01-03-2025, 08:46 PM
(This post was last modified: 01-03-2025, 08:47 PM by Fred Steeves.)
So here's my problem. After re-watching this year or so old clip of Prof. John Mearsheimer speaking to the history of Russia/Ukraine/NATO tensions and red lines, I've yet to find an information source that can refute his statements beyond the rich resources of western talking points. The narrative machine along with its usual cliche catch phrases like "unprovoked aggression", "Putin's war", "fighting to save democracy" etc.,.
And believe me if there's something staring me right in the face here like the proverbial elephant in the room and I'm somehow missing it, I darn well nearly beg people to show me what and where it is, but nobody has yet to be able to demonstrate a darn thing save for leaning back on those talking points.
The pattern is the same, just expressing itself in a couple or so different ways. Once I challenge any given individual parroting the usual talking points to show me something beyond that, something concrete, the reactions come in three basic forms:
1) Ridicule with nothing to back it up.
2) Ignoring the unanswered questions, move on to a new set of western talking points, while ridiculing the questioner.
3) Just disappear and leave the discussion. Usually after one last point of baseless ridicule, but also often times not as well it just depends.
I've already long decided that the reason for this is there is no solid evidence to put up as a reasoned argument against the points Prof. Mearsheimer puts forth, but the person looking to refute it have leaned so long on these relentless talking points to back their case, that they've come to see these talking points AS the evidence.
And hell man, often enough just the insults alone suffices as the evidence, which happened last evening with one of those old navy pals from 30 years ago I was earlier pointing to. The best evidence he could put forth to prove his 100% support for indefinitely continuing the war was that "I'm one of those that just can't see the forest through the trees", and "if I want to live under Putin's authoritarian regime then I should move to Russia".
Well again, that doesn't tell me a god damn thing, and why is a contrary view of something from an old buddy you haven't talked to in 30 years so triggering that he's compelled to immediately set sail with the personal insults? I even asked him please, do enlighten me and show me something that might make me see the error of my ways.
And that was the end of it, yet again, radio silence when all he had to do was set ole Fred straight on some true facts of this matter. But there we go again, I can only surmise that he's got nothing, otherwise why not proudly lay it out on the table for all to see... And I'd be happy with that, no problemo not even the least bit embarrassed, because I would have learned something in the process.
So anyway, I'm not posting Mearsheimer as actual evidence, just that I've yet to find for myself, nor from anyone else, credible information refuting him.
(6:30 long)
And believe me if there's something staring me right in the face here like the proverbial elephant in the room and I'm somehow missing it, I darn well nearly beg people to show me what and where it is, but nobody has yet to be able to demonstrate a darn thing save for leaning back on those talking points.
The pattern is the same, just expressing itself in a couple or so different ways. Once I challenge any given individual parroting the usual talking points to show me something beyond that, something concrete, the reactions come in three basic forms:
1) Ridicule with nothing to back it up.
2) Ignoring the unanswered questions, move on to a new set of western talking points, while ridiculing the questioner.
3) Just disappear and leave the discussion. Usually after one last point of baseless ridicule, but also often times not as well it just depends.
I've already long decided that the reason for this is there is no solid evidence to put up as a reasoned argument against the points Prof. Mearsheimer puts forth, but the person looking to refute it have leaned so long on these relentless talking points to back their case, that they've come to see these talking points AS the evidence.
And hell man, often enough just the insults alone suffices as the evidence, which happened last evening with one of those old navy pals from 30 years ago I was earlier pointing to. The best evidence he could put forth to prove his 100% support for indefinitely continuing the war was that "I'm one of those that just can't see the forest through the trees", and "if I want to live under Putin's authoritarian regime then I should move to Russia".
Well again, that doesn't tell me a god damn thing, and why is a contrary view of something from an old buddy you haven't talked to in 30 years so triggering that he's compelled to immediately set sail with the personal insults? I even asked him please, do enlighten me and show me something that might make me see the error of my ways.
And that was the end of it, yet again, radio silence when all he had to do was set ole Fred straight on some true facts of this matter. But there we go again, I can only surmise that he's got nothing, otherwise why not proudly lay it out on the table for all to see... And I'd be happy with that, no problemo not even the least bit embarrassed, because I would have learned something in the process.
So anyway, I'm not posting Mearsheimer as actual evidence, just that I've yet to find for myself, nor from anyone else, credible information refuting him.
(6:30 long)
"FOLLOW THE EVIDENCE, WHEREVER IT LEADS" SOCRATES