Board 8 > Protests against US involvement in Syria around the US

(+) Yeah! (+)

We are anti-war.

https://www.rt.com/usa/383998-emergency-hands-off-syria-protests/

Further proof that nationalists are the good guys.
---

Vlado posted...

We

I think you're confused as to where you are.
---

nationalists are the ones who supported Trump

Trump is the one who did the bombing

nationalists are clearly bad
---

Looks like my Vlado opinion generating heuristic is still going strong!
---

Is it supposed to be a surprise that I don't support the US bombing the government forces of sovereign nations or something?
---

Vlado posted...

Is it supposed to be a surprise that I don't support the US bombing the government forces of sovereign nations or something?

given that you've had nothing but lavish praise for trump up until now (and stated that he was a superior candidate to hillary because "hillary is a warmonger"), kind of.
---

I never said Trump was perfect. He's human. Furthermore, he's not the end-all, be-all. He's just a stepping stone.
---

a stepping stone towards what?
---

The perfect nationalist, isolationist candidate.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

a stepping stone towards what?

President Armstrong.
---

You do realize Trump is now trying to organize a coalition against Assad, right?
---

The far right and the far left are the only sensible Americans when it comes to foreign policy.

Mr Lasastryke posted...

a stepping stone towards what?

Making Russia Great Again I imagine
---

Vlado posted...

Further proof that nationalists are the good guys.

The people who elected this guy, the same guy who claimed Hillary would go to war before he would (boy she'd have had to be fast) and that Obama should not attack Syria or risk grave consequences if he did (eloquently in all caps). I'm thrilled these nationalists have elected us a president who will embed us in another decade long war in the Middle East! Good guys!
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

a stepping stone towards what?

Towards a world where nationalism has crushed globalism.
---

Honestly, I'm absolutely for obliterating any and all chemical weapons stashes so this is the only thing Trump's done that I'm okay with, other than the fact he didn't give two shits about the nuclear power he was fucking with.
---

I'm not sure that Vlado believes there were chemical weapons
---

Legitimate question: didn't Hillary want to be involved in Syria as well?
---

She basically said she would do the same thing Trump did, hours before he did it.
---

Nationalists WANT war with other cultures. That's why they paint "outsiders" as enemies in the first place. Seriously Vlado, what outcome did you expect from a guy who talked about starting a war with Iran over naval mockery?
---

WalkingWiki posted...

Legitimate question: didn't Hillary want to be involved in Syria as well?

Yes. The missile strikes weren't necessarily a bad move, but it really depends on what his entire plan is re: Syria. Hillary would definitely have had a well thought out plan; I'm sure Trump himself doesn't, but it's possible the military does.
---

The most interesting thing about this about this topic is that Vlado seems to be implying that protesters are always the good guys.
---

no he's saying nationalists are always the good guys
---

Jakyl25 posted...

I'm not sure that Vlado believes there were chemical weapons

It's an obvious false flag. If Assad were so dumb as to use chemical weapons on civillians and have the world go against him at a moment when the Syrian army is winning the war hard, he would never have lasted so long in the first place. Trump was lied to, and he made a rash judgement based on those lies.

Terastodon posted...

The most interesting thing about this about this topic is that Vlado seems to be implying that protesters are always the good guys.

No. Anti-war people are usually the good guys.
---

Is it weird that the alt right deus vult types are hesitant about invading a Middle-Eastern country, while the liberal types seem to be more willing?
---

Vlado posted...

Towards a world where nationalism has crushed globalism.

how is trump a stepping stone towards nationalism crushing globalism when he's trying to police the world?
---

Anagram posted...

Is it weird that the alt right deus vult types are hesitant about invading a Middle-Eastern country, while the liberal types seem to be more willing?

nah, not really. a lot of alt righters are anti-war and a lot of liberals are pro-war.

what IS weird is that alt righters praised trump lavishly during the campaign and are now going "omg trump is a warmonger?!? i'm so disappointed!" the blind faith they had that trump was actually going to be a peace-loving anti-war president was nonsensical.
---

Anagram posted...

Is it weird that the alt right deus vult types are hesitant about invading a Middle-Eastern country, while the liberal types seem to be more willing?

no, liberals are always wrong LOL
---

I don't think nationalism means anti-war necessarily.

For some people it means superiority over other countries, which can lead to a pro-war sentiment.
---

pjbasis posted...

I don't think nationalism means anti-war necessarily.

For some people it means superiority over other countries, which can lead to a pro-war sentiment.

See also: World War I
---

pjbasis posted...

I don't think nationalism means anti-war necessarily.

For some people it means superiority over other countries, which can lead to a pro-war sentiment.

Indeed. Isolationism is the political ideology for non-interference in other countries. Nationalism is more of just a race thing.

Not that Vlado's strictly isolationist either--he doesn't seem to mind when Vladmir Putin meddles with other governments or country elections. But he's isolationist in a military sense.
---

This means that nationalists should be pissed about Trump's proposed budget, eh?

It takes away from the things that help America (infrastructure, education) and dumps more money in weapons to fly overseas
---

Vlado posted...

Trump made a rash judgement

he is literally incapable of doing this
---

banananor posted...

This means that nationalists should be pissed about Trump's proposed budget, eh?

It takes away from the things that help America (infrastructure, education) and dumps more money in weapons to fly overseas

You misunderstand. Nationalists want a nation full of poor, upset and stupid people.


How else will they get their officials elected?
---

Thanks to those who answered my question

I thought I remembered Hillary wanting to, but I wasn't sure
---

WalkingWiki posted...

Thanks to those who answered my question

I thought I remembered Hillary wanting to, but I wasn't sure

Vlado is in general right about how the groups are polarizing at least on a national level.

Most of the big European countries and leaders are praising Trump's move. But there's a key exception: a lot of the nationalist types in EU politics are criticizing Trump's move (Nigel Farrage, Marine La Penn).

The left in the US is much more against the move. Mostly because american taxpayers would have to pay for the war, and people here don't want to pay. But also partly due to partisan politics. All the other countries are like "wow, the situation in Syria is really bad. Someone should do something about it. Oh, someone else did something? Great, that means I don't need to do shit. Thanks Trump!"
---

Vlado posted...

Trump was lied to, and he made a rash judgement based on those lies

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAH oh god this is the absolute mother of excuses
---

Anagram posted...

Is it weird that the alt right deus vult types are hesitant about invading a Middle-Eastern country, while the liberal types seem to be more willing?

The explanation is simple: those "liberal types" are actually globalists. Interventionalism is one of the main weapons of globalism.

Mr Lasastryke posted...

how is trump a stepping stone towards nationalism crushing globalism when he's trying to police the world?

Obviously he wouldn't be one if he devolved into typical neocon foreign policy. -_-

Mr Lasastryke posted...

what IS weird is that alt righters praised trump lavishly during the campaign and are now going "omg trump is a warmonger?!? i'm so disappointed!" the blind faith they had that trump was actually going to be a peace-loving anti-war president was nonsensical.

That's the whole platform he ran on. It's not "weird" to support and/or vote for a politician based on the platform they're running on. Maybe we were naive and had too much faith in Trump, but we are logical through and through.

Not_an_Owl posted...

See also: World War I

I.e. a war fought for the interests of international banksters. That's globalism, albeit a proto version of it.

metroid composite posted...

Vladmir Putin meddles with country elections.

Why do you believe this nonsense? How more transparent could it be that it's an excuse made up by the corrupt democratic party establishment because the alternative would be to own up to the enormous mistake of picking the worst possible candidate. And resign, making way for people like Sanders and Gabbard, meaning Wall Street and the ridiculously rich would no longer have complete control over the party.

Also, Putin only got Russia involved in Syria because he was explicitly asked by the Syrian government to help. As for Crimea, it's a 70%+ Russian population territory, which was autonomous and had Russian military bases there to begin with.

I don't believe Putin is a saint, and taking Crimea was certainly a violation of international law, but he's a far cry from US interventionalism in the last couple of centuries.

v_charon posted...

Nationalists want a nation full of poor, upset and stupid people.

The latter is what globalists want, actually. That is their end goal - a population of people with low intelligence, no race, no culture, no moral values, and only basic, animalistic desires. Cattle to be milked. Of course, they wouldn't ever be upset because they'd be taken "good care" of by their owners. Ever seen cattle protesting anything?

Fortunately, we are here to destroy those plans completely.

metroid composite posted...

All the other countries are like "wow, the situation in Syria is really bad. Someone should do something about it. Oh, someone else did something? Great, that means I don't need to do shit. Thanks Trump!"

Lots of parties are already doing a lot, if not too much about it. All that needs to be done is destroy ISIS and achieve ceasefire between the government and the other factions, then have an election, its fairness secured by both the US and Russia. And then leave whoever wins it to rule the country as they see fit. If Assad wins, peacefully dismantle the remaining jihadi groups. If Assad loses, ensure the peaceful transition of power.

There's still hope for something like that, it seems...
https://www.rt.com/usa/384142-tillerson-syria-regime-change-isis/
---

Vlado posted...

That's the whole platform he ran on.

being anti-war is like the exact opposite of the platform he ran on, but okay


Vlado posted...

All that needs to be done is destroy ISIS and achieve ceasefire between the government and the other factions, then have an election, its fairness secured by both the US and Russia.

oh wow is that all

and without any "interventionalism" too!
---

So I assume you think that Assad is a great dude just like your buddy Duterte, right?

Vlado posted...

metroid composite posted...

Vladmir Putin meddles with country elections.


Why do you believe this nonsense? How more transparent could it be that it's an excuse made up by the corrupt democratic party establishment because the alternative would be to own up to the enormous mistake of picking the worst possible candidate. And resign, making way for people like Sanders and Gabbard, meaning Wall Street and the ridiculously rich would no longer have complete control over the party.

lmao
---

Kenri posted...

oh wow is that all

and without any "interventionalism" too!

Yes, that is all. If Russia and the US are both steadfast about stopping jihadis from running rampant in Syria, peace can be achieved again.

LordoftheMorons posted...

So I assume you think that Assad is a great dude just like your buddy Duterte, right?

What does "great dude" mean? He is a secular leader, and he guaranteed and secured the religious freedom of all the different religions in his country before the war broke out. That's good enough - certainly better than the current alternative, which is sharia law, i.e. the extermination and/or subjugations of all non-radical islam religions.

As for Duterte, ask the Filipino people (90+% approval rating), not me.

LordoftheMorons posted...

lmao

Truth hurts, eh?
---

Assad has gassed his people multiple times. The guy is a monster who Putin is propping up.

As for Russia being behind the DNC/Podesta hacks, that's something that has been confirmed by every US intelligence agency as well as non-government entities like Crowdstrike. The fact that you're trusting RT, which as I've gone over before is literally Putin's propaganda machine, instead is pretty pathetic.
---

Vlado posted...

Yes, that is all. If Russia and the US are both steadfast about stopping jihadis from running rampant in Syria, peace can be achieved again.

wow it's so simple i can't believe no one's thought of it yet

fyi everything you're describing is the definition of interventionism
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Assad has gassed his people multiple times.

lmfao, just look at these globalists.

Last time:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10039672/UN-accuses-Syrian-rebels-of-chemical-weapons-use.html

Zero doubt that this latest "chemical weapon attack" will soon enough be proven to be false flag, too.

LordoftheMorons posted...

As for Russia being behind the DNC/Podesta hacks, that's something that has been confirmed by every US intelligence agency as well as non-government entities like Crowdstrike.

You're ignoring 3 important facts:
1. The agencies have a bunch of globalist warmongers in them, the majority of top positions are filled by such people (the last who-knows-how-many administrations were globalist).
2. ANY proof of Russian involvement is YET to be shown.
3. WikiLeaks recently published documents proving that CIA can conduct cyber operations pretending it's the Russians, Chinese or whoever they want.

If you still believe "Russian hackers did it" in the light of these three facts, you are extremely naive at best. But the fact is you just choose to ignore the facts that don't fit your ludicrous narrative because you support the democratic party establishment and globalism, and you HATE people like Sanders who want to pursue the party's stated goals instead of war.

Kenri posted...

fyi everything you're describing is the definition of interventionism

Wrong. Russia and the US are already involved, so it'd be best if they helped clean up the mess. If the US, Saudis, etc. had stayed out of it in the first place, peace would have already been achieved a long time ago. Actually, scratch that. It wouldn't have escalated into war at all.
---

Nationalists want war. It's the easiest way to convince mindless sheep to support their ideas. Convince them that a group of "others" are their enemy and they'll cheer as you fuck them over on all other fronts. Hence Trump and the rest of the GOP doing everything they can to bolster the power of corporations while their supporters lap it up because at least liberals are upset. That's nationalism in action.

Globalism is all about working together and finding equality. If we remove the boogeyman of racism or sexism or homophobia, then there's nowhere left for corporations to hide when they fuck up. We wouldn't have congress eradicating internet privacy while the right wing cheers because liberals are upset.
---

^
Such a dumbass statement is not worth addressing. Good luck baiting me by calling the black - white and vice versa.
---

Explain how nationalism DOESN'T breed the very sheep mentality you decry with globalism. Because we actually have historical evidence of MY side of the argument.
---

Like, you denied it in the other topic because ISIS doesn't have geographic boundaries and you have a poor understanding of what a "nation" is, but ISIS is an Islamic nationalist movement looking to claim geographic territory and excise Western culture. Whether you like it or not, THAT is nationalism in action. That's what nationalism is. You find a group of people that share a similar culture and you convince them that outsiders are trying to destroy their way of life. It becomes very easy to convince the kinds of people that buy into that mindset that those outsiders are an enemy that must be attacked and destroyed.
---

pjbasis posted...

I don't think nationalism means anti-war necessarily.

For some people it means superiority over other countries, which can lead to a pro-war sentiment.

Nationalism NECESSARILY is pro-war.

It's not exactly about superiority over other countries, you can be nationalist in a very subservient inferior sense (like Vlado's Bulgarian nationalism). But what you MUST do is protect your current state, your borders, your demographic. You MUST fight immigration, globalizing technology (internet), religion and speech, art that goes against your established national culture.

To a naive person like Vlado, this is fine because you just keep to yourself and are peaceful. But in reality, humans are naturally pro-migration, pro-technology, pro-freedom of religion and speech, pro-art. To oppose those things is to be in a constant war, culturally and literally.
---

Vlado, in your opinion, why has ISIS not yet been defeated in Syria?
---