Imagine if Buttigieg of all people takes Iowa and New Hampshire. Dude's playing to win, I'll give him that.
Jaicee said:
Non-interventionists shouldn't claim to be "anti-war" because they're not. Let's take, for example, President Trump's recent decision to pull most of our special forces out of Northern Syria, thereby knowingly leaving the Kurdish people, who only defeated ISIS for us, at the mercy of the Turkish armed forces. That wasn't ending a war, it was starting one! Northern Syria had been in a state of relative peace. There are lots of ways of starting wars and they don't all involve invading and overrunning a foreign country without provocation (as we did in the case of Iraq) is my point. 'But the point is that non-intervention avoids American deaths, and America First', you say? No. Rigid non-intervention doesn't save more American lives either. For example, you know many American lives it cost us to support the Syrian Democratic Forces in their successful campaign to defeat ISIS? You know how many American lives it took to eradicate the ISIS caliphate? Six. More than twice that many Americans (14, excluding the perpetrators) were killed by ISIS in the San Bernadino attack alone! Still think it wasn't worth it? Imagine, based on this evidence, what the cost of doing nothing might have been! For comparison's sake, that effort cost the Kurdish people 11,000 of their soldiers. I'd say they shouldered a highly disproportionate share of the burden. And we just sold them out as their reward. Tulsi Gabbard has repeatedly compared these people, who a pro-democratic, secularist feminists, to "Al Qaeda" because the Assad government has branded them terrorists. There is also the fact that, frankly, as you point out, our invasion of Iraq was precisely what made ISIS in the first place, indirectly. How then can one argue that we had no moral obligation to be a part of cleaning up that mess? You claim that America, on moral grounds, shouldn't be involved in the Syrian Civil War because that's an internal issue of Syria's. Okay well what have you to say then about Turkey launching a full-scale military invasion of Northern Syria? I've noticed you haven't had anything to say about that. It's also worth noting that the people of Northern Syria consider their territory sovereign and not part of Syria proper and that they directly requested our military assistance in their fight against ISIS. We didn't just impose ourselves upon them. In fact, they requested military aid that we never gave them, like planes and tanks, for example, which might have been very helpful in rendering them more self-sufficient at a time like say this wherein they find themselves under attack from a Turkish military that has lots of that kind of heavy equipment! These are the sorts of reasons why I don't approach questions of foreign policy in the kind of dogmatic, strictly ideological way that Gabbard does. Circumstances matter! Yeah, we definitely shouldn't have invaded Iraq! I was always against that. But the fact is that we did and the consequences were unleashed. We can't just go back in time and make that not happen. We have to take responsibility for our actions, and not just for other people's sake in the Middle East, but also for our own. Tulsi Gabbard supporters (such as yourself) rely a lot on the claims that her detractors are conspiracy theorists. There's more than a little irony to that suggestion. Gabbard is someone who has said, among other things, that perhaps Bashir Al Assad's forces have never used chemical weapons in the course of the Syrian war for example, which is remarkable when you consider all of the live footage we have and the innumerable first-hand testimonials, and considering that the survivors seem to know exactly who it was that attacked them in this way. Uran has even claimed that all of those were "false flag operations". THAT is a conspiracy theory! And a less believable one, I find, than the worries many people have about the implications of Gabbard's direct communications with unfriendly foreign dictators (like Bashir Al Assad!). I mean the false flag argument is the most generic of all that conspiracy theorists use. Alex Jones, the founder of Info Wars, claims that everything from tornadoes to school shootings are false flag operations. Claims like these are not only highly disingenuous, they're cruel to the families and survivors of horrific events like these and completely disrespectful toward the dead. Personally, I'm of the view that Gabbard is doing some projecting when she claims that her detractors are delusional conspiracy theorists. In your previous post, you had also argued that supporting Tulsi Gabbard was about being "inclusive" because apparently using that buzzword makes whatever one says a left wing thing to say...and yet when presented with a refresher course on the candidate's often bigoted history, you just casually brush it off as irrelevant. See the contradiction here? I would especially highlight the fact that neither you nor Uran has yet responded to points I've repeatedly made here about Gabbard's particular hostility toward refugees and immigrants. That seems to be something neither of you want to talk about. I wonder why that could be. Seriously! It's for reasons like these that she was forced to disavow the endorsement of David Duke, former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan! And yet about this you have nothing to say? |
Where is this proof of Tulsi currently holding hostility towards immigrants? I've never seen any quote from her that remotely resembles that?
Look if what you say about her history is definitely true, then that's very unfortunate and I truly wish it wasn't the case. I don't support it in the least bit. But all I ultimately care about is her ideals and actions NOW, in the present. People can be brainwashed as a younger, more impressionable youth. If anything it speaks more positively to her character that she was able to break that conditioning, think for herself and become the progressive she is today. Hillary was a Goldwater girl but that doesn't seem to bother a lot of people either..
She's forced to disavow these extremists because of people's bizarre unfounded paranoia about her and her constant character assassination attempts from the Dem establishment (and elsewhere). Seriously, I've never seen anything like it, it's on a level even the likes of Illhan Omar has not received but I guess it just shows how profoundly close minded and out-of-touch we've become as a nation..
I love how Tulsi used to be a Democrat "rising star" when she was the Vice Chair and having her ass kissed by the Democrats but as soon as she backs Bernie and goes against Hillary suddenly she's a "Traitor" "plant" or "problematic" in all sorts of asinine ways. I'm just tired of this "guilt by association" crap and pointless character smears that have nothing to do with the actual issues, especially when it comes from circles outside of Tulsi's control. Again, the Ohio mass shooter was a big Warren fan but you don't see me claiming that Warren is "dangerous" or "has mass shooter sympathies" or something..
And sometimes you have to be diplomatic with your enemies. Being diplomatic and reaching out for discussions doesn't = "support"
Yes, we shouldn't have created the mess in the first place - and we shouldn't be creating NEW messes either. I don't know the specifics in Syria, Turkey, etc, but frankly it's not our business. And with respect, I tend to trust a current National Guard soldier on the issue of foreign policy, who has intel and experienced many of these things herself over people on the internet. We pour trillions into the military machine just to fight other nation's wars and I'm sick of it. Especially since at this point we've essentially chopped of the head of the Isis syndicate as is. If we want to exercise the possibility of affording M4A or especially UBI well pulling back from constantly being the world's police would be a terrific start! Evil is bound to crop up in various places, but we don't always have to try and snuff it out everywhere ourselves, especially when it seems to primarily make things worse. It's just an endless game of wack-a-mole.
Last edited by DarthMetalliCube - on 12 November 2019
"We hold these truths to be self-evident - all men and women created by the, go-you know.. you know the thing!" - Joe Biden
If Buttigieg wins the early states that could give the momentum to take it.
| uran10 said: Here's your video :) |
Interesting vid. I'm utterly convinced at this point there are many in the Dem establishment who would rather have Trump for 4 more years than a true anti-establishment progressive like Gabbard. Trump is probably easier to control and plus they can act like they oppose him and keep up their facade as the "reisistance" or whatever.. Like why try to sabotage and assassinate the character of one of the most promising young progressive candidates who has tremendous crossover appeal and some truly refreshing ideas on altering our destructive foreign policy?
And the latest thing is she's questionable b/c she goes on right wing news stations or whatever? GOOD! That means she's reaching out to more potential voters. Bernie also did that.. So good candidates are just supposed to stick in their small circles and preach merely to their echo chambers? How on earth is THAT going to gain you supporters. The point is to get MORE voters in the primary and general, is it not? Some people just do not use their heads and see the bigger picture.
I mean here is a true liberal who's a peace advocate and wishes to unify and reach across the aisle and yet she's "problematic" and her supporters are "cult of personality" or "crazy conspiracy theorists" or "secretly far-right" or some other bullshit. You just cannot win with some people. Politics is just a losing game no matter who you support and I'm sort of sick of it. Think I'm just going to go back to talking about games exclusively for awhile lol. I come here to escape the ignorance and insanity of twitter but sadly it's little better here..
I suppose I get that as an anti-war, progressive woman of color with a libertarian bent (esp one that dared go against the Clinton machine) you are naturally going to have a huge target on your back and draw a lot of hatred, but man, I'm still baffled as to how and why she gets SO much of it. But I guess I just have to make peace w/the fact that somebody with those characteristics is going to have a ton of haters.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident - all men and women created by the, go-you know.. you know the thing!" - Joe Biden
I am looking forward to Gabbard's (R-Moscow) performance next week. The debates can be heavy and I'm always down for some hilarity.
| morenoingrato said: I am looking forward to Gabbard's (R-Moscow) performance next week. The debates can be heavy and I'm always down for some hilarity. |
Those Russians sure give us the greatest candidates! Thank you my dear leader Putin! :P
I hope they meddle in our elections even more! XD
"We hold these truths to be self-evident - all men and women created by the, go-you know.. you know the thing!" - Joe Biden
Perry Bacon from 538 about the recent rumours about new entries in the primaries. I think it is a fitting analysis: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-are-democratic-donors-agitating-for-a-new-candidate/
| jason1637 said: If Buttigieg wins the early states that could give the momentum to take it. |
Yeah that's very possible but at this point he's only crippling Biden and Warren. As these two coalitions overlap with his, especially Warren's. Buttigieg doesn't have that much broad appeal, being mostly successful with white wealthier voters. He's having the same problem Warren had earlier in the race, he needs to work on appealing to black and Latin voters. Iowa and New Hampshire have a 90%+ white population so that coupled with his aggressive campaigning and dumping loads of money into those two states I'm not surprised he's doing well.
Last edited by tsogud - on 13 November 2019 
| Mnementh said: I think sanctions against Turkey would be adequate. Other than that, the Kurds/SDF and the Assad regime currently brokered an alliance to stop the turkish invasion, which is why the Kurds have allowed Syrian army to enter kurdish controlled areas to secure the borders to Turkey and Turkish controlled areas (in the map visible by the red string for Assads troops in the overtly yellow kurdish controlled areas). |
...You realize they didn't want to have to broker that deal, right? And you know what the terms are, right? The Assad regime largely regains control over Northern Syria, to the point that the Kurds have had to even rename all their communities their Arabic names again. Those are the terms. That's why they preferred to work with us!
Also, they're still fighting for their lives! It's really sad to have to say this, but the best ongoing coverage of the situation I'm aware of can be found on the 700 Club, which is a weekdaily program created by Christian conservative activist Pat Robertson. They still show footage of new developments. The footage is important because it makes it very clear how violent the situation still is. Here is the latest of it I can find (relevant part being first five minutes; the rest is other stuff you can and probably should skip). Does that look like things are basically fine to you?
Also, those green areas in the northeast on that map you pointed out? Those are places like what used to known as Kobani; ancestral lands of the Kurdish people. Now under Turkish control. Do you have any idea how death and displacement that green you see represents?
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2024 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
Currently Online 
