I agree with Illhan Omar

[HurleyBird]

Despite disagreements on domestic stuff, on foreign policy her views often align with my own.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1365371946280620036

 

[nickqt]

Despite disagreements on domestic stuff, on foreign policy her views often align with my own.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1365371946280620036

American Empire: d/b/a American Exceptionalism, American Interests, War on Terror, PeaceKeeping, UN Sanctions, NATO, etc. ad nauseam.

Imagine if the US Government only supported foreign governments with stringent human rights policies, with foreign aid, direct and indirect trade, military sales, etc. I know, delusional on my part.

 

[dank69]

At least centrist Democrats aren't worse than Republicans in this regard. If you actually want to see an end to this shit, step one is to finish burying the GOP.

 

[HurleyBird]

At least centrist Democrats aren't worse than Republicans in this regard. If you actually want to see an end to this shit, step one is to finish burying the GOP.

When Democrats control all three bodies of government, Republicans are not a rational excuse.

Nor do I think "killing the GOP" would do anything except move the Democratic party to the right to fill the void. This is already happening, with anti-Trump/pro-War Republicans being welcomed with open arms. That or something like the "Trump party" will fill the void. Nature abhors a vacuum.

Illhan Omar and AOC have the right idea, but I wouldn't call them centrists. Pelosi or Schumer, people I view as centrist, I absolutely don't trust to stop the bombings and the wars.

I think you maybe you define these terms differently than I do, but I think my definitions are better.

After all, what else is the centre if it isn't mainstream and institutional? And the cycle of endless war is nothing if not mainstream and institutional.

The Libertarians and the Greens are not centrists, or anything of the sort. The Libertarians are to the right of the Republicans. The Greens are to the left of the Democrats. Yet, if Americans started voting for Libertarians and Greens instead of Republicans and Democrats, the bombings and wars would stop immediately.

 

[nickqt]

When Democrats control all three bodies of government, Republicans are not a rational excuse.

Nor do I think "killing the GOP" would do anything except move the Democratic party to the right to fill the void. This is already happening, with anti-Trump/pro-War Republicans being welcomed with open arms. That or something like the "Trump party" will fill the void. Nature abhors a vacuum.

Illhan Omar and AOC have the right idea, but I wouldn't call them centrists. Pelosi or Schumer, people I view as centrist, I absolutely don't trust to stop the bombings and the wars.

I think you maybe you define these terms differently than I do, but I think my definitions are better.

After all, what else is the centre if it isn't mainstream and institutional? And the cycle of endless war is nothing if not mainstream and institutional.

The Libertarians and the Greens are not centrists, or anything of the sort. The Libertarians are to the right of the Republicans. The Greens are to the left of the Democrats. Yet, if Americans started voting for Libertarians and Greens instead of Republicans and Democrats, the bombings and wars would stop immediately.

You're using a left <-> right axis when you should be using a square.

That said, the Green Party and Libertarian Party are essentially just spoilers, otherwise they'd be working hard for offices they could, you know, actually win, like local/city/state office.

Instead, they pop up every 4 years to siphon votes from the "less evil" candidate of their targets, along with $$$.

 

[tweaker2]

I like her idealism, I agree with a lot of what she says. However, I'd like to hear from her what her actual nuts and bolts down to the numbers plan for resolving the issues she's brought up. The devil is in the details, and the details are couched in layers upon layers of top to bottom agendas from every person, every organization, every gov't agency and every nation that has some skin in the game including every industrial conglomerate that's making a killing over there both in lives and in profits.

It seems to me she needs to have the backing of the majority of the people of the nation to force the gov't to act in ways that Omar wants them to. That's a tall order to fill and I do wish her well in this regard. What Bush and Cheney started way back when has been with us still and has taken on a life of its own. Untangling what took decades to develop will take a kind of Deux Ex Machina miracle. Yet there will be losers no matter what solution is arrived at. So it seems deciding who "those losers" will be are those that have no say in their own destinies.

 

[Leeea]

I consider Illhan Omar as hopelessly naive when it comes to this subject.

One constant we have seen is the US gets dragged into every violent conflict without fail. The longer the US waits to get involved, the more people die. More importantly, the more Americans have to die to fix it. Both the humanitarian and pragmatic choice is to get involved early while the fire is small.


In this case, this was in response** to an Iranian attack on an Iraqi military base that killed one American and wounded one other. Iraqi President Barham Salih called the Iranian attack "a dangerous escalation and a criminal terrorist attack."*

*https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...b13236-6fd7-11eb-93be-c10813e358a2_story.html
**https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...liating-against-iran-backed-militias-n1258912

---------------------------

You can argue we should not even be in Iraq, but I would point to you that last time we left ISIS showed up and started a genocide, and we were dragged right back in.

You could argue that if we had not knocked off Saddam ISIS would never have come to be, and you would be right. But sooner or later we would have been dragged in anyway by Saddam and his Kurdish extermination campaign.

You could argue that we should never have helped Saddam back in the Iran / Iraq war, but that would have spun into a regional conflagration (it was already nearly that when the US gave Saddam the chemical weapons used to gas the Iranian offensive, and then later gas the Kurds). Such a conflagration would have accelerated violent extremism in the area by 20 years. Remember, in that war Iran was fighting a religious war in which they gave their child soldiers keys* that would unlock the doors to paradise.
*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastic_Keys_to_Paradise#:~:text=Some sources opposed to the,Islamic Republic of Iran leadership.


You could say we should just ignore it all and just let them kill each other. Ignoring the cruelty associated with that course of action, that would simply result in a regional conflagration that would then spiral into a larger and larger war that would eventually drag us in anyway. Except we would be calling it world war III.

In our interconnected society we no longer can ignore wars. They just keep burning larger and larger until someone steps in and snuffs them to embers. Embers that wait to light again.

 

[dank69]

When Democrats control all three bodies of government, Republicans are not a rational excuse.

Nor do I think "killing the GOP" would do anything except move the Democratic party to the right to fill the void. This is already happening, with anti-Trump/pro-War Republicans being welcomed with open arms. That or something like the "Trump party" will fill the void. Nature abhors a vacuum.

Illhan Omar and AOC have the right idea, but I wouldn't call them centrists. Pelosi or Schumer, people I view as centrist, I absolutely don't trust to stop the bombings and the wars.

I think you maybe you define these terms differently than I do, but I think my definitions are better.

After all, what else is the centre if it isn't mainstream and institutional? And the cycle of endless war is nothing if not mainstream and institutional.

The Libertarians and the Greens are not centrists, or anything of the sort. The Libertarians are to the right of the Republicans. The Greens are to the left of the Democrats. Yet, if Americans started voting for Libertarians and Greens instead of Republicans and Democrats, the bombings and wars would stop immediately.

You are thoroughly retarded. I made no excuse for the Democrats. I gave you the most realistic option for reducing warhawk behavior, but you don't actually care about it. You are only here to reinforce your irrational hatred of Democrats.

There are hundreds of explanations on the internet for why 3rd party is not going to change anything. Many are written in crayon, just your speed. For you to still be here believing 3rd party is the way shows you will never change because you don't want to change. If you wanted to change, you would.

 

[Ken g6]

An airstrike on a country attacking an ally is better than an airstrike to assassinate a foreign dignitary visiting an ally.

In fact, this may be partly Biden trying to get on Iraq's good side after the Soleimani strike.

 

[BoomerD]

I've said ever since Dubya started banging the war drums over Iraq...the whole of the middle east isn't worth the life of a single US service member.

Lay waste to the entire region...and include Israel in the mix...pave it all with nuclear glass, nothing sticking up above ground except American owned oil wells.

 

[pcgeek11]

An airstrike on a country attacking an ally is better than an airstrike to assassinate a foreign dignitary visiting an ally.

In fact, this may be partly Biden trying to get on Iraq's good side after the Soleimani strike.

I guess if you want to call a terrorist a dignitary...

 

[HurleyBird]

You are thoroughly retarded. I made no excuse for the Democrats. I gave you the most realistic option for reducing warhawk behavior, but you don't actually care about it.

Your "most realistic option" is nothing more than the short-sighted fever dream of a hyper-partisan. The GOP is unlikely to be destroyed, but if somehow it were, you'd simply end up with all the Republican war hawks placing a D next to their name plus the benefit of one party rule. Your supposed utopia is in reality a grim dystopia.

You are only here to reinforce your irrational hatred of Democrats.

I don't hate Democrats, but I certainly don't like the Democratic party. Not a big fan of the Republican party either, or institutional power in general.

There are hundreds of explanations on the internet for why 3rd party is not going to change anything.

You misread me completely. I'm not saying that the third party options are the solution, I'm saying that in order to find people who are truly and reliably anti-war, you have to go to the fringes. Libertarians and Greens were only invoked to demonstrate this relationship. It's the centrists on both sides that perpetuate the endless wars. Even though anyone who is a fan of one is liable to despise the other, we need more Rand Pauls and Illhan Ohmars, less Bidens and Bushes.

 

[dank69]

Your "most realistic option" is nothing more than the short-sighted fever dream of a hyper-partisan. The GOP is unlikely to be destroyed, but if somehow it were, you'd simply end up with all the Republican war hawks placing a D next to their name plus the benefit of one party rule. Your supposed utopia is in reality a grim dystopia.



I don't hate Democrats, but I certainly don't like the Democratic party. Not a big fan of the Republican party either, or institutional power in general.



You misread me completely. I'm not saying that the third party options are the solution, I'm saying that in order to find people who are truly and reliably anti-war, you have to go to the fringes. Libertarians and Greens were only invoked to demonstrate this relationship. It's the centrists on both sides that perpetuate the endless wars. Even though anyone who is a fan of one is liable to despise the other, we need more Rand Pauls and Illhan Ohmars, less Bidens and Bushes.

It won't end in one party rule. The Democrats would split into centrists and progressives. The Greens are nothing more than an extension of RT and libertarians are childish, short-sighted fools. Rand Paul is every bit the piece of garbage that McConnell is.

 

[ch33zw1z]

I guess if you want to cal a terrorist a dignitary...

One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. It's called perspective.

 

[Fenixgoon]

It won't end in one party rule. The Democrats would split into centrists and progressives. The Greens are nothing more than an extension of RT and libertarians are childish, short-sighted fools. Rand Paul is every bit the piece of garbage that McConnell is.

if all competing parties disappeared, the dems would absolutely split. AOC even said (i'm paraphrasing), that anywhere else, she and biden wouldn't be in the same party.

so thanks to winner take all (among other things), the two party system is the optimal solution to winning an election

 

[woolfe9998]

You could say we should just ignore it all and just let them kill each other. Ignoring the cruelty associated with that course of action, that would simply result in a regional conflagration that would then spiral into a larger and larger war that would eventually drag us in anyway. Except we would be calling it world war III.

See, that is where I disagree. That is exactly what we should do, with one caveat added. Where there are human rights abuses, short of genocide, we should use harsh economic sanctions including a total trade embargo. It's what brought Iran to the negotiating table over its nuclear program, before Trump flushed it down the toilet.

A regional conflagration need not turn into world war 3 unless non-regional states are determined to become militarily involved.

 

[feralkid]

I've said ever since Dubya started banging the war drums over Iraq...the whole of the middle east isn't worth the life of a single US service member.

Lay waste to the entire region...and include Israel in the mix...pave it all with nuclear glass, nothing sticking up above ground except American owned oil wells.

Ok BoomerD.

 

[Bitek]

Wasn't stopping "endless wars in the ME" what also had all the Trumpers in a tizzy, and in part made them love dear leader? He specifically listed it as one of his short listed accomplishments (very short list...)

Huh, so turns out Trumpers and Omar agree on something...


I'm ok with it if it had strategic value. Plenty of bad guys in that region, so I'm sure it's easy enough to have over.
If for showboating or other corrupt intent, then Biden needs to answer for it.

 

[zzyzxroad]

See, that is where I disagree. That is exactly what we should do, with one caveat added. Where there are human rights abuses, short of genocide, we should use harsh economic sanctions including a total trade embargo. It's what brought Iran to the negotiating table over its nuclear program, before Trump flushed it down the toilet.

A regional conflagration need not turn into world war 3 unless non-regional states are determined to become militarily involved.

Am I missing something or did Americans get attached and then we responded. I agree we need to get out of that entire area but we have boots on the ground. I hope Biden is formulating a plan to get us out but it has been a month.

"A series of rocket attacks on Feb. 15 in Erbil, Iraq, killed a Filipino national who was a U.S. contractor, while injuring a U.S. service member and other contractors. Since then, the Biden administration has been deliberating a response."

Biden Orders U.S. Airstrike in Syria, Targeting Iran-Backed Militia

The airstrike was the first known instance in which the Biden administration had approved the use of military force against an adversary since taking office last month.

www.wsj.com

If after we get passed Covid Biden doesn't put massive attention into a plan to remove us from the region he deserves criticism

 

[HurleyBird]

It won't end in one party rule. The Democrats would split into centrists and progressives.

You're assuming that "destroy the GOP" literally means blighting the party off the map, which is a fantasy.

You're also assuming that the establishment is stupid. They aren't.

No. If the GOP is "destroyed," what you'll see is a party that can no longer win elections, but still gets a sizeable share of votes. The Republican party will become historical AMD to the Democrat's Intel--just powerful enough to prevent a breakup. The upper class establishment Republicans will start calling themselves Democrats, and the Republican party, comprised increasingly of low class populist "deplorables" will serve the role of an ever present bogeyman.

That dystopia is the best you can hope for if your goal is to "destroy the GOP."

If you really want to end the two party system, and if you want a truly progressive party that has a chance of winning elections, then the goal must be to split, not to destroy. There is much, much more tension between the establishment and populist wings of the Republican party than there are between the establishment and progressive wings of the Democrats. Once you have three viable parties, more will follow, and eventually you'll have the progressive party you want.

Thing is, it has to be the populists that split off from the GOP, and not the other way around. If the populists leave, the establishment will be happy to have their party back. If the populists take over, the establishment will just put Ds next to their names and we're back at the nightmare dystopia.

 

[woolfe9998]

Am I missing something or did Americans get attached and then we responded. I agree we need to get out of that entire area but we have boots on the ground. I hope Biden is formulating a plan to get us out but it has been a month.

"A series of rocket attacks on Feb. 15 in Erbil, Iraq, killed a Filipino national who was a U.S. contractor, while injuring a U.S. service member and other contractors. Since then, the Biden administration has been deliberating a response."

Biden Orders U.S. Airstrike in Syria, Targeting Iran-Backed Militia

The airstrike was the first known instance in which the Biden administration had approved the use of military force against an adversary since taking office last month.

www.wsj.com

If after we get passed Covid Biden doesn't put massive attention into a plan to remove us from the region he deserves criticism

You didn't miss anything. We're talking about what US policy should be, not what it has been. That is the subject of the discussion.

 

[zzyzxroad]

You didn't miss anything. We're talking about what US policy should be, not what it has been. That is the subject of the discussion.

Ok thanks. The subject is her tweet no ? I simply was in agreement with Leeea that her stance seemed nieve.

 

[pcgeek11]

One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. It's called perspective.

That is true.

 

[Muse]

I consider Illhan Omar as hopelessly naive when it comes to this subject.

That was my reaction when reading Omar's tweet. Trump blew it badly when pulling US forces out of Syria against the advice of his generals. He was doing the bidding of his buddy Putin, who now enjoys outsized power there with the vacuum created by US withdrawal. Biden's action here can be seen as a shot over the bow of Russian dominance. Syria's maybe the world's most intractable and difficult political situation, it's certainly right up there. Omar makes it sound so simple that stance. Strikes me as blatant rhetoric for the most part and naivety is a good term for it.

 

[pauldun170]

Am I missing something or did Americans get attached and then we responded. I agree we need to get out of that entire area but we have boots on the ground. I hope Biden is formulating a plan to get us out but it has been a month.

"A series of rocket attacks on Feb. 15 in Erbil, Iraq, killed a Filipino national who was a U.S. contractor, while injuring a U.S. service member and other contractors. Since then, the Biden administration has been deliberating a response."

Biden Orders U.S. Airstrike in Syria, Targeting Iran-Backed Militia

The airstrike was the first known instance in which the Biden administration had approved the use of military force against an adversary since taking office last month.

www.wsj.com

If after we get passed Covid Biden doesn't put massive attention into a plan to remove us from the region he deserves criticism

Writing a play...

Why did you make splosion?
US - An Iraqi resistance\militant\ group launched rockets and hit our guys in Iraq.

Why are you in Iraq?
US - We invaded it dumbass. We overthrew the government because a think tank told us we should.

When did that happen?
US - 2003

Why did they say to overthrow it?
US - They said it would impress people.

Why are you still there?
US - We decided that occupying it would look good on our resume.

Why did the Iraqi resistance group attack you?
US - Some bullshit about not liking us invading and occupying their country and using it as a playground for our military.

How?
US - They did it from the back of a pickup truck in Iraq not to far from where the rockets hit. It's pretty ridiculous that these Iraqi's are firing rockets at US military forces occupying the country we decimated. Ungrateful bastards.

Why did you launch airstrikes in Syria?
US - Because we wanted to send a message to Iran and they don't respond to email.

Were Syrian's upset?
US - Who? Oh yeah. Not sure. Ever since we started bombing them they don't return emails. You like splosions? Come to Syria. Everyone is splosioning Syria. My boy Israel. Tard man Turkey. Those Russian dudes. Everyone is hear. We got some sweet videos to watch if you want to netflix and chill later.

What did you attack?
US - It was building a couple of groups use to go to the bathroom close to the border.

What do you mean "Groups"
US - Oh yeah...remember that Iran thing? They have been sending stuff to all these groups pissed off about being invaded and bombed by white people.

Why would Iran do that?
US - Some bullshit over us overthrowing their government and helping all our buddies invade it back in the 80's and preventing the rest of the world from doing business in it and doing our best to make sure those fuckers starve. So what they do is all this little nitpicky shit that looks nothing like what we did for decades in countries around the world. Plus they called our friend an asshole for swiping some land from some of their friends. Fuck dude. Do you have a point to all these questions?

Wait...Iran....Syria?
You know how we supply militant groups with weapons and materials to attack the Syrian government forces in Syria? Iran has been supplying the Syrian government and groups that attack US government forces in Iraq. Totally uncool. So if we find US or Russian or Chinese made equipment in the hands of militants, we toss it out. If we find stuff that looks like it may have come from Iran we then go ahead and blow stuff up in Syria because who the hell is going to complain?

Why are you in Syria again?
US - They had a civil war and originally we were going to mind our business but some old white guys said that if we don't invade it's going to make the president less popular among Americans so we decided to participate. Since We kinda interfered and kinda caused the government to collapse and kinda caused that thing to go way longer than it should have...some small Iraqi resistance group that was pissed off about us in Iraq got really big and then went apeshite. Then we we had to ....it's not important. What was your original question? For the record...when I said resistance group I meant to say "terrorist militia insurgence unlawfully combatening."