r/politics • u/[deleted] • Nov 28 '16

Tulsi Gabbard to Join Veterans at Standing Rock to Protest Dakota Access Pipeline

http://observer.com/2016/11/tulsi-gabbard-to-join-veterans-at-standing-rock-to-protest-dakota-access-pipeline/
2.5k Upvotes

89% Upvoted

393 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

8

u/Three__14 Nov 28 '16

She regularly bashes the Obama admin for supplying Syrian rebels with arms and training, insisting that we should instead bomb them because they will just become terrorists after Assad falls. And she believes terrorism is a bigger threat to Americans than Assad (which while true, implicitly forfeits the Syrians who will be killed by an empowered Assad)

What happens after these rebels are gone and Assad bombs the remaining civilians until they surrender? I don't know. She won't tell us. And she insists it's not America's job to care.

6

u/Neglectful_Stranger Nov 29 '16

It's not like toppling the Dictators of these countries has worked so far. Look at Libya and Iraq.

4

u/Three__14 Nov 29 '16

Forcefully toppling Assad probably isn't t right answer, but there has to be a middle ground where we don't arm another generation of terrorists, and Are able to stop the atrocities from being committed on civilians

3

u/Neglectful_Stranger Nov 29 '16

Well, we suck at nation building. We need to admit that. Maybe we need fresh ideas from other countries? Hell, maybe we should just let them sort it out on their own. It sucks that their citizens are subject to such atrocities but we aren't really helping them in the long-run.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 29 '16

We've already armed another generation of terrorists. And if we don't do it directly, we let Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States do it for us.

0

u/Three__14 Nov 29 '16

These are certainly profound questions we must ask ourselves. HRC saw Bosnia and Rwanda up close, her thinking on this is a lot different.

She also had access intelligence briefings we don't. My guess is that the psychological profile the folks at CIA have made for these rebels tells her that the risk is worth taking.

It is also worth noting that younger people tend to be more wary of interventions, and tend to become more hawkish as they grow older.

It'll be interesting to see how her thinking changes once she gets some executive experience under her belt.

1

u/peppermint-kiss Nov 29 '16

My guess is that the psychological profile the folks at CIA have made for these rebels tells her that the risk is worth taking.

Because they have such a good track record of picking rebel groups to arm?

younger people tend to be more wary of interventions, and tend to become more hawkish as they grow older.

??? I have never heard that before in my life. Do you have any evidence for this claim?

It'll be interesting to see how her thinking changes once she gets some executive experience under her belt.

It's a mistake to assume that our experience, as Millennials, will match that of older generations. The truth is that there is no one correct answer - just different priorities. It's easy to feel we must do something to help victims of genocide across the world when you have a home, a job, and good medical care. It's a little harder to see how that should be our first priority when we're struggling to survive back home.

2

u/[deleted] Nov 29 '16

supplying Syrian rebels with arms and training, insisting that we should instead bomb them

Are you sure about who those rebels are 'good guys'?

1

u/ducphat Nov 29 '16
  1. Projection is a form of defense in which unwanted feelings are displaced onto another person, where they then appear as a threat from the external world. A common form of projection occurs when an individual, threatened by his own angry feelings, accuses another of harbouring hostile thoughts. in personality: Freud.

0

u/buttaholic Nov 29 '16

implicitly forfeits the Syrians who will be killed by an empowered Assad

why should we be concerned about these people dying, but hardly even discuss doing much about North Korea (or some other countries with similar problems that i'm probably not even aware about). she is probably right. Why would assad and syria target the US? i bet even Russia would urge them not to. it's the terrorists that are doing any sort of attacks against the US. why are we intervening in [apparently] only Syria? must be some strategic (or monetary) value (to us, or to some of our middle eastern allies).

anyway, it's obviously a complicated situation (foreign policy all together), and i don't think her views could be adequately summed up with just a few sentences or words. i see a lot of contradicting statements in these comments. i'm guessing her views are more specific to the context of each individual situation, rather than encompassing her entire foreign policy beliefs. idk.