Also works for me.
That said, not watching a 17.5 minute video by some guy I don’t know without some convincing.
1 Like
I don’t think too many itt need convincing that a no-fly zone is a bad idea.
If you think a no fly zone is a good idea, it explains why it’s unworkable and would just mean all out air war with Russia. If you already think it’s a bad idea then no reason to watch it, probably.
some though
Maybe I just want to create conditions where Russia is at fault in starting a war by (accidentally?) firing upon a legitimate humanitarian mission.
I remain unsold on a NFZ being the right course of action for several other reasons. However, I really question if the Russians have the resources and ability to do well in an all out air battle in Ukraine. They’re kind of sucking ass right now.
If it really only was an exchange of air power and resources with only the rights and lives of 40m population of Ukraine in the balance, a NFZ seems reasonable. It’s the escalation into WW3 that is the big drawback.
Right, we get it, you want an actual shooting war between the US and Russia. That’s nuts.
I’m getting the feeling that in the last day or so most Russian advances have slowed or stopped and Ukraine is slowly picking off parts of Russian convoys. Is this accurate or is Russia still advancing in a bunch of different areas, just not near Kyiv?
It’s seemed like advances in the South and East have been proceeding, but the stall and most of the footage we see is from the North, where there’s much more Ukrainian success.
https://twitter.com/BillKristol/status/1500958355371737090
https://twitter.com/AccountableGOP/status/1499438087134453762
I’m confused, you can just air any ad you want on Carlson’s show and he has to put up with it?
Ya, but I’m getting the feeling those advances in the South are also slowing?
Would you like them to send out a nuke and if so, why?
I don’t necessarily want an actual shooting war. I just don’t think we should act to try to avoid a shooting war at all costs.
https://twitter.com/JacquiHeinrich/status/1500961829509636099
Problem solved - the cyber will do it!
Barron can probably just do it himself
2 Likes
Ifsrs this is shockingly bad idea. Supporting Ukraine with materiel is a moral and strategic necessity, escalation would be an epic blunder.
I don’t think the hosts are involved in the ad placements during their shows at all.
Then why aren’t we bombarding his show with anti-Tucker ads?
With the caveat that international relations is possibly my weakest subfield of political science, it seems like the debate in this thread mirrors realism vs idealism in foreign policy.
The assumption is that while the people who are involved in ad placements are not MAGA dipshits like Tucker, they would be right-leaning. So, it has always seemed odd to me that ads like these get broadcast on Fox. Is it because
- There is some regulation that states that Fox has to take the ads
- The Fox ad placement people really just care about getting paid, ad content is irrelevant to them
- Fox ad placement people are way more centrist than I give them credit for and don’t actually see any problem with such ads.
- Something else?