Monday, January 6, 2020

Tulsi's Dilemma

Tulsi Gabbard 
Congresswoman, and presidential candidate, Tulsi Gabbard knows that President Trump's order to assassinate the Iranian Major General Qassem Suleimani was wrong.

In a video statement, she said that Trump conducted an act of war with no authorization or declaration from Congress and that his actions have put the U.S. in a state of war with Iran when he ordered the assassination. She said that Trump's policies are undermining national security.

If this is the case, and I believe she is correct, Gabbard is in a dilemma.

What is she going to tell the men and women of the armed forces, that she calls her "brothers and sisters," if some ask her what they should do if deployed to the Middle East?

She knows the Trump assassination order was unauthorized, she knows the U.S. military presence in Iraq and Syria is illegitimate. Indeed, she knows that the U.S. presence in these hot zones is a threat to the U.S. national security.

Will she tell them they must fight and kill Muslims who are simply protecting their land from what they perceive as an invader? Or will she tell them otherwise?

Will she tell them they must follow orders?

How would this be different from telling a German soldier during World War 2 to follow orders and shoot Frenchmen and Poles who were simply defending their land?



  1. I've wondered this for a while about Tulsi. It's not possible to be a volunteer in the US military and have a (defensible) conscience. You have to choose one or the other, and she's been skirting that choice for a long time, mostly blathering on about some wars being "good" and others "bad." But if they are fought outside the US homeland, they are all bad.

    1. It is possible if you're a victim of warmongering fraud: I'd venture to guess that most servicemen joined the military under honest belief that they eill be defending their society. They learn the truth when it's too late, after which psycholigical defense mechanisms kick it: from the full-blown Stockholm syndrome of hyper-patriotism to depression, PTSD, and suicide.

    2. I don't think that it's possible to claim "fraud" given the history of combat activities by the US military, which is available for everyone to learn before they enlist. The last time that American soldiers were engaged in combat activities to protect the homeland was in the War of Northern Aggression. If 150 years of history does not open your eyes to the truth, then I'd suggest that, if not sociopathy, the issue is stupidity.

    3. While I agree that one must be rather stupid to voluntarily sign up for military, being stupid is still different from being evil. The truly evil ones are the top brass and their political masters.

    4. Those who enlist are fully aware that they could be tasked to kill or maim others who have not attacked the homeland or been properly convicted of murder. Thus, I would call them both stupid and evil.

  2. She could reiterate her position to these men and women and then suggest to them that they follow their conscience. Or She could suggest outright that they refuse to deploy. Two of several options. In the latter case could she be charged with treason?

  3. Tulsi has more than one problem to address. She has steadfastly and carefully avoided the elephant in the room, and by that I mean she has avoided making an issue about zionist israel's control over American intelligence and the American military, both executive branch agencies. I suspect she is just trying to stay alive - they are killers, for certain.

  4. If you are in the Military you dont have a mind of your own at this point and the question is moot as you have already sold your soul to the biggest terrorist state on the globe and you will kill just like Germans Killed French and poles.

    Let me reiterate. If you are in the military you ARE the bad guys

  5. None of these things are problems for people who don't care about logical consistency, which is most people.

  6. Where was her outrage over Obama's stupidity in Libya a few years ago or Obama giving money to Iran? Or is it selective ignorance to make a political point?