[Sixstrings]

Democrat from Hawaii defies Obama-----tries to get Congress to block his failing Syria strategy

tulsi-gabbard-rising-democratic-star-from-hawaii-makes-mark-on-party-by-defying-obama

Looks like the Europeans aren't the only ones who are figuring out that Obama isn't up to the job. Even the Ds in his own party are starting to see that obamas Syria strategy isn't working.

I like Tulsi Gabbard. She's the one that was standing up to debbie wasserman schultz, about how the DNC was limiting debates just to help hillary. And then Schultz told Gabbard she couldn't come to the debate, had better just stay away.

Gabbard is a combat veteran, two tours in Iraq.

She bucks her party, she's a vet and knows what she's talking about.. and apparently a "rising star" in the democratic party.

Interestingly, she's the first american somoan ever elected to congress, and a hindu.

Rep Tulsi Gabbard on MSNBC Distinguishes Between War to Overthrow Assad and War to Defeat ISIS
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NH5lyF-bwoY

Oh.. sigh.. I watched the whole video. I DON'T AGREE WITH HER about being against overthrowing Assad.

I don't quite understand what she's saying but it's something like aiding rebels just winds up creating more radicals / there would just be new radicals after assad is gone.

Gabbard's either not understanding the broader geopolitical realities (assad has to go), or she's being a politician and trying to tread a line of not too much US involvement in Syria.

JEB BUSH IS THE ONE THAT'S RIGHT ON THIS ISSUE -- enough is enough, enough of it, send in the marines and army and full force of the US military.

Unfortunately, Jeb also wants to cut social secuirty and raise the age and only polls at 5%. If Trump wins, he's a total unknown, except that Trump fans have elephants and Trump has a helicopter with solid gold seatbelts and cupholders.

[Sixstrings]

@PLANT

This is all the NYT aricle actually said about her syria ideas:

Since the deadly attacks in Paris, she has become a high-profile critic of President Obama’s policies in Syria by amplifying her argument that President Bashar al-Assad should stay in power to avoid elevating the Islamic State and by introducing legislation to defund American efforts to overthrow him.

So look guys.. she's not solving the problem either.. this is just standard Democrat stuff dressed up with some combat vet credentials but it's still do-nothing..

I do like her, but having looked more into this (I hadn't before) I can see she's off on a wrong track. She doesn't have the answer. Jeb Bush's plan is better.

The answer is what everyone is trying to avoid, simply that yes you do need a herbert walker bush style international coalition with all the allies fairly contributing with their boots on the ground to go solve this thing over in Iraq and Syria.

They can spin and spin on it as much as they want to, and with either Obama or Gabbard's ideas -- BOTH are wrong -- the problem shall be worse come 2017.

P.S. Maybe I don't like Gabbard after all. She's good on a lot of general military / veterans type issues, but look folks she was platoon level (and she's actually quite young as well). She doesn't understand what Obama and Cameron and Hollande are dealing with -- the larger geopolitical chess things. So it's easy for her to criticize, or if she is aware of the geopolitical realities then this is cheap politics she's doing.

Now granted, Obama and Cameron are wrong as well but not for the reason Gabbard says they are -- it's because they need Jeb Bush's plan, to use our own troops. Gabbard is only half right, that it's not a good idea to use proxies -- while she is wrong about assad should stay. And then Obama and Hollande and Cameron are right that Assad has to go, but are wrong on using proxies -- it needs our own troops on it.

[Sixstrings]

What do you all think?

Tulsi Gabbard: Keep Assad in place, fight ISIS
http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/20/politics/tulsi-gabbard-syria-paris-keep-assad/

Is Gabbard right? Before I could agree with her (basically agreeing with Putin on it as well) then I'd want to hear the explanation exactly, from Cameron and Hollande and John Kerry and Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush and Rubio and all the Republicans, about why "Assad has to go."

I think I understand why.. it's geopolitics, it's Russia and Iran.

And then it's also that the people in Syria say there will never be peace if Assad is there, so ergo the trouble never ends and the refugees keep coming into Europe.

BOTH are a problem. ISIS must be defeated AND Assad regime must go.

[davep]

BOTH are a problem. ISIS must be defeated AND Assad regime must go.

They can't both happen at the same time, or we'll end up with another Syria (edit:Libya!). ISIS must be defeated, then a political process needs to be adopted without destroying the Syrian police and armed forces. I'm pretty sure even Russia would accept this as they have no investment in Assad personally.

[ROCKMAN]

Six - "I don't quite understand what she's saying but it's something like aiding rebels just winds up creating more radicals / there would just be new radicals after assad is gone."

I think I understand her logic: how has getting rid of Sadam helped the Iraqis? Stability in the ME? How has getting rid of Q help the Libyan people? Stability of the ME? Having Egypt's Mubarac first replaced with democratically elected radical Muslims who are then replaced by military dictatorship isn't a very good model for ME stability, is it? How has getting rid whoever the f*ck was running Afghanistan and replacing them with whoever the f*ck runs it now help the Afghanistan people. LOL. And stability of the ME? And having the Iranian brutal dictator replaced decades ago by a govt led by radical Muslim mullahs who advocate destroying another ME country and also building a nuclear bomb improve the prospect of peace in the region? And how does supporting the Saudi govt which is sponsoring terrorist activities in other countries as well as directly attacking another country improve the stability of the ME? And lastly how has the US govt's support of Israel help bring peace to that part of the region?

Oh...I know: maybe the UN with the help of the US military can fix the situation in Syria like they did in Somalia: In 1993 the UN Security Council approves a “Operation Restore Hope,” led by the United States to try to help the starving country by protecting food shipments from the warlords. And then in 1994 the U.S. formally ends the mission to Somalia, which has cost $1.7 billion dollars and left 43 U.S. soldiers dead and another 153 wounded. And then just 2 years later Somalis suffer heavily under Mohamed Farah Aideed’s reign and from subsequent fighting among warlords. Hussein Farah Aideed takes over after his father’s assassination.

Isn't that the terrible choice: getting rid of one horrible govt and not knowing what will replace it? OK: get rid of Assad: what rosy picture do you paint for the future of Syria? ME stability? What makes anyone certain that Assad wouldn't be replaced by an even bigger asshole "rebel leader"?

Oh...here's a solution: the US spends hug amounts of tax $'s and a lot of our military lives, occupy Syria for a number of years, help install a democratically elected govt and then eventually leave. And I just thought of a name for the plan: Iraq 2.0. LOL. But I'm open to suggestions as to exactly how "we" get rid of Assad and improve the situation in the ME. Go ahead...make my day. LOL.

Maybe her motivation is really very simple: after seeing fellow troopers killed and crippled along with thousands of Iraqi civilian lives destroyed and then observing the current cluster f*ck in the country today she has concluded: Why the f*ck bother?

[dissident]

BOTH are a problem. ISIS must be defeated AND Assad regime must go.

They can't both happen at the same time, or we'll end up with another Syria. ISIS must be defeated, then a political process needs to be adopted without destroying the Syrian police and armed forces. I'm pretty sure even Russia would accept this as they have no investment in Assad personally.

Your conditioning by the western lie factory media is showing. "Even". Really? Russia is the one pushing for a political solution including free elections and trying to get real moderates on board for a transition government. NATO is all about regime change by any military means. Seeing how at least two NATO members are actively backing ISIS you should try to find your "even" when referring to the self-anointed guiding light of humanity, the USA.

[onlooker]

Unfortunately, Dissident is right. US as no intention or desire for any stability, they are only interested in keeping the Jihadists targeted as the enemy all the while trying to make alliances with one or another faction to obtain the oil, either in the open market or black market. It is a carrot and stick approach which is what the US is so adept and experienced in. Assad had to go in the eyes of the US because he was always to chummy with Russia.

[Sixstrings]

I think I understand her logic: how has getting rid of Sadam helped the Iraqis? Stability in the ME? How has getting rid of Q help the Libyan people? Stability of the ME?

That's sound as a general principle and one could have said that of Syria years ago, but the problem is that the civil war has already been going on for a very long time. None of this is anything new, it's just gotten worse and we're paying attention now and the refugee part of it is new.

It's at crisis proportions with all the refugees pouring into europe. Hollande has been saying that the US doesn't understand that this problem can't wait anymore, it can't even wait long enough for Obama's attrition strategy because that's too slow.

The situation with Syria is the that the civil war has got to be ended.

What Gabbard is suggesting, doesn't end the civil war. She's saying just focus on Iraq and ignore Syria. Let Assad stay.

But if that happens, then the civil war keeps going and will never end as long as Assad is there. And so, the refugees keep flowing into europe.

Part of the problem is that the Turks and Saudis and others are gonna keep on funding rebels whether the West stops funding rebels or not. Because another factor of all this is that it's a proxy war between shia Iran and the sunni nations. They've got another proxy war going on in Yemen too.

So that's why Assad has to go, to make the sunni nation governments happy. They want Assad out of there, they want Iran out of there. It's a proxy war with Iran. And Iran is allied to Russia and they team up together. And NATO is opposed to Russian expansion (generally).

So it's a big cauldron of proxy wars -- ignoring it doesn't make it go away.

Having Egypt's Mubarac first replaced with democratically elected radical Muslims who are then replaced by military dictatorship isn't a very good model for ME stability, is it?

That's not really analagous, and neither is Iraq under Saddam. Syria is a multi part civil war + many other nations funding proxies because it's also a sphere of influence fight against Iran.

Now what I don't know is, whether an American president would have enough authority and influence and power to TELL TURKEY and KSA and all the others and France too that everyone has to stop funding rebels and has to accept Assad.

One thinking on this whole thing is just let the war keep playing out, and maybe the anti-Assad foreign support (turks, France, KSA etc.) will get withered down and Russia+Iran bloc gains ground and then finally there's some kind of compromise.

It's an ongoing proxy war, that apparently has to keep going until one of the sides start to lose more than the other.

But far as I know, neither Obama and certainly not congresswoman Gabbard has any control over all these countries that are funding rebels and involved in the proxy war.

Oh...I know: maybe the UN with the help of the US military can fix the situation in Syria like they did in Somalia: In 1993 the UN Security Council approves a “Operation Restore Hope,” led by the United States to try to help the starving country by protecting food shipments from the warlords. And then in 1994 the U.S. formally ends the mission to Somalia, which has cost $1.7 billion dollars and left 43 U.S. soldiers dead and another 153 wounded. And then just 2 years later Somalis suffer heavily under Mohamed Farah Aideed’s reign and from subsequent fighting among warlords. Hussein Farah Aideed takes over after his father’s assassination.

I get what you're saying is that "foreign wars don't work out," but doing nothing isn't an option either because the war that's already there just keeps getting worse. If it's not stopped, it'll just become a bigger conflagration.

Intervention may not be perfect, but at least it can stop what's going on.

And Europe has to, they're getting overwhelmed with refugees.

Maybe her motivation is really very simple: after seeing fellow troopers killed and crippled along with thousands of Iraqi civilian lives destroyed and then observing the current cluster f*ck in the country today she has concluded: Why the f*ck bother?

Why bother? Because a shooting war may well break out between Russia and Turkey, and Turkey is NATO which drags us in.

You have to fight the small wars, so they don't become world wars.

[ROCKMAN]

Looker - Good points as usual. But I think perhaps we should sh*t can the concept of any "desire for stability" in the region . It seems all the conflicts and all the parties involved are focused on either maintaining the status quoi or changing it. Neither of which supports stability IMHO. Consider if the US officially accepted the s-q of Assad staying in power: where's the stability? The "rebels" would still be in play...does the US attack them? And as I pointed out above is it likely removing Assad will bring stability to that portion of the region? Will Assad replaced by pro European/US govt bring stability? Not as far as tens of millions of Muslims are concerned. Will replacing him a with a pro Russian puppet bring stability? And do I even need to ask about his being replaced by an Islamic state?

Goes back to the false promises we were given over the years about "nation building". Perhaps I missed some but since the post WWII reconstruction has there been any truly successful efforts by outsiders? Maybe just S Korea. But with the N. Korea nukes and a huge standing army (which technically is still at war) we might not classify that region a completely stable.

[davep]

BOTH are a problem. ISIS must be defeated AND Assad regime must go.

They can't both happen at the same time, or we'll end up with another Syria. ISIS must be defeated, then a political process needs to be adopted without destroying the Syrian police and armed forces. I'm pretty sure even Russia would accept this as they have no investment in Assad personally.

Your conditioning by the western lie factory media is showing. "Even". Really? Russia is the one pushing for a political solution including free elections and trying to get real moderates on board for a transition government. NATO is all about regime change by any military means. Seeing how at least two NATO members are actively backing ISIS you should try to find your "even" when referring to the self-anointed guiding light of humanity, the USA.

I was using "even" in the sense that despite all the Western rhetoric, Russia is actually not the biggest buddy of Assad himself and that they would be prepared to see him go in a democratic process (as they have already stated). But thanks for telling me what I think.

[ROCKMAN]

"Intervention may not be perfect, but at least it can stop what's going on." You mean how our "intervention" in Iraq has stopped those problems? We are taking about a war being conducted in Iraq and the surrounding region today. A war involving military actions by a number of NATO countries (including the US), Russia, ISIS, the Syrian govt and Syrian rebels supported by various other ME govts. Stop what's going on for how long? Stop what portions of those activities...some of them...all of them? Perhaps you mean an occupation US/NATO forces...until they withdraw and leave another power vacuum.

Again there a myriad of short term "solutions". That wasn't my question: what's your long term solution that would justify spending our tax $'s and the lives of our military in those not so perfect interventions? I can only go back to the well-worn view: Problems have solutions...predicaments don't. One might makes some aspects of a predicament better...or worse. But it can't be eliminated as one might do with a problem.

But hey, I know blowing up sh*t can be entertaining. But it doesn't do much meaningful in the long term. LOL

[Pops]

Europe has to step up

I agree.

[onlooker]

Guys, hence my point that this is about controlled chaos. Divide and conquer. The West is after the oil, terrorism is the excuse, but of course the goal remains the same the Oil. Via this violence and chaos, Western governments can continue to justify their presence their not just by saying their fighting terrorists but by saying they want to pave the way for a "stable" government. We all know none of that is true. Like the magician whose magic works via distraction, so this situation also.

[Sixstrings]

I was watching the tv news, and they interviewed the WH press secretary and asked him about what Gabbard's been saying lately, "let Assad stay."

So, what Josh Earnest said was that Assad's army doesn't fight ISIS in the east. But rather, just the various ethnicities and that Assad bombs innocent civilians.

If Assad regime were left alone, then it wouldn't help anything, he still wouldn't fight ISIS and then he'd just keep bombing ethnic minorities.

So anyway that's the white house position on it.

[SeaGypsy]

You are a dick & so are they. Assad has been until recently the only consistent enemy of IS. It was not Assad exterminating ethic minorities, destroying ancient cultural treasures, that was your & Turkey & KSA's boys, IS, your fake enemy.

[Tanada]

I was watching the tv news, and they interviewed the WH press secretary and asked him about what Gabbard's been saying lately, "let Assad stay."

So, what Josh Earnest said was that Assad's army doesn't fight ISIS in the east. But rather, just the various ethnicities and that Assad bombs innocent civilians.

If Assad regime were left alone, then it wouldn't help anything, he still wouldn't fight ISIS and then he'd just keep bombing ethnic minorities.

So anyway that's the white house position on it.

Assad's Army fights the people trying to overthrow the government which includes both the 'moderates' and ISIS. Saying otherwise is denying reality on the ground that is available from news if you spend a few minutes actually looking instead of just accepting whatever the press secretary feeds you.

[Subjectivist]

President Obama, for better or worse, is a trained community organizer and lawyer. He is very very good at organizing some people to follow his plans, however he does not actively lead his plan himself. President Obama does not see himself as a leader, he sees himself as organizing the already existing individual leaders into following the same plan.

That system may work great for a neighbourhood or a city because what you are doing is like being a choir leader, you are directing the different voices to work together in harmony to present a unified message to the political power structure of the neighbourhood or city. Unfortunately when you try this on the state, national or international level you are in conflict with what the other pressure groups in the state, nation or world are telling their politicians to do.

If you want a politician to follow your plan you have to step out and lead so that the politician can pass the blame upward if things go wrong. Otherwise what you have is a committee, and those types of organizations are great at avoiding responsibility by avoiding action.

[Sixstrings]

Parliament voted in favor of Carmeron's expanded airstrikes bill, 397 for it and 223 against:

MPs Vote In Favour Of Airstrikes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKq9e7VcNog