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?
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?
And which side of the Syrian war are you on?
FSA.
Anything is better than a walking shit-stain who uses chemical weapons against their own citizens, including children. You should be ashamed.
Boy, Russian troops really got fucked up America when they crossed the river in Syria. Got a hefty dose of what a C-130 Gunship can do, huh?
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.
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.
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.
You should look into the atrocities committed by Russia, if you like hearing about atrocities. Then you could look into some of the things Hamas has done.
How do you go about choosing which atrocities you care about and which ones you look the other way about? Is it based on the ethnicity of the perpetrators or the ethnicity of the victims? Or is it the atrocities that are committed against people in countries that are aligned with the US you look the other way on?
Just want to figure out method to your selective empathy.
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.
What kind of regime was Hamas again? It wasn’t a democratic society. In fact their whole ideology centers around restoring ethnic makeup of the region to how it was in the past by the use of violence.
These were the kinds of ideas that were popular in 1939. Look at the photos of German cities in 1945. Now look again at the images you’re seeing in the place that was ruled by Hamas. Same ideology, same end result.
You may have been made to believe that removing people who were born in certain place in the world should be removed by force because they’re not of the same ethnicity of the people who lived there in the past. That may feel like justice, but it seems more like revenge. And when we’re talking about a different generation of people wanting revenge for some perceived wrongdoing by someone’s ancestors… well we’ve seen this kind of thing before.
Palestinians have a problem hatred. You may feel like that hatred is justified, but it makes no difference. Hatred lead to people choosing poor leaders because it’s an emotion that can be easily manipulated by the corrupt. This current iteration of the conflict was initiated by Hamas to make Palestinians to hate so they won’t think too hard about why their leaders are billionaires with palaces in Qatar.
The weird thing about the politics of hatred is that no matter how many times we see how self-destructive it is, people will continue to think that it makes them strong. But it ends with the same destruction.
Once Israel gets their people back and the current iteration of violence wanes, will the next generation of Palestinians be raised to hate Israelis? If that’s the case we’re going to see the same kind of conflict happen again in a decade or two with similar results. Germans managed to realize that it was their hatred that was the root cause of the destruction of their country. But with all of the external support Palestinian hatred receives, I’m not all that optimistic about Palestinians being able to do the same. At least not for a few more generations.
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.
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?)
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?”
There’s good evidence that Russia was behind the pro-Brexit sentiment in the UK as well.
You mean that Russia supported pro-Brexit sentiment, right?
You’re not saying Russia was the source of pro-Brexit sentiment, are you?
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.
Because of a decline in wars in Europe.
I already said that liberals care about conflict in Europe. They don’t mind sponsoring conflict elsewhere.
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.
Don’t bother with this one, folks. I recognize the name and that should tell you enough.
Move along now.
Move along.
I almost admire their tenacity.
I guess I want to be 100% sure that Democrats are a lost cause before I give up on them.
I stupidly keep hoping Democrats will be rational enough to yield to facts. (Democrats are always saying that they’re the rational side of politics in this country.) But I’m realizing Democrats have become nothing more than BlueMAGA.
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.
In all this bullshit, there is one kernel of truth I want to address.
Russia hasn’t created anything in the shitstorm they’re inflaming. This bullshit we’re dealing with with all our divisions is home-grown and home-made. If you believe that all our problems are Russian, you’re just setting yourself up with some home-grown xenophobia while you ignore the real problem. And Russia just falling into a sinkhole one day won’t solve the massive number of problems that America has, the same problems that Adolf Hitler schemed to exploit in World War 2.
But what is not gotten here is that Russia HAS exploited these problems, just like Hitler did in World War 2. Russia may not have ‘taken over every aspect of American government, politics, and media’, but they HAVE identified useful idiots and empowered them to disrupt our nation’s well of discourse.
Jill Stein has literally been photographed sitting beside Putin, and she advocates for Pro-Russian positions like withdrawing our aid to Ukraine, while inflaming fake divisions like whether or not to vaccinate against diseases. Likewise with Tucker Carlson and Mr. “I’ll end the war in Ukraine on day one” Trump. We’re not keen on surrendering a nation to an authoritarian dictator like Putin, so he can go oppress gays and transgendered people over there. A Trump win here would definitely enable that, not to mention a very Russian-like playbook of capturing the government’s Civil Service to staff with sycophants, a Unitary Executive that has absolute power without checks and balances from the other branches of government, the total evisceration of the Minority Party’s power (and the relegation of the Dems to that minority status – Permanent Republican Majority, which preceded Trump as a Republican goal), and the codification of oppression of Gays, non-Christians, non-Whites, and women. Dems may be using scare tactics around these truths, but they are truths, and sometimes you just gotta call a spade a spade.
Now, why might we call people like this a Russian troll? Well, let’s stop and think for a moment. Trump is Russia’s favourite candidate, end of line. He’ll put pressure on Ukraine to play ball with giving up the disputed territories, and he’d definitely stop the flow of guns, missiles, bombs, tanks, and planes to Ukraine. While the EU may step up, 1) Russia has plans for the EU, and 2), the EU can’t hope to replace what the biggest spender in military can afford to contribute. Getting the US out of Ukraine’s side will improve Russia’s odds and serve their purpose. We know that Russia is hiring trolls to influence Western thinking – we have empirical evidence of this! It’s part of a massive Russian (and Chinese, and Iranian) cyber plan. We’ve even seen their hardware – massive banks of smartphones hooked up to a central computer run by an operator to post inflaming and discouraging comments.
Now, imagine a comment coming in having ‘concerns’ about how every post that defends Russian assets is ‘Dems falling for scare-mongering’, despite the clear evidence that Gabbard has been under Russia’s thumb, defending Stein’s own Russian connections, and claiming Trump of all people was not under his authoritarian buddy’s thumb contrary to EVERYTHING we’ve seen these past 8+ years? I see the concern, pal, and see it for exactly what it is: a problem that exists only in certain stupid little heads, and I call them out on it.
People, this guy isn’t here to honestly debate us. Keep up the good work calling his bullshit out, though!
Edited: To remove reference to an individual poster.
This is the Democrat’s equivalent of Obama is a secret Muslim.
The whole country has been watching too much Manchurian Candidate.
They also say that about Jill Stein, and Tucker Carlson, and even Trump himself.
I know you’re trolling, but it’s hilarious you just posted a list of people with credible ties to Russian influence as your response to someone not having ties with Russia.
I love how hard you trolls have to flounder for your rubles.
When she was A Democratic Congressional Representative her top donors were Kremlin-linked interests.
When the intelligence agencies were saying a candidate in the 2020 Democratic primary was a Russian agent they were talking about Tulsi Gabbard. Members of both parties were calling her a traitor. It wasn’t until she started working with the Republicans that they stopped criticizing her treason.
She tried suing Clinton over saying she was a Russian agent, but she lost because truth is an absolute defense against defamation.
She’s literally dined with Putin and General Flynn, who was found guilty of colluding with Russia but was pardoned by Trump.
She’s a traitor and should be imprisoned.
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.
(Reminder that the Donbas is majority ethnic Russian and has been fighting for independence from Ukraine since 2014, which resulted in them being bombed by their own government.)
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.)
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.
When it comes to military action, it is all about proportionality. Obviously Israel has the right to defend itself but killing(and starving) tens of thousands of people and flattening Gaza is not proportional. Obviously the US has the right to defend itself but invading and occupying Afghanistan for 20 years, suspending human rights(Guantanamo/cia black sites/patriot act) is not proportional.
And the Iraq invasion was straight up imperialistic, literally what Russia is doing now to Ukraine, which is why tankies use that invasion as a “gotcha”. Which is why everyone in the EU opposed, even most EU governments. There were a lot of protests in EU in opposition of that invasion.
