I would expect nothing less from this Russian agent.
You know, when you accuse every anti-war candidate of being a Russian agent, you’re just making Russia look better than the US.
Why do the Democrats love war so much? Why can’t Democrats be anti-war?
Edit: Reminder that Russia supports Palestinian statehood and has called for the partition of Jerusalem along pre-1967 borders. Has a Democrat ever said that?
tulsi isn’t even CLOSE to being anti war…
Reminder that Russia supports Palestinian statehood and has called for the partition of Jerusalem along pre-1967 borders
shocker; russia likes something that divides a country so they can create a wedge /s
russia likes something that divides a country so they can create a wedge
And here we see yet another Democrat opposing the partition of Jersualem, even though East Jersualem is almost entirely Arab.
You know, when you accuse every anti-war candidate of being a Russian agent, you’re just making Russia look better than the US.
It’s not about a supposed “anti-war” stance at all, and you trying to shift the conversation to that just makes you look like you don’t want discussions about the fact Russia has been working to destabilize US politics for decades.
You *do *realize Russian interference in US politics has been happening since way before any of this right? Way before even their invasion of Georgia 16 years ago. This isn’t new, and it isn’t about Ukraine or Israel. It’s about recognizing that Russia has been spreading misinformation in the US through things like social media and even our own politicians for decades now. The US military and intelligence communities have been warning about it for just as long, it isn’t new. The fact you want to make it seem like this is somehow new means you either haven’t been paying any attention, or that you support Russian interests.
Given your attempt to shift the conversation away from Russian interference, I’d say the second is correct.
It’s not just the US. It’s “The West” as a whole.
There’s good evidence that Russia was behind the pro-Brexit sentiment in the UK as well.
https://www.csis.org/blogs/brexit-bits-bobs-and-blogs/did-russia-influence-brexit
Supported by the top UK Google searches immediately following the vote:
“What is the EU?”
“What is Brexit?”
Russia has been working to destabilize US politics for decades.
Yeah, probably. Just like the USA tries to influence the population of foreign countries through efforts like Voice of America and Radio Free Asia.
But I think you’re vastly overestimating how much effect Russian propaganda has. If anything is destabilizing democracy, it’s Fox News (which has a reach hundreds of times greater than any Russia bot on Twitter). How can you worry about foreign disinformation when domestic disinformation is right in front of you and radicalizing your parents (and weird cousins).
The only reason we hear so much about Russian disinformation is because the Democrats need a boogeyman to blame their failures on. (Who haven’t the Democrats accused of being Russian agents at this point?)
Russia supports Palestine because Israel is an ally of the US. If tomorrow the US decided to end it’s alliance with Israel and become allies with Palestine, Russia would suddenly become against Palestine and seek to form an alliance with Israel.
There are few morals in geopolitics and there are no friends, only interests.
There are few morals in geopolitics and there are no friends, only interests.
It’s funny how everyone was so excited about this rule in those years before 1939. Then for a short time some people experimentally realized that maybe some morals would be fine.
No, no politician ever believed that, but I’m confident that the reason we are only going into similar shit now is that before that there was a kind of common irrational memory, popular pressure for some morals to be followed.
The population of the western countries (except Germany, which till 80s was, eh, what it was) was rather interested in morals, anti-fascist and anti-colonial, and also (including even Germany) wanted peace on earth and goodwill towards men.
There’s another rule - people so excited about backstabbing and intrigue can’t honestly face their enemies, which means they can’t honestly face themselves which is harder. They are weak. They are good at collectively making it appear that they are strong, but earlier or later the truth becomes clearly visible.
Everything changes, morals (not those about sexual life and religion and even honesty, but those about strength and dignity and friendship) don’t, since not even Marcus Aurelius, but since Gilgamesh epic. That’s because they are an evolutionary advantage. Nothing that isn’t can perpetuate itself into future, and many generations have changed since then, but we still have those notions.
This is you trying to deflect from the atrocities of US and Israel by reasoning that every other country is just as amoral.
Whatever you need to tell yourself to sleep at night. God bless America. Greatest nation on Earth. USA. USA.
I’m sure you’ve heard of Pol Pot and the killing fields of Cambodia.
Did you know who stopped Pol Pot? It was Vietnam. Vietnam, already devastated by a series of wars, undertook a invasion of Cambodia and deposed Pol Pot, partly because Pol Pot was killing ethnic Vietnamese people who lived in Cambodia.
And throughout the whole thing, America condemned Vietnam. America accused Vietnam of being expansionist. America was on Cambodia’s side.
Just a thought.
The Russia that is trying to liberate the Donbas from Ukrainian oppression, yes.
They also say that about Jill Stein, and Tucker Carlson, and even Trump himself.
Do you honestly think it’s possible that Russians could have taken over every aspect of American government, politics, and media except the valiant Democrats (because the Democrats are so noble and pure of heart and unable to be blackmailed).
If the Russians really could infiltrate America that thoroughly, then it would be all over already because they’d have the Democrats too.
But it’s just a Democrat scare tactic to get you riled up.
Tulsi Gabbard isn’t anti-war. She explicitly called herself a hawk on the War on Terror. She’s a right-wing opportunist, and like other right wing opportunists (Tucker Carlson, for instance) she might occasionally have a broken clock moment where she criticizes a war, but it’s only because she wants to pivot to starting other wars elsewhere.
Tulsi is also a Zionist. She voted for a ban on BDS and called the protests antisemitic. In fact, she said that they were “puppets” of a “radical islamist organization” and, “I’m concerned about it because leaders in the West are not combating it. … Unfortunately, President Biden seems to be afraid to be called an Islamophobe.” This is similar to her criticisms of Obama for being insufficiently hawkish (in her view) on the War on Terror.
Don’t fall for right-wing grifters trying to take advantage of anti-war sentiment to push their agenda.
She voted for a ban on BDS and called the protests antisemitic. In fact, she said that they were “puppets” of a “radical islamist organization” and, “I’m concerned about it because leaders in the West are not combating it. … Unfortunately, President Biden seems to be afraid to be called an Islamophobe.”
Oh, I didn’t know that. That’s disappointing.
(Not much different from any other US politician, though.)
Don’t bother with this one, folks. I recognize the name and that should tell you enough.
Move along now.
Move along.
Haha this guy… Acting like Putin cares when he happily helped Assad bomb his own people all the while invading a Sovereign nation for imperial ambitions hahahah
when he happily helped Assad bomb his own people
And which side of the Syrian war are you on?
The side that wants to topple Assad and install an intolerant Sunni theocracy?
Lets see what George Orwell wrote about that. Try to read all of it, especially the last paragraph. It isnt about being against pacifism, it’s about how pacifism can be used by authoritarian regimes on liberal countries and how that societal asymmetry defines the end result.
Pacifism. Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side you automatically help that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one. In practice, ‘he that is not with me is against me’.
The idea that you can somehow remain aloof from and superior to the struggle, while living on food which British sailors have to risk their lives to bring you, is a bourgeois illusion bred of money and security.
Mr Savage remarks that ‘according to this type of reasoning, a German or Japanese pacifist would be “objectively pro-British”.’ But of course he would be! That is why pacifist activities are not permitted in those countries (in both of them the penalty is, or can be, beheading) while both the Germans and the Japanese do all they can to encourage the spread of pacifism in British and American territories. The Germans even run a spurious ‘freedom’ station which serves out pacifist propaganda indistinguishable from that of the P.P.U. They would stimulate pacifism in Russia as well if they could, but in that case they have tougher babies to deal with.
In so far as it takes effect at all, pacifist propaganda can only be effective against those countries where a certain amount of freedom of speech is still permitted; in other words it is helpful to totalitarianism.
Not all wars are good. I was against the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions. But this war is one of the few occasions where american interests mostly align with the moral thing, helping an invaded country defend against an imperial invader. This is one of the least controversial and relatively clean cut wars in history.
Awesome quote and context.
The First Iraqi War passed the test. Iraq invaded Kuwait. We went in to give them a little taste of that #1 Military Spending and remind them that we’re the big kid on the block, and in the moment, we were the big kid who beat up bullies and gave the little boy his lunch money back. Ukraine is much the same way, and we’d be justified in setting down troops in Ukraine and driving the Russians right back to the agreed upon borders and then stopping and hardening borders up there.
We’re not always perfect. The Second Iraq War showed that. And while we entered Afghanistan with good intentions (Bin Laden sleeping with the fishes was a net good for the world), we got bogged down in the sort of stuff that turned Vietnam bad. But we can’t throw the good wars (World War 2 and beating the Nazis being the biggest example of these) away just because we’ve done wrong in war. We just need to be cognizant of what we’re doing in EACH war and be willing to draw our lines in the sand, much like Bush-41 did with the first Iraq war.
LOL that ratio. It’s generally considered a landslide victory to secure 65% or more of the vote. You’re hovering around 2.4%. Massacred.
Behold the Democrats. They love war, they love doubling down on war, and anyone who opposes their war agenda must be loudly denouced as a Russian.
None of them even tried to argue that the Democrats value peace (because they can’t, can they?). They just tried to say Russia is worse.
You all thought liberalism meant peace. You were wrong. Liberalism is violence.
Take a good look at the world. Liberalism is violence.
The funny thing about you fucking morons is you pretend to know shit. We live in the most peaceful era since at least the 1400s.
