XPost: soc.culture.china, soc.culture.usa, soc.culture.latin-america
XPost: soc.culture.iraq, soc.culture.african, soc.culture.syria
XPost: rec.sport.tennis
From: jdeluise@gmail.com
*skriptis writes:
>
> 1. Sanders is, or would be a fraud. He would have to compromise a
> lot due to his 'socialist' label. And even though he would probably
> push economically in his direction, the compromise would come with
> the hawks when it comes to issues of international policy. In short,
> nothing would change.
Sanders has a very long history of standing against US interventionism
in the middle east dating back decades, even when relatively few agreed
with him in congress. Note that Trump also supported the first Iraq
War.
You say Sanders is or would be a fraud... but based on what? What
evidence do you have besides lo yeeOn's crystal ball?
>
> 2. Trump offers the real substantial change. He's all heavy words,
> and tough talking, but the core essence of his messages is
> cooperating and making agreements. That you haven't heard from
> Sanders. At least I haven't. I've heard his war mongering attitudes
> on foreign policy.
Sanders "war mongering" attitude towards foreign policy? Are we talking
about the same candidate here? *Trump* is the one threatening to nuke
ISIS, murder the families of terrorists, put boots on the ground in
Syria and Iraw, etc.
> Trump otoh is not delegitemizing China or Russia
> or any country for having its own interests. He talks a lot about war
> trades and stuff, but from a position of a fighter, and having US
> interests on his mind. Otoh war hawks engage in lies, propaganda and
> are trying to bully the other world powers and they attack smaller
> countries and kill people. In simplistic words.
Can you be a little more crisp on what you are trying to say here? Is
this another variation of "Trump's threats of war and violence tells me
he's a peace-loving diplomat"?
Don't you also support Putin's invasion of Ukraine? How can you
rationalize that support given what you just said?
>
> 3. Interventionism is not bad per se, when done legally and for
> the better of the world. There is nothing wrong in Trump wanting to
> obliterate ISIS savages.
Interventionism is "legal" when the party doing the intervening decides
it is. Saying something is "legal" doesn't mean it's right or wrong.
> It's the criminal aggression against sovereign nations that is a
> problem. Such criminal aggressions like war against Iraq or proxy war
> against Syria created ISIS in the first place. Up to million lives
> have been lost because of those actions by criminal western leaders.
You mean the Iraq War that Trump admittedly supported? Hindsight is
20/20.
>
> Nazis were trialed and sentenced for various crimes, genocide,
> crimes against humanity, crimes against peace, unlawful aggression
> etc. In an ideal world, Bush, Cheney, Clintons, Albreight, Rumsfeld,
> Blair, Sarkozy, Obama, Cameron and co would be equally punished.
You should add Putin and cronies to the list.
>
> Madeline Albreight says she's ok with half a million of Iraqi
> children dying because of her, and that's not a big deal, but when
> Trump says he'd temporarily ban Muslims from entering US, he's a
> racist?
He also said he wouldn't be opposed to nuking the region... what kind of
effect would that have on children do you think? As for the ban, that
only applies to the little people, his rich cronies would obviously be
allowed in, which he has admitted.
>
> It's a sick sick world.
>
>
> Would it hurt you more if Whisper prevented me from selling you
> life saving medicine for your child who dies because of it, or if you
> got a ban on entering Australia?
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
