Emails from Tulsi ...

[JoeB131]

How dare she be anti-war!

There's a difference between being anti-war and sucking up to our enemies...

You know, just ask Jane Fonda.

 

[JoeB131]

Her anti-war stance makes her the best choice of the whole group. Plus I have a great deal of respect for those who actually serve their country.

Buttigegg is anti-war and he served his country, too.
And he did it without sucking up to the Butcher of Alleppo.

 

[pknopp]

How dare she be anti-war!

There's a difference between being anti-war and sucking up to our enemies...

You know, just ask Jane Fonda.

What gets us into trouble is looking at everyone as the enemy.

 

[basquebromance]

Gabbard is the only Democrat candidate in history with a coherent, well-thought out foreign policy!

BRING THEM HOME! BRING THEM HOME! BRING THEM HOME! BRING THEM HOME!

 

[Stormy Daniels]

Well she qualifies for the September debates...Go Tulsi!!!

Guess it's time to change the rules.

 

[Rigby5]

How dare she be anti-war!

There's a difference between being anti-war and sucking up to our enemies...

You know, just ask Jane Fonda.

No, the North Vietnamese were not our enemy.
Ho Chi Minh had beaten the French to give the whole country freedom, he was an extremely popular hero.
We should never have opposed him.
Jane Fonda was correct to go to North Vietnam to end the war more quickly, and bring our POWs home.
She is a hero.
She did not do it for money or anything, and it hurt her career.
But she was right.

We also should not have attacked Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Egypt, Iran, Panama, Grenada, Syria, etc.
Our military is out of control.
Only anti war candidates should be considered any more.
These wars are bankrupting us, as well as being immoral.

 

[Rigby5]

Her anti-war stance makes her the best choice of the whole group. Plus I have a great deal of respect for those who actually serve their country.

Buttigegg is anti-war and he served his country, too.
And he did it without sucking up to the Butcher of Alleppo.

Assad is extremely popular in Syria.
Most Syrians are glad Assad is in power, even if they don't like him, because he is better than ALL the alternatives.
The Mideast requires brutality sometimes.
It is expected.
It is not Assad's fault.
He did not start any of the violence.

 

[JoeB131]

No, the North Vietnamese were not our enemy.
Ho Chi Minh had beaten the French to give the whole country freedom, he was an extremely popular hero.
We should never have opposed him.
Jane Fonda was correct to go to North Vietnam to end the war more quickly, and bring our POWs home.
She is a hero.
She did not do it for money or anything, and it hurt her career.
But she was right.

We also should not have attacked Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Egypt, Iran, Panama, Grenada, Syria, etc.
Our military is out of control.
Only anti war candidates should be considered any more.
These wars are bankrupting us, as well as being immoral.

Guy, I'm pretty much on the record as being against military adventurism..

But what Fonda did was still wrong.

 

[JoeB131]

Assad is extremely popular in Syria.
Most Syrians are glad Assad is in power, even if they don't like him, because he is better than ALL the alternatives.
The Mideast requires brutality sometimes.
It is expected.
It is not Assad's fault.
He did not start any of the violence.

Well, yeah, he kind of did... and if he was popular, he wouldn't need the Russians and Iranians to fight his war for him.

 

[theHawk]

Assad is extremely popular in Syria.
Most Syrians are glad Assad is in power, even if they don't like him, because he is better than ALL the alternatives.
The Mideast requires brutality sometimes.
It is expected.
It is not Assad's fault.
He did not start any of the violence.

Well, yeah, he kind of did... and if he was popular, he wouldn't need the Russians and Iranians to fight his war for him.

Well if he wasn’t that popular the Hussein wouldn’t had needed to support the “opposition”, who were just radical Muslim terrorists.

Funny how the left was in favor of overthrowing a government that never attacked us, or even any of its own neighbors.

Funny how now just being a “brutal regime” to its own people is now justification for war.

 

[JoeB131]

Well if he wasn’t that popular the Hussein wouldn’t had needed to support the “opposition”, who were just radical Muslim terrorists.

Funny how the left was in favor of overthrowing a government that never attacked us, or even any of its own neighbors.

Funny how now just being a “brutal regime” to its own people is now justification for war.

I think that getting involved in the Syrian and Libyan civil wars was one of the dumber things Obama did.

But at the end of the day, their own people rose up against them... they didn't need us to tell them to do that.

 

[gipper]

Bashir Assad is very pleased Damascus Gabby is doing well!

Right on cue. We can always count on Joe to promote corporatist D talking points.

 

[gipper]

Gabbard is the only Democrat candidate in history with a coherent, well-thought out foreign policy!

BRING THEM HOME! BRING THEM HOME! BRING THEM HOME! BRING THEM HOME!

Bernie has the same policy.

 

[JoeB131]

Right on cue. We can always count on Joe to promote corporatist D talking points.

Hardly... i'm just not a libertarian net who thinks that civilization happens through magic fairy dust.

 

[gipper]

Her anti-war stance makes her the best choice of the whole group. Plus I have a great deal of respect for those who actually serve their country.

Buttigegg is anti-war and he served his country, too.
And he did it without sucking up to the Butcher of Alleppo.

Assad is extremely popular in Syria.
Most Syrians are glad Assad is in power, even if they don't like him, because he is better than ALL the alternatives.
The Mideast requires brutality sometimes.
It is expected.
It is not Assad's fault.
He did not start any of the violence.

Too bad those at fault for the mass murdering and displacement of thousands of Syrians from that terrible war, won’t ever face justice.

 

[gipper]

Right on cue. We can always count on Joe to promote corporatist D talking points.

Hardly... i'm just not a libertarian net who thinks that civilization happens through magic fairy dust.

LOL. Stop spouting stupid MSM talking points.

 

[JoeB131]

LOL. Stop spouting stupid MSM talking points.

Again, if LIbertrianism was such a great idea, how come no one has ever tried it.

Even the really bad ideas got someone to try them at least once.

 

[gipper]

LOL. Stop spouting stupid MSM talking points.

Again, if LIbertrianism was such a great idea, how come no one has ever tried it.

Even the really bad ideas got someone to try them at least once.

Do you ever tire of stupidity?

 

[Darkwind]

Like I said, Gabbard's trip did absolutely nothing and I don't think Congress should necessarily be giving street cred to dictators. I think she had the best of intentions but in the end it went nowhere and solidified some doubt as to whether Assad was actually responsible for the violence against his own people.

I don't want to go to war, but I'm getting tired of playing footsie with people like that.

It did do something. It pissed off the newly made war mongers.

Sounds like something Trump would say as though pissing people off on it's own is actually accomplishing anything.

Maybe a fair statement but it did do that. I do not think that was her intention. Her intention was to show that you could go and talk to other world leaders.

Tulsi knows the horrors of war close up, more than any of these other asspipes who want to start wars can say.

Hillary sniffed out hundreds of thousands of lives with her failed Middle East policy. She is absolute scum and a puppet of the military industrial complex. How many brown people did she and Obama murder?

Li

Maybe a fair statement but it did do that. I do not think that was her intention. Her intention was to show that you could go and talk to other world leaders.

Like Kim Jong Un and Putin? Of course you can, but that doesn't mean you always should.

I believe a president should.

In every situation? It's not working out so far.

That's a generalization. I'm not sure what you consider not working and no, of course not, it will not work every time.

That is a generalization. Meeting with world leaders and capitulating and getting nothing in return ala Putin and Un is what I'm referring to. Putin getting off scott free on he whole election thing, to the point where our own allies have to be second guessing themselves if they share intel with us and Un doing next to nothing and being treated like a legitimate leader. Again, our allies in the area are probably thrilled.

Scott free on the whole election thing?

What would have done to him? Shall we nuke his country? Attack the Crimea? Kick him out of the Middle East? Hold his navy in whichever port they happen to be in? Write a stern letter telling him to "Knock it off?"

Putin is the leader of a sovereign nation and what can be done HAS been done. Short of war, there is nothing anyone can do about him.

He will continue to try and influence the world and the USA. Just as we will continue to try and influence the world and Russia.

So, short of banning the first Amendment and controlling what information is given to the people, your wait for something to be done to him is a going to be a long and frustrating one.

Now, this is where you call Me a Putin puppet or some such thing.

 

[JoeB131]

Do you ever tire of stupidity?

Yes, I got tired of libertarian stupidity a long time ago.

I'd love to fence off one of the square states and send all you people there.... and just wait for you to resort to cannibalism.