Why is there so much hate here directed at Gabbard? I just can't figure it out ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For me it is her stance on foreign policy and wars. She is an 'end all wars' candidate. Which is fine when you're not the person in charge. But the world stage is complicated and what we're doing with the military around the world keeps America safe. I think she's actually really isolationist and unwilling to look at the realities of the world.

+1

Probably would have stayed out of WWII too - which, as a Jew and a human being, I am glad isn't what America did

You’re both awful excuses for humanity.

And, you, are a disgrace to you race--the human race!

We are awful excuses for humanity for acknowledging that war is bad but sometimes better than the alternative? That there are moral duties to enter into war sometimes, when so much is at stake?

I'm not sure why you have to ask why there is so much hatred directed at Gabbard. You and she seem to believe genocide is fine; we'll just look the other way - hey, there's some good stuff on Netflix tonight.

You give blanket defenses of today’s most murderous war machine (it’s also an economic cancer) because:
1. The world is messy
2. WWII and Jews

It’s sloppy, stupid stuff in defense of sick $hit. You both have serious problems. And claiming that criticism of today’s worst killing machine and bad arguments for it make me and Tulsi ‘believe genocide is fine’ shows you’re evil and/or seriously stupid.

Can I say I am actually relieved to see this argument (both sides), because it actually makes sense (unlike the vast majority of Tulsi takes.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For me it is her stance on foreign policy and wars. She is an 'end all wars' candidate. Which is fine when you're not the person in charge. But the world stage is complicated and what we're doing with the military around the world keeps America safe. I think she's actually really isolationist and unwilling to look at the realities of the world.

+1

Probably would have stayed out of WWII too - which, as a Jew and a human being, I am glad isn't what America did

You’re both awful excuses for humanity.

And, you, are a disgrace to you race--the human race!

We are awful excuses for humanity for acknowledging that war is bad but sometimes better than the alternative? That there are moral duties to enter into war sometimes, when so much is at stake?

I'm not sure why you have to ask why there is so much hatred directed at Gabbard. You and she seem to believe genocide is fine; we'll just look the other way - hey, there's some good stuff on Netflix tonight.

You give blanket defenses of today’s most murderous war machine (it’s also an economic cancer) because:
1. The world is messy
2. WWII and Jews

It’s sloppy, stupid stuff in defense of sick $hit. You both have serious problems. And claiming that criticism of today’s worst killing machine and bad arguments for it make me and Tulsi ‘believe genocide is fine’ shows you’re evil and/or seriously stupid.

The slaughtered Kurdish children say G F Y

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For me it is her stance on foreign policy and wars. She is an 'end all wars' candidate. Which is fine when you're not the person in charge. But the world stage is complicated and what we're doing with the military around the world keeps America safe. I think she's actually really isolationist and unwilling to look at the realities of the world.

+1

Probably would have stayed out of WWII too - which, as a Jew and a human being, I am glad isn't what America did

You’re both awful excuses for humanity.

And, you, are a disgrace to you race--the human race!

We are awful excuses for humanity for acknowledging that war is bad but sometimes better than the alternative? That there are moral duties to enter into war sometimes, when so much is at stake?

I'm not sure why you have to ask why there is so much hatred directed at Gabbard. You and she seem to believe genocide is fine; we'll just look the other way - hey, there's some good stuff on Netflix tonight.

You give blanket defenses of today’s most murderous war machine (it’s also an economic cancer) because:
1. The world is messy
2. WWII and Jews

It’s sloppy, stupid stuff in defense of sick $hit. You both have serious problems. And claiming that criticism of today’s worst killing machine and bad arguments for it make me and Tulsi ‘believe genocide is fine’ shows you’re evil and/or seriously stupid.

The slaughtered Kurdish children say G F Y

Exactly: by arming ISIS and al-qaeada linked militias in Syria, as well as NATO ‘ally’ Turkey, (and don’t forget Iraq+Iran) our war machine has a horrible amount of Kurdish blood on its hands.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For me it is her stance on foreign policy and wars. She is an 'end all wars' candidate. Which is fine when you're not the person in charge. But the world stage is complicated and what we're doing with the military around the world keeps America safe. I think she's actually really isolationist and unwilling to look at the realities of the world.

+1

Probably would have stayed out of WWII too - which, as a Jew and a human being, I am glad isn't what America did

You’re both awful excuses for humanity.

And, you, are a disgrace to you race--the human race!

We are awful excuses for humanity for acknowledging that war is bad but sometimes better than the alternative? That there are moral duties to enter into war sometimes, when so much is at stake?

I'm not sure why you have to ask why there is so much hatred directed at Gabbard. You and she seem to believe genocide is fine; we'll just look the other way - hey, there's some good stuff on Netflix tonight.

You give blanket defenses of today’s most murderous war machine (it’s also an economic cancer) because:
1. The world is messy
2. WWII and Jews

It’s sloppy, stupid stuff in defense of sick $hit. You both have serious problems. And claiming that criticism of today’s worst killing machine and bad arguments for it make me and Tulsi ‘believe genocide is fine’ shows you’re evil and/or seriously stupid.

The slaughtered Kurdish children say G F Y

Exactly: by arming ISIS and al-qaeada linked militias in Syria, as well as NATO ‘ally’ Turkey, (and don’t forget Iraq+Iran) our war machine has a horrible amount of Kurdish blood on its hands.

Pretty sure Tulsi is an operator of said war machine.

[Anonymous]

I will never ever support Gabbard. She is an apologist for one of the worst dictators and human rights violators in the modern world at the moment (perhaps only topped by NK and systematic re-education camps being run by the Chinese in their muslim areas.)

The Syrian revolution started as a peaceful protest movement within Syria, as had been occurring in most other countries during the Arab Spring.

Assad chose to respond violently to the peaceful, non-violent protests when they started drawing hundreds of thousands of peaceful protesters. He used violence because he knew that he could not hold onto power otherwise.

Cynically, he also used torture, disappearance and mass execution. Please see the numerous stories and documentations by Cesar - a police photographer who escaped Syria with tons of documentation of Assad's torture regime. Here is just one story about him -- https://www.goalglobal.org/stories/post/what-are-the-caesar-photographs.

Gabbard supports Assad and has met personally with him. During last week's democratic debate, she repeatedly described the Syrian revolution as a "regime change war" started by the Americans. Nothing could be further than the truth. Syrian citizens wanted to change their own society and were met by the ruthless hand of a dictator who would maintain his own personally power by any means necessary (which includes not just torture but barrel bombs and the use of chemical weapons against civilians and the systematic bombing of civilian hospitals.)

That is why I hate her and will never vote for her. She is either stupid or so cynical as to profit politically from association with a brutal dictator.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I will never ever support Gabbard. She is an apologist for one of the worst dictators and human rights violators in the modern world at the moment (perhaps only topped by NK and systematic re-education camps being run by the Chinese in their muslim areas.)

The Syrian revolution started as a peaceful protest movement within Syria, as had been occurring in most other countries during the Arab Spring.

Assad chose to respond violently to the peaceful, non-violent protests when they started drawing hundreds of thousands of peaceful protesters. He used violence because he knew that he could not hold onto power otherwise.

Cynically, he also used torture, disappearance and mass execution. Please see the numerous stories and documentations by Cesar - a police photographer who escaped Syria with tons of documentation of Assad's torture regime. Here is just one story about him -- https://www.goalglobal.org/stories/post/what-are-the-caesar-photographs.

Gabbard supports Assad and has met personally with him. During last week's democratic debate, she repeatedly described the Syrian revolution as a "regime change war" started by the Americans. Nothing could be further than the truth. Syrian citizens wanted to change their own society and were met by the ruthless hand of a dictator who would maintain his own personally power by any means necessary (which includes not just torture but barrel bombs and the use of chemical weapons against civilians and the systematic bombing of civilian hospitals.)

That is why I hate her and will never vote for her. She is either stupid or so cynical as to profit politically from association with a brutal dictator.

THIS!!!! She completely lied in the debate. The Syrian war started when domestic Syrians began peacefully protesting against the regime. Who doesn't remember Assad's "barrel bombs" he dropped en mass on Muslim neighborhoods across Syria?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I will never ever support Gabbard. She is an apologist for one of the worst dictators and human rights violators in the modern world at the moment (perhaps only topped by NK and systematic re-education camps being run by the Chinese in their muslim areas.)

The Syrian revolution started as a peaceful protest movement within Syria, as had been occurring in most other countries during the Arab Spring.

Assad chose to respond violently to the peaceful, non-violent protests when they started drawing hundreds of thousands of peaceful protesters. He used violence because he knew that he could not hold onto power otherwise.

Cynically, he also used torture, disappearance and mass execution. Please see the numerous stories and documentations by Cesar - a police photographer who escaped Syria with tons of documentation of Assad's torture regime. Here is just one story about him -- https://www.goalglobal.org/stories/post/what-are-the-caesar-photographs.

Gabbard supports Assad and has met personally with him. During last week's democratic debate, she repeatedly described the Syrian revolution as a "regime change war" started by the Americans. Nothing could be further than the truth. Syrian citizens wanted to change their own society and were met by the ruthless hand of a dictator who would maintain his own personally power by any means necessary (which includes not just torture but barrel bombs and the use of chemical weapons against civilians and the systematic bombing of civilian hospitals.)

That is why I hate her and will never vote for her. She is either stupid or so cynical as to profit politically from association with a brutal dictator.

Look, just because the Syrians were repressed by Assad does not mean that the US invading is a good thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I will never ever support Gabbard. She is an apologist for one of the worst dictators and human rights violators in the modern world at the moment (perhaps only topped by NK and systematic re-education camps being run by the Chinese in their muslim areas.)

The Syrian revolution started as a peaceful protest movement within Syria, as had been occurring in most other countries during the Arab Spring.

Assad chose to respond violently to the peaceful, non-violent protests when they started drawing hundreds of thousands of peaceful protesters. He used violence because he knew that he could not hold onto power otherwise.

Cynically, he also used torture, disappearance and mass execution. Please see the numerous stories and documentations by Cesar - a police photographer who escaped Syria with tons of documentation of Assad's torture regime. Here is just one story about him -- https://www.goalglobal.org/stories/post/what-are-the-caesar-photographs.

Gabbard supports Assad and has met personally with him. During last week's democratic debate, she repeatedly described the Syrian revolution as a "regime change war" started by the Americans. Nothing could be further than the truth. Syrian citizens wanted to change their own society and were met by the ruthless hand of a dictator who would maintain his own personally power by any means necessary (which includes not just torture but barrel bombs and the use of chemical weapons against civilians and the systematic bombing of civilian hospitals.)

That is why I hate her and will never vote for her. She is either stupid or so cynical as to profit politically from association with a brutal dictator.

THIS!!!! She completely lied in the debate. The Syrian war started when domestic Syrians began peacefully protesting against the regime. Who doesn't remember Assad's "barrel bombs" he dropped en mass on Muslim neighborhoods across Syria?

It's the US involvement that would be "regime change." The US has long sought to get rid of Assad. I'm sure there's a lot to know about exactly what kind of intervention would be best to stabilize Syria and protect civilians, but it's absurd to claim that the US goals there are not "regime change." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Syria#War,_2011%E2%80%932017

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I will never ever support Gabbard. She is an apologist for one of the worst dictators and human rights violators in the modern world at the moment (perhaps only topped by NK and systematic re-education camps being run by the Chinese in their muslim areas.)

The Syrian revolution started as a peaceful protest movement within Syria, as had been occurring in most other countries during the Arab Spring.

Assad chose to respond violently to the peaceful, non-violent protests when they started drawing hundreds of thousands of peaceful protesters. He used violence because he knew that he could not hold onto power otherwise.

Cynically, he also used torture, disappearance and mass execution. Please see the numerous stories and documentations by Cesar - a police photographer who escaped Syria with tons of documentation of Assad's torture regime. Here is just one story about him -- https://www.goalglobal.org/stories/post/what-are-the-caesar-photographs.

Gabbard supports Assad and has met personally with him. During last week's democratic debate, she repeatedly described the Syrian revolution as a "regime change war" started by the Americans. Nothing could be further than the truth. Syrian citizens wanted to change their own society and were met by the ruthless hand of a dictator who would maintain his own personally power by any means necessary (which includes not just torture but barrel bombs and the use of chemical weapons against civilians and the systematic bombing of civilian hospitals.)

That is why I hate her and will never vote for her. She is either stupid or so cynical as to profit politically from association with a brutal dictator.

THIS!!!! She completely lied in the debate. The Syrian war started when domestic Syrians began peacefully protesting against the regime. Who doesn't remember Assad's "barrel bombs" he dropped en mass on Muslim neighborhoods across Syria?

Obama drew the red-line and did nothing. And people are acting like what Assad is or what he did is news. It's not, we know who he is and who he always was. It's not different.

Assad is an ass, no one disputes that fact. But there's also no dispute the Syrians were by and large safer then they were now.
We trained and armed nearly 10,000 rebel fighters at a cost of $1 billion a year. The CIA had been sending weapons to anti-government rebels in Syria since at least 2012. Some of these weapons reportedly fell into hands of extremists, such as al-Nusra Front and ISIL. it wsn't until Trump that "[ISIL] imploded right after external support for the 'moderate' rebels dried up," which is consistent with studies demonstrating that "external support for thea opposition tends to exacerbate and extend civil wars, which usually peter out not through power-sharing agreements among fighting equals, but when one side—typically, the incumbent—achieves dominance."

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-abrahms-glaser-isis-assad-20171210-story.html

So that last administration was funding the atrocities we were actually trying to stop. With Assad we know what we were dealing with, with the "rebels" we got a lot of terrorists.

Sticking with Assad would have been the safer choice. Or at least if we outed him, placing him with someone better instead of arming a bunch of savages.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Exactly: by arming ISIS and al-qaeada linked militias in Syria, as well as NATO ‘ally’ Turkey, (and don’t forget Iraq+Iran) our war machine has a horrible amount of Kurdish blood on its hands.

US has not armed ISIS or Al Nusra - only selected, vetted FSA militias in Syria - did they sometimes form defacto alliances with groups that in turn worked with Al Nusra (but NOT ISIS) - yeah, Syrian civil war an extraordinarly messy thing. We have worked with anticommunists who had relations with fascists, and with leftists who had relations with communists.

Turkey? Turkey did not need our help in fighting the PKK, and the YPG is NOT part of the PKK. In Iraq we worked with the KDP and other Kurdish groups. We DID abandon them before, but not this suddenly and overtly. In 1991 we did not have troops on the ground in Kurdistan.

[Anonymous]

In addition to Assad, Tulsi supports Modi and the Hindutva movement. Genocidal butchers are her thing. She happily accepts Russian cyber support and advances Russian talking points whose ultimate aim is to minimize America’s stature in the world (anytime you hear someone say America shouldn’t be the worlds policeman what they really mean is we hate democracy and liberty and being criticized for our corruption, climate destruction and murder of journalists.

Tulsi is pissed because HRC called her on her plan to be 2020’s Jill Stein.

That’s why I hate her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: it wsn't until Trump that "[ISIL] imploded right after external support for the 'moderate' rebels dried up," which is consistent with studies demonstrating that "external support for thea opposition tends to exacerbate and extend civil wars, which usually peter out not through power-sharing agreements among fighting equals, but when one side—typically, the incumbent—achieves dominance."

Er, thats not what happened. The US plan was to get to a power sharing agreement. Instead Russia, Iran, Hezbollah, poured MASSIVE external support to the regime, and no one else was going to match that, or take a chance on a war with Russia. Absent that intervention (which was not at all predictable, but was part of a global change in grand strategy by Putin)

That is quite seperate from the war on Isis - which was won more by the US supported Iraqi army and by the SDF (Assads SAA was busy fighing the FSA) while Obama was in office, and the momentum continued after he left office (under the leadership of SecDef Mattis, who is now " a terrible general, a loser")

Why are we getting Trumpist apologia in a thread about Tulsi? Because yes, they are tied together.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Exactly: by arming ISIS and al-qaeada linked militias in Syria, as well as NATO ‘ally’ Turkey, (and don’t forget Iraq+Iran) our war machine has a horrible amount of Kurdish blood on its hands.

US has not armed ISIS or Al Nusra - only selected, vetted FSA militias in Syria - did they sometimes form defacto alliances with groups that in turn worked with Al Nusra (but NOT ISIS) - yeah, Syrian civil war an extraordinarly messy thing. We have worked with anticommunists who had relations with fascists, and with leftists who had relations with communists.

Turkey? Turkey did not need our help in fighting the PKK, and the YPG is NOT part of the PKK. In Iraq we worked with the KDP and other Kurdish groups. We DID abandon them before, but not this suddenly and overtly. In 1991 we did not have troops on the ground in Kurdistan.

Are you naive or are you dissembling? The thought that you might be anyone who matters gives me chills.

US MENA policy has been a disaster for decades and these lies need exposed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: it wsn't until Trump that "[ISIL] imploded right after external support for the 'moderate' rebels dried up," which is consistent with studies demonstrating that "external support for thea opposition tends to exacerbate and extend civil wars, which usually peter out not through power-sharing agreements among fighting equals, but when one side—typically, the incumbent—achieves dominance."

Er, thats not what happened. The US plan was to get to a power sharing agreement. Instead Russia, Iran, Hezbollah, poured MASSIVE external support to the regime, and no one else was going to match that, or take a chance on a war with Russia. Absent that intervention (which was not at all predictable, but was part of a global change in grand strategy by Putin)

That is quite seperate from the war on Isis - which was won more by the US supported Iraqi army and by the SDF (Assads SAA was busy fighing the FSA) while Obama was in office, and the momentum continued after he left office (under the leadership of SecDef Mattis, who is now " a terrible general, a loser")

Why are we getting Trumpist apologia in a thread about Tulsi? Because yes, they are tied together.

Whose apologist are you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I will never ever support Gabbard. She is an apologist for one of the worst dictators and human rights violators in the modern world at the moment (perhaps only topped by NK and systematic re-education camps being run by the Chinese in their muslim areas.)

The Syrian revolution started as a peaceful protest movement within Syria, as had been occurring in most other countries during the Arab Spring.

Assad chose to respond violently to the peaceful, non-violent protests when they started drawing hundreds of thousands of peaceful protesters. He used violence because he knew that he could not hold onto power otherwise.

Cynically, he also used torture, disappearance and mass execution. Please see the numerous stories and documentations by Cesar - a police photographer who escaped Syria with tons of documentation of Assad's torture regime. Here is just one story about him -- https://www.goalglobal.org/stories/post/what-are-the-caesar-photographs.

Gabbard supports Assad and has met personally with him. During last week's democratic debate, she repeatedly described the Syrian revolution as a "regime change war" started by the Americans. Nothing could be further than the truth. Syrian citizens wanted to change their own society and were met by the ruthless hand of a dictator who would maintain his own personally power by any means necessary (which includes not just torture but barrel bombs and the use of chemical weapons against civilians and the systematic bombing of civilian hospitals.)

That is why I hate her and will never vote for her. She is either stupid or so cynical as to profit politically from association with a brutal dictator.

THIS!!!! She completely lied in the debate. The Syrian war started when domestic Syrians began peacefully protesting against the regime. Who doesn't remember Assad's "barrel bombs" he dropped en mass on Muslim neighborhoods across Syria?

I'm glad Buttigieg was there to shut her down.

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI), who has long opposed any U.S. efforts to undermine Bashar al-Assad’s brutal regime, sparred with Mayor Pete Buttigieg over how the U.S. should extract itself from the long-running conflict.

“Donald Trump has the blood of the Kurds on his hand, but so do many of the politicians in our country from both parties who have supported this ongoing regime change war in Syria that started in 2011, along with many in the mainstream media, who have been championing and cheerleading this regime change war,” she said.

Last week, Trump announced that 50 U.S. troops stationed on Syria’s northern border with Turkey would be pulled deeper south into the country. After the announcement, Turkey immediately invaded, slaughtering Kurdish fighters and civilians, and horrifying the international community. The Kurds fought ISIS alongside U.S. troops, and Trump’s decision to withdraw U.S. protection for them was widely viewed as a betrayal that seriously harms America’s international credibility.

“We need to get out, but we need to do this through a negotiated solution,” Gabbard said.

Buttigieg lit into Gabbard.

“Respectfully, Congresswoman, I think that is dead wrong,” he said. “The slaughter going on in Syria is not a consequence of American presence, it is a consequence of a withdrawal and a betrayal by this president of American allies and American values. Look, I didn’t think we should have gone to Iraq in the first place. I think we need to get out of Afghanistan, but it’s also the case that a small number of specialized, special operations forces and intelligence capabilities were the only thing that stood between that part of Syria and what we’re seeing now, which is the beginning of a genocide and the resurgence of ISIS.”