If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Sydney Morning Herald)   Guess who gave this advice on how the US should handle Putin, ''Mr President, the only thing that stops a bad guy with a nuke is a good guy with a nuke.'' Go on, guess   (smh.com.au) divider line 343
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

17410 clicks; posted to Main » on 09 Mar 2014 at 10:35 AM (19 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



343 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-03-09 01:58:09 PM

starsrift: I think the whole upcoming Crimean referendum is great. As long as the UN can ensure that it's actually Crimeans and only Crimeans doing the voting.



IIRC, their Constitution is set up like ours; the entire country of Ukraine must vote on letting Crimea go.  Otherwise, it's nothing more than secession.  Regardless of the vote, Russia is going to keep its naval base there.
 
2014-03-09 01:58:25 PM

Thunderpipes: Counter Russia's energy monopoly. No need for any war fellas. So damned simple.


... and in the years that it would take for us to build up the required export infrastructure (which we're ALREADY DOING), people like you get to call Obama a pussy for not doing something immediate.
 
2014-03-09 02:05:28 PM

sendtodave: We used to go to war for our allies. We've grown so weak under liberals.


More than a year late, twice, and only after other countries first declared war on the US, but who's counting.
 
2014-03-09 02:09:55 PM

Bomb Head Mohammed: palin or not, she's absolutely right.

russia abrograted the treaty by which ukraine's sovereignity was guaranteed in exchange for ukraine giving up its nukes.  furthermore, the us and uk have at best shown a weak interest in living up to their end of the deal.

ergo, give ukraine nukes back.  despite russian propaganda, ukraine is not a country run by fanatial neo nazis. it's a country of responsible adults - even the criminal buffoon yanukovich would have treated his nuclear stewardship seriously.


Russia tried to put nukes 90 miles off the coast of Florida and it nearly started a nuclear war.  What do think will happen if we put nukes 1.5 hours from Moscow?  They're already leery of our missile shield because it could potentially negate their first strike advantage.
 
2014-03-09 02:18:07 PM

Hagbardr: Zap Rowsdower?


Biff McLargehuge!
 
2014-03-09 02:22:34 PM

Ker_Thwap: I fondly remember the first five minutes when I first heard a woman was tagged as the VP running mate.  I was thinking, oh, maybe a strong role model for my daughters.  Then I learned a bit about her, then I heard her rabble rousing.  I hate extremists who can't even bother to try to understand the point of view of others.


You must have the entire Politics tab on ignore.
 
2014-03-09 02:28:11 PM
The War Game, BBC (1965)

It's about 45 minutes long. I have watched it exactly once, as I did with "Threads".

Here are some reviews.

It is done in a very dry style with an almost complete lack of dramatic embellishments.

I have linked it through Quietube [press Play, it's not Autoplay, as usual] so there'll be no distractions from YT comments.

The outrageous statements by some of these people (including the Bishop) - in favour of nuclear weapons, even nuclear war - were actually based on genuine quotations. Other interviews with a doctor, a psychiatrist, etc. were more sobre, and gave details of the effects of nuclear weapons on the human body and mind. In this film I was interested in breaking the illusion of media-produced 'reality'. My question was - "Where is 'reality'? ... in the madness of statements by these artificially-lit establishment figures quoting the official doctrine of the day, or in the madness of the staged and fictional scenes from the rest of my film, which presented the consequences of their utterances?
 
2014-03-09 02:34:06 PM

OnlyM3: As the short bus libtards ignore that the Ukraine disarming under the promise of protection liberal democrat presidents is what made Ukraine a weak target.


The promises are not what you imply. You are either incorrect or lying. Knowing you it's a 50-50 proposition, given that you are both dumb and dishonest.
 
2014-03-09 02:40:40 PM

rohar: On top of that, Ukrainian weaponry keeps showing up in Afghanistan to help our enemies kill us.


Source?
 
2014-03-09 02:43:33 PM

Rhino_man: Thunderpipes: Counter Russia's energy monopoly. No need for any war fellas. So damned simple.

... and in the years that it would take for us to build up the required export infrastructure (which we're ALREADY DOING), people like you get to call Obama a pussy for not doing something immediate.


It's always amazing when the armchair strategists have these oh so simple ideas that would take years to put into action.
 
2014-03-09 02:45:46 PM

AtlanticCoast63: Seriously?

Let me give you a little background - I did six years as a weapons guy with a Strategic Air Command bomb wing, and another year with a unit in the Far East that may or may not still have nukes; I'm not sure so I'm not going to name it. That was seven straight years of transporting and guarding them, and I HATE the goddamn things with a passion - I still have the occasional nightmare about them, and the last time I laid a hand on one was nearly thirty years ago. We need enough - and I don't claim to be a strategic planner, so I can't tell you what that number is - to make sure that anyone else can't threaten us with their use without knowing that they will suffer just as much in return. I'd love it if that number was less than a dozen, and I'd be even happier if they were all gone.

The Russians may be insane, but they're not crazy - the only way these days they'd ever launch would be if US tanks were physically on Russian territory, and even then they can't be sure their missiles will work, setting aside the fact that at most they have about 10% as many functional nuclear capable bombers as we do (and 'capable' doesn't necessarily mean they can get up and do it on short notice) and maybe about 350 ICBMs, all of whose reliability is at best, problematic. And in any event, The only people who will draw down on us with a nuclear weapon are the Norks or the Iranians, and the Iranians only after they've laid the first one down on Tel Aviv. The point here is that you have to have a few to deter the worst of the bad actors, and as long as we have bad actors, we need the damned bombs.


Nice post, bold font boy.

But that still doesn't answer the question, how many nukes do you think we need?  We still have shiatloads and current proposals will still leave us with shiatloads.  So you're also saying that we shouldn't go after Reagan's goal of a nuclear weapon free Earth?
 
2014-03-09 02:47:53 PM

Graffito: Death Whisper: At least she's willing to stand up to Putin, Obama's a castrated weasel who would rather appease him.

So making a speech at nutball convention is considered standing up to Putin?

I say, "Please proceed, Mr. Putin. Go all in.  Remember how well invading Afghanistan worked out for the USSR?"


I sent a twitpic of my penis to the Official Twitter account of the Russian President. I have stood up to Putin far more than appeaser Obama, according to Republican rules.
 
2014-03-09 02:51:47 PM

dahmers love zombie: How do you get that concentration of lunacy in one place and not have at least one person trying to be reasonable.  CPAC has become the latest incarnation of the Four Yorkshiremen sketch.


It's been a giant vortex of potato divided by turnip.
 
2014-03-09 02:53:14 PM

Rhino_man: Coming on a Bicycle: Graffito: Coming on a Bicycle: Ok. But it doesn't really do anything to diminish the way that Obama *has* royally farked up with Putin. Twice now.

How so?

Twice now, Obama has said 'to here and no further' to Putin. The first time (Syria) he just didn't follow through; this time it looks like he simply has no way to follow through. He should learn when to speak and when not to speak, because this is the sort of thing (the 'red line' thing) that you can only use sparingly, and then only when you have the possibility, the means and the guts to actually do something.

Yeah, because Presidents who use military action at the drop of a hat really stop Putin from invading his neighbors. Just ask the Georgians.


I'm not suggesting that Obama start military action, on the contrary: I'm suggesting that he shut the fark up.
 
2014-03-09 02:53:36 PM

IamTomJoad: I am so glad republicans are around to make comments on how hot she is, cause what women really desire is to know that looks are considered more important than intelligence or experience.


She clearly lacks intelligence, her experience is also insignificant... looks are kind of all you can focus on with Palin.

When people speak about someone like Elizabeth Warren - her looks are never mentioned. It's her proposals, her meetings, her speeches.... it turns out you have to bring some intelligence to the table to have it discussed,
 
2014-03-09 02:57:06 PM
I might add that I am NOT in favor of disarmament.

AtlanticCoast63: Seriously?

Let me give you a little background - I did six years as a weapons guy with a Strategic Air Command bomb wing, and another year with a unit in the Far East that may or may not still have nukes; I'm not sure so I'm not going to name it. That was seven straight years of transporting and guarding them, and I HATE the goddamn things with a passion - I still have the occasional nightmare about them, and the last time I laid a hand on one was nearly thirty years ago. We need enough - and I don't claim to be a strategic planner, so I can't tell you what that number is - to make sure that anyone else can't threaten us with their use without knowing that they will suffer just as much in return. I'd love it if that number was less than a dozen, and I'd be even happier if they were all gone.

....The point here is that you have to have a few to deter the worst of the bad actors, and as long as we have bad actors, we need the damned bombs.


Thank you.
 
2014-03-09 02:57:19 PM
Look, this situation is far too dangerous. Especially for a US president who 'doesn't do' larger conflicts than Lybia. I suggest we all take Cameron's suggestion, outlined here:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/09/vladimir-putin-ukraine- te nsions-david-cameron

accept that Crimea is a done deal, make the most of it, and start creating policy to ensure this doesn't happen again. And to the other EU- and US-heads I say: shut up - you're not helping.
 
2014-03-09 03:06:44 PM
Some dumb biatch?

/Yes, I was right!
 
2014-03-09 03:11:12 PM

freetomato: WTFDYW: Death Whisper: At least she's willing to stand up to Putin, Obama's a castrated weasel who would rather appease him.

She only 'stands' up to Putin because she's not in charge. Put her in charge and she'd STFU and go cook a meal. It's easy to be a bad ass when you aren't the one in charge.

It's also easy to be a bad ass when you are not willing to enlist in the military, but are willing to toss other peoples kids into a meat grinder.


One of her boys is Army.
/She's still an idiot.
 
2014-03-09 03:13:38 PM
Nuke Crimea to save Crimea!  Hell yeah!

I suspect most Ukrainians would say that's not the kind of help they need.

Or maybe nuke Moscow to save Ukraine?

Hmmmm.....okay, where do we go from there?  Okay, let's say we just nuke a small Soviet Russian city.  Does she really think Putin wouldn't retaliate?  Putin could pick a small city in Europe to obliterate and tell us the next ones will be headed towards London, Paris and Los Angeles.

I always thought Sarah Palin was stupid, but I didn't realize how dangerous she might actually have been if McCain had won and she was one heartbeat away from the presidency.
 
2014-03-09 03:15:34 PM
I know that Palin has siad some dumb things, but so have a lot of other politicians.  Why is it that Palin gets so much flack?  There are at least as many things that Obama has said or done that were idiotic.  A campaigning Obama said that he has visited 57 states and has one left to go.

I highly doubt that the Republican party, regardless of how anyone feels about their political stance, would choose the ditzy bimbo that she has been made out to be as a VP.  The funny thing is that a good summary of her stance according to the article would be "Obama's foreign policy is weak and weaknes promotes bravado in the bad guys."  Nothing weird.  Nothing crazy.  How many posts here call her crazy?  Probably half.  I think I hear sheep.
 
2014-03-09 03:18:29 PM
No really, why isn't this on the politics tab?
 
2014-03-09 03:26:07 PM

Mugato: vygramul: don't think that's what she meant, either. But, then, she might believe Obama has rendered our strategic forces unable to act.

What exactly are we supposed to do? And why do we even give a fark about the Ukraine, except they produced Mila Kunis and Milla Jovovich?


...and provided us a regiment of troops for our ill-advised Iraq War and a platoon of doctors for Afghanistan.

I'm sure taking over some border territories that one claims has many of ones people in them never leads to anything worse.
 
2014-03-09 03:26:50 PM

Death Whisper: At least she's willing to stand up to Putin, Obama's a castrated weasel who would rather appease him.


It's a game right now.  What do you actually think Obama should do?  The response is pretty weak I suppose, but should we send in troops?  Should we position a carrier in the Black Sea poised to wage all out war to liberate Crimea?  Has the Ukraine government (such as it is) even asked for military assistance?

Why should Obama be the one to go full war-monger on this?  What about Europe?  They're a lot closer and are more directly affected since they have a lot more trade between themselves and Ukraine and Russia than we do.

The Ukraine's military looks small compared to Russia's, but bear in mind that if Ukraine wants to fight they can devote 100% of their military effort towards standing up to Russia and I have no doubt that they would get international support even if it's only covert.

Russia can't devote all of its military towards the Ukraine.  They've got other areas they're trying to keep under control.

Putin is the real loser here.  He's just digging himself a bigger whole with every misstep.
 
2014-03-09 03:28:18 PM

Mentat: Techhell: They think that America can destroy Russia before Russia can launch their own nukes back. They also honestly don't care if Europe gets nuked since there is next to nothing that they get from Europe (that they know of) so there is no personal loss for them.

That's kind of the crux of the entire situation.  Conservatives seem to think that if Russia feared us, they wouldn't do these things.  The truth is, Russia is doing these things because they fear us.  In the last 20 years, their Eastern European buffer zone has almost disappeared.  Riga and Kiev are 1.5 hours flight from Moscow.  We are in military terms right on their door step.  Even without a missile shield, our first strike advantage is daunting and Russia knows it.  In expanding NATO and the EU so quickly, we've pushed Russia's backs against the wall.  Not that I oppose NATO expansion, but this is one of the consequences.


Must be nice to just give Russia all those other people. Because Russia's buffer zone matters because they were invaded a couple of times. But Ukraine's buffer zone needs are irrelevant - they were only occupied for a few centuries. That's nothing like having some people pay you a visit for a grand total of a decade.
 
2014-03-09 03:29:19 PM

zzzzt: according to the article


Again, here's the speech transcript.  A pretty good percentage of the speech boils down to "it's really great to be here".  It's a political speech, I get that.

Past that part, though, I couldn't find two consecutive sentences that rose above the weird-crazy-ditzy line.  Can you?

She seems to be accusing someone of becoming "lap dogs in the lame stream", which is an interesting phrase, but I don't know who precisely or how they could have avoided that fate.  But then suddenly we're dealing with bad guys with nukes instead.
 
2014-03-09 03:30:35 PM

freetomato: It's also easy to be a bad ass when you are not willing to enlist in the military, but are willing to toss other peoples kids into a meat grinder.


We're certainly willing to give Russia the green light to toss other peoples kids into a meat grinder.

"Hey, you know what, Putin? We feel bad for ya. Russia should just go ahead and take all of Ukraine. And the Baltics. And don't forget Poland! You need that buffer zone."
 
2014-03-09 03:34:47 PM

AtlanticCoast63: we are slowly dismantling the deterrent


Maybe anthrax tastes great on toast, who knows/cares? It's the "slowly" that's the problem. This is a genie we can put back in the bottle, there are a limited number of these weapons in the world and everyone knows where they are. Let's round 'em up before they get on Ebay.
 
2014-03-09 03:35:54 PM
As queen of derp as Palin is, she's not quite derpy enough to advocate using nukes over Crimea.  Her comment of 'the only thing that stops a bad guy with a nuke is a good guy with a nuke' is an argument to maintain our current levels of nuclear weapons. The article is pretty clear on that.

There's no need to put words in this woman's mouth. There are plenty spewing forth on a regular basis.
 
2014-03-09 03:38:20 PM

Randy Newman?



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iiv-6fMKyY
 
2014-03-09 03:38:44 PM

sendtodave: We used to go to war for our allies.  We've grown so weak under liberals.


I don't care if this is a troll, you are full of shiat. We never went to war for our allies, we got dragged kicking and screaming into both World Wars late to the party. Also war sucks and the only people who care about "weakness" to thepoint that they are willing to die for it are already dead. Good riddance.
 
2014-03-09 03:41:52 PM

sendtodave: rohar: You realize we signed virtually the same agreement with Jordan right?  If Israel gets a little fast and loose with it's borders, do we have to attack Israel and defend Jordan?

On top of that, Ukrainian weaponry keeps showing up in Afghanistan to help our enemies kill us.  If my enemy's enemy is my friend, my enemy's friend must be my enemy no?

Of course not!  Israel is one of the good guys.  As for terrorists getting Ukrainian weapons, well, we can invade Ukraine later, to make sure they stay safe, if we need to.

Anyway, this is all piffle.  Doesn't anyone remember the cold war?  Good guys versus bad guys?

And, when it ended, the promise of a world led by us, the good guys?  A New American Century.

People like Sarah Palin remember.  They remember when we were the good guys.  The shining city on the hill.

Not cynics like you.


upload.wikimedia.org

You guys read elect too much fiction
 
2014-03-09 03:42:41 PM

zzzzt: I know that Palin has siad some dumb things, but so have a lot of other politicians.  Why is it that Palin gets so much flack?  There are at least as many things that Obama has said or done that were idiotic.  A campaigning Obama said that he has visited 57 states and has one left to go.


Yeah, that was an embarrassing gaffe for Obama, but do you really think he didn't know how many states there are?  I don't even like Obama that much and I'll laugh at him for that, but I believe he just misspoke.

Palin was very clear here.  She thinks we should employ nuclear weapons over this.  With such an itchy trigger finger on her, how many other places in the world should we nuke and if we start nuking countries left and right, how long will it be before using nukes is no big deal and it is used against one of our allies or even ourselves?

She deserves to be ridiculed over this.

I highly doubt that the Republican party, regardless of how anyone feels about their political stance, would choose the ditzy bimbo that she has been made out to be as a VP.

Uh, except she was the VP candidate on the ballot with McCain in '08.  Duh!

The funny thing is that a good summary of her stance according to the article would be "Obama's foreign policy is weak and weaknes promotes bravado in the bad guys."  Nothing weird.  Nothing crazy.  How many posts here call her crazy?  Probably half.  I think I hear sheep.

There's nothing wrong with standing up to Russia, but Obama - and the EU - are taking a measured approach to this.  The first round of sanctions may not seem all that tough, but it's a shot across the bow.  We have more cards up our sleeves.

Our Weeners should not even consider the nuclear option.

She is crazy and I'm not a lamb.

/I'm not a ram either, but Al Green could handle this better than Sarah Palin
//http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFtA9VWuwg0&feature=kp
 
2014-03-09 03:49:02 PM
'Peace through strength' is a recognized foreign policy.

It has never farking worked, and if you can't recognize this, you do not need to be in politics.
 
2014-03-09 03:52:07 PM

gfid: zzzzt: I know that Palin has siad some dumb things, but so have a lot of other politicians.  Why is it that Palin gets so much flack?  There are at least as many things that Obama has said or done that were idiotic.  A campaigning Obama said that he has visited 57 states and has one left to go.

Yeah, that was an embarrassing gaffe for Obama, but do you really think he didn't know how many states there are?  I don't even like Obama that much and I'll laugh at him for that, but I believe he just misspoke.


Seriously, the right only has gaffes to work with because that hits their conservative funny boner, but it's too much effort to analyze policy. That would take... facts.

[insert cat with hackles raised.jpg]
 
2014-03-09 03:58:17 PM
img.fark.net
 
2014-03-09 03:58:52 PM
I didn't know nukes were even in play here. Is Putin threatening to nuke Ukraine? I thought he wanted to keep it. Why are we worried about nukes? Why do we want to stop Putin? What the hell is this twatwaffle even talking about?
 
2014-03-09 04:07:43 PM
winner winner green eggs& ham dinner
 
2014-03-09 04:19:13 PM

steveGswine: Again, here's the speech transcript.


This is painful to read, but I will.  Okay, she starts with some rah rah about the Tea Party.  It's the kind of rhetoric I wouldn't even like if I supported the Tea Party, but okay she's just cheering her side.

Then she invokes, the military, young people and Ronald Reagan(zap).    Well, who can argue about the heroism of our military personnel?  And who doesn't agree that whether we like it or not, young people will shape the future?  And Ronald Reagan?  Well, he's apparently been canonized and forgiven of all his sins (like giving amnesty to a bunch of illegal aliens).  After all, he is single-handedly responsible for the reunification of Germany and the fall of the Soviet Union and all he had to do was tell them to tear down the wall.  (You'd think he had Roger Waters as an adviser or something).

Unlike Teddy Roosevelt, Reagan talked loudly and carried a small stick.

But back to Palin's gibberish.

An obligatory attack on Obamacare.  How could I not see that coming?

A bunch of words....meaningless words.

Invoke Reagan again (along with Friedman and Thatcher).  Okay.  I don't even have anything against any of those three, but they are well faded into the past by now and they are all DEAD, just like Palin's soul.

More words.

Praise Ted Cruz.  Brags about her ability to memorize Dr. Seuss books.

Okay, I'll admit her little Dr. Seuss twist where she changed the words to criticize the government was pretty good.  Not bad, Ms. Palin.  Whichever staffer wrote that for you should take your place at center stage.

Words, words, words...all meaningless.

Obamacare!  (again)

More words.

Something about Kerry, and Jimmy Carter even gets a shout out.

AL QAEDA!!!  (Obama isn't protecting us!!!!)

Obama bad, GOP and America good, something, something something....

Harry Reid.  More words....

A big long paragraph about Duck Dynasty (WTF?)

I can't read any more of this crap.  It ends with a lot more words.
 
2014-03-09 04:23:25 PM
That last one was for grokca.

Sometimes "reply" doesn't work on mobile.
>=^(
 
2014-03-09 04:28:29 PM
Eye for an eye, or something like that, eh Sarah?
 
2014-03-09 04:36:37 PM
PsiChick:  Globally: Peace through strength in large part was what ended the cold war.  In your home town:  A big guy walks through a bad neighborhood and isn't bothered.  A smaller weaker looking guy walking through that same neighborhood has a more likely chance of being harmed.  Peace through strength has always worked.  The bad guys only attack those they believe can be defeated.

gfid:
I could go on until my fingers are sore about evidence that Obama is an idiot, but it would all be completely circumstantial.  He would never have even been in the position to be elected to such a high office unless he was extremely intelligent.  My comment was simply that the same logic applies to Palin and that you and others like you mindlessly parrot what you have heard repeated by biased sources and are only non-thinking sheep.

At no point did she say we should nuke them.  Her only comment about that was "Mr. President, the only thing that stops a bad guy with a nuke is a good guy with a nuke."  If you choose to take that as her endorsement to start a nuclear war, then I offer that as yet more proof that you are only a sheep.  And an idiot...


Steve:
"Happy to be here" ended after the 3rd paragraph which was maybe 10% of the speech.  After that she talked about the reelection of Obama and how that effected Republicans.  Then she went into how the idea of "free" doesn't exist as a lead in to talking about Obamacare .  She then promoted some other politicians and progress they've made.  She then spent a lot of time on the problems Obama and the left have caused.  That gets me half way through and I won't bore you with the rest.

If you spent more than 30 seconds reading it, you'd see that It is fairly well put together, but was also directed towards a crowd that is already in her corner.  This is probably why you see it as weird-crazy-ditzy.  My guess is that you can't fathom the idea that someone who doesn't believe in what you believe is anything other than an idiot.

Baaaa.  Baaaa.  Baaaa.
 
2014-03-09 04:56:56 PM

MadMattressMack: [img.fark.net image 480x480]


True, but I'd still like wear Palin and Bachmann like mittens while I use Michelle Malkin's face like it was a bowling alley.
 
2014-03-09 05:14:25 PM

zzzzt: If you spent more than 30 seconds reading it, you'd see that It is fairly well put together, but was also directed towards a crowd that is already in her corner.


Feel free to pull out any two consecutive well-constructed sentences.  I just looked again, and can't.

Maybe I'm missing some of the backreferences, but it's my first day at CPAC, so help a brother out.  For example, what are the following two sentences in aid of?

Palin:  Some of these folks are in the establishment, and they are a different breed of cats. They say that the smartest thing that we can do right now is just lay low, stay out-of-the-way while ObamaCare crashes and burns on its own and the economy sputters to a halt - forget all that solvency and insolvency stuff, just lay low, and as, while internationally, we so tick-off our allies and we lead a world that is looking for that shining city on a hill again, we lead them from behind?

Who does she think should act differently, and in what way?

All this makes "there will be costs" look clear and specific.
 
2014-03-09 05:15:33 PM

ciberido: rohar: sendtodave: rohar: OnlyM3: As the short bus libtards ignore that the Ukraine disarming under the promise of protection liberal democrat presidents is what made Ukraine a weak target.

You can read right?  Here's the full text of the Budapest Memorandum.  Can you find for me any promise of protection you half with warmongering neocon twatwaffle?

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ukraine._Memorandum_on_Security_Assura nc es

The point still stands.  If Ukraine could actually count on us going to war for them, it'd be much safer.

We used to go to war for our allies.  We've grown so weak under liberals.

Really?  Ukraine is an ally?  When did that happen?  You mean like Georgia?

I think the idea is something like "We signed a treaty with them; we are allies in the sense that we are bonded together by treaty."

Of course, how valid this argument is depends greatly on what the treaty in question actually says about the relationship.


Yeah, about that.  The Russians signed the same damned treaty.  Really.  One piece of paper with all our names on it.

Nowhere was there a mutual defense clause.
 
2014-03-09 05:18:46 PM

Rhino_man: Thunderpipes: Counter Russia's energy monopoly. No need for any war fellas. So damned simple.

... and in the years that it would take for us to build up the required export infrastructure (which we're ALREADY DOING), people like you get to call Obama a pussy for not doing something immediate.


Well, he is. Not for not going to war, but for the continued spinelessness everywhere else like Egypt and Syria.

And no, we are not already doing anything. Can't even build a goddamn pipeline for crying out loud.
 
2014-03-09 05:19:57 PM

Satanic_Hamster: rohar: On top of that, Ukrainian weaponry keeps showing up in Afghanistan to help our enemies kill us.

Source?


They're the 4th largest weapons exporter in the world.  All of our allies either make their own or buy ours.  Where do you think all that weaponry is being sold?
 
2014-03-09 05:24:40 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: freetomato: WTFDYW: Death Whisper: At least she's willing to stand up to Putin, Obama's a castrated weasel who would rather appease him.

She only 'stands' up to Putin because she's not in charge. Put her in charge and she'd STFU and go cook a meal. It's easy to be a bad ass when you aren't the one in charge.

It's also easy to be a bad ass when you are not willing to enlist in the military, but are willing to toss other peoples kids into a meat grinder.

One of her boys is Army.
/She's still an idiot.


Army Reserve, served in Iraq. Call me cynical, but if we had (God forbid) a President Palin (I threw up in my mouth a little just typing that) I doubt he would see combat, not that I wish that on anyone.

I actually saw a "Sarah for President!" bumper sticker the other day. About drove off the road laughing.
 
2014-03-09 05:32:16 PM

vygramul: freetomato: It's also easy to be a bad ass when you are not willing to enlist in the military, but are willing to toss other peoples kids into a meat grinder.

We're certainly willing to give Russia the green light to toss other peoples kids into a meat grinder.

"Hey, you know what, Putin? We feel bad for ya. Russia should just go ahead and take all of Ukraine. And the Baltics. And don't forget Poland! You need that buffer zone."


Russia doesn't need our green light to do anything, much as we don't need theirs. Beyond stern disapproval and sanctions, will any member of The World Police besides the US step up with military intervention? I can't see that happening. FFS, we haven't recovered from the folly in Iraq.

What makes me sick is that the right wingers who are making Putin out to be a bad ass tough guy only so that they can paint our President as a weakling.
 
2014-03-09 05:44:11 PM

zzzzt: If you spent more than 30 seconds reading it, you'd see that It is fairly well put together, but was also directed towards a crowd that is already in her corner.  This is probably why you see it as weird-crazy-ditzy.  My guess is that you can't fathom the idea that someone who doesn't believe in what you believe is anything other than an idiot.


I guess if you hear people say that to you often enough, eventually it dawns on you that it's some kind of insult.  So I suppose it makes sense you would toss it out at people with whom you disagree from time to time.
 
Displayed 50 of 343 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report