Bumblebeetuna said:
Uh... never said anything of the sort. All I said is I read people freaking out and criticizing her because she wants to start war with Russia based on what they saw on ABC and that wasn't what she said.
But the thing is, if you're pointing to the cut materials and suggesting they show Sarah Palin as more competent than she really is, it's fair to ask you what Putin's reaction will be. We both know that he'll laugh in her face. No government in the world is going to take Sarah Palin seriously. The only country that remotely believes she's qualified at all is the US. Outside of America, she's a laughing stock. She will be unable to talk foreign policy with any leaders.
I don't think she meant people in Alaska should go over to Russia when they need to borrow sugar.
Then what could she possibly have meant by "Russia is our next-door neighbor"? Come on, man. It's obvious how she thinks she can approach foreign policy. She believes it to be no different than dealing with a neighbor who lets their dog shit on her lawn. What she doesn't get is that this neighbor has a dog that will shit nuclear weapons if given the opportunity.
I don't see any difference between that and the change bullshit that Obama has been shoving down our throats.
The difference is that Obama has at least taken the time to do his research. He's not approaching this in an "aw shucks" manner that attempts to characterize the system in tragically oversimplified terms.
That's your opinion and that's fine but imho we did win the Cold War. How did we not? The Soviet Union fell. The Berlin Wall fell. Communism is dead. Yeah, the "without a shot fired" comment does sound a little strange considering the name Cold War derives from the fact that everyone knew no shot would be fired. But she said that to illustrate her point that we can negotiate with and handle Russia without the use of the military.
We didn't win the Cold War. The Cold War ended due to the collapse of the USSR. Gorbachev assumed control and pushed the USSR in a different direction. This enabled individual countries to establish themselves. There was some pressure from Washington, but had it not been for reform-minded Gorbachev, the Cold War would not have ended. American didn't win the Cold War. It was internal strife and reform within the USSR that ended the Cold War. "We must not repeat the Cold War" is a fucking stupid thing to say. We should always repeat the Cold War...because it's negotiations, for chrissakes. Palin has absolutely zero historical perspective and it shows. She's name-dropping Cold War because it sounds good to the uninformed masses.
Or it could be the policy stating that countries harboring terrorists should be treated no differently than terrorists themselves and are essentially themselves responsible for anything said terrorists do. Or the spreading of democracy for American security. Among other things. Hell, Gibson himself gave his interpretation of the thing in the interview, and it was a different interpretation than what he has said in the past :lol
A country harboring terrorists falls into the specifics that will vary from country to country. But that still falls under the fundamental concept of the Bush Doctrine: if you pose a threat we will attack you. Spreading democracy for American security is a post-war rationalization and has little to do with the doctrine itself, especially considering that American democracy is basically a joke since the Patriot Act, which is a joke itself, because limiting your citizen's freedoms isn't what a true patriot does.
Yeah I'm sure you're right, she'd never heard of it at all :lol In fact when he asked her about Georgia and Russia I'm surprised she didn't jump up asking when the US invasion happened :lol She obviously did know about it and knew there were different policies and seemed annoyed that he would be that vague with the question. I don't see any gibberish in her answer, she gave as honest and direct an answer she could have given without just saying "yes". She didn't need to discuss the policy, Gibson explained which of the 7 policies he was talking about
Uh...when someone replies with "his worldview" that's pretty solid evidence that the person truly has no idea what the topic actually is or involves. I don't know what you're trying to say with your bit about Georgia and Russia. What are you trying to get at there? Furthermore, the answer she gave was gibberish, because "his worldview" isn't an answer at all; it's a response that crappy students use to buy time so they can come up with a better-sounding reply. Then when Gibson very vaguely refers to it, she comes up with a very vague, amorphous blob (typical strategy, by the way...be as vague as you can and hope something sticks) and finishes it with "There have been mistakes made. And with new leadership, and thats the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better." She finishes her answer with emotional pandering in the hopes that it will distract Gibson (or her audience). She didn't answer sufficiently at all. She gave no honest and direct answer. And she absolutely needed to discuss policy, because Gibson only gave her the concept of the policy; she needed to apply it...but she didn't, which is why we're having this conversation right now.
Exactly when was she pressed for them?
Um...Iran. Bush Doctrine. How she'd deal with the Georgia/Russia conflict. Gibson was asking her straight questions. Her responses did not display any comprehension of the critical policies.
edit wow I'm sorry, this came out way bigger than I thought it would be. I won't do this again :lol Cya when the debates come around, should be good fun.
Fuck, dude. Don't apologize. I'd prefer longer replies. Shows that people are at least taking the time to think and type.
