Christy42 wrote: » No one really cared for less war in the last election? His main points we're building a wall and locking her up. It was not a large campaign point His base has yet to care about him making every effort to destabilise Iran. No one has cared for the increase in drone strikes nor the hiding of figures from the public to hide the damage done. Republicans don't, and haven't cared about less war in a very long time.
serfboard wrote: » Don't agree with you there.
RobertKK wrote: » Ukraine happened under her watch.
everlast75 wrote: » Accepting that, she would not have ... 7) allowed MBS to get away with murdering a journalist
everlast75 wrote: » If all that you list above is true, then that is fairly awful stuff. Accepting that, she would not have 1)withdrawn from the G8 2) distanced the US from the UN 3) withdrawn from the Paris accord 4) withdrawn from the Iran Nuclear deal 5) enabled Putin in the Ukraine 6) sided with Russia in interfering with the US elections 7) allowed MBS to get away with murdering a journalist 8) sided with Erdogan and allowed the kurds to be slaughtered.
RobertKK wrote: » I love Tulsi, if Americans and the Democrats had any sense, she would be their candidate.
sid waddell wrote: » The US already has a president in the pocket of Russia, not sure why you'd want another one.
RobertKK wrote: » Her experience as Secretary of State is one of getting most calls wrong. Remember that reset button she gave Lavrov as a symbol of a new start after the Bush regime? Her laughing at Gaddafi dying from being stabbed through his anus, before that all went downhill and she stopped laughing. She would have gotten the US into bigger trouble than before now. She also had a democratically elected leader in Honduras removed through a coup she supported and which has left thousands dead. Both parties are full of war hawks, and if anyone thinks one party is good and the other is bad, they are deluded as both parties have shown to be trigger happy.
Rjd2 wrote: » she has responded on fox a while ago and went into detail. so not exact silence.
Itssoeasy wrote: » You know even on the messaging( I hate this word btw. It's a fancy way of saying we are getting our story straight) the trump administration can't get that straight. And now the US are telling US citizens in Iraq to leave. Jesus Christ fair enough Hillary Clinton was a bad candidate but at least if this situation were to have arisen if she had become president then her experience as Secretary of State and her husband as former president and the experienced people shed have put in place unlike the keystone cops trump has the situation may never have come about.
sid waddell wrote: » Why hasn't she responded? You know, of all the things that would get the goat of somebody who claims to be against regime change wars, this should be it...and yet...complete and utter silence! Mad that, mad I tells ya. No I don't have proof that she's running interference for Trump, I just say what I see, what appears bleedin' obvious to anyone who isn't an idiot. I do have proof that she's funded heavily by Indian fascists. That's well documented, she acts on behalf of the Indian Sangh and its internationally affiliated organisations and refuses to answer questions about it.https://caravanmagazine.in/politics/american-sangh-affair-tulsi-gabbard Typing the phrase "echo chamber" is not an argument or a point, by the way, but it a better example of unintentional irony than anything Alanis Morrisette ever came up with.
Rjd2 wrote: » if you have solid proof of this outside echo chamber resistance~! twitter you need to consult the USA army instantly as she still serves for them. They have a sizable online presence so it should be easy to contact them. The USA army is seriously compromised if a congresswomen serving them for them is working for its nations enemies. Gabbard will respond later assuming she has not been arrested for working for Putin ~! and probably stronger than some of the Dem takes today which have been so weak bar Bernie its unreal.https://twitter.com/WideAsleepNima/status/1212986561052188672
pixelburp wrote: » Is there any sense yet on GOP reaction? I don't doubt the most we might see is "thoughtful concern" from outliers such as Romney, but if there's any mainstream kickback things could backfire on Trump, domestically anyway.
sid waddell wrote: » What's absolutely hilarious is how Tulsi Gabbard, who was like a talking parrot reciting rhetoric about how "we must stop regime change wars", is now suddenly completely silent now that Trump has mounted an attack which is not far off a declaration of war on Iran. Like, this is the one incident in her entire time in politics when such rhetoric would be most justified But that's very easy to understand - it's because it's as clear as day and has been for a long time that she's running interference on behalf of Trump, Putin, Modi and international fascism in general, and is basically a giant fraud.
mcmoustache wrote: » This assassination will also have the effect of calming or even ending the protests that had been going on over there. Nothing brings a country together better than the feeling of being attacked.
listermint wrote: » Yes but you are forgetting a fundamental part here. The Obama Iran deal was bad,
Leroy42 wrote: » What are Trumps level of drone attacks compared to Obama and how many civilians have been killed?
listermint wrote: » Yes but you are forgetting a fundamental part here. The Obama Iran deal was bad, 'Because' Obama ?
everlast75 wrote: » Obama negotiated a peace deal that wasn't perfect, but internationally recognised as a start. The radicals in Iran were not happy with that deal. Trump pulls out of the deal and then assassinates the second most powerful figure in Iran. All that will do is invigorate the radical Iranians, they will tell their people that they were right not to trust the US. Trump did all of this without congressional approval. The statement from the Pentagon said it was Trump's call. Pompeo said it was preemptive. Graham says it was retaliatory. Pompeo said it would make Iran safer, while Americans are being told to evacuate the country. They haven't a ****ing clue what they are doing.
Christy42 wrote: » I mean Iran has a powerful military but not one that can actually attack the US. They can attack some outposts and oil installations. Aside from that how can they respond? It requires the US to actually invade Iran for a war
Jelle1880 wrote: » Likely up their funding of groups in the region. Open war is not in their best interest. Reportedly a Hezbollah leader was also killed so no doubt they will see some extra money and weapons come into Lebanon.
RobertKK wrote: » If Trump had pulled drone strikes back to Bush levels it would not have been so bad but still should not happen as the effects are so bad, but he is just as bad as Obama in this area and I would argue the terror of hearing drones overhead 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for God knows how long creates a resentment and can turn good people to do bad things due to the damage the terror that these drones bring. It should be banned as no one could live and be normal knowing a drone strike could happen at any moment, at any time of the day. It should be a crime that has people before the courts in the Hague. Bush, Obama and Trump have killed so many innocent people with drone strikes, and no one is held to account for these murders, often innocent people are classified as being bad people simply because of who they were in the vicinity of. It would be like passing Larry Murphy on the street and then being associated with his crimes and suspected crimes... Trump like his predecessors has a lot to answer for in this area but like his predecessors he will not have to account for the drone crimes he is responsible for.
