About the first one, I guess it was actually Tim Walz that, when asked if he supported a preemptive strike on Iran, replied that Israel has a right to expand itself and that he would back Israel since it is a US ally unlike what he thinks Trump would do.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMIEaiS88pI
And Tim Walz is who Kamala Harris chose as VP, so let's not joke around and pretend Harris would have disagreed with any of this. The Democratic party was always the fascist party but with "the mask on" as opposed to the Republican Party which is "mask off"
But also, while less literally, Harris did say that (and I'm quoting an article linked below):
"Diplomacy is my preferred path to that end, but ALL OPTIONS are on the table,” she added.
Harris, the Democratic presidential nominee, also lambasted her opponent, Republican nominee and former US President Donald Trump, arguing that he was not tough enough toward the Iranian threat.
“I am clear-eyed. Iran is a destabilizing and dangerous force,” Harris said. “When Donald Trump was president, he let Iran off the hook. After Iran and its proxies attacked US bases and American troops, Trump did nothing. And he pulled out of the nuclear deal without any plan, leading to an unconstrained Iranian nuclear program.”
“On the other hand, our administration struck Iranian proxies in Iraq and Syria when they attacked American troops, and we are the first administration to ever directly defend Israel">
https://www.algemeiner.com/2024/10/11/kamala-harris-vows-do-whatever-necessary-prevent-iran-acquiring-nuclear-weapons/ https://www.timesofisrael.com/harris-to-jewish-voters-all-options-on-the-table-to-stop-iran-from-going-nuclear/
At the end of the part I quoted from the article she is literally celebrating about having strikes Iranian proxies already. Let's remember that Israel striked an Iranian embassy, which is considered an act of war.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_airstrike_on_the_Iranian_consulate_in_Damascus
But kamala Harris has supported, is supporting and would have supported all of this, because she sees Israel as an important proxy of the US in the middle east. And the white house uses Israel to project it's power against the Arabs countries and destabilize them. This is why she was never going to end the Genocide in Palestine.
Also, your only excuse for the fact that she wanted the "most lethal army in the world", is that the previous Dems also wanted this ( like obviously, she is from the same party as them, what I'm saying is that that is actively bad and should be a red line, an army should only be defensive, this is not what she was implying if you go back and listen to the DNC speech) and Republicans as well. Again, supporting 100% Hitler because another candidate is 101% Hitler is not that great of a talking point like you think it is. Actually on this particular issue both candidates are the same level of "Hitlerite". That's the party you support, and because you support it, you completely oppose the development of any 3rd party that would not have this crazy warmongering policy.
To end for now my reply, a candidate that supports the foreign nuclear weapons policy the US followed in the past decades is actually a huge negative because the world has never been more tense (as you seem to notice as well in your comment). That policy is getting us closer to nuclear war and you think it's good that Kamala Harris wanted to follow it !? Again, she is just being the fascist with the mask on, instead of being mask off like Trump.
And just to remember you, I do not support Donald Trump, I never did and never will.
I took a few days to reply because honestly it is exhausting.
You know, when some people online call you Russian Bot, it does make you wonder if any of you will ever see through the Dems propaganda. But there is also the possibility that I am the one talking to bots.
I do believe that, at the end, time will prove me right. After all they do say that "A liberal is someone who opposes every war except the current war" .
That said, I'm probably going to respond a little to this one because it is honestly the most brain-worms comment I might have ever read.
There is no material difference between Israel striking Iran with the backing of the US and the US doing it directly. Israel fights with US-made weapons and with full US approval.
And by the way, the current government is actually sending troops to Israel to operate defensive weapons, this lets Israel focus on attacking border countries and commit Genocide. The majority of Americans oppose this btw, so obviously a few day before the vote, the Dems decided to increase how many soldiers are deployed there.
Also it does not matter that there are no US troops in the contested territory, the Israeli army acts as part of the US army.
All of this is already happening under the supervision and approval of Kamala Harris.
It really makes you wonder if the Democratic Party even wants to win.
Don't make me laugh.
In this article there are also a lot more parts that i could quote and would make it clear that K.Harris does not care about peace in the Middle East. After all, that's why this happened.
And I also don't agree with your point about having the most lethal army.
After all, the US is the only country to ever launch a nuclear bomb at another country. And they had plans to throw one at Vietnam, Korea and China as well.
I don't think that the US should be allowed to hold any more nuclear weapons, the US government is the crazy, out-of-control political power that should not have nukes.
The idea that supporting and helping Genocide does not count as fascist is also baffling to me. A lot of people seem to wonder what they would have done if they were a German in Nazi Germany. I think this makes it very clear what you position would have been, you would not have cared, not even a little bit.
All your other points were already answered enough in the previous comment, so i won't waste time. You are pretending not to understand, and that's fine. Especially because a see a clear difference in effort between us, I have to provide sources for everything, you can just make up stuff on the spot, no citations, no quotes, no nothing. And I can see that your understanding of geopolitics is entirely vibe-based and your understanding of how the world works is elementary at best.
I would not be surprised to find out that you are one of the people that only reads the headlines of articles and believes in the "Horseshoe theory". But I guess that's very common for blue MAGAs.
Honestly you are deeply unserious.