Comments by "Harry Stoddard" (@HarryS77) on "Chapo Asks Tulsi If She's Anti-Imperialist. She Can't Say Yes." video.

  1.  @leonardocaicedo1273  Tulsi wants to end our state of perpetual war by engaging in the forever war against terror.
    5
  2.  @TulsiBot  Between the comment and the username I can't tell if that comment was ironic, but it's because 1) the war on terror has no clear end goal. This isn't a conventional war against another nation. It's presented as a war against an ideology or a concept, and whether it's the war on poverty or drugs or terror, it's not clear how we defeat those things with an army and bombs. 2) the war has extremely broad legal limits. Originally, it was used to justify fighting Al Qaida, then the Taliban, and now ISIS. The last two had nothing to do with 9/11. It's a clear case of mission creep. 3) the war on terror fuels extremism and has destabilized the region. Many of these conflicts are no closer to being solved than they were almost two decades ago. 4) the war on terror is exacerbating the war on drugs. Techniques, material, personnel, and companies involved in the war on terror have been exported to Latin America, causing increasing turmoil there through killings, dislocations, territorial disputes, and crackdowns against the public, especially leftists and workers. 5) at its worst, the war on terror has been a thinly veiled attempt at a racist, classist, anti-Muslim war for oil and geopolitical positioning.
    5
  3. People having "too many" children is the least of problems. Your one or two kids in a 1st world country use up more resources than ten children in a 3rd world country.
    2
  4. The problem with the isolationist position is that it is by default imperialism by another name and under different terms. The US is the most powerful country, with many allies, cooperative programs, and business interests across the world. Even if you could somehow magically turn off America's global military presence, you're as still looking at a situation where the US is either, through the government or corporations, extracting or benefiting from the wealth of other nations. Simply choosing to do nothing in terms of foreign policy (which is more than military policy) would either baptize the neo-imperialist status quo with a new name or, if taken to the extreme, make the US a failed autarchic state.
    2
  5.  @camelopardalis84  She has literally said, "When it comes to the war on terror, I am a hawk." Redefining "war" as "not war" doesn't make one anti-war.
    2