McCain chooses Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska

Jason Rees · Post by **Jason Rees** » Sat Sep 13, 2008 7:33 pm

Ian, Russia's contributing to chaos within its neighbor states, then rushing in, cleaning up the mess, and taking them piecemeal. If the U.S. did that to Mexico, I don't think you would be cool with that, and neither would I.

We don't want war with Russia. Russia sure as hell doesn't want war with us. There has to be some sort of deterrant to their behavior. If we take the military option off the table, there's nothing to deter them from continuing along this course.

Getting these nations into the UN, NATO, etc, will contribute to their safety, and regional stability. Russia won't invade countries safely under those umbrellas. Regardless of what Russia thinks of itself, it knows it can't take on the rest of the world militarily. The sooner those countries are in NATO/UN, the sooner Russia will settle down and get comfortable with its current state.

McCain/Palin understand this. Obama/Biden understand this. There's no difference between their opinions on this. Yes, the situation's nuanced, but the bottom line is that you can't take military action off the table, and bowing to Russia's childish rants about its neighbors is unacceptable. Sure, today it's Georgia. Tomorrow it could be Poland. Better to nip it in the butt now, rather than later.

Jason Rees · Post by **Jason Rees** » Sat Sep 13, 2008 7:52 pm

JimHawkins wrote: Who is carrying on?

I simply mentioned a conversation..

You were perpetuating a debunked partisan slander, Jim. Plain and simple.

I have my opinions about such things (the intelligence was there IMO) but I don't know and can't prove if the CIA or elements in the IC played any role in 9/11 or not but then neither can you.
The difference is I wouldn't put it past "them" where "them" could be any compartmentalized element within the NSC that are known to have done and do all kinds of very nasty things as part of a full days work..

It's statements like that, Jim, that make me think having a reasonable conversation with you is nigh impossible.

IJ · Post by IJ » Sat Sep 13, 2008 8:24 pm

JR, my man, there's a difference between having a thought out, realistic opinion about how to handle Russian aggression, and trying to figure out how a week's worth of crammed talking points can be used to deal with tricky interview questions on foreign affairs, but getting led toward initially unanticipated consequences of your statements by the interviewer. She just didn't project a confidant foreign policy position, is all I'm saying.

On a related issue, the Russians can't fight the whole world, but neither can we... are we going to step in to confront the chinese and the russians when they get frisky with their neighbors, and if we do, whose troops are we going to borrow? We're fighting two wars as it is, not recruiting adequately, and hemorrhaging tons of money. Like it or love it, our role as world cop is going to diminish substantially.

Jason Rees · Post by **Jason Rees** » Sat Sep 13, 2008 8:35 pm

That's why we have NATO and the UN, Ian. So we won't have to go it alone.

JimHawkins · Post by **JimHawkins** » Sun Sep 14, 2008 5:33 am

Jason Rees wrote: It's statements like that, Jim, that make me think having a reasonable conversation with you is nigh impossible.

Likewise..

See I can consider the possibility I'm wrong--it seems you cannot.. Meanwhile there are examples of these kinds of agencies committing crimes against humanity and the people of these United States.. I am quite certain you would have taken the exact same position on those issues as well.. Were you even born then?

History shows us that any abuse of power in high places:

A. Never happens..
B. Sometimes happens..
C. Almost always happens..

The more power the more likely it is to be abused.. THAT is what history shows us..

Understanding human frailty in such matters is something apparently you know nothing of..

Thinking or saying 'that can't happen' especially when highly immoral/illegal acts have already been committed by these agencies, is well, quite off to me dewd. This denial of history and the nature of the effect of power on men only serves to set the stage for repeat performances of such abuses..

Looking at how this kind of power has been abused over the centuries, right up into recent decades, has taught you what? That it can't happen..? That abuses of power only happen in other organizations, agencies, but not in our basement (anymore)? That's just f-ing brilliant..

IJ · Post by IJ » Sun Sep 14, 2008 5:53 am

Right. The NATO and the UN. Always going along with our police actions, you know, like their huge force contributions in Iraq. I'm sure the UN would declare war on Russia if they invaded Georgia again.

Jason Rees · Post by **Jason Rees** » Sun Sep 14, 2008 6:12 am

Jim:

I'm not saying it 'can't happen.'
I'm saying it didn't, and there's no evidence to suggest that it did.

Ian, if a member state of the UN is attacked, it'll either do its job, or fall apart. Can't say I'd spill tears over that funeral.

JimHawkins · Post by **JimHawkins** » Sun Sep 14, 2008 6:29 am

Good then we agree with the exception that I know enough to know that I don't know..

As for others and their 9-11 BS..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ASBuh72Re8

More..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qo1V67i8d3w

Iran's next due in part to our nuclear threat policy......

Here's to the new round of BS coming...

May we all survive to banter it around next time...

IJ · Post by IJ » Sun Sep 14, 2008 7:45 pm

http://www.un.org/members/list.shtml

Apparently, a UN member state WAS attacked (Georgia), the UN hasn't fallen apart, and it didn't do much of anything (the breakaway states were recognized by Russia, which left its troops deep inside Georgia and not just the breakaway states and violated its own terms for withdrawal.

But back to your point... we're not going to police the world alone because we have the UN, but you don't care if the UN lives or dies, so after it dies... then... I guess just NATO is going to halt Russian aggression?

TSDguy · Post by **TSDguy** » Sun Sep 14, 2008 8:36 pm

Tina Fey is Sarah Palin.

Jason Rees · Post by **Jason Rees** » Sun Sep 14, 2008 9:18 pm

IJ wrote:http://www.un.org/members/list.shtml

Apparently, a UN member state WAS attacked (Georgia), the UN hasn't fallen apart, and it didn't do much of anything (the breakaway states were recognized by Russia, which left its troops deep inside Georgia and not just the breakaway states and violated its own terms for withdrawal.

And it has been noted by the international community. Other countries in similar circumstances are probably going to look at the UN as a possibly useless and expensive proposition not worth their time, and go back to the practice of making individual agreements with other countries. Just like the US has been doing on the side.

But back to your point... we're not going to police the world alone because we have the UN, but you don't care if the UN lives or dies, so after it dies... then... I guess just NATO is going to halt Russian aggression?

If Russia takes military action against Poland, you betchya.

Jason Rees · Post by **Jason Rees** » Sun Sep 14, 2008 9:29 pm

The COMPLETE Charlie Gibson/ Palin Interview:

http://marklevinshow.com/gibson-interview/

IJ · Post by IJ » Mon Sep 15, 2008 12:05 am

Tina Fey for president! Love her! I came online to link to the SNL video, actually...

Bill Glasheen · Post by **Bill Glasheen** » Mon Sep 15, 2008 2:26 am

I found George Will's assessment of the Palin interview to be interesting. (ABC News: This Week with George Stephanopoulos)

George Will railed Charles Gibson for his "gotcha" on "The Bush Doctrine." As George Will put it, "I wouldn't have gotten what Gibson was asking for." There are about 4 policies, all of which reasonably could be classified as "The Bush Doctoine."

And as it turns out, Charles Gibson got it all fuked up.

He was working with a 2002 version. The 2006 "Doctrine" is different, and emphasizes diplomacy before military action.

So Palin was absolutely on the ball for asking Gibson specifically what he was asking about. Turns out at the end of the day, it was Gibson who made a fool of himself.

But you won't hear that from a liberal press. It's a good thing ABC has some conservative commentators to keep their liberal agendas in check.

- Bill

TSDguy · Post by **TSDguy** » Mon Sep 15, 2008 2:34 pm

Her body language didn't say "do you mean THIS or THIS" it said "I have no idea what's going on."