Current Events > Tulsi Gabbard, member of Congress, has actual intelligent thought on North Korea

(+) Yeah! (+)

shes hot

but shes wrong

Never thought I'd be linking to Jacobin of all things, but
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/05/tulsi-gabbard-president-sanders-democratic-party
---

lilORANG posted...

She's got an anti-interventionist mentality when it comes to foreign diplomacy which means she's generally "supports" Assad's regime instead of the ISIS rebels. Nobody has a good answer to Syria lol.

There's a difference between "no good answers," and meeting with Assad, denying his regime's war crimes, etc.
---

RebelElite791 posted...

There's a difference between "no good answers," and meeting with Assad, denying his regime's war crimes, etc.

she didn't do the bolded part, and what is "etc."?
---

Her attitude is the exact same attitude that led to Europe going "well, if we just give Hitler Poland then that'll make everyone happy". This idea that, somehow, giving in to the demands of insane dictators will appease them and de-escalate the whole situation is based entirely on cowardice. It's the idea that it's better to let the wrongs of the world exist than to risk anything to stop them as long as the wrongs are contained by their own borders.

I'd be curious to see what her opinion on, say, the Rohingya situation is and whether she believes the US should intervene or not. Oh look at that... she's all for speaking up on this one:
https://www.ndtv.com/indians-abroad/tulsi-gabbard-calls-for-end-to-violence-against-minorities-in-bangladesh-1398137
---

lilORANG posted...

RebelElite791 posted...

There's a difference between "no good answers," and meeting with Assad, denying his regime's war crimes, etc.

she didn't do the bolded part, and what is "etc."?

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/328127-gabbard-takes-heat-dem-heat-for-skepticism-of-syria-chemical-attack
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/04/11/what-is-tulsi-gabbard-thinking-on-syria/?utm_term=.f637b36ad887
---

RebelElite791 posted...

lilORANG posted...

RebelElite791 posted...

There's a difference between "no good answers," and meeting with Assad, denying his regime's war crimes, etc.

she didn't do the bolded part, and what is "etc."?

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/328127-gabbard-takes-heat-dem-heat-for-skepticism-of-syria-chemical-attack
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/04/11/what-is-tulsi-gabbard-thinking-on-syria/?utm_term=.f637b36ad887

maybe read more than just the headlines

If President Assad is found to be responsible after an independent investigation for these horrific chemical weapons attacks, I'll be the first one to denounce him, to call him a war crime and to call for his prosecution in the International Criminal Court, she told Wolf Blitzer.

deny? no. Explicitly state that chemical attacks are war crimes and that someone who commits them should be prosecuted? yes.
---

averagejoel literally thinks America is the bad guy and North Korea is just a harmless country trying to protect itself from the bad guy

he literally fucking believes this
---

s0nicfan posted...

Her attitude is the exact same attitude that led to Europe going "well, if we just give Hitler Poland then that'll make everyone happy". This idea that, somehow, giving in to the demands of insane dictators will appease them and de-escalate the whole situation is based entirely on cowardice. It's the idea that it's better to let the wrongs of the world exist than to risk anything to stop them as long as the wrongs are contained by their own borders.

I'd be curious to see what her opinion on, say, the Rohingya situation is and whether she believes the US should intervene or not. Oh look at that... she's all for speaking up on this one:
https://www.ndtv.com/indians-abroad/tulsi-gabbard-calls-for-end-to-violence-against-minorities-in-bangladesh-1398137

This. It is a weak stance to hold.
---

NK is like the yippy little dog on a long leash that likes to piss off everyone else. NK is getting all this nuclear material from somewhere, and as long as they are continued to be supplied with it, NK is going to have a nuclear program because their bigger, badder overlords want them to. The only good reason to give an unstable dictator nuclear weapons is to sow dissent in the world, and while a lot of fingers are being pointed at China as the likely culprit, that's also complete in line with the current Russian playbook on world politics as well. One of those two big powers is trying to draw the US into a conflict that is a no-win situation, maybe even both of them are colluding together.
---

Tulsi Gabbard is pretty hot for politician standards, so she is okay in my book!
---

s0nicfan posted...

Her attitude is the exact same attitude that led to Europe going "well, if we just give Hitler Poland then that'll make everyone happy". This idea that, somehow, giving in to the demands of insane dictators will appease them and de-escalate the whole situation is based entirely on cowardice. It's the idea that it's better to let the wrongs of the world exist than to risk anything to stop them as long as the wrongs are contained by their own borders.

Not quite. I think it's more "a sovereign nation has general discretion to do as it wants within its borders. That's the social contract after all." One sovereign nation encroaching on another violates those norms tho, and could warrant more intervention.

Tho of course I'm not speaking for her, just what I think she might say based on what I've read about her. Maybe she's said the opposite somewhere.
---

if dpr of k launched a nuke it would do nothing other than piss off people and whoever got to kim uno first would commit war crimes against him and torture him

lilORANG posted...

s0nicfan posted...

Her attitude is the exact same attitude that led to Europe going "well, if we just give Hitler Poland then that'll make everyone happy". This idea that, somehow, giving in to the demands of insane dictators will appease them and de-escalate the whole situation is based entirely on cowardice. It's the idea that it's better to let the wrongs of the world exist than to risk anything to stop them as long as the wrongs are contained by their own borders.

Not quite. I think it's more "a sovereign nation has general discretion to do as it wants within its borders. That's the social contract after all." One sovereign nation encroaching on another violates those norms tho, and could warrant more intervention.

Tho of course I'm not speaking for her, just what I think she might say based on what I've read about her. Maybe she's said the opposite somewhere.

If there wasn't tons of evidence of her speaking up against the actions of sovereign nations against their own people and suggesting the world act, I might believe this is her stance.
---

Gabbard's support for Modi is the gross part about her.
---

LethalAffinity posted...

s0nicfan posted...

Her attitude is the exact same attitude that led to Europe going "well, if we just give Hitler Poland then that'll make everyone happy". This idea that, somehow, giving in to the demands of insane dictators will appease them and de-escalate the whole situation is based entirely on cowardice. It's the idea that it's better to let the wrongs of the world exist than to risk anything to stop them as long as the wrongs are contained by their own borders.

I'd be curious to see what her opinion on, say, the Rohingya situation is and whether she believes the US should intervene or not. Oh look at that... she's all for speaking up on this one:
https://www.ndtv.com/indians-abroad/tulsi-gabbard-calls-for-end-to-violence-against-minorities-in-bangladesh-1398137

This. It is a weak stance to hold.

the key difference between nazi germany and NK under Kim, is that the former had a history of benefitting from imperialism, and was an aggressor, whereas NK is quite literally the opposite
---

averagejoel posted...

LethalAffinity posted...

s0nicfan posted...

Her attitude is the exact same attitude that led to Europe going "well, if we just give Hitler Poland then that'll make everyone happy". This idea that, somehow, giving in to the demands of insane dictators will appease them and de-escalate the whole situation is based entirely on cowardice. It's the idea that it's better to let the wrongs of the world exist than to risk anything to stop them as long as the wrongs are contained by their own borders.

I'd be curious to see what her opinion on, say, the Rohingya situation is and whether she believes the US should intervene or not. Oh look at that... she's all for speaking up on this one:
https://www.ndtv.com/indians-abroad/tulsi-gabbard-calls-for-end-to-violence-against-minorities-in-bangladesh-1398137

This. It is a weak stance to hold.

the key difference between nazi germany and NK under Kim, is that the former had a history of benefitting from imperialism, and was an aggressor, whereas NK is quite literally the opposite

Kim "I make people watch while I execute people with anti-aircraft guns" Un: victim of imperialism and defender against aggression. What a stance to hold.
---

America's foreign policy record makes seeking a nuclear weapon the obvious choice for its enemies. Nothing short of that will ensure safety.

Obviously, we, as a country, aren't too concerned for the safety of the North Korean regime, but they are acting in self-interest. Even our enemies have the ability to do that.
---

thronedfire2 posted...

You think Trump wouldn't have gone in there by now if there was no threat of NK retaliating against the US?

The reason no one has done anything about North Korea is because they basically hold Seoul, one of the most populated cities on Earth and the capital of one of America's strongest allies at gunpoint.
---

Gheb posted...

thronedfire2 posted...

You think Trump wouldn't have gone in there by now if there was no threat of NK retaliating against the US?

The reason no one has done anything about North Korea is because they basically hold Seoul, one of the most populated cities on Earth and the capital of one of America's strongest allies at gunpoint.

Also the threat of Chinese interference.
And nuclear weaponry is only going to strengthen North Korea's deterrence ability...
---

shes fine as fuck
---

I'm generally with Rebel on this one (even if I think that she's correct on this one). Tulsi has totally taken a subset of Bernie supporters for a ride, many of whom are quick to point out that they find her physically attractive, by misrepresenting her voting history as "progressive".
---