Interesting analysis...

[AUFAN78 3,910]

 

[CoffeeTiger 5,111]

 

 

2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine[edit]

After Russia's invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, Macgregor appeared on three Fox News programs in February and early March to speak in support of Russia's actions. Three days after the war began, he said "The battle in eastern Ukraine is really almost over," and predicted "If [Ukraine] don't surrender in the next 24 hours, I suspect Russia will ultimately annihilate them." Macgregor said he believed Russia should be allowed to seize whatever parts of Ukraine it wanted. In his second appearance, he revised his prediction: "The first five days Russian forces I think frankly were too gentle. They've now corrected that. So, I would say another 10 days this should be completely over... I think the most heroic thing he could do right now is come to terms with reality. Neutralize Ukraine." After one of his appearances, Macgregor's comments were characterized by veteran Fox News Pentagon correspondent Jennifer Griffin as "distorting" and "appeasement" and that he was being an "apologist" for Putin. After Griffin's remarks, Tucker Carlson — who hosted Macgregor on two successive nights — remarked, "Unlike many of the so-called reporters you see on television, he is not acting secretly as a flack for Lloyd Austin at the Pentagon. No, Doug Macgregor is an honest man." Trey Gowdy, another Fox News host who interviewed Macgregor, said his viewpoint was "stunning and disappointing".^{[9][55][56][57][10][58]}

Russian state television channels RT and VGTRK broadcast excerpts of Macgregor's second Carlson appearance, which included a characterization of Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy as a "puppet," that Russian forces had been "too gentle" in the early days of the invasion and that Russian president Vladimir Putin was being "demonized" by the United States and NATO.^[9][59] His opinions on Russia and Ukraine have caused controversy, with some including Liz Cheney describing Macgregor as being a member of the "Putin wing of the GOP."^{[60][61][62][63][64]}

In a fourth appearance in early March, Macgregor said a ceasefire was close as Ukrainian forces had been "grounded to bits. There's no question about that despite what we report on our mainstream media".^[9] He also defended Russia's invasion in an interview on The Grayzone, saying Putin had taken great care with civilians and this was delaying his victory.^[65]

In July 2022, on Real America's Voice he told Charlie Kirk that: "The war, with the exception of Kharkiv and Odesa, as far as the Russians are concerned is largely over. There is no intention to do anything else because the Russians don’t have a very large army... This nonsense that Putin wants to conquer all of Ukraine was never true. All he ever did in the Minsk agreement was ask that Russian speakers, Russian citizens inside Ukraine be treated equally before the law. That they not be penalized for being Russians."^[66]

In September 2022, he again predicted on Carlson's show that “this war may be over soon”^[67] and later in the month "the Ukrainian army is bled white, tens of thousands of Ukrainian troops have been killed or wounded, Ukraine is really on the ropes". Liz Cheney tweeted in response: "Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch - Why do you continually put Douglas MacGregor on @FoxNews to spread Putin's propaganda and lies? This is absolutely not in America's interest."^{[68][additional citation(s) needed]}

 

[homersapien 11,382]

MAGA's love them some foreign authoritarians.  They just can't wait until we have one of our own.

[AU9377 4,950]

5 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

 

You people do internet BS full of preposterous nonsense better than any group in the world. 

[AUFAN78 3,910]

1 hour ago, AU9377 said:

You people do internet BS full of preposterous nonsense better than any group in the world. 

Saw this on YouTube and posted it. I don't agree with everything the guy says, but would say he makes some valid points as well. 

But I should have known it would offend our delicate flowers. 

[AU9377 4,950]

1 hour ago, AUFAN78 said:

Saw this on YouTube and posted it. I don't agree with everything the guy says, but would say he makes some valid points as well. 

But I should have known it would offend our delicate flowers. 

I'm not offended, I just stopped watching when the it got silly, which was very early.

[AUFAN78 3,910]

14 hours ago, AU9377 said:

I'm not offended, I just stopped watching when the it got silly, which was very early.

Right. You should watch it in its entirety. But be warned, it will not be the MSM version you are used to hearing.  

[auburnatl1 4,940]

42 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

Right. You should watch it in its entirety. But be warned, it will not be the MSM version you are used to hearing.  

Russia’s population is dropping as well and its gdp is less than Brazil’s. It’s a fading 2nd world country - with legacy nukes. Reagan’s largest victory.

However, if Putin is allowed to cobble together significantly more population and fertile land territory - then you a strengthen, add momentum,  and emboldened an existential enemy that’s was trending down for decades.

IMO This video begins with the premise that Putin… isn’t so bad and reverses facts to suit that narrative from there. Russia is the good guys, Ukrainian the bad. Dear lord what propaganda. 

[AUFAN78 3,910]

50 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

Russia’s population is dropping as well and its gdp is less than Brazil’s. It’s a fading 2nd world country - with legacy nukes. Reagan’s largest victory.

However, if Putin is allowed to cobble together significantly more population and fertile land territory - then you a strengthen, add momentum,  and emboldened an existential enemy that’s was trending down for decades.

IMO This video begins with the premise that Putin… isn’t so bad and reverses facts to suit that narrative from there. Russia is the good guys, Ukrainian the bad. Dear lord what propaganda. 

I had a different take than yours and certainly nothing to do with Putin isn't so bad much less Russia the good guys, Ukraine the bad.

Col. Macgregor is viewed by many in the military and retired military as a brilliant strategist. War hawks not so much. 

His perspective is necessary IMO for constructive discourse. I certainly don't agree with everything he says, but I don't mind the discussion.

[auburnatl1 4,940]

46 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

I had a different take than yours and certainly nothing to do with Putin isn't so bad much less Russia the good guys, Ukraine the bad.

Col. Macgregor is viewed by many in the military and retired military as a brilliant strategist. War hawks not so much. 

His perspective is necessary IMO for constructive discourse. I certainly don't agree with everything he says, but I don't mind the discussion.

It is why democracies can’t win sustained wars. 1 year or less. Public sentiment looses interest and 2nd guesses, the opposing party takes advantage of it (ie the Dems in Vietnam).  Over and over. Once you start - win it. Or don’t start. We look like idiots.

Ukraine will be another example of why we can’t be taken seriously. And why China will go after Taiwan.

[AU9377 4,950]

3 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

Right. You should watch it in its entirety. But be warned, it will not be the MSM version you are used to hearing.  

MSM, as you call it, actually has some degree of fact checking going on.  Putin is every bit as evil as he has been portrayed.  He eliminates every dissenting voice.  You may be fine with that.  I am not.

[AUFAN78 3,910]

18 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

MSM, as you call it, actually has some degree of fact checking going on.  Putin is every bit as evil as he has been portrayed.  He eliminates every dissenting voice.  You may be fine with that.  I am not.

Wow! Those voices in your head are crazy. Is it some kind of defense mechanism? 

Not a fan of biased fact checkers and most check that box. (Simple research)

We agree on Putin. I have a neighbor from Russia and she see's the US adopting some of Russia's dissenting voices antics. I'm definitely not fine with that. 

[CoffeeTiger 5,111]

5 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

Wow! Those voices in your head are crazy. Is it some kind of defense mechanism? 

Not a fan of biased fact checkers and most check that box. (Simple research)

We agree on Putin. I have a neighbor from Russia and she see's the US adopting some of Russia's dissenting voices antics. I'm definitely not fine with that. 

Most fact checkers appear biased because insane Conservative conspiracies are usually the easiest and most obvious things to 'check' and to prove wrong. 

 

So many conservatives get mad at fact checkers for 'attacking' Conservative viewpoints without so much as a shred of self reflection about why Conservatives are so easy to fact check. 

 

My former history teacher, and a fanatically Conservative-Libertarian, regularly rants against Fact checkers on Facebook that sometimes posts fact checks on the propaganda posts he likes to share or comment on, yet for all his anti-fact checking rhetoric, he's never one time shown or proved that his the fact checkers were ever wrong about what they said about the content he shares. 

[AUFAN78 3,910]

1 hour ago, auburnatl1 said:

It is why democracies can’t win sustained wars. 1 year or less. Public sentiment looses interest and 2nd guesses, the opposing party takes advantage of it (ie the Dems in Vietnam).  Over and over. Once you start - win it. Or don’t start. We look like idiots.

Ukraine will be another example of why we can’t be taken seriously. And why China will go after Taiwan.

Historically speaking, democracies have won sustained wars. But I do get your point. And yes, at times we do look like idiots. 

So I agree with our aide to Ukraine, although I wish we'd have been proactive instead of reactive. Had the potential to prevent the incursion. Plenty disagree with my view. Fine.

Hopeful China doesn't go after Taiwan, although we know the possibility exists. The US needs to exhibit strength. Something I don't believe either Trump or Biden provide. Why I hate the rematch. Well, one of many reasons actually.

[AUFAN78 3,910]

22 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

Most fact checkers appear biased because insane Conservative conspiracies are usually the easiest and most obvious things to 'check' and to prove wrong. 

 

So many conservatives get mad at fact checkers for 'attacking' Conservative viewpoints without so much as a shred of self reflection about why Conservatives are so easy to fact check. 

 

My former history teacher, and a fanatically Conservative-Libertarian, regularly rants against Fact checkers on Facebook that sometimes posts fact checks on the propaganda posts he likes to share or comment on, yet for all his anti-fact checking rhetoric, he's never one time shown or proved that his the fact checkers were ever wrong about what they said about the content he shares. 

An opinion without research. I'm shocked Coffee!

[CoffeeTiger 5,111]

12 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

An opinion without research. I'm shocked Coffee!

 

Sorry to disappoint, Professor YouTube. 

[AUFAN78 3,910]

8 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

 

Sorry to disappoint, Professor YouTube. 

I said shocked (sarcasm), not disappointed. I expected the drivel. 

[CoffeeTiger 5,111]

15 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

I said shocked (sarcasm), not disappointed. I expected the drivel. 

[auburnatl1 4,940]

1 hour ago, AUFAN78 said:

Historically speaking, democracies have won sustained wars. But I do get your point.

Unless directly attacked - they haven’t. 

[AUFAN78 3,910]

26 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

Bingo. I knew that's how you arrived at your so-called analysis. Let me repeat, not shocked.

[AUFAN78 3,910]

9 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

Unless directly attacked - they haven’t. 

Please elaborate.

[auburnatl1 4,940]

5 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

Please elaborate.

Theres been many dissertations and books written on it.  Ie
https://www.amazon.com/How-Democracies-Lose-Small-Wars/dp/0521008778

[AUFAN78 3,910]

11 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

Theres been many dissertations and books written on it.  Ie
https://www.amazon.com/How-Democracies-Lose-Small-Wars/dp/0521008778

Your thoughts on WWI/WWII, Gulf War?

[auburnatl1 4,940]

2 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

Your thoughts on WWI/WWII, Gulf War?

Ww1 -> Germany sank Lusitania with us citizens (was the last straw of many sinkings), ww2 -> Pearl Harbor, gulf war was over in less than 2 months - land war in 4 days. 

[AUFAN78 3,910]

10 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

Ww1 -> Germany sank Lusitania with us citizens (was the last straw of many sinkings), ww2 -> Pearl Harbor, gulf war was over in less than 2 months - land war in 4 days. 

I guess I'm confused. WWI 1914-1918. WW2 1939-1945.  Gulf War Aug 1990-Feb 1991. What am I missing?