6 ms·

Weird, I'd say "pro-dictator." That kinda jives with anti-war, depending on which war you're talking about, though, I suppose. https://www.theguardian.com/us-n

Weird, I'd say "pro-dictator." That kinda jives with anti-war, depending on which war you're talking about, though, I suppose. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/26/tulsi-gabbard-bashar-al-assad-syria-democrats https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/26/tulsi-gabbar... https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/06/politics/tulsi-gabbard-syria-assad/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/06/politics/tulsi-gabbard-syria-...

jessaustin 7y ago
Why do you care so much about what the media has told you Assad has done? Assad is not and never has been a threat to you or anyone you know. It is a good thing that we didn't get into a protracted war with Syria. It's easy to see the results of our wars in Libya, Iraq, and Afghanistan. The Syrian people are fortunate that they didn't suffer the same fates as those nations. Gabbard's diplomatic mission is at least partially to thank for that. [EDIT:] This is a really complete explanation: https://www.tulsigabbard.org/tulsi-gabbard-on-syria https://www.tulsigabbard.org/tulsi-gabbard-on-syria
- aaronbrethorst 7y ago
  Assad is not and never has been a threat to you or anyone you know 1. That's an interesting assumption you make. 2. Why would I have to know someone personally to empathize with them? 3. U.S. foreign policy, as conducted by our military, has pretty consistently been a disaster for decades. I agree wholeheartedly with you on that point.
  - jessaustin 7y ago
    1. It would be easy to refute, wouldn't it? If you or anyone in your family have ever been ISIS members, by all means correct me. 2. I'm glad to know that you have empathy for war victims. When has a war with USA ever saved lives? Didn't the ramp-up to the planned Syria war look just like previous ramp-ups to our wars in other Muslim nations? Those media projects were later found to be completely false (as has the Syria gas narrative, at this point), so why would we have believed this project? 3. USA wars are always conducted in USA media first. That is the time to fight, and that's what Gabbard (and many others) did. We seem to have broken their spirits, too. After really trying on Syria and only failing because they made so much money hyping up Trump, their recent efforts on Venezuela were fairly half-hearted. The world might be getting safer...
    - Laukhi64 7y ago
      I don't really disagree with anything else you say, but... >When has a war with USA ever saved lives? I don't know. I think there was a war of note which might have been around the 1940s? It's fine to say that the costs of an interventionist foreign policy don't outweigh the benefits; I don't necessarily disagree with that. But it's absolutely inaccurate to say that the benefits don't exist. USA at the very least contributed a great deal to the European Theatre, and Imperial Japan was dethroned almost entirely due to their effort. It turns out that all three of Italy, Germany, and Japan were successfully occupied and now have stable and democratic governments, as well.
      - DoreenMichele 7y ago
        I don't know. I think there was a war of note which might have been around the 1940s? Nitpicking your nitpick: Contrary to the American tendency to act like we singlehandedly won WW2, we were a latecomer to the war and not a central power prior to that war. There were many countries involved in it. It's possible that the US played a critical role in Japan's surrender. It's also possible they would have surrendered anyway, we just have no means to go back in time, run the scenario twice and see how it would go without the US. In the United States, generations were taught that Japan would never have surrendered so quickly without use of the atomic bomb and that victory would have required a bloody invasion of the Japanese mainland, costing hundreds of thousands of lives. Japanese students were generally taught a very different narrative: that Japan already had been defeated and dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki three days apart was a geopolitical calculation to keep the Soviet Union at bay. https://www.stripes.com/news/special-reports/world-war-ii-the-final-chapter/wwii-victory-in-japan/would-japan-have-surrendered-without-the-atomic-bombings-1.360300 https://www.stripes.com/news/special-reports/world-war-ii-th...
        darkpuma 7y ago
        I think you're discounting the roll of America's massive industrial output, which shipped more than 17 million tons of goods to the Soviet Union throughout the war, including more than 400,000 trucks/jeeps, 7,000 tanks, 11,000 airplanes, and 1.75 million tons of food, just to name a bit. Relative to national size, the Soviet Union received more tanks and planes from the British than the Americans, but the American trucks in particular were incredibly important for the Soviets. During that same period the Soviet Union only produced a fraction of that many trucks and Soviet trucks were frankly inferior trucks. Beyond the obvious logistic advantages of trucks in a war largely characterized by mobility, receiving American trucks allowed the Soviet Union to dedicate more of it's (relatively limited) industrial capacity to the production of tanks and airplanes. Incidentally, here is something else American students aren't taught (I wonder if Japanese students are?): The leadership of the Japanese military considered the emperor to be a figurehead and after the 2nd atomic bombing when the Emperor was preparing to surrender, the staff office of the Ministry of War as well as several members of the Imperial Guard seized control of the Imperial Palace, with the goal of preventing surrender. They failed of course, but only due to the bravery and good luck of a few people in the Palace. The point here being, there were high ranking elements of the Japanese military that wanted to continue fighting even after the second bomb, and even with the Soviets preparing an invasion. Nationalism is a hell of a drug...
Syama 7y ago
Tulsi's trip was preapproved a month in advance by the House Ethics committee. She was assigned to and serves on the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, determining policy that directly impacts the entire world. Visiting other countries on fact-finding missions falls cleanly within the jurisdiction of her responsibilities to her constituents and to our country. Seeking to understand all sides in the Syrian conflict, Tulsi met with Assad's opposition, displaced families and Gov officials from several countries. She did not plan to meet with Assad, but when invited took the chance to search for a peaceful solution. https://medium.com/@TulsiGabbard/the-syrian-people-desperately-want-peace-e308f1777a34 https://medium.com/@TulsiGabbard/the-syrian-people-desperate... Tulsi was heroic for calling out the plan to arm al-Qaeda to overthrow the gov of Syria and heroic for meeting with Assad at the risk of political backlash, in the name of peace.

jessaustin 7y ago

Why do you care so much about what the media has told you Assad has done? Assad is not and never has been a threat to you or anyone you know. It is a good thing that we didn't get into a protracted war with Syria. It's easy to see the results of our wars in Libya, Iraq, and Afghanistan. The Syrian people are fortunate that they didn't suffer the same fates as those nations. Gabbard's diplomatic mission is at least partially to thank for that. [EDIT:] This is a really complete explanation: https://www.tulsigabbard.org/tulsi-gabbard-on-syria https://www.tulsigabbard.org/tulsi-gabbard-on-syria

aaronbrethorst 7y ago
Assad is not and never has been a threat to you or anyone you know 1. That's an interesting assumption you make. 2. Why would I have to know someone personally to empathize with them? 3. U.S. foreign policy, as conducted by our military, has pretty consistently been a disaster for decades. I agree wholeheartedly with you on that point.
- jessaustin 7y ago
  1. It would be easy to refute, wouldn't it? If you or anyone in your family have ever been ISIS members, by all means correct me. 2. I'm glad to know that you have empathy for war victims. When has a war with USA ever saved lives? Didn't the ramp-up to the planned Syria war look just like previous ramp-ups to our wars in other Muslim nations? Those media projects were later found to be completely false (as has the Syria gas narrative, at this point), so why would we have believed this project? 3. USA wars are always conducted in USA media first. That is the time to fight, and that's what Gabbard (and many others) did. We seem to have broken their spirits, too. After really trying on Syria and only failing because they made so much money hyping up Trump, their recent efforts on Venezuela were fairly half-hearted. The world might be getting safer...
  - Laukhi64 7y ago
    I don't really disagree with anything else you say, but... >When has a war with USA ever saved lives? I don't know. I think there was a war of note which might have been around the 1940s? It's fine to say that the costs of an interventionist foreign policy don't outweigh the benefits; I don't necessarily disagree with that. But it's absolutely inaccurate to say that the benefits don't exist. USA at the very least contributed a great deal to the European Theatre, and Imperial Japan was dethroned almost entirely due to their effort. It turns out that all three of Italy, Germany, and Japan were successfully occupied and now have stable and democratic governments, as well.
    - DoreenMichele 7y ago
      I don't know. I think there was a war of note which might have been around the 1940s? Nitpicking your nitpick: Contrary to the American tendency to act like we singlehandedly won WW2, we were a latecomer to the war and not a central power prior to that war. There were many countries involved in it. It's possible that the US played a critical role in Japan's surrender. It's also possible they would have surrendered anyway, we just have no means to go back in time, run the scenario twice and see how it would go without the US. In the United States, generations were taught that Japan would never have surrendered so quickly without use of the atomic bomb and that victory would have required a bloody invasion of the Japanese mainland, costing hundreds of thousands of lives. Japanese students were generally taught a very different narrative: that Japan already had been defeated and dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki three days apart was a geopolitical calculation to keep the Soviet Union at bay. https://www.stripes.com/news/special-reports/world-war-ii-the-final-chapter/wwii-victory-in-japan/would-japan-have-surrendered-without-the-atomic-bombings-1.360300 https://www.stripes.com/news/special-reports/world-war-ii-th...
      - darkpuma 7y ago
        I think you're discounting the roll of America's massive industrial output, which shipped more than 17 million tons of goods to the Soviet Union throughout the war, including more than 400,000 trucks/jeeps, 7,000 tanks, 11,000 airplanes, and 1.75 million tons of food, just to name a bit. Relative to national size, the Soviet Union received more tanks and planes from the British than the Americans, but the American trucks in particular were incredibly important for the Soviets. During that same period the Soviet Union only produced a fraction of that many trucks and Soviet trucks were frankly inferior trucks. Beyond the obvious logistic advantages of trucks in a war largely characterized by mobility, receiving American trucks allowed the Soviet Union to dedicate more of it's (relatively limited) industrial capacity to the production of tanks and airplanes. Incidentally, here is something else American students aren't taught (I wonder if Japanese students are?): The leadership of the Japanese military considered the emperor to be a figurehead and after the 2nd atomic bombing when the Emperor was preparing to surrender, the staff office of the Ministry of War as well as several members of the Imperial Guard seized control of the Imperial Palace, with the goal of preventing surrender. They failed of course, but only due to the bravery and good luck of a few people in the Palace. The point here being, there were high ranking elements of the Japanese military that wanted to continue fighting even after the second bomb, and even with the Soviets preparing an invasion. Nationalism is a hell of a drug...

Syama 7y ago

Tulsi's trip was preapproved a month in advance by the House Ethics committee. She was assigned to and serves on the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, determining policy that directly impacts the entire world. Visiting other countries on fact-finding missions falls cleanly within the jurisdiction of her responsibilities to her constituents and to our country. Seeking to understand all sides in the Syrian conflict, Tulsi met with Assad's opposition, displaced families and Gov officials from several countries. She did not plan to meet with Assad, but when invited took the chance to search for a peaceful solution. https://medium.com/@TulsiGabbard/the-syrian-people-desperately-want-peace-e308f1777a34 https://medium.com/@TulsiGabbard/the-syrian-people-desperate... Tulsi was heroic for calling out the plan to arm al-Qaeda to overthrow the gov of Syria and heroic for meeting with Assad at the risk of political backlash, in the name of peace.