Ukraine conflict

Quote: rxwine

He would have given a list of people for references, and once they contact those people they ask those people for anyone else they think he knew or hung out with.

That lends itself to finding out things he may have wanted to avoid telling them about. Even if it ends up being nothing they would have disqualified him for, trying to hide things from the CIA isn't going to help you get a job where they need to have a lot faith in your trustworthiness.

I know, it could be a number of things in the personal background check section (its much different than a reference check at a regular job, they actually call, in some cases visit, everyone and expand, and not just refences, former roommates, family members, coworkers, employers, former boyfriends/girlfriends/people you dated for over 30 days, former school admins, etc.... Basically everyone you have had human contact with ever you have to list even if you know they are unfavorable....). Luckily, I have never had this problem, but I can only imagine, if you had a terrible relationship that ended on aggressive terms where they hate you, it would be embarrassing, because I bet they tell everything (and in some cases probably make stuff up) to them and your employer would forever have the story in their file.... I am sure the process is similar to a top secret clearance, maybe more, (and you probably also have to pass a polygraph to verify each answer). So on personal stuff alone there are endless red flags that could be drawn up (or at least enough questionable flags that make the applicant no longer worth investing time in).

But, that is assuming the issue was not some kind of foreign interest. I think the biggest issues for security clearances (and I am sure this applies to their process) is financial problems (would not be an issue for Tucker), questionable foreign contacts/involvements/interests (possible for anyone, even more of an issue for people who come from other countries), criminal record (not an issue for Tucker), or lying about anything (possible for anyone). And, of course since he was applying for a job (not just a clearance after already being employed), there is always the chance that regular things potential employers look at came up (GPA -in college and HS-, choice of degree, work experience, achievements or lack of etc....) that would be a turn off, security issues aside...

And, of course it could simply be nothing, in such wide ranging and drawn out processes, sometimes they just need to weed people out to make their jobs easier, and maybe they figured a rich kid probably would not be interested in a long term commitment, or his packet just got lost in the shuffle (this was the 90s) and they just denied him to save trouble, I mean it could hypothetically be anything. I don't know what CIA application numbers were in the early 90s, but I would guess that they probably had far more qualified applicants than they needed, so anyone who was even slightly too much trouble in their background check was probably quickly weeded out since he would save them trouble (as he was not an employee who needed a clearance which would obligate them, they did not have to go through the work, and would probably favor crystal applicants where minimal interviews were required).

I don't think its a bad thing, just an interesting fact (given his current views). Probably the lions share of this forum would fail a top secret clearance review (which is probably close to what the CIA does) for one reason or another. But, its just an interesting note, especially with his current opinions on the CIA. Its one of those things that the later in life you try to get one, the harder it is (because the longer you go after highschool/college you have more dirt, more failed relations, more driving tickets, more former friends who may not care for you anymore, more chances of disgruntled employers -or even employees- more random stuff that can pop up and add together to not look great, etc, and every year of "real life" that you live the more this compounds.... So almost by default, the older that you are, the more disadvantaged you are).

Carlson is definitely somewhat of a loose cannon.

Many, many of these type of people turn in to shock jocks. They have to shock everybody all the time to keep up their ratings.

Iconoclastic might be how he would put it and iconoclastic is not always bad. You hate a guy like that when you don't agree with him or, yes, when he is twisting things around and sometimes outright lying. In the case of Russia, he seemed to be following the lead of some very confused people and stepped on his junk in the process.

Mon, 4 April 2022
The exiled Russian oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky said in an interview with CNN on Sunday that the next step in Russian President Vladimir Putin's war in Ukraine might be the invasion of the Baltic countries of Estonia (2022 estimate 1,328,439), Latvia (2020 estimate 1,907,675) and Lithuania ( 2021 estimate 2,795,680) .

Formerly a portion of the USSR, on 29 March 2004 these three nations joined NATO and on 1 May 2004 they joined the EU.

They were the last three countries to join the Euro Area after banknotes and coins were introduced on 1 January 2002.

Slovenia 2007-01-01 Tolar
Cyprus 2008-01-01 Pound
Malta 2008-01-01 Lira
Slovakia 2009-01-01 Koruna
Estonia 2011-01-01 Kroon
Latvia 2014-01-01 Lats
Lithuania 2015-01-01 Litas

That would be suicidial, given they are members of NATO: the west will respond with boots on the ground and planes and missiles in the air.

But it could happen, given the specifics of Putin.

He's former KGB, hungering for Russia to ascend and be important, and desperate to cement his legacy among the pantheon of most important Russian leaders such as Catherine and Peter the Great.

I fear he'll be known as Putin the Destroyer: let me explain.

With the above megalomaniac indicators in mind, now factor in the spectre of poor health; by report Putin may have thyroid cancer and he's had an oncologist shadowing and treating him for some time; he looks ill and has become very reclusive / paranoid.

By report Putin has bathed in antler blood to recapture vim, vitality and health.

I can envision a scenario where Putin uses nuclear weapons, triggered by calamitous military defeats while his health declines toward his final dirtnap; just as Hitler wanted to destroy the Reich at the end rather than accept the reality of an allied victory, so might Putin feel that it is better for all of the world to die if Russia does not win.

Stupid thinking, of course, but this is a schmuck who bathes in antler blood ...

Had he been content to take another small piece, he might have succeeded against much more limited sanctions and less unified resistance from the rest of the world. After a year or so, the world probably would have eased up and it would end up being another ongoing border skirmish between the two countries. But Putin would control more land than before.

I'm surprised Russia didn't work harder to win in eastern Ukraine from 2014 forward.

Had they thrown a lot at it they could easily have won control of the areas that prefer to be with Russia.

But he bit off more than he could chew, and now he's choking on it.

All this talk about war crimes. Like Scott Adams was saying today during World War II American troops committed tons of war crimes just as bad or worse as what's happening now in Ukraine. But because we won the war you don't hear about them. We know they happened because service men talked about it when they came home, about how many captured soldiers they murdered just so they wouldn't have to take care of them. Or how many civilians they killed. It's war and in every war atrocities happen. Happened in the Korean War, happened hugely in the Vietnam War.

Is this awesome or what
What a bad ass

Quote: Evenbob

All this talk about war crimes. Like Scott Adams was saying today during World War II American troops committed tons of war crimes just as bad or worse as what's happening now in Ukraine. But because we won the war you don't hear about them. We know they happened because service men talked about it when they came home, about how many captured soldiers they murdered just so they wouldn't have to take care of them. Or how many civilians they killed. It's war and in every war atrocities happen. Happened in the Korean War, happened hugely in the Vietnam War.

We hear about American War Crimes endlessly thank to the masochistic leaders who love pointing out American mistakes. You even learn about them in high school. In what world do people not harp on America for war crimes (real or imagined)?

As for WWII nothing we did was equivalent to the Nazis or the Japanese (like not even close). The Korean War was messy. The Vietnam War nothing we did was close to what the Vietcong did.

However, the larger issue, is not saying well America did some bad stuff, so we can't call out Russia for doing bad stuff. That is literally Putin's propaganda. Whenever somebody points to an issue in Russia, he says "well look at America", this is the oldest tactic in the book....

The larger issue is there are war crimes being committed in a country where there should not even be a war. The biggest crime is the invasion.

The Just War Theory first mandates that a war be justified before worrying about methods, and this war should not have even occurred.

Quote: terapined

Is this awesome or what
What a bad ass

Now that's soldiering.