Reply With Quote
I've recognized your stupidy a long time ago. I'm sure you'll be the first to enlist to go to war against Russia.
Yeah, all you libs who are upset about Palin saying if Georgia was in NATO and they were attacked that we'd be expected to answer their call for help are pretty ing stupid. Glad you're recognizing that.
I've recognized your stupidy a long time ago. I'm sure you'll be the first to enlist to go to war against Russia.
It's all about nuance. It's something Bush never grasped and it's why he dragged our reputation around the world into the mud.
You just don't go out and say, "We will attack Russia". You just don't say that, and quite frankly if you need to be told not to say that on national TV you really don't belong in public office.
If you think the leaders around the world are going to take a hockey mom seriously you need to stop smoking weed.
Wanting Georgia in NATO is absolutely senseless and stupid, no matter what candidates are saying it. The only reason the Cheney crew even cares is because of the dumbass pipeline.
Georgia doesn't even fit the requirements for entry: it's not a stable democracy quite yet, and besides, does not have stable political borders, since two regions don't want to be part of it.
Yeah, we should tell them we'll hide behind Pelosi's skirt and give them free reign to do what they want
Ah cute, the 'well you should go enlist then' argument.
Again, it was a hypothetical question about what we would do if a treaty NATO country were attacked by Russia. And we'd be bound by that treaty to respond.
By the way, it's cute that the press has framed her response this way. She also said sanctions would be an option on the table, but the 'objective' liberal folk took the defend Georgia with war comment and ran with it.
No agendas there...
I guess you don't see below where she mentions that it doesn't have to come to war (cold or otherwise) and that other actions (diplomatic or economic) could/should be taken if Russia continues its hard line.
What about those other quoted options does not match up with the coached response you mention above?
Yeah, I didn't like the way the article was led well....
I think perhaps it should have been, Palin "considers all options in Russia hypothetical", or something to that effect.
And Obama has stated that he will take NO option off the table including a military response.
Also the typical response from someone who won't walk the talk.
Actually its a pretty ing big deal, because like i said, everyone knows the ramifications for an attack on a NATO member, cheney knows it, you know it, i know it, but where has a politician actually connected the dots and said what she said. Find me some quotes. It's an obvious, but pretty bold statement. AHF, you not understanding that, is stupid.
Her response was skating the edge of the rhetoric spectrum. Pretty bold, requires balls. You not undestanding that, AHF, is pretty stupid.
So then why is it that people are up in arms over the Palin response?
If all the POTUS and VP candidates are saying "leave all options open" it's a ing non-story.
God I hate this partisan bull .
These Palin supporters are as wack as their candidate. Seriously, NATO can't even control lowly Afghanistan, what the makes anyone think they can handle a war with Russia? And does anyone want to see Russia give nuclear weapons to Iran and Syria? How would that change the political map of the middle east?
Cause Russia could interprete that as a perceived threat.....you've got to be more nuanced than that..So then why is it that people are up in arms over the Palin response?
Seriously, you can't go around half- ed threatening war like that.
She can, cause she's Sarah Palin! Idiots...
Jesus Christ....she was responding to some bull hypothetical that basically boiled down to her saying that if someone threatened a NATO country we would respond with some kind of action because that's what the treaty says we should do.
I seriously doubt President Medvedev and Prime Minister Putin are watching a Charlie Gibson interview with a potential VP and taking her words as outright threats for cold war.
It's one thing when the head of Russia says something about the possibility, quite another when a potential VP says it in reference to a non-related hypothetical.
Your a dumbass if you don't think that the Russians are soaking Palin's comments with great interest...I seriously doubt President Medvedev and Prime Minister Putin are watching a Charlie Gibson interview with a potential VP and taking her words as outright threats for cold war.
How would you feel if Putin said he would consider attacking the US for what we did to Iraq?
Like I said before, stick to basketball kid. Politics isn't for you.
We can go invading Iraq for no ing reason whatsoever other than Bush's BS claims, but Palin wants to start a nuclear war if Russia s with Georgia? Is this ing serious? Damn, I ing hate how we've become the national equivalent of hypocritical missionaries.
The only ones going crazy over Sarah Palin are right-wing nuts who think she's the second coming or left-wing nuts who think she's the anti-christ.
I seriously doubt Palin is getting much play on the international scene, except for her selection as the first Republican woman on a ticket.
That's a stupid ing thing to say. Politics is up in the air for everyone to have an opinion. You're stinks just as bad as his.
No, if you refuse to inform yourself on the issues you really shouldn't be voting.
Wow that's a terrible analogy.
And President Medvedev said the other day that he was prepared for another Cold War if necessary. And there have been far more radical things said by far more radical people that are actually in power.
Here we are getting worried about how comments not actually related to an unlikely hypothetical from a potential second-in-command might affect the sensitivity of another country's leader?
This is a non-story.
Given the Neo-Con's interest in protecting their Georgian pipelines, I don't think its as hypothetical as you think it is...Here we are getting worried about how comments not actually related to an unlikely hypothetical from a potential second-in-command might affect the sensitivity of another country's leader?
That presumes a president like the one we currently have...and I don't believe either candidate to be such.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions