Action Was Reckless - Tulsi Gabbard

wkmac

Well-Known Member
Hillary voters should be overjoyed with Trump as he just fulfilled one of Hillary's campaign promises!
 

Catatonic

Nine Lives

cosmo1

Perhaps.
Staff member
This became obvious by this morning.
The warheads were conventional explosives which basically blew up anything sitting on the ground.
"Measured" was the word of the day.
Ruskies are posturing but no real blowback diplomatically.

Hopefully nothing escalates and we all get back to ridding the world of ISIS.

As that article stated, Tomahawks are a good weapon for a lot of things, but not for putting and airfield out of business. Planes were using that airfield today.

And, the actual gas stores weren't targeted. It would have taken much more that a 1000 lb warhead to destroy both the gas and it's storage area.







Now, it seems, the Donald has his war.
 

Catatonic

Nine Lives
I think Hilary ruined any chance for a women President for many years to come.
Nay.
She was just a too divisive figure for a quarter century in DC politics.

That's why we elect so many Governors and so few Senators, who would be your natural pool of candidates.
 

It will be fine

Well-Known Member
Nay.
She was just a too divisive figure for a quarter century in DC politics.

That's why we elect so many Governors and so few Senators, who would be your natural pool of candidates.
I'd say it's because governors are executives and senators are from the legislative branch. It's a different skill set.
 

newfie

Well-Known Member
I haven't seen her before but she was on CNN and Faux and did not like Trump's reactive strike on Syria.

I researched her some and she impressed me ... especially for being a Politician and furthermore, a Democrat.

I wonder if she will be the first woman President?

Hawaii congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard says Trump 'acted recklessly' with Syria missile strikes

Tulsi Gabbard - Wikipedia

most libertarians are losing their minds over this missile barrage. I partially agree in that I don't want us being so intrusive in the politics of other countries.
in this case I have to somehow look the other way on the issue of nerve gas being used to kill children. I cant look the other way. If there was ever a good reason to fire some missiles to send a message this was it.
 

Catatonic

Nine Lives
most libertarians are losing their minds over this missile barrage. I partially agree in that I don't want us being so intrusive in the politics of other countries.
in this case I have to somehow look the other way on the issue of nerve gas being used to kill children.
...
If there was ever a good reason to fire some missiles to send a message this was it.
Pretty much the way I feel too.
He shouldn't have done it ... wink of the eye.
"Just ask Congress before before you do anything more Prez Trump."
 

Catatonic

Nine Lives
"There's nothing non-libertarian about intervening on someone's behalf to defend them against a stronger force. There's nothing wrong with staying long enough to make sure people harmed from the initial attack are medically cared for. If the intention of the intervention is to defend those that need help, medically care for them, and withdraw, there is nothing that a libertarian should oppose to this scenario." - Being Libertarian
 

bbsam

Moderator
Staff member
"There's nothing non-libertarian about intervening on someone's behalf to defend them against a stronger force. There's nothing wrong with staying long enough to make sure people harmed from the initial attack are medically cared for. If the intention of the intervention is to defend those that need help, medically care for them, and withdraw, there is nothing that a libertarian should oppose to this scenario." - Being Libertarian
Well we have told Assad "no chemical weapons".

Does that mean "go back to barrel bombs".

Barrel bombs kill "little babies" too.
 

DriveInDriveOut

Inordinately Right
"There's nothing non-libertarian about intervening on someone's behalf to defend them against a stronger force. There's nothing wrong with staying long enough to make sure people harmed from the initial attack are medically cared for. If the intention of the intervention is to defend those that need help, medically care for them, and withdraw, there is nothing that a libertarian should oppose to this scenario." - Being Libertarian
I disagree, and if you're trying to apply this statement to the strike on Syria, then officially, so does the libertarian party.

We denounce last night's strikes on Syria. | Libertarian Party
"The situation in Syria is very complex. There is no clear, straight-forward path to peace. Additional air strikes will just kill more people and further inflame an already highly volatile situation.

For decades, the United States has pursued a foreign policy based on the idea that we can play policeman for the world. Time and time again we have seen this fail. Sadly, our intervention into Syria will be no different."
 

Catatonic

Nine Lives
I disagree, and if you're trying to apply this statement to the strike on Syria, then officially, so does the libertarian party.

We denounce last night's strikes on Syria. | Libertarian Party
"The situation in Syria is very complex. There is no clear, straight-forward path to peace. Additional air strikes will just kill more people and further inflame an already highly volatile situation.

For decades, the United States has pursued a foreign policy based on the idea that we can play policeman for the world. Time and time again we have seen this fail. Sadly, our intervention into Syria will be no different."
I'm not sure how I feel about this article ...

I posted this because I came across it and found it made me think about it.
Which it appeared to have done with you and @bbsam as it did with me.

I guess it was a thought provoking article.

Peace

BUTT
 
Last edited:
Top