about the innocent civilians killed, including children, and Rees-Mogg continued to defend the bombings. Yet, like the intellectually-dishonest clown you are, you have converted a legitimate and reasonable argument that "the bombing was justified despite civilian deaths" into "women and innocent children were legitimate military targets." Those are very different propositions.
And spare me the "you must not have watched the interview" bull***** I've discussed what they actually said. You're the poster who keeps trying to turn it into something else.
First it was Iran, which wasn't discussed. Then it became my supposed "worldview." Now you're pretending the entire interview was really a philosophical seminar about when governments may send young people to war.
It wasn't for any intellectually honest person who watched.
They argued about Russia, Ukraine, NATO, Salisbury, Britain's defenses, WWII, Hitler, Poland, Hiroshima, and British politics. And on numerous factual and historical points, Tucker got corrected. A bunch. You've already admitted that yourself when you conceded that Tucker "looked bad on some facts." Indeed, we are in agreement.
That's what I called a dismantling.
But for the fourth time, if you want to defend Bowtie's performance in this interview, then defend it.
So far, you've done everything but that.
It is clear you haven't watched it for actual information or with an open mind. Someone told you TC got owned or whatever and you've watched it only to affirm your preconception. My paraphrase of SMR was done in charity because what he said was actually much worse and I believe he would walk it back if given the time to reflect on what he said. Here you go:
TUCKER CARLSON (00:29:03 00:29:08): We also killed tens of thousands of children in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And you're saying that's okay?
SIR JACOB REES-MOGG (00:29:08 00:29:12): I think it was justified. I think the use of nuclear weapons at the end of the Second World War
TUCKER CARLSON (00:29:12 00:29:18): So what you're saying as a Christian is, yes, it is okay to kill children who did nothing wrong.
SIR JACOB REES-MOGG (00:29:18 00:29:19): It was a proportionate response.
TUCKER CARLSON (00:29:19 00:29:21): Do you feel that that is a Christian position?
SIR JACOB REES-MOGG (00:29:21 00:29:24): Yes. I think it meets Aquinas's conditions of a just war.
The killing of women and innocent children in H and N was NOT collateral damage, but rather deliberate targeting. This was not the bombing of some arms factory or military base and some kids playing outside got caught in the damage. There is simply no legitimate worldview in which that act can be characterized as consistent with Christian ethics. I simply do not believe that Jesus would ever sign off on the deliberate, targeted killing AT SCALE of women and innocent children in war, even within the context of ending WWII. If you believe that is consistent with Christianity, by all means, please tell all of us.
********
I honestly don't know how you could have sat through the entire hour of their conversation and not realized the principles they were discussing. If it really went over your head, or if you really allowed the specifics of what they were discussing to distract you from the real points they were making, then you just aren't good at this. You just aren't. If you want to really simplify it, the principle was intervention v. isolationism. TC takes a practical approach and sort of reverse engineers to his principle: from TC's position, given that he as a matter of (justifiable) opinion believes that the British people have been worse off since the great world wars, he comes to the conclusion that interventionism is for the worse. SRM comes at it differently in which he imagines the worst alternative case possible scenario (or at least one worse than what actually happened) and then stakes out the position that intervention was clearly for the best, no matter the ultimate costs. We know from examples of history that they are both right ... and both wrong.
Like seriously, if you really missed this, don't take my word for it. I encourage you to take the transcript of the interview, feed it into your preferred AI, with a simple prompt asking for a summary of the themes and principles discussed in the interview and I guarantee you that the AI will conclude something like isolationism v interventionism, classical liberalism/security conservative v strong isolationist. You'll get bonus points for integrity when you report back that I am right.
You probably also didn't notice that they aren't all that far apart from each other, especially after SRM went to great pains at the end to elaborate on his positions of deterrence through muscular posturing. They are on the same end of the ideological spectrum, they just disagree on how to achieve peace and security. To put this in terms you can understand, one is a Bush 41 Republican and the other is a Pat Buchanan Republican. Sure, there are differences, but they reside in the same zip code.
Given that you missed the point of their conversation (perhaps TC Derangement Syndrome overwhelmed you?), I understand how you would miss that the clear modern day analogue to what they are discussing is Iran and what the west should do there.
Regardless, even if you disagree with everything I have said, this really is an easy and simple question for you to answer. Given what has happened this year, do you still believe that we can contain Iran's nuclear ambitions without putting boots on the ground?
I'm glad we dropped the bomb. Saved a ton of lives, both American and Japanese. To suggest otherwise shows a complete lack of understanding who we were fighting.
Indeed. Saved my grandad's life.
And of course, if there can never be collateral damage, then under his ridiculous theory (which isn't Just War BTW), pretty much no military strike would ever be justified.
His position - like most of his positions - is just utterly absurd. He lives in fantasyland.
The Germans saved your grandfather's life despite him traveling halfway around the world to kill them.
Those sweet Nazis, so constrained by the Geneva convention. You know you have me convinced. Hitler and the Nazis were great people.
It's a good thing. He wasn't a Jew.
If he was a jew he wouldn't have been on the front lines or anywhere near a position of imminent danger.
There were plenty of Jews in the US Army. It's a good thing. He wasn't a Jew. Very likely would've died at the hands of the Nazis. Your heroes.
Mothra said:The_barBEARian said:Mothra said:The_barBEARian said:Mothra said:Tempus Edax Rerum said:DallasBear9902 said:Mothra said:DallasBear9902 said:Mothra said:DallasBear9902 said:Mothra said:DallasBear9902 said:Mothra said:DallasBear9902 said:Mothra said:
If you want to see a masterclass in completely dismantling another person's positions and arguments, watch bowtie's "interview" of Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg. And don't be fooled by the title. It's spin designed at obscuring the total ass-kicking Tucker took at the hands of Rees-Mogg. It was incredible.
Ummm, do you still think we can control Iran and its nuclear ambitions without boots on the ground?
I humbly suggest your worldview should've recalibrated over the past year.
Ummm, what does that have to do with the interview? That answer for those who watched it is: nothing.
Their conversation instead focused on World War II revisionism, Winston Churchill, Russia, and British politics. Iran wasn't discussed.
Odd question. Really odd. I humbly suggest you watch the video that is the subject of the thread before commenting. That way you won't look foolish for bringing up inane and irrelevant points.
You are judging that Carlson was owned based on your worldview. Within that paradigm, your views make sense. I understand your views, simplified, as some sort of Boomer interventionism.
Carlson's views, simplified, in their essence are for nonintervention.
Given you were so adamant on these pages that (a) we could control Iran's nuclear ambitions without boots on the ground, (b) our total failure to do so after implementing your preferred military strategy, and (c) Democrats are about to win races that it would have been unthinkable for them to win at the beginning of this year in large part due to what the Iran conflict has done to oil prices and diesel, in particular…
Perhaps you have reconsidered your worldview about interventionism around the world.
That you think this Brit dude owned Carlson tells us you haven't reconsidered your views and that you seem to still academically not understand what Carlson is saying (even if you disagree with Carlson).
LOL. This is quite a retreat.
I posted about Tucker Carlson's interview with Jacob Rees-Mogg and said Rees-Mogg dismantled him. You responded by asking me about Iran, a subject that wasn't even discussed in the interview, as I pointed out.
And your response is to write several more paragraphs about Iran? LOL. That's called changing the subject and attacking a straw man.
If I've actually said that air strikes can permanently prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, quote me saying it. Otherwise stop inventing arguments for me because they're easier to attack than the one I actually made.
Now, back to Tucker.
Tucker confidently told Rees-Mogg that Russia has a "much larger economy" than Britain. Rees-Mogg corrected him. The IMF has Britain at about $4.26 trillion and Russia at $2.66 trillion in projected 2026 nominal GDP. Tucker was wrong.
Rees-Mogg cited Russian hostile activity in Britain, including Salisbury. The OPCW independently confirmed Britain's identification of the nerve agent, and Britain subsequently conducted an independent public inquiry into the Novichok death.
Tucker then asked why Britain fought World War II, minimized Hitler's invasion of Poland as essentially a territorial dispute arising from Versailles, questioned whether defeating Nazi Germany benefited Britain, and answered "Who cares?" when confronted with German domination as the alternative. Rees-Mogg finally told him he was "verging on defending Hitler."
That's why I said Tucker got owned. Because I actually watched the interview. It was brutal. Apparently, you didn't even watch the interview and ignorantly believe it's about Iran.
You are free to disagree. But try to stick to the subject. Defend Tucker's statements in the interview. Telling me what you imagine my position is on Iran, diesel prices, Democrats and "interventionism" doesn't rehabilitate a single thing he said.
So let's try this again:
What specifically did I say about the Carlson/Rees-Mogg interview that was wrong?
I'll wait.
A lot of words to avoid answering a simple question: Do you still believe we can control Iran's nuclear ambitions without boots on the ground?
Hint: you don't need to understand the relevance or coherence of this rather simple question to answer it. You clearly know that your understanding of relevance is not a prerequisite to answering the question when discussing ideas.
To get to your specifics.
Yes, Carlson looked bad on some facts, but SRM looked bad in his own ways. TC's fundamental issue goes unanswered: the British empire crumbled after the world wars, and despite some decent ups (Thatcher and Blair and others), it has mostly been a down trend line for the British standard of living post-WWII. Most recently demonstrated by how their politics have been absolutely paralyzed for about a decade driven by the simple fact that GILT investors (foreigners!) constrain what their government can do.
So what exactly did the British people gain for sacrificing tens of thousands of their young sons? TC is essentially correct that they are not a sovereign in any meaningful sense: they cannot defend themselves and instead rely on the presence of American troops on their land to deter aggression from others. This is a fair and salient point. SRM completely avoids responding to it other than to say they'd otherwise be speaking German right now.
TC backed SRM into explicitly defending the killing of women and innocent children at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, SRM even went so far as to claim that the atomic bombings fall within the parameters of Just War Theory . A view widely rejected by the overwhelming vast majority of ethicists and the same Catholic Church out which Just War Theory came out of (Sidenote, I am not condemning dropping the atomic weapons, I would justify it as realpolitik, but only a maniac would make the argument that SRM made regarding women and innocent children in Japan being legitimate military targets. Really shows a lack of respect for life by SRM).
SRM doesn't actually address TCs points, instead resorting to accusing TC of being a nazi-sympathizer. (Sidenote, I get the difficulty in actually discerning what could have otherwise happened in history).
Anyways, if you actually listen to the ideas and worldview that TC and SRM are actually getting at, they go something like this:
TC: entanglement in foreign wars is bad and a nation's young sons and daughters should not be sent off to fight except for the strictest of standards that meet a direct benefit to the people of the country.
SRM: foreign entanglement may be necessary, including for the direct benefit of other nation states as it may prevent our need to fight that enemy at a later date. Our sons and daughters may need to die under this construct.
Here is the rub, the historical evidence is really complicated on the core points both of them are making:
Presumably we agree that:
The following foreign entanglements were unnecessary for the direct benefit of the American people and that Americans needlessly died there:
WWI
Vietnam
Iraq II (as part of the GWOT)
We presumably agree that the following entanglements directly benefitted the USA:
European theater of WWII
Iraq I
Reasonable people can disagree on the following foreign entanglements (for me at least):
Arming of the mujahadeen in Afghanistan (led to the Taliban)
Korea (though I really lean to the unnecessary side of the ledger on this one).
Afghanistan (at least to the extent we were there for nearly 20 years and engaged and tried to nation build).
Looking at that list, I don't think a reasonable person could say that either TC or SRM are absolutely correct here and own the other side. For the good of fighting WWII there is the waste of human life in WWI and Vietnam.
Question number 2 for you: do you actually believe that the women and innocent children of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate military targets under Just War Theory as SRM asserts. I concede you may not understand the relevance of this question, but please humor me. I'm trying to understand where you are coming from.
LOL. This is getting ridiculous.
I started a thread about Tucker Carlson's interview with Jacob Rees-Mogg and said Tucker got his ass kicked.
You responded by asking me about Iran.
I pointed out that Iran had absolutely nothing to do with the interview.
Your response was to ask me about Iran again.
And now, after complaining about my "lot of words," you've written a small dissertation on Iran, WWI, Vietnam, Iraq I, Iraq II, Afghanistan, Korea, the Mujahideen, American interventionism, oil prices, Just War Theory, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I guess the irony of your response is lost on you.
I have an idea. Start your own thread.
Seriously. If you want to debate Iran or American interventionism, start a thread about it. I'll happily participate.
But none of that changes what happened in the interview I actually posted.
And after all these words, you finally concede my point:Quote:
"Yes, Carlson looked bad on some facts."
There we go. That wasn't so hard.
I'll get to the rest of your drivel later.
Are you being obtuse? Do you really not see what these two are really arguing about? Can you not generalize coherent theories or principles from specifics?
The fundamental issues they are grappling with are:
When is it appropriate for the state to call upon its young to risk life and limb? What causes are worthy of that sacrifice? And to a lesser extent, they are debating whether increasing the risk of war is appropriate if there is a chance that the risk will ultimately prevent war.
I'm convinced you haven't watched the interview because you can't possibly be missing the points they are making.
So, let me spell it out for you:
Do you believe that SRM is putting on a "masterclass in dismantling [TCs] positions and arguments" when SRM argues to TC that the women and innocent children of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate military targets under Just War Theory? Did you catch that part of the interview?
Now you're just making stuff up. Rees-Mogg did not say women and innocent children were "legitimate military targets." Those words never came out of his mouth. Those are your words, not his.
What Rees-Mogg argued was that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified under Just War principles. Bowtie pressed him about the innocent civilians killed, including children, and Rees-Mogg continued to defend the bombings. Yet, like the intellectually-dishonest clown you are, you have converted a legitimate and reasonable argument that "the bombing was justified despite civilian deaths" into "women and innocent children were legitimate military targets." Those are very different propositions.
And spare me the "you must not have watched the interview" bull***** I've discussed what they actually said. You're the poster who keeps trying to turn it into something else.
First it was Iran, which wasn't discussed. Then it became my supposed "worldview." Now you're pretending the entire interview was really a philosophical seminar about when governments may send young people to war.
It wasn't for any intellectually honest person who watched.
They argued about Russia, Ukraine, NATO, Salisbury, Britain's defenses, WWII, Hitler, Poland, Hiroshima, and British politics. And on numerous factual and historical points, Tucker got corrected. A bunch. You've already admitted that yourself when you conceded that Tucker "looked bad on some facts." Indeed, we are in agreement.
That's what I called a dismantling.
But for the fourth time, if you want to defend Bowtie's performance in this interview, then defend it.
So far, you've done everything but that.
It is clear you haven't watched it for actual information or with an open mind. Someone told you TC got owned or whatever and you've watched it only to affirm your preconception. My paraphrase of SMR was done in charity because what he said was actually much worse and I believe he would walk it back if given the time to reflect on what he said. Here you go:
TUCKER CARLSON (00:29:03 00:29:08): We also killed tens of thousands of children in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And you're saying that's okay?
SIR JACOB REES-MOGG (00:29:08 00:29:12): I think it was justified. I think the use of nuclear weapons at the end of the Second World War
TUCKER CARLSON (00:29:12 00:29:18): So what you're saying as a Christian is, yes, it is okay to kill children who did nothing wrong.
SIR JACOB REES-MOGG (00:29:18 00:29:19): It was a proportionate response.
TUCKER CARLSON (00:29:19 00:29:21): Do you feel that that is a Christian position?
SIR JACOB REES-MOGG (00:29:21 00:29:24): Yes. I think it meets Aquinas's conditions of a just war.
The killing of women and innocent children in H and N was NOT collateral damage, but rather deliberate targeting. This was not the bombing of some arms factory or military base and some kids playing outside got caught in the damage. There is simply no legitimate worldview in which that act can be characterized as consistent with Christian ethics. I simply do not believe that Jesus would ever sign off on the deliberate, targeted killing AT SCALE of women and innocent children in war, even within the context of ending WWII. If you believe that is consistent with Christianity, by all means, please tell all of us.
********
I honestly don't know how you could have sat through the entire hour of their conversation and not realized the principles they were discussing. If it really went over your head, or if you really allowed the specifics of what they were discussing to distract you from the real points they were making, then you just aren't good at this. You just aren't. If you want to really simplify it, the principle was intervention v. isolationism. TC takes a practical approach and sort of reverse engineers to his principle: from TC's position, given that he as a matter of (justifiable) opinion believes that the British people have been worse off since the great world wars, he comes to the conclusion that interventionism is for the worse. SRM comes at it differently in which he imagines the worst alternative case possible scenario (or at least one worse than what actually happened) and then stakes out the position that intervention was clearly for the best, no matter the ultimate costs. We know from examples of history that they are both right ... and both wrong.
Like seriously, if you really missed this, don't take my word for it. I encourage you to take the transcript of the interview, feed it into your preferred AI, with a simple prompt asking for a summary of the themes and principles discussed in the interview and I guarantee you that the AI will conclude something like isolationism v interventionism, classical liberalism/security conservative v strong isolationist. You'll get bonus points for integrity when you report back that I am right.
You probably also didn't notice that they aren't all that far apart from each other, especially after SRM went to great pains at the end to elaborate on his positions of deterrence through muscular posturing. They are on the same end of the ideological spectrum, they just disagree on how to achieve peace and security. To put this in terms you can understand, one is a Bush 41 Republican and the other is a Pat Buchanan Republican. Sure, there are differences, but they reside in the same zip code.
Given that you missed the point of their conversation (perhaps TC Derangement Syndrome overwhelmed you?), I understand how you would miss that the clear modern day analogue to what they are discussing is Iran and what the west should do there.
Regardless, even if you disagree with everything I have said, this really is an easy and simple question for you to answer. Given what has happened this year, do you still believe that we can contain Iran's nuclear ambitions without putting boots on the ground?
I'm glad we dropped the bomb. Saved a ton of lives, both American and Japanese. To suggest otherwise shows a complete lack of understanding who we were fighting.
Indeed. Saved my grandad's life.
And of course, if there can never be collateral damage, then under his ridiculous theory (which isn't Just War BTW), pretty much no military strike would ever be justified.
His position - like most of his positions - is just utterly absurd. He lives in fantasyland.
The Germans saved your grandfather's life despite him traveling halfway around the world to kill them.
Those sweet Nazis, so constrained by the Geneva convention. You know you have me convinced. Hitler and the Nazis were great people.
It's a good thing. He wasn't a Jew.
If he was a jew he wouldn't have been on the front lines or anywhere near a position of imminent danger.
There were plenty of Jews in the US Army. It's a good thing. He wasn't a Jew. Very likely would've died at the hands of the Nazis. Your heroes.
I've posted clips of the men, American and British soldiers, who actually fought the in the war and only recently passed away in the last couple of years and they all say they regret fighting it - that it was waste of young lives and they hate how their countries ended up as a result.
The_barBEARian said:Mothra said:The_barBEARian said:Mothra said:The_barBEARian said:Mothra said:Tempus Edax Rerum said:DallasBear9902 said:Mothra said:DallasBear9902 said:Mothra said:DallasBear9902 said:Mothra said:DallasBear9902 said:Mothra said:DallasBear9902 said:Mothra said:
If you want to see a masterclass in completely dismantling another person's positions and arguments, watch bowtie's "interview" of Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg. And don't be fooled by the title. It's spin designed at obscuring the total ass-kicking Tucker took at the hands of Rees-Mogg. It was incredible.
Ummm, do you still think we can control Iran and its nuclear ambitions without boots on the ground?
I humbly suggest your worldview should've recalibrated over the past year.
Ummm, what does that have to do with the interview? That answer for those who watched it is: nothing.
Their conversation instead focused on World War II revisionism, Winston Churchill, Russia, and British politics. Iran wasn't discussed.
Odd question. Really odd. I humbly suggest you watch the video that is the subject of the thread before commenting. That way you won't look foolish for bringing up inane and irrelevant points.
You are judging that Carlson was owned based on your worldview. Within that paradigm, your views make sense. I understand your views, simplified, as some sort of Boomer interventionism.
Carlson's views, simplified, in their essence are for nonintervention.
Given you were so adamant on these pages that (a) we could control Iran's nuclear ambitions without boots on the ground, (b) our total failure to do so after implementing your preferred military strategy, and (c) Democrats are about to win races that it would have been unthinkable for them to win at the beginning of this year in large part due to what the Iran conflict has done to oil prices and diesel, in particular…
Perhaps you have reconsidered your worldview about interventionism around the world.
That you think this Brit dude owned Carlson tells us you haven't reconsidered your views and that you seem to still academically not understand what Carlson is saying (even if you disagree with Carlson).
LOL. This is quite a retreat.
I posted about Tucker Carlson's interview with Jacob Rees-Mogg and said Rees-Mogg dismantled him. You responded by asking me about Iran, a subject that wasn't even discussed in the interview, as I pointed out.
And your response is to write several more paragraphs about Iran? LOL. That's called changing the subject and attacking a straw man.
If I've actually said that air strikes can permanently prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, quote me saying it. Otherwise stop inventing arguments for me because they're easier to attack than the one I actually made.
Now, back to Tucker.
Tucker confidently told Rees-Mogg that Russia has a "much larger economy" than Britain. Rees-Mogg corrected him. The IMF has Britain at about $4.26 trillion and Russia at $2.66 trillion in projected 2026 nominal GDP. Tucker was wrong.
Rees-Mogg cited Russian hostile activity in Britain, including Salisbury. The OPCW independently confirmed Britain's identification of the nerve agent, and Britain subsequently conducted an independent public inquiry into the Novichok death.
Tucker then asked why Britain fought World War II, minimized Hitler's invasion of Poland as essentially a territorial dispute arising from Versailles, questioned whether defeating Nazi Germany benefited Britain, and answered "Who cares?" when confronted with German domination as the alternative. Rees-Mogg finally told him he was "verging on defending Hitler."
That's why I said Tucker got owned. Because I actually watched the interview. It was brutal. Apparently, you didn't even watch the interview and ignorantly believe it's about Iran.
You are free to disagree. But try to stick to the subject. Defend Tucker's statements in the interview. Telling me what you imagine my position is on Iran, diesel prices, Democrats and "interventionism" doesn't rehabilitate a single thing he said.
So let's try this again:
What specifically did I say about the Carlson/Rees-Mogg interview that was wrong?
I'll wait.
A lot of words to avoid answering a simple question: Do you still believe we can control Iran's nuclear ambitions without boots on the ground?
Hint: you don't need to understand the relevance or coherence of this rather simple question to answer it. You clearly know that your understanding of relevance is not a prerequisite to answering the question when discussing ideas.
To get to your specifics.
Yes, Carlson looked bad on some facts, but SRM looked bad in his own ways. TC's fundamental issue goes unanswered: the British empire crumbled after the world wars, and despite some decent ups (Thatcher and Blair and others), it has mostly been a down trend line for the British standard of living post-WWII. Most recently demonstrated by how their politics have been absolutely paralyzed for about a decade driven by the simple fact that GILT investors (foreigners!) constrain what their government can do.
So what exactly did the British people gain for sacrificing tens of thousands of their young sons? TC is essentially correct that they are not a sovereign in any meaningful sense: they cannot defend themselves and instead rely on the presence of American troops on their land to deter aggression from others. This is a fair and salient point. SRM completely avoids responding to it other than to say they'd otherwise be speaking German right now.
TC backed SRM into explicitly defending the killing of women and innocent children at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, SRM even went so far as to claim that the atomic bombings fall within the parameters of Just War Theory . A view widely rejected by the overwhelming vast majority of ethicists and the same Catholic Church out which Just War Theory came out of (Sidenote, I am not condemning dropping the atomic weapons, I would justify it as realpolitik, but only a maniac would make the argument that SRM made regarding women and innocent children in Japan being legitimate military targets. Really shows a lack of respect for life by SRM).
SRM doesn't actually address TCs points, instead resorting to accusing TC of being a nazi-sympathizer. (Sidenote, I get the difficulty in actually discerning what could have otherwise happened in history).
Anyways, if you actually listen to the ideas and worldview that TC and SRM are actually getting at, they go something like this:
TC: entanglement in foreign wars is bad and a nation's young sons and daughters should not be sent off to fight except for the strictest of standards that meet a direct benefit to the people of the country.
SRM: foreign entanglement may be necessary, including for the direct benefit of other nation states as it may prevent our need to fight that enemy at a later date. Our sons and daughters may need to die under this construct.
Here is the rub, the historical evidence is really complicated on the core points both of them are making:
Presumably we agree that:
The following foreign entanglements were unnecessary for the direct benefit of the American people and that Americans needlessly died there:
WWI
Vietnam
Iraq II (as part of the GWOT)
We presumably agree that the following entanglements directly benefitted the USA:
European theater of WWII
Iraq I
Reasonable people can disagree on the following foreign entanglements (for me at least):
Arming of the mujahadeen in Afghanistan (led to the Taliban)
Korea (though I really lean to the unnecessary side of the ledger on this one).
Afghanistan (at least to the extent we were there for nearly 20 years and engaged and tried to nation build).
Looking at that list, I don't think a reasonable person could say that either TC or SRM are absolutely correct here and own the other side. For the good of fighting WWII there is the waste of human life in WWI and Vietnam.
Question number 2 for you: do you actually believe that the women and innocent children of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate military targets under Just War Theory as SRM asserts. I concede you may not understand the relevance of this question, but please humor me. I'm trying to understand where you are coming from.
LOL. This is getting ridiculous.
I started a thread about Tucker Carlson's interview with Jacob Rees-Mogg and said Tucker got his ass kicked.
You responded by asking me about Iran.
I pointed out that Iran had absolutely nothing to do with the interview.
Your response was to ask me about Iran again.
And now, after complaining about my "lot of words," you've written a small dissertation on Iran, WWI, Vietnam, Iraq I, Iraq II, Afghanistan, Korea, the Mujahideen, American interventionism, oil prices, Just War Theory, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I guess the irony of your response is lost on you.
I have an idea. Start your own thread.
Seriously. If you want to debate Iran or American interventionism, start a thread about it. I'll happily participate.
But none of that changes what happened in the interview I actually posted.
And after all these words, you finally concede my point:Quote:
"Yes, Carlson looked bad on some facts."
There we go. That wasn't so hard.
I'll get to the rest of your drivel later.
Are you being obtuse? Do you really not see what these two are really arguing about? Can you not generalize coherent theories or principles from specifics?
The fundamental issues they are grappling with are:
When is it appropriate for the state to call upon its young to risk life and limb? What causes are worthy of that sacrifice? And to a lesser extent, they are debating whether increasing the risk of war is appropriate if there is a chance that the risk will ultimately prevent war.
I'm convinced you haven't watched the interview because you can't possibly be missing the points they are making.
So, let me spell it out for you:
Do you believe that SRM is putting on a "masterclass in dismantling [TCs] positions and arguments" when SRM argues to TC that the women and innocent children of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate military targets under Just War Theory? Did you catch that part of the interview?
Now you're just making stuff up. Rees-Mogg did not say women and innocent children were "legitimate military targets." Those words never came out of his mouth. Those are your words, not his.
What Rees-Mogg argued was that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified under Just War principles. Bowtie pressed him about the innocent civilians killed, including children, and Rees-Mogg continued to defend the bombings. Yet, like the intellectually-dishonest clown you are, you have converted a legitimate and reasonable argument that "the bombing was justified despite civilian deaths" into "women and innocent children were legitimate military targets." Those are very different propositions.
And spare me the "you must not have watched the interview" bull***** I've discussed what they actually said. You're the poster who keeps trying to turn it into something else.
First it was Iran, which wasn't discussed. Then it became my supposed "worldview." Now you're pretending the entire interview was really a philosophical seminar about when governments may send young people to war.
It wasn't for any intellectually honest person who watched.
They argued about Russia, Ukraine, NATO, Salisbury, Britain's defenses, WWII, Hitler, Poland, Hiroshima, and British politics. And on numerous factual and historical points, Tucker got corrected. A bunch. You've already admitted that yourself when you conceded that Tucker "looked bad on some facts." Indeed, we are in agreement.
That's what I called a dismantling.
But for the fourth time, if you want to defend Bowtie's performance in this interview, then defend it.
So far, you've done everything but that.
It is clear you haven't watched it for actual information or with an open mind. Someone told you TC got owned or whatever and you've watched it only to affirm your preconception. My paraphrase of SMR was done in charity because what he said was actually much worse and I believe he would walk it back if given the time to reflect on what he said. Here you go:
TUCKER CARLSON (00:29:03 00:29:08): We also killed tens of thousands of children in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And you're saying that's okay?
SIR JACOB REES-MOGG (00:29:08 00:29:12): I think it was justified. I think the use of nuclear weapons at the end of the Second World War
TUCKER CARLSON (00:29:12 00:29:18): So what you're saying as a Christian is, yes, it is okay to kill children who did nothing wrong.
SIR JACOB REES-MOGG (00:29:18 00:29:19): It was a proportionate response.
TUCKER CARLSON (00:29:19 00:29:21): Do you feel that that is a Christian position?
SIR JACOB REES-MOGG (00:29:21 00:29:24): Yes. I think it meets Aquinas's conditions of a just war.
The killing of women and innocent children in H and N was NOT collateral damage, but rather deliberate targeting. This was not the bombing of some arms factory or military base and some kids playing outside got caught in the damage. There is simply no legitimate worldview in which that act can be characterized as consistent with Christian ethics. I simply do not believe that Jesus would ever sign off on the deliberate, targeted killing AT SCALE of women and innocent children in war, even within the context of ending WWII. If you believe that is consistent with Christianity, by all means, please tell all of us.
********
I honestly don't know how you could have sat through the entire hour of their conversation and not realized the principles they were discussing. If it really went over your head, or if you really allowed the specifics of what they were discussing to distract you from the real points they were making, then you just aren't good at this. You just aren't. If you want to really simplify it, the principle was intervention v. isolationism. TC takes a practical approach and sort of reverse engineers to his principle: from TC's position, given that he as a matter of (justifiable) opinion believes that the British people have been worse off since the great world wars, he comes to the conclusion that interventionism is for the worse. SRM comes at it differently in which he imagines the worst alternative case possible scenario (or at least one worse than what actually happened) and then stakes out the position that intervention was clearly for the best, no matter the ultimate costs. We know from examples of history that they are both right ... and both wrong.
Like seriously, if you really missed this, don't take my word for it. I encourage you to take the transcript of the interview, feed it into your preferred AI, with a simple prompt asking for a summary of the themes and principles discussed in the interview and I guarantee you that the AI will conclude something like isolationism v interventionism, classical liberalism/security conservative v strong isolationist. You'll get bonus points for integrity when you report back that I am right.
You probably also didn't notice that they aren't all that far apart from each other, especially after SRM went to great pains at the end to elaborate on his positions of deterrence through muscular posturing. They are on the same end of the ideological spectrum, they just disagree on how to achieve peace and security. To put this in terms you can understand, one is a Bush 41 Republican and the other is a Pat Buchanan Republican. Sure, there are differences, but they reside in the same zip code.
Given that you missed the point of their conversation (perhaps TC Derangement Syndrome overwhelmed you?), I understand how you would miss that the clear modern day analogue to what they are discussing is Iran and what the west should do there.
Regardless, even if you disagree with everything I have said, this really is an easy and simple question for you to answer. Given what has happened this year, do you still believe that we can contain Iran's nuclear ambitions without putting boots on the ground?
I'm glad we dropped the bomb. Saved a ton of lives, both American and Japanese. To suggest otherwise shows a complete lack of understanding who we were fighting.
Indeed. Saved my grandad's life.
And of course, if there can never be collateral damage, then under his ridiculous theory (which isn't Just War BTW), pretty much no military strike would ever be justified.
His position - like most of his positions - is just utterly absurd. He lives in fantasyland.
The Germans saved your grandfather's life despite him traveling halfway around the world to kill them.
Those sweet Nazis, so constrained by the Geneva convention. You know you have me convinced. Hitler and the Nazis were great people.
It's a good thing. He wasn't a Jew.
If he was a jew he wouldn't have been on the front lines or anywhere near a position of imminent danger.
There were plenty of Jews in the US Army. It's a good thing. He wasn't a Jew. Very likely would've died at the hands of the Nazis. Your heroes.
I've posted clips of the men, American and British soldiers, who actually fought the in the war and only recently passed away in the last couple of years and they all say they regret fighting it - that it was waste of young lives and they hate how their countries ended up as a result.
"All" is a bit strong, but some material portion of British vets (some estimates peg it as high as 80%) express regret about fighting in WWII and/or they lament what happened to their country in the aftermath of the war. Some express even stronger feelings. The Unknown Warriors by Nicholas Pringle was extremely eye-opening on this count.
Also, American vets seem to diverge from their British counterparts on this issue.
I appreciate that SMR sat down with TC, but I just about jumped out of my chair when SMR was talking about the moving memorial at Eton that pays tribute to the nearly 1200 alumni lost in WWI, a war that SMR later concedes to TC is legitimate to question British involvement in. I think what would have been more moving is if those 1200 young men had been able to grow up, marry wives, and raise families all while contributing to the prosperity of their homeland. Instead they were sacrificed to some bull**** geopolitical game.
DallasBear9902 said:The_barBEARian said:Mothra said:The_barBEARian said:Mothra said:The_barBEARian said:Mothra said:Tempus Edax Rerum said:DallasBear9902 said:Mothra said:DallasBear9902 said:Mothra said:DallasBear9902 said:Mothra said:DallasBear9902 said:Mothra said:DallasBear9902 said:Mothra said:
If you want to see a masterclass in completely dismantling another person's positions and arguments, watch bowtie's "interview" of Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg. And don't be fooled by the title. It's spin designed at obscuring the total ass-kicking Tucker took at the hands of Rees-Mogg. It was incredible.
Ummm, do you still think we can control Iran and its nuclear ambitions without boots on the ground?
I humbly suggest your worldview should've recalibrated over the past year.
Ummm, what does that have to do with the interview? That answer for those who watched it is: nothing.
Their conversation instead focused on World War II revisionism, Winston Churchill, Russia, and British politics. Iran wasn't discussed.
Odd question. Really odd. I humbly suggest you watch the video that is the subject of the thread before commenting. That way you won't look foolish for bringing up inane and irrelevant points.
You are judging that Carlson was owned based on your worldview. Within that paradigm, your views make sense. I understand your views, simplified, as some sort of Boomer interventionism.
Carlson's views, simplified, in their essence are for nonintervention.
Given you were so adamant on these pages that (a) we could control Iran's nuclear ambitions without boots on the ground, (b) our total failure to do so after implementing your preferred military strategy, and (c) Democrats are about to win races that it would have been unthinkable for them to win at the beginning of this year in large part due to what the Iran conflict has done to oil prices and diesel, in particular…
Perhaps you have reconsidered your worldview about interventionism around the world.
That you think this Brit dude owned Carlson tells us you haven't reconsidered your views and that you seem to still academically not understand what Carlson is saying (even if you disagree with Carlson).
LOL. This is quite a retreat.
I posted about Tucker Carlson's interview with Jacob Rees-Mogg and said Rees-Mogg dismantled him. You responded by asking me about Iran, a subject that wasn't even discussed in the interview, as I pointed out.
And your response is to write several more paragraphs about Iran? LOL. That's called changing the subject and attacking a straw man.
If I've actually said that air strikes can permanently prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, quote me saying it. Otherwise stop inventing arguments for me because they're easier to attack than the one I actually made.
Now, back to Tucker.
Tucker confidently told Rees-Mogg that Russia has a "much larger economy" than Britain. Rees-Mogg corrected him. The IMF has Britain at about $4.26 trillion and Russia at $2.66 trillion in projected 2026 nominal GDP. Tucker was wrong.
Rees-Mogg cited Russian hostile activity in Britain, including Salisbury. The OPCW independently confirmed Britain's identification of the nerve agent, and Britain subsequently conducted an independent public inquiry into the Novichok death.
Tucker then asked why Britain fought World War II, minimized Hitler's invasion of Poland as essentially a territorial dispute arising from Versailles, questioned whether defeating Nazi Germany benefited Britain, and answered "Who cares?" when confronted with German domination as the alternative. Rees-Mogg finally told him he was "verging on defending Hitler."
That's why I said Tucker got owned. Because I actually watched the interview. It was brutal. Apparently, you didn't even watch the interview and ignorantly believe it's about Iran.
You are free to disagree. But try to stick to the subject. Defend Tucker's statements in the interview. Telling me what you imagine my position is on Iran, diesel prices, Democrats and "interventionism" doesn't rehabilitate a single thing he said.
So let's try this again:
What specifically did I say about the Carlson/Rees-Mogg interview that was wrong?
I'll wait.
A lot of words to avoid answering a simple question: Do you still believe we can control Iran's nuclear ambitions without boots on the ground?
Hint: you don't need to understand the relevance or coherence of this rather simple question to answer it. You clearly know that your understanding of relevance is not a prerequisite to answering the question when discussing ideas.
To get to your specifics.
Yes, Carlson looked bad on some facts, but SRM looked bad in his own ways. TC's fundamental issue goes unanswered: the British empire crumbled after the world wars, and despite some decent ups (Thatcher and Blair and others), it has mostly been a down trend line for the British standard of living post-WWII. Most recently demonstrated by how their politics have been absolutely paralyzed for about a decade driven by the simple fact that GILT investors (foreigners!) constrain what their government can do.
So what exactly did the British people gain for sacrificing tens of thousands of their young sons? TC is essentially correct that they are not a sovereign in any meaningful sense: they cannot defend themselves and instead rely on the presence of American troops on their land to deter aggression from others. This is a fair and salient point. SRM completely avoids responding to it other than to say they'd otherwise be speaking German right now.
TC backed SRM into explicitly defending the killing of women and innocent children at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, SRM even went so far as to claim that the atomic bombings fall within the parameters of Just War Theory . A view widely rejected by the overwhelming vast majority of ethicists and the same Catholic Church out which Just War Theory came out of (Sidenote, I am not condemning dropping the atomic weapons, I would justify it as realpolitik, but only a maniac would make the argument that SRM made regarding women and innocent children in Japan being legitimate military targets. Really shows a lack of respect for life by SRM).
SRM doesn't actually address TCs points, instead resorting to accusing TC of being a nazi-sympathizer. (Sidenote, I get the difficulty in actually discerning what could have otherwise happened in history).
Anyways, if you actually listen to the ideas and worldview that TC and SRM are actually getting at, they go something like this:
TC: entanglement in foreign wars is bad and a nation's young sons and daughters should not be sent off to fight except for the strictest of standards that meet a direct benefit to the people of the country.
SRM: foreign entanglement may be necessary, including for the direct benefit of other nation states as it may prevent our need to fight that enemy at a later date. Our sons and daughters may need to die under this construct.
Here is the rub, the historical evidence is really complicated on the core points both of them are making:
Presumably we agree that:
The following foreign entanglements were unnecessary for the direct benefit of the American people and that Americans needlessly died there:
WWI
Vietnam
Iraq II (as part of the GWOT)
We presumably agree that the following entanglements directly benefitted the USA:
European theater of WWII
Iraq I
Reasonable people can disagree on the following foreign entanglements (for me at least):
Arming of the mujahadeen in Afghanistan (led to the Taliban)
Korea (though I really lean to the unnecessary side of the ledger on this one).
Afghanistan (at least to the extent we were there for nearly 20 years and engaged and tried to nation build).
Looking at that list, I don't think a reasonable person could say that either TC or SRM are absolutely correct here and own the other side. For the good of fighting WWII there is the waste of human life in WWI and Vietnam.
Question number 2 for you: do you actually believe that the women and innocent children of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate military targets under Just War Theory as SRM asserts. I concede you may not understand the relevance of this question, but please humor me. I'm trying to understand where you are coming from.
LOL. This is getting ridiculous.
I started a thread about Tucker Carlson's interview with Jacob Rees-Mogg and said Tucker got his ass kicked.
You responded by asking me about Iran.
I pointed out that Iran had absolutely nothing to do with the interview.
Your response was to ask me about Iran again.
And now, after complaining about my "lot of words," you've written a small dissertation on Iran, WWI, Vietnam, Iraq I, Iraq II, Afghanistan, Korea, the Mujahideen, American interventionism, oil prices, Just War Theory, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I guess the irony of your response is lost on you.
I have an idea. Start your own thread.
Seriously. If you want to debate Iran or American interventionism, start a thread about it. I'll happily participate.
But none of that changes what happened in the interview I actually posted.
And after all these words, you finally concede my point:Quote:
"Yes, Carlson looked bad on some facts."
There we go. That wasn't so hard.
I'll get to the rest of your drivel later.
Are you being obtuse? Do you really not see what these two are really arguing about? Can you not generalize coherent theories or principles from specifics?
The fundamental issues they are grappling with are:
When is it appropriate for the state to call upon its young to risk life and limb? What causes are worthy of that sacrifice? And to a lesser extent, they are debating whether increasing the risk of war is appropriate if there is a chance that the risk will ultimately prevent war.
I'm convinced you haven't watched the interview because you can't possibly be missing the points they are making.
So, let me spell it out for you:
Do you believe that SRM is putting on a "masterclass in dismantling [TCs] positions and arguments" when SRM argues to TC that the women and innocent children of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate military targets under Just War Theory? Did you catch that part of the interview?
Now you're just making stuff up. Rees-Mogg did not say women and innocent children were "legitimate military targets." Those words never came out of his mouth. Those are your words, not his.
What Rees-Mogg argued was that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified under Just War principles. Bowtie pressed him about the innocent civilians killed, including children, and Rees-Mogg continued to defend the bombings. Yet, like the intellectually-dishonest clown you are, you have converted a legitimate and reasonable argument that "the bombing was justified despite civilian deaths" into "women and innocent children were legitimate military targets." Those are very different propositions.
And spare me the "you must not have watched the interview" bull***** I've discussed what they actually said. You're the poster who keeps trying to turn it into something else.
First it was Iran, which wasn't discussed. Then it became my supposed "worldview." Now you're pretending the entire interview was really a philosophical seminar about when governments may send young people to war.
It wasn't for any intellectually honest person who watched.
They argued about Russia, Ukraine, NATO, Salisbury, Britain's defenses, WWII, Hitler, Poland, Hiroshima, and British politics. And on numerous factual and historical points, Tucker got corrected. A bunch. You've already admitted that yourself when you conceded that Tucker "looked bad on some facts." Indeed, we are in agreement.
That's what I called a dismantling.
But for the fourth time, if you want to defend Bowtie's performance in this interview, then defend it.
So far, you've done everything but that.
It is clear you haven't watched it for actual information or with an open mind. Someone told you TC got owned or whatever and you've watched it only to affirm your preconception. My paraphrase of SMR was done in charity because what he said was actually much worse and I believe he would walk it back if given the time to reflect on what he said. Here you go:
TUCKER CARLSON (00:29:03 00:29:08): We also killed tens of thousands of children in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And you're saying that's okay?
SIR JACOB REES-MOGG (00:29:08 00:29:12): I think it was justified. I think the use of nuclear weapons at the end of the Second World War
TUCKER CARLSON (00:29:12 00:29:18): So what you're saying as a Christian is, yes, it is okay to kill children who did nothing wrong.
SIR JACOB REES-MOGG (00:29:18 00:29:19): It was a proportionate response.
TUCKER CARLSON (00:29:19 00:29:21): Do you feel that that is a Christian position?
SIR JACOB REES-MOGG (00:29:21 00:29:24): Yes. I think it meets Aquinas's conditions of a just war.
The killing of women and innocent children in H and N was NOT collateral damage, but rather deliberate targeting. This was not the bombing of some arms factory or military base and some kids playing outside got caught in the damage. There is simply no legitimate worldview in which that act can be characterized as consistent with Christian ethics. I simply do not believe that Jesus would ever sign off on the deliberate, targeted killing AT SCALE of women and innocent children in war, even within the context of ending WWII. If you believe that is consistent with Christianity, by all means, please tell all of us.
********
I honestly don't know how you could have sat through the entire hour of their conversation and not realized the principles they were discussing. If it really went over your head, or if you really allowed the specifics of what they were discussing to distract you from the real points they were making, then you just aren't good at this. You just aren't. If you want to really simplify it, the principle was intervention v. isolationism. TC takes a practical approach and sort of reverse engineers to his principle: from TC's position, given that he as a matter of (justifiable) opinion believes that the British people have been worse off since the great world wars, he comes to the conclusion that interventionism is for the worse. SRM comes at it differently in which he imagines the worst alternative case possible scenario (or at least one worse than what actually happened) and then stakes out the position that intervention was clearly for the best, no matter the ultimate costs. We know from examples of history that they are both right ... and both wrong.
Like seriously, if you really missed this, don't take my word for it. I encourage you to take the transcript of the interview, feed it into your preferred AI, with a simple prompt asking for a summary of the themes and principles discussed in the interview and I guarantee you that the AI will conclude something like isolationism v interventionism, classical liberalism/security conservative v strong isolationist. You'll get bonus points for integrity when you report back that I am right.
You probably also didn't notice that they aren't all that far apart from each other, especially after SRM went to great pains at the end to elaborate on his positions of deterrence through muscular posturing. They are on the same end of the ideological spectrum, they just disagree on how to achieve peace and security. To put this in terms you can understand, one is a Bush 41 Republican and the other is a Pat Buchanan Republican. Sure, there are differences, but they reside in the same zip code.
Given that you missed the point of their conversation (perhaps TC Derangement Syndrome overwhelmed you?), I understand how you would miss that the clear modern day analogue to what they are discussing is Iran and what the west should do there.
Regardless, even if you disagree with everything I have said, this really is an easy and simple question for you to answer. Given what has happened this year, do you still believe that we can contain Iran's nuclear ambitions without putting boots on the ground?
I'm glad we dropped the bomb. Saved a ton of lives, both American and Japanese. To suggest otherwise shows a complete lack of understanding who we were fighting.
Indeed. Saved my grandad's life.
And of course, if there can never be collateral damage, then under his ridiculous theory (which isn't Just War BTW), pretty much no military strike would ever be justified.
His position - like most of his positions - is just utterly absurd. He lives in fantasyland.
The Germans saved your grandfather's life despite him traveling halfway around the world to kill them.
Those sweet Nazis, so constrained by the Geneva convention. You know you have me convinced. Hitler and the Nazis were great people.
It's a good thing. He wasn't a Jew.
If he was a jew he wouldn't have been on the front lines or anywhere near a position of imminent danger.
There were plenty of Jews in the US Army. It's a good thing. He wasn't a Jew. Very likely would've died at the hands of the Nazis. Your heroes.
I've posted clips of the men, American and British soldiers, who actually fought the in the war and only recently passed away in the last couple of years and they all say they regret fighting it - that it was waste of young lives and they hate how their countries ended up as a result.
"All" is a bit strong, but some material portion of British vets (some estimates peg it as high as 80%) express regret about fighting in WWII and/or they lament what happened to their country in the aftermath of the war. Some express even stronger feelings. The Unknown Warriors by Nicholas Pringle was extremely eye-opening on this count.
Also, American vets seem to diverge from their British counterparts on this issue.
I appreciate that SMR sat down with TC, but I just about jumped out of my chair when SMR was talking about the moving memorial at Eton that pays tribute to the nearly 1200 alumni lost in WWI, a war that SMR later concedes to TC is legitimate to question British involvement in. I think what would have been more moving is if those 1200 young men had been able to grow up, marry wives, and raise families all while contributing to the prosperity of their homeland. Instead they were sacrificed to some bull**** geopolitical game.
Well said!
DallasBear9902 said:Tempus Edax Rerum said:DallasBear9902 said:Mothra said:DallasBear9902 said:Mothra said:DallasBear9902 said:Mothra said:DallasBear9902 said:Mothra said:DallasBear9902 said:Mothra said:
If you want to see a masterclass in completely dismantling another person's positions and arguments, watch bowtie's "interview" of Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg. And don't be fooled by the title. It's spin designed at obscuring the total ass-kicking Tucker took at the hands of Rees-Mogg. It was incredible.
Ummm, do you still think we can control Iran and its nuclear ambitions without boots on the ground?
I humbly suggest your worldview should've recalibrated over the past year.
Ummm, what does that have to do with the interview? That answer for those who watched it is: nothing.
Their conversation instead focused on World War II revisionism, Winston Churchill, Russia, and British politics. Iran wasn't discussed.
Odd question. Really odd. I humbly suggest you watch the video that is the subject of the thread before commenting. That way you won't look foolish for bringing up inane and irrelevant points.
You are judging that Carlson was owned based on your worldview. Within that paradigm, your views make sense. I understand your views, simplified, as some sort of Boomer interventionism.
Carlson's views, simplified, in their essence are for nonintervention.
Given you were so adamant on these pages that (a) we could control Iran's nuclear ambitions without boots on the ground, (b) our total failure to do so after implementing your preferred military strategy, and (c) Democrats are about to win races that it would have been unthinkable for them to win at the beginning of this year in large part due to what the Iran conflict has done to oil prices and diesel, in particular…
Perhaps you have reconsidered your worldview about interventionism around the world.
That you think this Brit dude owned Carlson tells us you haven't reconsidered your views and that you seem to still academically not understand what Carlson is saying (even if you disagree with Carlson).
LOL. This is quite a retreat.
I posted about Tucker Carlson's interview with Jacob Rees-Mogg and said Rees-Mogg dismantled him. You responded by asking me about Iran, a subject that wasn't even discussed in the interview, as I pointed out.
And your response is to write several more paragraphs about Iran? LOL. That's called changing the subject and attacking a straw man.
If I've actually said that air strikes can permanently prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, quote me saying it. Otherwise stop inventing arguments for me because they're easier to attack than the one I actually made.
Now, back to Tucker.
Tucker confidently told Rees-Mogg that Russia has a "much larger economy" than Britain. Rees-Mogg corrected him. The IMF has Britain at about $4.26 trillion and Russia at $2.66 trillion in projected 2026 nominal GDP. Tucker was wrong.
Rees-Mogg cited Russian hostile activity in Britain, including Salisbury. The OPCW independently confirmed Britain's identification of the nerve agent, and Britain subsequently conducted an independent public inquiry into the Novichok death.
Tucker then asked why Britain fought World War II, minimized Hitler's invasion of Poland as essentially a territorial dispute arising from Versailles, questioned whether defeating Nazi Germany benefited Britain, and answered "Who cares?" when confronted with German domination as the alternative. Rees-Mogg finally told him he was "verging on defending Hitler."
That's why I said Tucker got owned. Because I actually watched the interview. It was brutal. Apparently, you didn't even watch the interview and ignorantly believe it's about Iran.
You are free to disagree. But try to stick to the subject. Defend Tucker's statements in the interview. Telling me what you imagine my position is on Iran, diesel prices, Democrats and "interventionism" doesn't rehabilitate a single thing he said.
So let's try this again:
What specifically did I say about the Carlson/Rees-Mogg interview that was wrong?
I'll wait.
A lot of words to avoid answering a simple question: Do you still believe we can control Iran's nuclear ambitions without boots on the ground?
Hint: you don't need to understand the relevance or coherence of this rather simple question to answer it. You clearly know that your understanding of relevance is not a prerequisite to answering the question when discussing ideas.
To get to your specifics.
Yes, Carlson looked bad on some facts, but SRM looked bad in his own ways. TC's fundamental issue goes unanswered: the British empire crumbled after the world wars, and despite some decent ups (Thatcher and Blair and others), it has mostly been a down trend line for the British standard of living post-WWII. Most recently demonstrated by how their politics have been absolutely paralyzed for about a decade driven by the simple fact that GILT investors (foreigners!) constrain what their government can do.
So what exactly did the British people gain for sacrificing tens of thousands of their young sons? TC is essentially correct that they are not a sovereign in any meaningful sense: they cannot defend themselves and instead rely on the presence of American troops on their land to deter aggression from others. This is a fair and salient point. SRM completely avoids responding to it other than to say they'd otherwise be speaking German right now.
TC backed SRM into explicitly defending the killing of women and innocent children at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, SRM even went so far as to claim that the atomic bombings fall within the parameters of Just War Theory . A view widely rejected by the overwhelming vast majority of ethicists and the same Catholic Church out which Just War Theory came out of (Sidenote, I am not condemning dropping the atomic weapons, I would justify it as realpolitik, but only a maniac would make the argument that SRM made regarding women and innocent children in Japan being legitimate military targets. Really shows a lack of respect for life by SRM).
SRM doesn't actually address TCs points, instead resorting to accusing TC of being a nazi-sympathizer. (Sidenote, I get the difficulty in actually discerning what could have otherwise happened in history).
Anyways, if you actually listen to the ideas and worldview that TC and SRM are actually getting at, they go something like this:
TC: entanglement in foreign wars is bad and a nation's young sons and daughters should not be sent off to fight except for the strictest of standards that meet a direct benefit to the people of the country.
SRM: foreign entanglement may be necessary, including for the direct benefit of other nation states as it may prevent our need to fight that enemy at a later date. Our sons and daughters may need to die under this construct.
Here is the rub, the historical evidence is really complicated on the core points both of them are making:
Presumably we agree that:
The following foreign entanglements were unnecessary for the direct benefit of the American people and that Americans needlessly died there:
WWI
Vietnam
Iraq II (as part of the GWOT)
We presumably agree that the following entanglements directly benefitted the USA:
European theater of WWII
Iraq I
Reasonable people can disagree on the following foreign entanglements (for me at least):
Arming of the mujahadeen in Afghanistan (led to the Taliban)
Korea (though I really lean to the unnecessary side of the ledger on this one).
Afghanistan (at least to the extent we were there for nearly 20 years and engaged and tried to nation build).
Looking at that list, I don't think a reasonable person could say that either TC or SRM are absolutely correct here and own the other side. For the good of fighting WWII there is the waste of human life in WWI and Vietnam.
Question number 2 for you: do you actually believe that the women and innocent children of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate military targets under Just War Theory as SRM asserts. I concede you may not understand the relevance of this question, but please humor me. I'm trying to understand where you are coming from.
LOL. This is getting ridiculous.
I started a thread about Tucker Carlson's interview with Jacob Rees-Mogg and said Tucker got his ass kicked.
You responded by asking me about Iran.
I pointed out that Iran had absolutely nothing to do with the interview.
Your response was to ask me about Iran again.
And now, after complaining about my "lot of words," you've written a small dissertation on Iran, WWI, Vietnam, Iraq I, Iraq II, Afghanistan, Korea, the Mujahideen, American interventionism, oil prices, Just War Theory, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I guess the irony of your response is lost on you.
I have an idea. Start your own thread.
Seriously. If you want to debate Iran or American interventionism, start a thread about it. I'll happily participate.
But none of that changes what happened in the interview I actually posted.
And after all these words, you finally concede my point:Quote:
"Yes, Carlson looked bad on some facts."
There we go. That wasn't so hard.
I'll get to the rest of your drivel later.
Are you being obtuse? Do you really not see what these two are really arguing about? Can you not generalize coherent theories or principles from specifics?
The fundamental issues they are grappling with are:
When is it appropriate for the state to call upon its young to risk life and limb? What causes are worthy of that sacrifice? And to a lesser extent, they are debating whether increasing the risk of war is appropriate if there is a chance that the risk will ultimately prevent war.
I'm convinced you haven't watched the interview because you can't possibly be missing the points they are making.
So, let me spell it out for you:
Do you believe that SRM is putting on a "masterclass in dismantling [TCs] positions and arguments" when SRM argues to TC that the women and innocent children of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate military targets under Just War Theory? Did you catch that part of the interview?
Now you're just making stuff up. Rees-Mogg did not say women and innocent children were "legitimate military targets." Those words never came out of his mouth. Those are your words, not his.
What Rees-Mogg argued was that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified under Just War principles. Bowtie pressed him about the innocent civilians killed, including children, and Rees-Mogg continued to defend the bombings. Yet, like the intellectually-dishonest clown you are, you have converted a legitimate and reasonable argument that "the bombing was justified despite civilian deaths" into "women and innocent children were legitimate military targets." Those are very different propositions.
And spare me the "you must not have watched the interview" bull***** I've discussed what they actually said. You're the poster who keeps trying to turn it into something else.
First it was Iran, which wasn't discussed. Then it became my supposed "worldview." Now you're pretending the entire interview was really a philosophical seminar about when governments may send young people to war.
It wasn't for any intellectually honest person who watched.
They argued about Russia, Ukraine, NATO, Salisbury, Britain's defenses, WWII, Hitler, Poland, Hiroshima, and British politics. And on numerous factual and historical points, Tucker got corrected. A bunch. You've already admitted that yourself when you conceded that Tucker "looked bad on some facts." Indeed, we are in agreement.
That's what I called a dismantling.
But for the fourth time, if you want to defend Bowtie's performance in this interview, then defend it.
So far, you've done everything but that.
It is clear you haven't watched it for actual information or with an open mind. Someone told you TC got owned or whatever and you've watched it only to affirm your preconception. My paraphrase of SMR was done in charity because what he said was actually much worse and I believe he would walk it back if given the time to reflect on what he said. Here you go:
TUCKER CARLSON (00:29:03 00:29:08): We also killed tens of thousands of children in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And you're saying that's okay?
SIR JACOB REES-MOGG (00:29:08 00:29:12): I think it was justified. I think the use of nuclear weapons at the end of the Second World War
TUCKER CARLSON (00:29:12 00:29:18): So what you're saying as a Christian is, yes, it is okay to kill children who did nothing wrong.
SIR JACOB REES-MOGG (00:29:18 00:29:19): It was a proportionate response.
TUCKER CARLSON (00:29:19 00:29:21): Do you feel that that is a Christian position?
SIR JACOB REES-MOGG (00:29:21 00:29:24): Yes. I think it meets Aquinas's conditions of a just war.
The killing of women and innocent children in H and N was NOT collateral damage, but rather deliberate targeting. This was not the bombing of some arms factory or military base and some kids playing outside got caught in the damage. There is simply no legitimate worldview in which that act can be characterized as consistent with Christian ethics. I simply do not believe that Jesus would ever sign off on the deliberate, targeted killing AT SCALE of women and innocent children in war, even within the context of ending WWII. If you believe that is consistent with Christianity, by all means, please tell all of us.
********
I honestly don't know how you could have sat through the entire hour of their conversation and not realized the principles they were discussing. If it really went over your head, or if you really allowed the specifics of what they were discussing to distract you from the real points they were making, then you just aren't good at this. You just aren't. If you want to really simplify it, the principle was intervention v. isolationism. TC takes a practical approach and sort of reverse engineers to his principle: from TC's position, given that he as a matter of (justifiable) opinion believes that the British people have been worse off since the great world wars, he comes to the conclusion that interventionism is for the worse. SRM comes at it differently in which he imagines the worst alternative case possible scenario (or at least one worse than what actually happened) and then stakes out the position that intervention was clearly for the best, no matter the ultimate costs. We know from examples of history that they are both right ... and both wrong.
Like seriously, if you really missed this, don't take my word for it. I encourage you to take the transcript of the interview, feed it into your preferred AI, with a simple prompt asking for a summary of the themes and principles discussed in the interview and I guarantee you that the AI will conclude something like isolationism v interventionism, classical liberalism/security conservative v strong isolationist. You'll get bonus points for integrity when you report back that I am right.
You probably also didn't notice that they aren't all that far apart from each other, especially after SRM went to great pains at the end to elaborate on his positions of deterrence through muscular posturing. They are on the same end of the ideological spectrum, they just disagree on how to achieve peace and security. To put this in terms you can understand, one is a Bush 41 Republican and the other is a Pat Buchanan Republican. Sure, there are differences, but they reside in the same zip code.
Given that you missed the point of their conversation (perhaps TC Derangement Syndrome overwhelmed you?), I understand how you would miss that the clear modern day analogue to what they are discussing is Iran and what the west should do there.
Regardless, even if you disagree with everything I have said, this really is an easy and simple question for you to answer. Given what has happened this year, do you still believe that we can contain Iran's nuclear ambitions without putting boots on the ground?
I'm glad we dropped the bomb. Saved a ton of lives, both American and Japanese. To suggest otherwise shows a complete lack of understanding who we were fighting.
Who has suggested that the bombs didn't end the war or save lives?
That is a different argument from suggesting that deliberate targeting of women and children is justified under Christian ethics or Just War Theory. Note, I'm not suggesting your position is invalid or immoral (essentially you are making a tribal argument). I think your position is a defensible position to take.
But do you think Jesus would say it was a good thing that women and children were deliberately killed at scale in order to preserve American troops? Do you really think it was proportionate to what Japan had done?
It is a real fallacy to suggest that the bombs only saved the lives of American troops. The battle at Okinawa was a prelude to an invasion of the Japanese mainland. The high cost to the civilian population there - they were taught a lot of poor propaganda about the US troops, and were told by Japanese authorities they were part of the island defense - was one of the driving factors to drop the bombs. The estimates of civilian casualties in an invasion of Kyushu island was harrowing and made the estimated numbers from the bombs look like the preferred of two terrible options to end the war.
https://www.dhj.davidsonlocal.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Caught-in-the-Crossfire.pdf
The_barBEARian said:Mothra said:The_barBEARian said:Mothra said:The_barBEARian said:Mothra said:Tempus Edax Rerum said:DallasBear9902 said:Mothra said:DallasBear9902 said:Mothra said:DallasBear9902 said:Mothra said:DallasBear9902 said:Mothra said:DallasBear9902 said:Mothra said:
If you want to see a masterclass in completely dismantling another person's positions and arguments, watch bowtie's "interview" of Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg. And don't be fooled by the title. It's spin designed at obscuring the total ass-kicking Tucker took at the hands of Rees-Mogg. It was incredible.
Ummm, do you still think we can control Iran and its nuclear ambitions without boots on the ground?
I humbly suggest your worldview should've recalibrated over the past year.
Ummm, what does that have to do with the interview? That answer for those who watched it is: nothing.
Their conversation instead focused on World War II revisionism, Winston Churchill, Russia, and British politics. Iran wasn't discussed.
Odd question. Really odd. I humbly suggest you watch the video that is the subject of the thread before commenting. That way you won't look foolish for bringing up inane and irrelevant points.
You are judging that Carlson was owned based on your worldview. Within that paradigm, your views make sense. I understand your views, simplified, as some sort of Boomer interventionism.
Carlson's views, simplified, in their essence are for nonintervention.
Given you were so adamant on these pages that (a) we could control Iran's nuclear ambitions without boots on the ground, (b) our total failure to do so after implementing your preferred military strategy, and (c) Democrats are about to win races that it would have been unthinkable for them to win at the beginning of this year in large part due to what the Iran conflict has done to oil prices and diesel, in particular…
Perhaps you have reconsidered your worldview about interventionism around the world.
That you think this Brit dude owned Carlson tells us you haven't reconsidered your views and that you seem to still academically not understand what Carlson is saying (even if you disagree with Carlson).
LOL. This is quite a retreat.
I posted about Tucker Carlson's interview with Jacob Rees-Mogg and said Rees-Mogg dismantled him. You responded by asking me about Iran, a subject that wasn't even discussed in the interview, as I pointed out.
And your response is to write several more paragraphs about Iran? LOL. That's called changing the subject and attacking a straw man.
If I've actually said that air strikes can permanently prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, quote me saying it. Otherwise stop inventing arguments for me because they're easier to attack than the one I actually made.
Now, back to Tucker.
Tucker confidently told Rees-Mogg that Russia has a "much larger economy" than Britain. Rees-Mogg corrected him. The IMF has Britain at about $4.26 trillion and Russia at $2.66 trillion in projected 2026 nominal GDP. Tucker was wrong.
Rees-Mogg cited Russian hostile activity in Britain, including Salisbury. The OPCW independently confirmed Britain's identification of the nerve agent, and Britain subsequently conducted an independent public inquiry into the Novichok death.
Tucker then asked why Britain fought World War II, minimized Hitler's invasion of Poland as essentially a territorial dispute arising from Versailles, questioned whether defeating Nazi Germany benefited Britain, and answered "Who cares?" when confronted with German domination as the alternative. Rees-Mogg finally told him he was "verging on defending Hitler."
That's why I said Tucker got owned. Because I actually watched the interview. It was brutal. Apparently, you didn't even watch the interview and ignorantly believe it's about Iran.
You are free to disagree. But try to stick to the subject. Defend Tucker's statements in the interview. Telling me what you imagine my position is on Iran, diesel prices, Democrats and "interventionism" doesn't rehabilitate a single thing he said.
So let's try this again:
What specifically did I say about the Carlson/Rees-Mogg interview that was wrong?
I'll wait.
A lot of words to avoid answering a simple question: Do you still believe we can control Iran's nuclear ambitions without boots on the ground?
Hint: you don't need to understand the relevance or coherence of this rather simple question to answer it. You clearly know that your understanding of relevance is not a prerequisite to answering the question when discussing ideas.
To get to your specifics.
Yes, Carlson looked bad on some facts, but SRM looked bad in his own ways. TC's fundamental issue goes unanswered: the British empire crumbled after the world wars, and despite some decent ups (Thatcher and Blair and others), it has mostly been a down trend line for the British standard of living post-WWII. Most recently demonstrated by how their politics have been absolutely paralyzed for about a decade driven by the simple fact that GILT investors (foreigners!) constrain what their government can do.
So what exactly did the British people gain for sacrificing tens of thousands of their young sons? TC is essentially correct that they are not a sovereign in any meaningful sense: they cannot defend themselves and instead rely on the presence of American troops on their land to deter aggression from others. This is a fair and salient point. SRM completely avoids responding to it other than to say they'd otherwise be speaking German right now.
TC backed SRM into explicitly defending the killing of women and innocent children at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, SRM even went so far as to claim that the atomic bombings fall within the parameters of Just War Theory . A view widely rejected by the overwhelming vast majority of ethicists and the same Catholic Church out which Just War Theory came out of (Sidenote, I am not condemning dropping the atomic weapons, I would justify it as realpolitik, but only a maniac would make the argument that SRM made regarding women and innocent children in Japan being legitimate military targets. Really shows a lack of respect for life by SRM).
SRM doesn't actually address TCs points, instead resorting to accusing TC of being a nazi-sympathizer. (Sidenote, I get the difficulty in actually discerning what could have otherwise happened in history).
Anyways, if you actually listen to the ideas and worldview that TC and SRM are actually getting at, they go something like this:
TC: entanglement in foreign wars is bad and a nation's young sons and daughters should not be sent off to fight except for the strictest of standards that meet a direct benefit to the people of the country.
SRM: foreign entanglement may be necessary, including for the direct benefit of other nation states as it may prevent our need to fight that enemy at a later date. Our sons and daughters may need to die under this construct.
Here is the rub, the historical evidence is really complicated on the core points both of them are making:
Presumably we agree that:
The following foreign entanglements were unnecessary for the direct benefit of the American people and that Americans needlessly died there:
WWI
Vietnam
Iraq II (as part of the GWOT)
We presumably agree that the following entanglements directly benefitted the USA:
European theater of WWII
Iraq I
Reasonable people can disagree on the following foreign entanglements (for me at least):
Arming of the mujahadeen in Afghanistan (led to the Taliban)
Korea (though I really lean to the unnecessary side of the ledger on this one).
Afghanistan (at least to the extent we were there for nearly 20 years and engaged and tried to nation build).
Looking at that list, I don't think a reasonable person could say that either TC or SRM are absolutely correct here and own the other side. For the good of fighting WWII there is the waste of human life in WWI and Vietnam.
Question number 2 for you: do you actually believe that the women and innocent children of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate military targets under Just War Theory as SRM asserts. I concede you may not understand the relevance of this question, but please humor me. I'm trying to understand where you are coming from.
LOL. This is getting ridiculous.
I started a thread about Tucker Carlson's interview with Jacob Rees-Mogg and said Tucker got his ass kicked.
You responded by asking me about Iran.
I pointed out that Iran had absolutely nothing to do with the interview.
Your response was to ask me about Iran again.
And now, after complaining about my "lot of words," you've written a small dissertation on Iran, WWI, Vietnam, Iraq I, Iraq II, Afghanistan, Korea, the Mujahideen, American interventionism, oil prices, Just War Theory, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I guess the irony of your response is lost on you.
I have an idea. Start your own thread.
Seriously. If you want to debate Iran or American interventionism, start a thread about it. I'll happily participate.
But none of that changes what happened in the interview I actually posted.
And after all these words, you finally concede my point:Quote:
"Yes, Carlson looked bad on some facts."
There we go. That wasn't so hard.
I'll get to the rest of your drivel later.
Are you being obtuse? Do you really not see what these two are really arguing about? Can you not generalize coherent theories or principles from specifics?
The fundamental issues they are grappling with are:
When is it appropriate for the state to call upon its young to risk life and limb? What causes are worthy of that sacrifice? And to a lesser extent, they are debating whether increasing the risk of war is appropriate if there is a chance that the risk will ultimately prevent war.
I'm convinced you haven't watched the interview because you can't possibly be missing the points they are making.
So, let me spell it out for you:
Do you believe that SRM is putting on a "masterclass in dismantling [TCs] positions and arguments" when SRM argues to TC that the women and innocent children of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate military targets under Just War Theory? Did you catch that part of the interview?
Now you're just making stuff up. Rees-Mogg did not say women and innocent children were "legitimate military targets." Those words never came out of his mouth. Those are your words, not his.
What Rees-Mogg argued was that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified under Just War principles. Bowtie pressed him about the innocent civilians killed, including children, and Rees-Mogg continued to defend the bombings. Yet, like the intellectually-dishonest clown you are, you have converted a legitimate and reasonable argument that "the bombing was justified despite civilian deaths" into "women and innocent children were legitimate military targets." Those are very different propositions.
And spare me the "you must not have watched the interview" bull***** I've discussed what they actually said. You're the poster who keeps trying to turn it into something else.
First it was Iran, which wasn't discussed. Then it became my supposed "worldview." Now you're pretending the entire interview was really a philosophical seminar about when governments may send young people to war.
It wasn't for any intellectually honest person who watched.
They argued about Russia, Ukraine, NATO, Salisbury, Britain's defenses, WWII, Hitler, Poland, Hiroshima, and British politics. And on numerous factual and historical points, Tucker got corrected. A bunch. You've already admitted that yourself when you conceded that Tucker "looked bad on some facts." Indeed, we are in agreement.
That's what I called a dismantling.
But for the fourth time, if you want to defend Bowtie's performance in this interview, then defend it.
So far, you've done everything but that.
It is clear you haven't watched it for actual information or with an open mind. Someone told you TC got owned or whatever and you've watched it only to affirm your preconception. My paraphrase of SMR was done in charity because what he said was actually much worse and I believe he would walk it back if given the time to reflect on what he said. Here you go:
TUCKER CARLSON (00:29:03 00:29:08): We also killed tens of thousands of children in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And you're saying that's okay?
SIR JACOB REES-MOGG (00:29:08 00:29:12): I think it was justified. I think the use of nuclear weapons at the end of the Second World War
TUCKER CARLSON (00:29:12 00:29:18): So what you're saying as a Christian is, yes, it is okay to kill children who did nothing wrong.
SIR JACOB REES-MOGG (00:29:18 00:29:19): It was a proportionate response.
TUCKER CARLSON (00:29:19 00:29:21): Do you feel that that is a Christian position?
SIR JACOB REES-MOGG (00:29:21 00:29:24): Yes. I think it meets Aquinas's conditions of a just war.
The killing of women and innocent children in H and N was NOT collateral damage, but rather deliberate targeting. This was not the bombing of some arms factory or military base and some kids playing outside got caught in the damage. There is simply no legitimate worldview in which that act can be characterized as consistent with Christian ethics. I simply do not believe that Jesus would ever sign off on the deliberate, targeted killing AT SCALE of women and innocent children in war, even within the context of ending WWII. If you believe that is consistent with Christianity, by all means, please tell all of us.
********
I honestly don't know how you could have sat through the entire hour of their conversation and not realized the principles they were discussing. If it really went over your head, or if you really allowed the specifics of what they were discussing to distract you from the real points they were making, then you just aren't good at this. You just aren't. If you want to really simplify it, the principle was intervention v. isolationism. TC takes a practical approach and sort of reverse engineers to his principle: from TC's position, given that he as a matter of (justifiable) opinion believes that the British people have been worse off since the great world wars, he comes to the conclusion that interventionism is for the worse. SRM comes at it differently in which he imagines the worst alternative case possible scenario (or at least one worse than what actually happened) and then stakes out the position that intervention was clearly for the best, no matter the ultimate costs. We know from examples of history that they are both right ... and both wrong.
Like seriously, if you really missed this, don't take my word for it. I encourage you to take the transcript of the interview, feed it into your preferred AI, with a simple prompt asking for a summary of the themes and principles discussed in the interview and I guarantee you that the AI will conclude something like isolationism v interventionism, classical liberalism/security conservative v strong isolationist. You'll get bonus points for integrity when you report back that I am right.
You probably also didn't notice that they aren't all that far apart from each other, especially after SRM went to great pains at the end to elaborate on his positions of deterrence through muscular posturing. They are on the same end of the ideological spectrum, they just disagree on how to achieve peace and security. To put this in terms you can understand, one is a Bush 41 Republican and the other is a Pat Buchanan Republican. Sure, there are differences, but they reside in the same zip code.
Given that you missed the point of their conversation (perhaps TC Derangement Syndrome overwhelmed you?), I understand how you would miss that the clear modern day analogue to what they are discussing is Iran and what the west should do there.
Regardless, even if you disagree with everything I have said, this really is an easy and simple question for you to answer. Given what has happened this year, do you still believe that we can contain Iran's nuclear ambitions without putting boots on the ground?
I'm glad we dropped the bomb. Saved a ton of lives, both American and Japanese. To suggest otherwise shows a complete lack of understanding who we were fighting.
Indeed. Saved my grandad's life.
And of course, if there can never be collateral damage, then under his ridiculous theory (which isn't Just War BTW), pretty much no military strike would ever be justified.
His position - like most of his positions - is just utterly absurd. He lives in fantasyland.
The Germans saved your grandfather's life despite him traveling halfway around the world to kill them.
Those sweet Nazis, so constrained by the Geneva convention. You know you have me convinced. Hitler and the Nazis were great people.
It's a good thing. He wasn't a Jew.
If he was a jew he wouldn't have been on the front lines or anywhere near a position of imminent danger.
There were plenty of Jews in the US Army. It's a good thing. He wasn't a Jew. Very likely would've died at the hands of the Nazis. Your heroes.
I've posted clips of the men, American and British soldiers, who actually fought the in the war and only recently passed away in the last couple of years and they all say they regret fighting it - that it was waste of young lives and they hate how their countries ended up as a result.
I suspect they value Freedom more than living under a totalitarian state where a ruthless dictator would've killed millions. That would've been a true tragedy. Thank God, good men stood up to evil.
The idea that Europe would've been better off with a socialist German dictator running things is just utterly stupid. There's no evidence of that.
Mothra said:The_barBEARian said:Mothra said:The_barBEARian said:Mothra said:The_barBEARian said:Mothra said:Tempus Edax Rerum said:DallasBear9902 said:Mothra said:DallasBear9902 said:Mothra said:DallasBear9902 said:Mothra said:DallasBear9902 said:Mothra said:DallasBear9902 said:Mothra said:
If you want to see a masterclass in completely dismantling another person's positions and arguments, watch bowtie's "interview" of Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg. And don't be fooled by the title. It's spin designed at obscuring the total ass-kicking Tucker took at the hands of Rees-Mogg. It was incredible.
Ummm, do you still think we can control Iran and its nuclear ambitions without boots on the ground?
I humbly suggest your worldview should've recalibrated over the past year.
Ummm, what does that have to do with the interview? That answer for those who watched it is: nothing.
Their conversation instead focused on World War II revisionism, Winston Churchill, Russia, and British politics. Iran wasn't discussed.
Odd question. Really odd. I humbly suggest you watch the video that is the subject of the thread before commenting. That way you won't look foolish for bringing up inane and irrelevant points.
You are judging that Carlson was owned based on your worldview. Within that paradigm, your views make sense. I understand your views, simplified, as some sort of Boomer interventionism.
Carlson's views, simplified, in their essence are for nonintervention.
Given you were so adamant on these pages that (a) we could control Iran's nuclear ambitions without boots on the ground, (b) our total failure to do so after implementing your preferred military strategy, and (c) Democrats are about to win races that it would have been unthinkable for them to win at the beginning of this year in large part due to what the Iran conflict has done to oil prices and diesel, in particular…
Perhaps you have reconsidered your worldview about interventionism around the world.
That you think this Brit dude owned Carlson tells us you haven't reconsidered your views and that you seem to still academically not understand what Carlson is saying (even if you disagree with Carlson).
LOL. This is quite a retreat.
I posted about Tucker Carlson's interview with Jacob Rees-Mogg and said Rees-Mogg dismantled him. You responded by asking me about Iran, a subject that wasn't even discussed in the interview, as I pointed out.
And your response is to write several more paragraphs about Iran? LOL. That's called changing the subject and attacking a straw man.
If I've actually said that air strikes can permanently prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, quote me saying it. Otherwise stop inventing arguments for me because they're easier to attack than the one I actually made.
Now, back to Tucker.
Tucker confidently told Rees-Mogg that Russia has a "much larger economy" than Britain. Rees-Mogg corrected him. The IMF has Britain at about $4.26 trillion and Russia at $2.66 trillion in projected 2026 nominal GDP. Tucker was wrong.
Rees-Mogg cited Russian hostile activity in Britain, including Salisbury. The OPCW independently confirmed Britain's identification of the nerve agent, and Britain subsequently conducted an independent public inquiry into the Novichok death.
Tucker then asked why Britain fought World War II, minimized Hitler's invasion of Poland as essentially a territorial dispute arising from Versailles, questioned whether defeating Nazi Germany benefited Britain, and answered "Who cares?" when confronted with German domination as the alternative. Rees-Mogg finally told him he was "verging on defending Hitler."
That's why I said Tucker got owned. Because I actually watched the interview. It was brutal. Apparently, you didn't even watch the interview and ignorantly believe it's about Iran.
You are free to disagree. But try to stick to the subject. Defend Tucker's statements in the interview. Telling me what you imagine my position is on Iran, diesel prices, Democrats and "interventionism" doesn't rehabilitate a single thing he said.
So let's try this again:
What specifically did I say about the Carlson/Rees-Mogg interview that was wrong?
I'll wait.
A lot of words to avoid answering a simple question: Do you still believe we can control Iran's nuclear ambitions without boots on the ground?
Hint: you don't need to understand the relevance or coherence of this rather simple question to answer it. You clearly know that your understanding of relevance is not a prerequisite to answering the question when discussing ideas.
To get to your specifics.
Yes, Carlson looked bad on some facts, but SRM looked bad in his own ways. TC's fundamental issue goes unanswered: the British empire crumbled after the world wars, and despite some decent ups (Thatcher and Blair and others), it has mostly been a down trend line for the British standard of living post-WWII. Most recently demonstrated by how their politics have been absolutely paralyzed for about a decade driven by the simple fact that GILT investors (foreigners!) constrain what their government can do.
So what exactly did the British people gain for sacrificing tens of thousands of their young sons? TC is essentially correct that they are not a sovereign in any meaningful sense: they cannot defend themselves and instead rely on the presence of American troops on their land to deter aggression from others. This is a fair and salient point. SRM completely avoids responding to it other than to say they'd otherwise be speaking German right now.
TC backed SRM into explicitly defending the killing of women and innocent children at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, SRM even went so far as to claim that the atomic bombings fall within the parameters of Just War Theory . A view widely rejected by the overwhelming vast majority of ethicists and the same Catholic Church out which Just War Theory came out of (Sidenote, I am not condemning dropping the atomic weapons, I would justify it as realpolitik, but only a maniac would make the argument that SRM made regarding women and innocent children in Japan being legitimate military targets. Really shows a lack of respect for life by SRM).
SRM doesn't actually address TCs points, instead resorting to accusing TC of being a nazi-sympathizer. (Sidenote, I get the difficulty in actually discerning what could have otherwise happened in history).
Anyways, if you actually listen to the ideas and worldview that TC and SRM are actually getting at, they go something like this:
TC: entanglement in foreign wars is bad and a nation's young sons and daughters should not be sent off to fight except for the strictest of standards that meet a direct benefit to the people of the country.
SRM: foreign entanglement may be necessary, including for the direct benefit of other nation states as it may prevent our need to fight that enemy at a later date. Our sons and daughters may need to die under this construct.
Here is the rub, the historical evidence is really complicated on the core points both of them are making:
Presumably we agree that:
The following foreign entanglements were unnecessary for the direct benefit of the American people and that Americans needlessly died there:
WWI
Vietnam
Iraq II (as part of the GWOT)
We presumably agree that the following entanglements directly benefitted the USA:
European theater of WWII
Iraq I
Reasonable people can disagree on the following foreign entanglements (for me at least):
Arming of the mujahadeen in Afghanistan (led to the Taliban)
Korea (though I really lean to the unnecessary side of the ledger on this one).
Afghanistan (at least to the extent we were there for nearly 20 years and engaged and tried to nation build).
Looking at that list, I don't think a reasonable person could say that either TC or SRM are absolutely correct here and own the other side. For the good of fighting WWII there is the waste of human life in WWI and Vietnam.
Question number 2 for you: do you actually believe that the women and innocent children of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate military targets under Just War Theory as SRM asserts. I concede you may not understand the relevance of this question, but please humor me. I'm trying to understand where you are coming from.
LOL. This is getting ridiculous.
I started a thread about Tucker Carlson's interview with Jacob Rees-Mogg and said Tucker got his ass kicked.
You responded by asking me about Iran.
I pointed out that Iran had absolutely nothing to do with the interview.
Your response was to ask me about Iran again.
And now, after complaining about my "lot of words," you've written a small dissertation on Iran, WWI, Vietnam, Iraq I, Iraq II, Afghanistan, Korea, the Mujahideen, American interventionism, oil prices, Just War Theory, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I guess the irony of your response is lost on you.
I have an idea. Start your own thread.
Seriously. If you want to debate Iran or American interventionism, start a thread about it. I'll happily participate.
But none of that changes what happened in the interview I actually posted.
And after all these words, you finally concede my point:Quote:
"Yes, Carlson looked bad on some facts."
There we go. That wasn't so hard.
I'll get to the rest of your drivel later.
Are you being obtuse? Do you really not see what these two are really arguing about? Can you not generalize coherent theories or principles from specifics?
The fundamental issues they are grappling with are:
When is it appropriate for the state to call upon its young to risk life and limb? What causes are worthy of that sacrifice? And to a lesser extent, they are debating whether increasing the risk of war is appropriate if there is a chance that the risk will ultimately prevent war.
I'm convinced you haven't watched the interview because you can't possibly be missing the points they are making.
So, let me spell it out for you:
Do you believe that SRM is putting on a "masterclass in dismantling [TCs] positions and arguments" when SRM argues to TC that the women and innocent children of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate military targets under Just War Theory? Did you catch that part of the interview?
Now you're just making stuff up. Rees-Mogg did not say women and innocent children were "legitimate military targets." Those words never came out of his mouth. Those are your words, not his.
What Rees-Mogg argued was that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified under Just War principles. Bowtie pressed him about the innocent civilians killed, including children, and Rees-Mogg continued to defend the bombings. Yet, like the intellectually-dishonest clown you are, you have converted a legitimate and reasonable argument that "the bombing was justified despite civilian deaths" into "women and innocent children were legitimate military targets." Those are very different propositions.
And spare me the "you must not have watched the interview" bull***** I've discussed what they actually said. You're the poster who keeps trying to turn it into something else.
First it was Iran, which wasn't discussed. Then it became my supposed "worldview." Now you're pretending the entire interview was really a philosophical seminar about when governments may send young people to war.
It wasn't for any intellectually honest person who watched.
They argued about Russia, Ukraine, NATO, Salisbury, Britain's defenses, WWII, Hitler, Poland, Hiroshima, and British politics. And on numerous factual and historical points, Tucker got corrected. A bunch. You've already admitted that yourself when you conceded that Tucker "looked bad on some facts." Indeed, we are in agreement.
That's what I called a dismantling.
But for the fourth time, if you want to defend Bowtie's performance in this interview, then defend it.
So far, you've done everything but that.
It is clear you haven't watched it for actual information or with an open mind. Someone told you TC got owned or whatever and you've watched it only to affirm your preconception. My paraphrase of SMR was done in charity because what he said was actually much worse and I believe he would walk it back if given the time to reflect on what he said. Here you go:
TUCKER CARLSON (00:29:03 00:29:08): We also killed tens of thousands of children in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And you're saying that's okay?
SIR JACOB REES-MOGG (00:29:08 00:29:12): I think it was justified. I think the use of nuclear weapons at the end of the Second World War
TUCKER CARLSON (00:29:12 00:29:18): So what you're saying as a Christian is, yes, it is okay to kill children who did nothing wrong.
SIR JACOB REES-MOGG (00:29:18 00:29:19): It was a proportionate response.
TUCKER CARLSON (00:29:19 00:29:21): Do you feel that that is a Christian position?
SIR JACOB REES-MOGG (00:29:21 00:29:24): Yes. I think it meets Aquinas's conditions of a just war.
The killing of women and innocent children in H and N was NOT collateral damage, but rather deliberate targeting. This was not the bombing of some arms factory or military base and some kids playing outside got caught in the damage. There is simply no legitimate worldview in which that act can be characterized as consistent with Christian ethics. I simply do not believe that Jesus would ever sign off on the deliberate, targeted killing AT SCALE of women and innocent children in war, even within the context of ending WWII. If you believe that is consistent with Christianity, by all means, please tell all of us.
********
I honestly don't know how you could have sat through the entire hour of their conversation and not realized the principles they were discussing. If it really went over your head, or if you really allowed the specifics of what they were discussing to distract you from the real points they were making, then you just aren't good at this. You just aren't. If you want to really simplify it, the principle was intervention v. isolationism. TC takes a practical approach and sort of reverse engineers to his principle: from TC's position, given that he as a matter of (justifiable) opinion believes that the British people have been worse off since the great world wars, he comes to the conclusion that interventionism is for the worse. SRM comes at it differently in which he imagines the worst alternative case possible scenario (or at least one worse than what actually happened) and then stakes out the position that intervention was clearly for the best, no matter the ultimate costs. We know from examples of history that they are both right ... and both wrong.
Like seriously, if you really missed this, don't take my word for it. I encourage you to take the transcript of the interview, feed it into your preferred AI, with a simple prompt asking for a summary of the themes and principles discussed in the interview and I guarantee you that the AI will conclude something like isolationism v interventionism, classical liberalism/security conservative v strong isolationist. You'll get bonus points for integrity when you report back that I am right.
You probably also didn't notice that they aren't all that far apart from each other, especially after SRM went to great pains at the end to elaborate on his positions of deterrence through muscular posturing. They are on the same end of the ideological spectrum, they just disagree on how to achieve peace and security. To put this in terms you can understand, one is a Bush 41 Republican and the other is a Pat Buchanan Republican. Sure, there are differences, but they reside in the same zip code.
Given that you missed the point of their conversation (perhaps TC Derangement Syndrome overwhelmed you?), I understand how you would miss that the clear modern day analogue to what they are discussing is Iran and what the west should do there.
Regardless, even if you disagree with everything I have said, this really is an easy and simple question for you to answer. Given what has happened this year, do you still believe that we can contain Iran's nuclear ambitions without putting boots on the ground?
I'm glad we dropped the bomb. Saved a ton of lives, both American and Japanese. To suggest otherwise shows a complete lack of understanding who we were fighting.
Indeed. Saved my grandad's life.
And of course, if there can never be collateral damage, then under his ridiculous theory (which isn't Just War BTW), pretty much no military strike would ever be justified.
His position - like most of his positions - is just utterly absurd. He lives in fantasyland.
The Germans saved your grandfather's life despite him traveling halfway around the world to kill them.
Those sweet Nazis, so constrained by the Geneva convention. You know you have me convinced. Hitler and the Nazis were great people.
It's a good thing. He wasn't a Jew.
If he was a jew he wouldn't have been on the front lines or anywhere near a position of imminent danger.
There were plenty of Jews in the US Army. It's a good thing. He wasn't a Jew. Very likely would've died at the hands of the Nazis. Your heroes.
I've posted clips of the men, American and British soldiers, who actually fought the in the war and only recently passed away in the last couple of years and they all say they regret fighting it - that it was waste of young lives and they hate how their countries ended up as a result.
I suspect they value Freedom more than living under a totalitarian state where a ruthless dictator would've killed millions. That would've been a true tragedy. Thank God, good men stood up to evil.
The idea that Europe would've been better off with a socialist German dictator running things is just utterly stupid. There's no evidence of that.
Well men with a lot more wisdom and experience than you, who actually lived through & fought the war, said otherwise.
I'm sure it will get purged from the internet if you Zionists keep gaining power.