@fchowd0311 and @txtony what is required to be experienced with foreign policy? any examples of candidates with these qualifications?
Not really, no. What I think the morality of actions to be is an appeal to something more universal that transcends nations. No reason to expect the moral choice to be an advantageous one, and no reason to think sticking to your principles will serve the national self-interest. I don't know why this is so important to you. I don't think US law universally holds that the crime must be committed on US soil. If a hacker in Albania breaks into Bank of America servers in Singapore and steals money from US customers, won't we still indict him? The 13 Russian operatives in the 2016 presidential campaign meddling got indicted. Didn't we have FIFA officials arrested for corruption in Switzerland?
I answer in a different way. Foreign policy experience isn't necessary to be President. It's nice to have, but not absolutely critical. For me, more important than experience and even the person general views toward foreign policy is the willingness and ability to listen to others and experts, making good judgement and having a high level of ethical behaviors.
What is the argument here? That her position on Syria is supported by Russia and therefore she must be wrong? Or is it that this proves she is a Russian agent of some kind?
I just feel like this debate from the right, nationalists, or the wacko Bernie bros that loves her is just disingenuous. It always comes back to blaming anyone who questions her with a “what is wrong with being anti war” false choice BS. That’s a debate tactic to shut down legit debate about her viability to be president. Exhibit A. as to why this is disingenuous is the fact that these same people are dead silent in what should be praise for Barrack Obama who had all the pressure of the world on him to take Assad out when he was at his worse. Obama, despite not being a perfect president, deserves to be showered with praise by those passionate Gabbard supporters and by Russia who all the sudden have such convictions about avoiding conflict with Assad. Or maybe you guys are just full of it and support her because she’s viewed as a disrupter of the Democratic Party and because far right websites who sympathize with Russia/nationalism and want the US to isolate itself, are telling you to support her and you are just sheep. I’ll support Gabbard all day over Trump if I get the chance but until then give the BS a break. She deserves to be talked about with genuine debate. Stop it with the “why is it wrong to be anti war” nonsense.
Was she criticizing Obama for not going in with US troops militarily to take out Assad? No. Was she criticizing Obama for providing weapons and training to rebel groups who were allied with Al Qaeda militants? Yes. You can disagree with her stance. But I don’t see how she or her backers are being disingenuous. She’s attacked Trump for his weapons deals with Saudi Arabia as well. She seems pretty consistent to me as far as foreign policy goes.
It’s disingenuous when you start pointing fingers at people about war mongering when you damn well that’s not the case. Having questions about Gabbard does not equal being a neocon. Side note, Tulsi die hards do a really crappy job of convincing Dems to give her our vote of confidence in the primary. If you want her to win and think she’s the best person to take on Trump, sell it better than pointing fingers. I take the same issue with the crazy Bernie bros who want to fight with Dems more than sell his platform. If it’s not about who about who the best person to beat Trump is, it’s probably a meaningless beat each other up pointlessly conversation.
I wouldn’t use the word neocon in general for the critics, though I find that’s an apt description for many of the so called “Never Trumpers” who look to Gabbard with even more disdain than Trump. People like Tom Nichols. What I find appealing about Gabbard’s foreign policy stance is it rejects our role as World Police and her campaign sort of raises a middle finger to all the political/business forces at play that bind us to that unfortunate role. That said, I have my doubts she’d be able to stay true to her anti-interventionist principles should she be elected.
If she said Assad is a POS but we shouldn't get involved in Syria, I'd feel better. Instead she accepts trips from Assad linked charities and refuses to criticize him at all. I'm not interested in anybody who isnt repulsed by war criminals. You can be against getting involved in Syria and simultaneously against hanging with leaders who use chemical weapons in their own citizens. If you are thrilled with Trump's leadership it is entirely consistent that you wouldn't understand what I'm talking about here, either. I have no problem with that. I feel kind of sad for you, but it is entirely consistent that you wouldn't understand what people are upset about.
If she were the Dem candidate, I'd have a hard time pulling the lever for her, even with Trump on the other side. Fortunately, she is a long shot to be the candidate.
The Russian regime has a track record of supporting the very worst elements of the US body politic (Trump, the NRA, etc) - precisely because they are malign actors who will hurt us and divide us. Putting out a Tulsi troll army is depressingly par for the course and of a piece with their 2016 strategy.
That was Trump’s schtick as well, albeit more boorishly. I think everyone wants the US to stop being the world police, but what does that look like? Under Trump it looks like chaos. Aside from not being a boorish ass, how does Gabbard differ?
Good question. Under Gabbard, she would not be rattling the sabre against Venezuela or Iran as Trump has been doing. I don't know what her position is with respect to the economic sanctions that the US has placed on Venezuela and is currently strangling that country, but she has been the strongest to say hands off Venezuela and Iran. It is also important to understand that North Korea understands (correctly) that the only thing standing between them and a US overthrow of their regime is their nuclear capability. Once the US backs off from regime change wars, that conversation should become easier.
