The Palin Doctrine - Let Allah sort it out

[carlfense]

There's clearly a disconnect here. Either you're a Palin fan putting her quote here because you're promoting her and her cause or you really don't get the concept of how to present a concise, agreeable message.

Yep.

[NUance]

Regardless of what anyone thinks of Sarah Palin, I agree with her on this one.

It'd be easier for me to agree if we didn't need access to their oil . . .

Oh sure, they have *some* oil. About two-thirds as much as, say, North Dakota.

 

I say damn the oil. Let's cut 'em loose.

[carlfense]

Regardless of what anyone thinks of Sarah Palin, I agree with her on this one.

It'd be easier for me to agree if we didn't need access to their oil . . .

Oh sure, they have *some* oil. About two-thirds as much as, say, North Dakota.

 

I say damn the oil. Let's cut 'em loose.

I wasn't talking about Syria in isolation . . . I think a lot of the concern is that these wars will spill across borders.

[TGHusker]

I'm pretty sure I'd agree with some of the thoughts/feelings of even the worst of human beings out there, but that doesn't mean I'm going to use them as sources for my opinions on message boards.

 

We're being told to ignore the messenger and listen to the message. But when the messenger you use is so divisive, someone who's used such hateful language throughout her public career, the message inevitably gets clouded.

 

There's clearly a disconnect here. Either you're a Palin fan putting her quote here because you're promoting her and her cause or you really don't get the concept of how to present a concise, agreeable message.

 

Not a Palin fan - period (disagree on a lot of her position/statements - agree on a few). She'd be nail in the coffin of the rep party if she was the candidate - for a great number of reasons. i used the Palin tag line to generate interest (she is a lightning rod for either side) and because it was the title of the original article by Buchanan. We are getting off track talking about Palin - the subject is the entanglement. The drill baby drill - another quote, used by many (besides Palin) for emphasis to get us free of the entanglement to MidEast oil

[TGHusker]

Regardless of what anyone thinks of Sarah Palin, I agree with her on this one.

It'd be easier for me to agree if we didn't need access to their oil . . .

Oh sure, they have *some* oil. About two-thirds as much as, say, North Dakota.

 

I say damn the oil. Let's cut 'em loose.

I wasn't talking about Syria in isolation . . . I think a lot of the concern is that these wars will spill across borders.

Carl, I agree with you here in that these wars will spill across borders - but I don't think there is a lot we can do to stop it outside of full scale intervention. I don't think our country will support that after 12 years of Afgan/Iraq. We've seen how well that worked in Iraq (the democracy GWB envisioned hasn't transpired) and in Afgan -we are now negotiating wt the Taliban who we sought to destroy some 12 years ago (not blaming that on Obama - he's just trying to get us out of that entanglement). The Arab Spring has gone all of the way from Tunisia to Turkey (unrest there now), With the radicalization of Islam - i see no good ending with our continued involvement as the area's policeman. Funny, (not so) GWB started out being against nation building in the Gore debates, he then became a believer in nation building, and his legacy will be in part his failure to do what he originally was opposed to - to build Iraq and Afgan into democracies. No one saw 9-11 coming. While we needed to respond to 9-11 - GWB, overstep the response - I think it ignited a whole region. I say this in retrospect. Caught up wt the anger of 9-11, I too was all for going in and trying to democratize these countries but I see it as being naive to think we could have democratize this region with their centuries worth of division - that just within the Arab world - not even throwing in Israel into the discussion.

Our on going relationship and defense of Israel is a another big topic in itself - but related to any role we have in the region.

[JJ Husker]

I think Sarah Palin got this one right regarding Syria.

On U.S. military intervention in Syria’s civil war, where “both sides are slaughtering each other as they scream over an arbitrary red line ‘Allahu akbar’ … I say let Allah sort it out.”

 

 

 

On the Shiite side of the Syrian civil war are Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Russian President Vladimir Putin, Hezbollah and Syrian President Bashar Assad. On the Sunni side are the al-Qaida-affiliated Jabhat al-Nusra, Sunni jihadists from across the Middle East, the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Qatar and Saudi Arabia.

Is victory for either side worth yet another U.S. war?

 

Looks to me like that part of the world has no shortage of interested parties and leadership capabilities. I say let em handle it, destroy it - whatever, and the US can STFO.

 

Of course, since that is the same position Palin has, it must be wrong It's too bad that we struggle to give credit where it is due based on a persons past transgressions or party affiliation.

 

Why do you think she's wrong?

 

The face palm would indicate that I think she is right.

 

Sorry, I was taking a bit of a shot at this statement of yours; "...it's as dangerous to listen to her as it is to listen to any radical muslim cleric." I understand your being fed up with some on the far right and the timing and inconsistency of many things done by those representing the republican or tea parties. But, when somebody is correct, I think we need to give credit regardless of what other concerns we have. If we can't do that, then we are no better than those on capital hill who fail so miserably every day. Basically, I have grown weary of the constant violin song. If you want to try to claim a higher ground than the partisan hacks you disagree with, I would offer that maybe you shouldn't act in the exact same manner.

 

Of course you can make any comment you wish and are free to either agree or disagree with Sarah Palin on any issue but, when you choose this position of hers to say "don't listen to this nutjob", then I think you run the risk of having people interpret that as we should get involved in Syria and, based on what I think I understand about you, I don't think that would be your position on this issue.

[carlfense]

Carl, I agree with you here in that these wars will spill across borders - but I don't think there is a lot we can do to stop it outside of full scale intervention. I don't think our country will support that after 12 years of Afgan/Iraq. We've seen how well that worked in Iraq (the democracy GWB envisioned hasn't transpired) and in Afgan -we are now negotiating wt the Taliban who we sought to destroy some 12 years ago (not blaming that on Obama - he's just trying to get us out of that entanglement). The Arab Spring has gone all of the way from Tunisia to Turkey (unrest there now), With the radicalization of Islam - i see no good ending with our continued involvement as the area's policeman. Funny, (not so) GWB started out being against nation building in the Gore debates, he then became a believer in nation building, and his legacy will be in part his failure to do what he originally was opposed to - to build Iraq and Afgan into democracies. No one saw 9-11 coming. While we needed to respond to 9-11 - GWB, overstep the response - I think it ignited a whole region. I say this in retrospect. Caught up wt the anger of 9-11, I too was all for going in and trying to democratize these countries but I see it as being naive to think we could have democratize this region with their centuries worth of division - that just within the Arab world - not even throwing in Israel into the discussion.

Our on going relationship and defense of Israel is a another big topic in itself - but related to any role we have in the region.

I'm far from an expert on foreign policy so I can't really predict the success or failure of a limited intervention. I do know one thing . . . it would be nearly impossible for me to support another ground war in the Middle East.

 

I agree with you regarding the ill fated decisions in Iraq and Afghanistan. Regarding the bold . . . are you saying that GWB didn't read that August 6, 2001 President's Daily Brief while he was vacationing? (I suppose you meant that no one expected the specifics of the attack . . . which I think is correct.)

[knapplc]

Sorry, I was taking a bit of a shot at this statement of yours; "...it's as dangerous to listen to her as it is to listen to any radical muslim cleric." I understand your being fed up with some on the far right and the timing and inconsistency of many things done by those representing the republican or tea parties. But, when somebody is correct, I think we need to give credit regardless of what other concerns we have. If we can't do that, then we are no better than those on capital hill who fail so miserably every day. Basically, I have grown weary of the constant violin song. If you want to try to claim a higher ground than the partisan hacks you disagree with, I would offer that maybe you shouldn't act in the exact same manner.

 

Of course you can make any comment you wish and are free to either agree or disagree with Sarah Palin on any issue but, when you choose this position of hers to say "don't listen to this nutjob", then I think you run the risk of having people interpret that as we should get involved in Syria and, based on what I think I understand about you, I don't think that would be your position on this issue.

 

Note that at no point did I say Palin was wrong. I said she's the wrong messenger, and she is. She is a rabble-rouser with a pretty face. She has no political chops whatsoever, so she gets by on Stalin-esque bluster and incendiary speech. I don't care if Josef Stalin is a Husker fan and thinks Tom Osborne is the greatest coach in history, I'm not using his words ever to promote a line of thinking regarding the Huskers, no matter how much I agree with it.

 

I don't have to "be nice" about Sarah Palin. She's done enough damage to the American political scene already. She needs to go away. Someone else, hopefully less incendiary, will fill in the noise she makes.

 

And I didn't choose THIS POSITION of hers to say "don't listen to this nutjob." I've said this about her every time she's been brought up here. Every. Time.

 

Honest question - who is Sarah Palin that you're defending her? What has she done to help this country? Why is she someone you support?

[TGHusker]

Carl, I agree with you here in that these wars will spill across borders - but I don't think there is a lot we can do to stop it outside of full scale intervention. I don't think our country will support that after 12 years of Afgan/Iraq. We've seen how well that worked in Iraq (the democracy GWB envisioned hasn't transpired) and in Afgan -we are now negotiating wt the Taliban who we sought to destroy some 12 years ago (not blaming that on Obama - he's just trying to get us out of that entanglement). The Arab Spring has gone all of the way from Tunisia to Turkey (unrest there now), With the radicalization of Islam - i see no good ending with our continued involvement as the area's policeman. Funny, (not so) GWB started out being against nation building in the Gore debates, he then became a believer in nation building, and his legacy will be in part his failure to do what he originally was opposed to - to build Iraq and Afgan into democracies. No one saw 9-11 coming. While we needed to respond to 9-11 - GWB, overstep the response - I think it ignited a whole region. I say this in retrospect. Caught up wt the anger of 9-11, I too was all for going in and trying to democratize these countries but I see it as being naive to think we could have democratize this region with their centuries worth of division - that just within the Arab world - not even throwing in Israel into the discussion.

Our on going relationship and defense of Israel is a another big topic in itself - but related to any role we have in the region.

I'm far from an expert on foreign policy so I can't really predict the success or failure of a limited intervention. I do know one thing . . . it would be nearly impossible for me to support another ground war in the Middle East.

 

I agree with you regarding the ill fated decisions in Iraq and Afghanistan. Regarding the bold . . . are you saying that GWB didn't read that August 6, 2001 President's Daily Brief while he was vacationing? (I suppose you meant that no one expected the specifics of the attack . . . which I think is correct.)

The specifics - I think everyone knew or should have known that something big coming. In retrospect - we should have concentrated on Afgan, the Taliban, and Al-Qaeda. I often wondered why we put so overwhelming energy into Iraq in comparison wt Afgan without finishing business in Afgan first. Maybe revenge on Saddam's trying to assassinate Bush the elder. Even if we were justified in going into Iraq, plenty of debate on that, after "Mission Accomplished" we coasted - until the needed surge. We weren't ready for the type of warfare Saddam loyalists & terrorist groups would rage against us. Political leaders want to proclaim victories too quickly in this region - Bush with Mission Accomplished and Obama with the pre-election talk that Al-qaeda was on the run - then Libya occurred. The Soviet Union found out the same thing in Afgan in the 80s - overwhelming force doesn't mean automatic victory in this part of the world. When 'soldiers' are willing to blow themselves up along with boys and girls and other innocent people - it is a different kind of animal we are dealing with. If a nation isn't committed to a total war to bring about total surrender - no victory is for certain. Even at that, until the radical element is totally destroyed, you may have a population that is "sitting down on the outside but standing up on the inside' - looking for the next opportunity to throw off the oppressors from western civilization.

[JJ Husker]

 

Note that at no point did I say Palin was wrong. I said she's the wrong messenger, and she is. She is a rabble-rouser with a pretty face. She has no political chops whatsoever, so she gets by on Stalin-esque bluster and incendiary speech. I don't care if Josef Stalin is a Husker fan and thinks Tom Osborne is the greatest coach in history, I'm not using his words ever to promote a line of thinking regarding the Huskers, no matter how much I agree with it.

 

I don't have to "be nice" about Sarah Palin. She's done enough damage to the American political scene already. She needs to go away. Someone else, hopefully less incendiary, will fill in the noise she makes.

 

And I didn't choose THIS POSITION of hers to say "don't listen to this nutjob." I've said this about her every time she's been brought up here. Every. Time.

 

Honest question - who is Sarah Palin that you're defending her? What has she done to help this country? Why is she someone you support?

 

I wouldn't say I support her. At this point in time, I would agree with you that it would be best if she just went away. However, before she morphed into one of the most divisive figures ever in American politics, I agreed with many of her policy positions. I still do agree with some of them. I feel she is not near as bad as most make her out to be, more a victim of circumstance, not being ready for the limelight, a few too many foot in mouth situations, and aligning herself a little too far right on the spectrum. I did not mean to imply that you had been inconsistent as regards your position on Palin- you haven't been. I understand your position better now due to your Stalin analogy. I suppose even Hitler had some good ideas or positions but, it would be counterproductive to ever use his thoughts to advance any agenda. Not that I put her in the same category as Stalin or Hitler but, for those who do, I guess I can understand. We've just gotten way too black or white with everything.

[carlfense]

Obama with the pre-election talk that Al-qaeda was on the run - then Libya occurred.

Al-qaeda's leadership (not just Bin Laden) has been systematically targeted and destroyed. I don't see how the Benghazi consulate attack disproves that.

 

The Soviet Union found out the same thing in Afgan in the 80s - overwhelming force doesn't mean automatic victory in this part of the world. When 'soldiers' are willing to blow themselves up along with boys and girls and other innocent people - it is a different kind of animal we are dealing with. If a nation isn't committed to a total war to bring about total surrender - no victory is for certain. Even at that, until the radical element is totally destroyed, you may have a population that is "sitting down on the outside but standing up on the inside' - looking for the next opportunity to throw off the oppressors from western civilization.

And we should have learned the same lesson from Vietnam. How quickly we forget.

[TGHusker]

Obama with the pre-election talk that Al-qaeda was on the run - then Libya occurred.

Al-qaeda's leadership (not just Bin Laden) has been systematically targeted and destroyed. I don't see how the Benghazi consulate attack disproves that.

 

The Soviet Union found out the same thing in Afgan in the 80s - overwhelming force doesn't mean automatic victory in this part of the world. When 'soldiers' are willing to blow themselves up along with boys and girls and other innocent people - it is a different kind of animal we are dealing with. If a nation isn't committed to a total war to bring about total surrender - no victory is for certain. Even at that, until the radical element is totally destroyed, you may have a population that is "sitting down on the outside but standing up on the inside' - looking for the next opportunity to throw off the oppressors from western civilization.

And we should have learned the same lesson from Vietnam. How quickly we forget.

So very true - I use to be one of those 'war hawk' - America needs to get involved in everything and make the world right - but by whose definition of right?? Getting older (Ok just old), & understanding cultures better can moderate some positions. There is a big world out there that doesn't think like us and in many cases they cannot understand our mind set and we cannot understand theirs. Maybe we need more of those 'beer summits'.

[TGHusker]

 

Note that at no point did I say Palin was wrong. I said she's the wrong messenger, and she is. She is a rabble-rouser with a pretty face. She has no political chops whatsoever, so she gets by on Stalin-esque bluster and incendiary speech. I don't care if Josef Stalin is a Husker fan and thinks Tom Osborne is the greatest coach in history, I'm not using his words ever to promote a line of thinking regarding the Huskers, no matter how much I agree with it.

 

I don't have to "be nice" about Sarah Palin. She's done enough damage to the American political scene already. She needs to go away. Someone else, hopefully less incendiary, will fill in the noise she makes.

 

And I didn't choose THIS POSITION of hers to say "don't listen to this nutjob." I've said this about her every time she's been brought up here. Every. Time.

 

Honest question - who is Sarah Palin that you're defending her? What has she done to help this country? Why is she someone you support?

 

I wouldn't say I support her. At this point in time, I would agree with you that it would be best if she just went away. However, before she morphed into one of the most divisive figures ever in American politics, I agreed with many of her policy positions. I still do agree with some of them. I feel she is not near as bad as most make her out to be, more a victim of circumstance, not being ready for the limelight, a few too many foot in mouth situations, and aligning herself a little too far right on the spectrum. I did not mean to imply that you had been inconsistent as regards your position on Palin- you haven't been. I understand your position better now due to your Stalin analogy. I suppose even Hitler had some good ideas or positions but, it would be counterproductive to ever use his thoughts to advance any agenda. Not that I put her in the same category as Stalin or Hitler but, for those who do, I guess I can understand. We've just gotten way too black or white with everything.

Good response. It does help to understand what Knapp was saying with that analogy - still over the top but understandable. I get over the top sometimes myself. At first I thought Palin was good for the repubs - as McCain needed some kind of a spark plug. But that didn't last long. It was quickly seen that she wasn't ready for prime time - to many issues, used as an attack dog (mamma bear), with little substance on policy (she may have had some acceptable positions but not a deep thinker/policy person beyond the talking points - except maybe importance of drilling American oil due to experience in Alaska). A big red flag was when she left the state house and she went on the speaking circuit - she became very polarizing. A coin flip on who would have been more embarrassing as president if they had to step in - Palin or Plugs. Ok, this thread wasn't about Palin as I said before. I do agree with her point on this thread- let the locals fight it out - we'll deal with what remains as needed - hopefully without intervention.

[knapplc]

 

Note that at no point did I say Palin was wrong. I said she's the wrong messenger, and she is. She is a rabble-rouser with a pretty face. She has no political chops whatsoever, so she gets by on Stalin-esque bluster and incendiary speech. I don't care if Josef Stalin is a Husker fan and thinks Tom Osborne is the greatest coach in history, I'm not using his words ever to promote a line of thinking regarding the Huskers, no matter how much I agree with it.

 

I don't have to "be nice" about Sarah Palin. She's done enough damage to the American political scene already. She needs to go away. Someone else, hopefully less incendiary, will fill in the noise she makes.

 

And I didn't choose THIS POSITION of hers to say "don't listen to this nutjob." I've said this about her every time she's been brought up here. Every. Time.

 

Honest question - who is Sarah Palin that you're defending her? What has she done to help this country? Why is she someone you support?

 

I wouldn't say I support her. At this point in time, I would agree with you that it would be best if she just went away. However, before she morphed into one of the most divisive figures ever in American politics, I agreed with many of her policy positions. I still do agree with some of them. I feel she is not near as bad as most make her out to be, more a victim of circumstance, not being ready for the limelight, a few too many foot in mouth situations, and aligning herself a little too far right on the spectrum. I did not mean to imply that you had been inconsistent as regards your position on Palin- you haven't been. I understand your position better now due to your Stalin analogy. I suppose even Hitler had some good ideas or positions but, it would be counterproductive to ever use his thoughts to advance any agenda. Not that I put her in the same category as Stalin or Hitler but, for those who do, I guess I can understand. We've just gotten way too black or white with everything.

 

Nobody puts her remotely in that category. Both were evil men responsible for murder on a mind-boggling scale. But both also used tremendously divisive rhetoric to further their political agenda. All three, in that regard, can be likened to Sherman's March to the Sea - I'm getting where I need to go, and to hell with anything in my path.

 

Palin may have been a victim of circumstance, thrown in over her head, back in 2008, but we're five years past that situation. If she wanted to blend back into the background she should have finished out her term as governor of Alaska. Instead, she quit on her state and got paid by Fox News to spew hate-filled BS.

 

You don't see "the liberals" (to use the term you, BRB & TGHusker like to use for those who don't share your views) on this board using some divisive liberal hack like Keith Olbermann as a platform for their post, do you? There's a reason for that.

[BigRedBuster]

Obama with the pre-election talk that Al-qaeda was on the run - then Libya occurred.

Al-qaeda's leadership (not just Bin Laden) has been systematically targeted and destroyed. I don't see how the Benghazi consulate attack disproves that.

 

The Soviet Union found out the same thing in Afgan in the 80s - overwhelming force doesn't mean automatic victory in this part of the world. When 'soldiers' are willing to blow themselves up along with boys and girls and other innocent people - it is a different kind of animal we are dealing with. If a nation isn't committed to a total war to bring about total surrender - no victory is for certain. Even at that, until the radical element is totally destroyed, you may have a population that is "sitting down on the outside but standing up on the inside' - looking for the next opportunity to throw off the oppressors from western civilization.

And we should have learned the same lesson from Vietnam. How quickly we forget.

So very true - I use to be one of those 'war hawk' - America needs to get involved in everything and make the world right - but by whose definition of right?? Getting older (Ok just old), & understanding cultures better can moderate some positions. There is a big world out there that doesn't think like us and in many cases they cannot understand our mind set and we cannot understand theirs. Maybe we need more of those 'beer summits'.

 

I used to feel the same way as you. But, my attitude has changed to more of....."if the rest of the world wants to live in a totally f***ed up life then that is their freedom to do so"

 

I honestly can't imagine a situation right now that I would support sending our troops anywhere in the world to do anything.