Palin ?
- Thread starter Andrew Homan
- Start date
I don't buy the "common people" act. There is nothing about her life that is "common". Do not forget, she is very rich and could not even finish the easiest job in government, Gov of AK. She is a train that is gaining speed and I think she does not have brakes capable of handling the track ahead of her.
Ed Cheung said:
Interesting take on things. I see things differently. North Korea has no fear of Obama. Obama is viewed as a softie by the dictators of the world. As soon as Obama took office, Iran and North Korea started mouthing off.
Honestly, who do you think would be more decisive in a confrontation: Obama or Palin?
Whom would the dictators fear: Obama or Palin?
Mike_Rupp said:
Dictators aren't going to be the cause of WW3 if indeed it happens. A hotheaded president overstepping major boundaries of another major world power is what would cause WW3. Honestly, if we went back to war with N. Korea, I have major doubts that China would back their "ally". ...however, if we were to send warships into Chinese waters following another Taiwan incident, this could push us into WW3. Ask yourself which scenario you could see Obama in, a man who is both intelligent and pragmatic, and which you could see Palin in, a woman who is impulsive, widely ignorant, and seems to have the need to "prove" herself.
For real? You guys still veiw Palin as the leader of the free(ish) world?
There is no hope left for this country.
There is no hope left for this country.
Yeah I mean a person who quit the position of Governor of Alaska and we want her running the big show? Eeek. Now that would make me miss W in no time! I mean even W's mom thinks Palin should stay in Alaska. A woman I think most of us can respect. Palin.....not so much.
My dog is smarter than she is. No really.
My dog is smarter than she is. No really.
Mike_Rupp said:
I do agree with with your saying, on the confrontation and the dictators fear question.
Actually I may have exaggerated a bit, as I kind put it up as a joke.
But Palin do give me an impression that, she is the kind of "at all cost" type of person, u know what I mean. And Obama is really weak on foreign affairs, less proactive in many situations.
But between Obama and Palin, for sure it is Palin, for 2 years, I cannot name any achievment for Obama in the office. Yeah u can say health care, but every POTUS had did something during their terms in the office on the health care situation.
Edited: But do US have a backup plan, let's say a 3rd choice?
Last edited:
knewsom said:
Then sir, you are ignorant of history. The primary cause of WWII was Britain's policy of appeasement, formulated under Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain. Obama is a Neville Chamberlain. It is why North Korea, Iran and Al Qaeda have become more aggressive. The EU referred to Obama as President Pantywaist. Do you think the rest of the world is deaf?
knewsom said:
Actually China don't really give a shit about the NK & SK or they became a Korea. They top piority is economy, and a better distribution of wealth within the nation, and kind of have a "Mind your own business" type of policy on foreign affair. That's why they didn't comment on the NK situation only after US had dragged them into it, and don't want any other countries to get in between them and the Taiwanese, as they view it as Taiwan is part of China, others should not get involved in they own internal affair within their own states. This had a lot to do with what party is ruling Taiwan. The current Taiwanese Govt are more keen on building a better relations with China, that's why US is out of the picture in that area.
MarkP said:
While I agree that appeasement is a large part of what led to WWII, I don't believe it's what led to WWI, and I certainly don't believe it's the only thing that could cause a third world war. N. Korea, Iran, Al Qaeda, these are not world superpowers. A conflict with any of them, while it would not be easy or painless, would be nothing compared to the scale of conflict Europe saw in the early and mid parts of the 20th century.
...and Al Qaeda more aggressive? Are you nuts? What's happend the last two years, in terms of attacks? A couple half-assed failed efforts. N. Korea's behavior has nothing to do with our president, and everything to do with their own internal affairs.
...also, please link the class to the UN issued statement dubbing President Obama "President Pantywaist", would you?
Ed Cheung said:
This is an excellent summation of the China situation and their outlook.
Two Cold Soakers said:
They are - the world's biggest powers are not controlled by dictators. During WW1 and 2, at least one or two of the were.
I find it hard to believe the republicans will be dumb enough to put Palin up again. I think at this point she is a cheerleader for the party. And a pretty good one.
I agree, Steve. Let her get Maggie Thatcher old and dusty, if she's still a party whore, then run her again.
MarkP said:
The correct explanation for WWII was The Treaty of Versailles. Resented by the Germans but not harsh enough to prevent her from rebuilding.
WWI which ended with the Treaty of Versailles was itself a consequence of Napoleon attacking Europe in the Franco-Prussian War which resulted in Germany acquiring Alsace and Lorraine (taken away by the Treaty of Versailles) but making Germany a dominant European power, and forced the weaker French to seek an alliance with Britain. History is never as simple as just one primary cause
The German sentiment was that the treaty was unfair, many German speaking citizens became minorities in other countries. The League of Nations was ineffective in part due to America not joining, having no military combined force such as NATO, but in addition there was no appetite for another war with Germany. (Britain alone had 1 million men killed, USA lost 120,000). The great depression and a weak Weimar Republic (from 1919 to 1933) had enabled the rise of the Nazi dictatorship. Hitler was somewhat admired for turning around Germany's economy, and his stand against communism. There was a certain amount of sympathy with his desire to unite the German speaking people. Germany introduced conscription in 1935 which was not allowed by The Treaty of Versailles.
Neville Chamberlain and his 1938 Munich Agreement and policy of appeasement was very popular in Britain, 'Peace in our time' etc. Germany had introduced conscription in 1935. It was however Chamberlain who drew the line in the sand with the treaty to defend Poland if attacked which is of course what actually brought Britain to declare war on Germany. Chamberlain was not exactly highly regarded by Churchill but personnel papers released in the 1990's indicated is was far from the naive dupe that some historians have previously portrayed him as. Britain was not exactly prepared for war in September 1939 when Hitler invaded Poland but it was much less prepared in Sept 1938 when the Munich agreement was signed.
That's the biggest problem I have with her, too. I'm a registered republican, but I don't think I can bring myself to vote for Palin.garrett said: