Democratic congresswoman warns Obama could drag the US into a'devastating nuclear war' in increasing

[nationalize the fed]

Source: Daily Mail

Democratic congresswoman warns Obama could drag the US into a'devastating nuclear war' in increasingly complex Syria crisis

A Hawaii Representative has warned the US government that President Barack Obama’s decision to put American fighter jets that can ‘target Russian planes’ on the border between Turkey and Syria could start a ‘devastating nuclear war’.

Democratic Rep Tulsi Gabbard’s comments came after Defense Secretary Ashton Carter told Congress on Tuesday that the United States is sending additional special operations ground forces to Iraq in its ongoing fight against the Islamic State terrorists.

Gabbard said the fighter jets, along with Obama’s opposition to Russian-backed Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, could lead to a nuclear war.

‘Russia’s installation of their anti-aircraft missile-defense system increases that possibility of - whether it’s intentional or even an accidental event - where one side may shoot down the other side’s plane,’ she told Carter, according to the National Review....

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3342269/Democratic-Rep-warns-Obama-s-decision-fighter-jets-target-Russian-planes-Syria-Turkey-border-start-devastating-nuclear-war.html

---

Tulsi Gabbard at 2:41:45

[randys1]

1. Anything is possible. Thank god the cons arent in power, a war would be a certainty

[msongs]

2. it is said in agriculture that nuts do not fall far from the tree nt

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

10. And they generally fall close to other nuts.

It's called the double whammy. This movie has it all!

[KrazyinKS]

12. Around here they say-

The apple does not fall far from the tree.

[bananas]

3. k&r nt

[Dont call me Shirley]

4. The war makers want to expand war after war after war, because money and power over others.

[still_one]

5. Gabbard has been a critic for sometime now. President Obama is NOT dragging the U.S. into another

war. He has been proceeding extremely carefully, as evidenced by the republicans going nuts because he isn't committing large forces to it. In fact, the President has time and again said this has to be done with all parties involved, and that includes Russia, the Europeans, and the various governments in the middle east.

I understand her concern, but if she has been paying attention, Obama doesn't do reckless maneuvers

[rpannier]

13. He supported and the US provided support in Libya

That has been a major failure
I'll be curious where we'll be in a year since ISIL has taken the city of Sirte which is a strategic city in Libya because it sits near more than half of Libya's oil reserve

Onward back to Libya is my guess

[pampango]

31. The UN voted to protect Libyan civilians from Gaddafi's army. The US supported the UN.

Should Libyans have just accepted life under a dictator because he was the 'lesser of two evils'? Was this a known fact in early 2011?

Juan Cole: No, Donald Trump, Mideast wouldn’t be more Stable under Saddam & other Dictators

The mistake Mr. Trump is making is to think ahistorically, that is, to think as though societies do not change dramatically over time. The Neoconservatives thought they could install a king over Iraq in 2003. But Iraqi society had overthrown the kings in 1958, and there is no going back. History may not be dialectical in exactly the Hegelian sense, but any historical situation does produce other, different situations over time. Moreover, societies can change dramatically. History is not static. It is not like a slab of marble. Historical developments produce new and different historical situations over time, and new generations react to the previous ones by striking out in different direction, even at great risk.

How anyone in his right mind could think that Bashar al-Assad (r. 2000- present) brought stability to Syria just baffles me. He provoked the 2011 uprisings and he caused the civil war by deploying his military against the peaceful demonstrators. That’s stability? It is mostly his fault that over 200,000 Syrians are dead and 11 million out of 22 million are homeless. If you are president and your country is in this condition, you don’t get to say you brought stability. Nor is the problem outsiders. In 2011 there was almost no outside interference in Syria. Bashar drove the opposition to pick up arms. The largely rural and illiterate Syria of 1970 when Bashar’s father came to power is long gone. You can’t keep them on the farm once they have seen gay Paree.

Libya under Gaddafi was not stable by 2011, and it was not the United Nations no-fly zone that made it unstable. It was unstable because Gaddafi’s secret police state had lost its authority for a majority of the population, which rose up against it. That is clear instability, and it was provoked by Gaddafi’s erratic and sclerotic dictatorship and by massive repression. I wandered the halls of the courthouse in Benghazi in May of 2011 and the walls were full of pitiful old black and white pictures of young men, including soldiers, whom Gaddafi had made to disappear, asking plaintively if anyone knew their fate (we know their fate).

Does Mr. Trump believe that Europe was more stable when Erich Honecker ruled significant swathes of Germany with an iron fist? Or when Tito headed Yugoslavia? Inflexible dictatorships that cannot adapt to social change and the rise of new generations cause instability, Mr. Trump. They don’t forestall it. Or, they don’t forestall it for more than a generation.

http://www.juancole.com/2015/10/mideast-wouldnt-dictators.html

[rpannier]

32. Many people who had studied Libya said it was a bad idea

I said it was a bad idea
Those of us who said so were correct
And Juan Cole is wrong
With the fall of Gaddafi in Libya, the south-west corridor has become a route for Boko Haram to receive weapons
ISIS just took the city of Sirte and are now situated in striking distance of 80% of Libya's oil and are within 400 miles of Sicily - certainly better positioned to cause disruptions in Tunisia as well as southern Europe
The Independent has reported that British intel admits that there has been a movement of men, weapons, etc from Syria into Libya and that it will serve as a 2nd 'caliphate'

The US made a mess in Iraq, the west made a disaster in Libya and Syria is not any better

[pampango]

33. Cole is wrong and Trump is right? Liberals should not support dictators in pursuit of 'stability'.

We did that for decades during the Cold War. It is easy to support dictators with the cliche "We don't like him but the alternative is worse." People who grow up with torture and secret police are often not as sanguine about the benefits of the 'law-and-order' that the dictator brings.

In terms of 'real-politik' it is easy to say that the world should not care about (or perhaps even should support) dictators who use their military and secret police to crack down on their citizens who are rebelling. After all dictators bring a degree of stability to the world and their country even if many of their citizens hate the methods they use to ensure their continued rule.

[rpannier]

34. Never said Trump was right

It's a nice attempt at framing
Cole is wrong in his assessment of where Libya was at the time


The mission to create a no-fly zone which quickly morphed into a 'get rid of Gaddafi' was sold on the idea that several different groups with wildly different social, political and economic philosophies who shared only one thing in common, 'they wanted regime change' was going to bring about some unified state.
Anyone who tries to make that claim was either lying or is/has been living in a state of denial
To try and insinuate using the 'No True Scotsman' argument is just wrong in this case.
It's not about stability, it's about seeing the mess from a thousand miles off. Kind of like when the US invaded Iraq. Hussein was a horrible dictator true, but as Sun Tsu so correctly noted, 'Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win.'
There was no real plan for the aftermath of this. And if there was, it was badly flawed.

On top of that, the concern for the downtrodden in that region is hardly believable given the behavior of countries like Britain, France and the United States towards the people of Bahrain, who when they tried for change, were met with the full force of the Bahrain State with the aid of Saudi Arabia and western made weapons
There were zero no-fly zones, no public concern for the people of Bahrain by any of the leaders in the west, including Obama, that I am aware of.

It's kind of hard to make this a case about dislodging an evil dictator, when we support those that engage in crucifixions, public beheadings, public floggings, force women into 3rd class status, and are financing the schools that create these murderous, jihadi asshats

[pampango]

37. We should not get rid of "evil dictators". Neither should we support them when their people revolt.

We should support the UN, as a general rule, including when it determines that people need protection when an "evil dictator" is slaughtering them in order to stay in power.

... several different groups with wildly different social, political and economic philosophies who shared only one thing in common, 'they wanted regime change' was going to bring about some unified state.

Agreed. The revolution was poorly planned and involved groups that had little in common other than being tired of living under an 'evil dictator'.

[roomtomove]

22. She just want to make a name for herself.

Publicity hound.

[Cha]

36. She's my Rep, stillone.. I've replied to emails that I don't want her contact me again.

She always has some disingenuous whine going on about President Obama.

She acts like she doesn't know anything about Obama.. she just wants to get her big mouth out there like the teabaggers who slam him for nothing. It never needs to be true.

[razorman]

6. So this would be worse than one of those, "mildly annoying" nuclear wars?

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

14. No. It will be one of those "really entertaining" nuclear wars...

Do you recognize the actor who plays the bombardier? Hint: "Luke, I am your father."

[blueman mmxvi]

16. cell phone service might be interrupted

God Help Us All

[840high]

7. kn r

[MeNMyVolt]

8. Tulsi Gabbard again?

Trying to build quite a name for herself, eh.

[uhnope]

9. +1. Gabbard is a DINO asshole, ridiculous in her attempts to get attention

& She's from a RW cult background and has some of the cultists on her staff

[Jesus Malverde]

30. Combat veteran, Democrat in congress from Hawaii.

Since when is it cool to call Democrats a-holes on DU? Save your bile for republicans. Remember you are on a site that promotes Democrats.

[uhnope]

38. your endorsement of her is all I need to know

thanks, keep up the good work

[mahina]

40. I think the poster was being pretty measured about it.

[Cha]

35. I agree, uhnope. she's my Rep.. and she's always got some scare whine going on about

President Obama.

I've replied back to her emails.. to please not contact me again because I don't like that she's always disingenuously slamming our President.

[uhnope]

39. She's more fishy than a plate of poke

[KamaAina]

11. The very same.

The Tulsi Gabbard who was making noises about arming the Kurds the other day, seemingly unaware that our NATO ally Turkey fears an uprising among its own sizable Kurdish population.

[IronLionZion]

15. Why do people care about Turkey's fears?

the world is changing all the time. I would support the Kurds. They're good people. They've been screwed enough.

[KamaAina]

20. Because they're in NATO

and they control the Dardanelles and the Bosporus. Sadly, realpolitik dictates that we will throw the Kurds under the bus rather than the Turks.

[Dawson Leery]

17. The government of Turkey has a history of terrorizing the Kurds.

Turkey is no friend.

The Kurds ought to rise up and deal with the Turkish government.

[killbotfactory]

18. That silly woman, the Kurds are terrorists! They use violence to achieve political objectives.

It's completely the opposite of what everyone else is doing in Syria and Iraq.

[Jesus Malverde]

27. The us government supports the Kurdish pershmerga and they've been the most

Effective fighting force against ISIS outside of state actors.

[LeftishBrit]

19. Firstly, this is the Daily Mail, which sensationalizes everything

Secondly, anything could happen, and I was never a fan of nuclear proliferation to put it mildly; but if Stalin, Brezhnev, Reagan, Thatcher and others didn't start a nuclear war over 40 years of Cold War, I really doubt that Obama or even Putin will.

[nationalize the fed]

23. I'm aware of the Daily Mail's reputation

other sources are reporting this, not so many in the US though, so I thought the extra sensationalism might get some extra views. It's a pretty important topic and Gabbard is an extremely impressive speaker, IMO.

if Stalin, Brezhnev, Reagan, Thatcher and others didn't start a nuclear war over 40 years of Cold War, I really doubt that Obama or even Putin will.

That was all pre PNAC. PNAC never died and these people are delusional and dangerous- from Serbia in 1999 to today in Syria- it's war, war and more war. Isn't that clear by now?

Take a look at this Ashton Baldwin Carter for example- a NEO Con man through and through.

Carter's views on Iran have been perceived as hawkish. In 2006, he authored a report for the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace advocating use or threat of force to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. Carter has supported diplomacy with Iran and written about methods of containing a nuclear-armed Tehran.

Carter was a supporter of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, as well as an advocate of preventive wars against North Korea and Iran. In response to increase in tension in Ukraine, Carter considered proposing deployment of ground-launched cruise missiles in Europe that could pre-emptively destroy Russian weapons...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ash_Carter

It could be that Rep. Gabbard is concerned, and wants to ask some difficult questions for good reasons. And by the way, who the hell does the US or Britain think they are to demand that Assad leave office? This isn't 1953, there are international laws in force here (that didn't stop the Iran coup either).

The American people have not been questioned about whether their tax money should be used to take out yet another sovereign country's leader. Enough is ENOUGH with this nonsense. Instead of sanity breaking out, it looks like a dick-swinging contest is underway, and Russia is Not Libya or Iraq.

With any luck at all, Tulsi Gabbard is the future of the Democratic Party.

[PADemD]

24. +1

[trillion]

29. I've never heard of her before. Yes, she is impressive.

[trillion]

28. i wouldn't put it past trump or christi or any of the extreme right. I don't think we're completely

out of the woods.

[olddots]

21. The Kurds ?

No weigh !

[Scootaloo]

25. One of our candidates - just one - thinks shooting down Russians in Syria is a good idea

You get three guesses which candidate it is, and the first two don't count.

While Gabbard might be a little hyperbolic, this idea - or even Obama's continued insistence on knocking over a Russian ally - could easily lead to actual war with another nuclear power.

[Dr. Xavier]

26. If we get involved in a proxy war with Putin,

it will expand into a world war. He'll push the button, he'll survive because his bunker makes Barack's look like it was a pre-fab from Walmart. The rest of us are screwed with a phillip's screwdriver.

[Blue_Tires]

41. So scaremongering aside, I'm guessing all parties

will want to be very, very careful...

Interesting that Gabbard didn't have similar concerns over the French and British sorties also being flown there...