Tulsi Gabbard at it again, blasts Trump for arming terrorists

According to her, Trump talks tough on IS, and at the same time sells arms to Qaeda and other terror groups. She has drafted a Stop Army Terrorists Act earlier this year but it did not get considered by Congress. She also met Assad, to my knowledge being the only member of Congress to do so.

twitter.com...

twitter.com...

Personally, I would vote for Tulsi Gabbard for president. She is not a war monger.

She sounds like an idiot.

a reply to: allsee4eye


And yes Iran is the way out in front Terror Supporter and Hegemoginist nation. If Iran ever got ahold of those SA oilfields like Sadam tried we would be paying 10$ a gal with great outcries for war and destruction of Iran. And Tulis is just another dingbat dem.

Some of these politicians are simply controlled opposition and controlled confirmation mongers.

If the U.S. ever decides to stop all arms sales, who do you think will fill the gaps?

originally posted by: CulturalResilience
She sounds like an idiot.

Well we were arming Al queada and ISIS. I'm not sure if we still are, wouldn't be surprised.

And selling weapons to Saudi Arabia is supporting terrorism and extremism. So...

originally posted by: xuenchen
Some of these politicians are simply controlled opposition and controlled confirmation mongers.

If the U.S. ever decides to stop all arms sales, who do you think will fill the gaps?

That doesn't make it the right thing to do though does it?

Maybe, I still think she is an idiot.
a reply to: watchitburn

If there's ever a female president, she'll be the one, not Hillary or Palin

originally posted by: watchitburn

originally posted by: xuenchen
Some of these politicians are simply controlled opposition and controlled confirmation mongers.

If the U.S. ever decides to stop all arms sales, who do you think will fill the gaps?

That doesn't make it the right thing to do though does it?

No. No it doesn't.

All wars are an unfortunate trait of Humans.

originally posted by: watchitburn

originally posted by: CulturalResilience
She sounds like an idiot.

Well we were arming Al queada and ISIS. I'm not sure if we still are, wouldn't be surprised.

And selling weapons to Saudi Arabia is supporting terrorism and extremism. So...

Unless Trump has instituted a major foreign policy change, then yep, still at it.

Gotta admire Tulsi Gabbard. sticks by her convictions. Like a Democrat version of Ron Paul, or Trey Gowdy.

a reply to: xuenchen

No, it's a trait of its so-called "leaders."

originally posted by: watchitburn

originally posted by: CulturalResilience
She sounds like an idiot.

Well we were arming Al queada and ISIS. I'm not sure if we still are, wouldn't be surprised.

And selling weapons to Saudi Arabia is supporting terrorism and extremism. So...

Well ok so lets say in this thing I give you your point as solid. SA is a supporter of terrorism. What are Her feelings about Iran? Iran couldn't escape the net there......unless she is just another party hack trying to get a tail on the donkey.

I like Tulsi, but the world is far more complex than she makes it out to be. If we didn't deal with the Saudis, the petrodollar would go tits up, and I'm sure Tulsi's followers would not like that one bit. Also, if we didn't sell weapons, the Russians, Chinese, Europeans would. The world would be no better off. Tulsi might be able to maker her conscience feel better by denigrating the US, but it does nothing to help the world. The US is the only thing keeping the world from spiraling out of control, the situation certainly isn't perfect, but it's the reality.

originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: allsee4eye


And yes Iran is the way out in front Terror Supporter and Hegemoginist nation. If Iran ever got ahold of those SA oilfields like Sadam tried we would be paying 10$ a gal with great outcries for war and destruction of Iran. And Tulis is just another dingbat dem.

Actually, it's probably the opposite. One of the biggest effects of the previous sanctions on Iran is that it limited the amount of Iranian oil that was on the market. The lifting of sanctions against them only caused them to flood the market with oil to make up for their lost revenue, which is helping keep oil prices low. The Saudis in particular were pissed about this, even going so far as to routinely stop Iranian oil tankers near their waters.

So if Iran were able to "grab" Iraqi oilfields, they'd probably keep putting as much oil on the market as possible. Although I doubt Iran would ever seize Iraqi oilfields in the first place.

Also, Tulsi's one of the few politicians who's been against arming the "rebels" this whole time. Many Democrats on progressive sites are even calling to have her kicked out of the party because of her words both against Obama/Clinton's plans in Syria and because she actually was agreeing with some of Trump's earlier statements about the region. She's the one who kept saying we should keep Assad in place and instead focus on ISIS. She was once even rumored to be one of Trump's considered Cabinet picks because of her words, which pissed off a lot Democrats.

a reply to: allsee4eye

My boyfriend is totally convinced she'll be our next president. War vet, non-sjw progressivism, etc.

Personally, I think some of her early skeletons in the closet will keep her from making it too far but who knows? It's not like that stopped Trump.

originally posted by: watchitburn

Well we were arming Al queada and ISIS. I'm not sure if we still are, wouldn't be surprised.

And selling weapons to Saudi Arabia is supporting terrorism and extremism. So...

So we have a region of the world where EVERYONE is somewhat extremist, EVERYONE. Al Qaeda is a cold war relic that was supported in order to defeat the Russians in Afghanistan late 70s and 80s, what we saw 20 30 years later and today only has the name as a similarity. ISIS rose to power after Obama created a void in Iraq, we didn't support that but we created the opening for it to happen. The only thing both terrorist groups have in common is they both have declared Jihad, but other than that they are very different and not united to say the least. ISIS decided to focus on Syria and this is where the US messed up in we supported freedom fighters there that basically were also ISIS, so ya we dimwittedly supported them for a short while.

I'm not going to scream that Obama totally messed this up because of my opening statement. EVERYONE is an extremist and we need to pick and choose who we support, got to work with someone and that someone can change into something totally different than what they were initially as we saw with Al Qaeda.

Saudi Arabia is the de facto Middle East leader, so what would you like us to do if we decided to not work with them?

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
She's the one who kept saying we should keep Assad in place and instead focus on ISIS. She was once even rumored to be one of Trump's considered Cabinet picks because of her words, which pissed off a lot Democrats.

We most likely should have kept Saddam in place too... Ya he was an evil SOB, but he was also stability. I mean if we really wanted to takeout an evil SOB that would end up with more stability we should have focused on old Kim in NK, would have been a much cheaper war too...

Since she blasted the previous administration as well for arming jihadist...

I have no problem with her taking issue with who we arm now, she has shown that here primary motivation seems to be stopping us from arming people that may want to kill us... that does not bother me.

originally posted by: SpeakerofTruth
If there's ever a female president, she'll be the one, not Hillary or Palin

Agreed. She seems to take the initiative and seek out answers for herself. That's rare.