Holy shit...Palin got this one right!

[Palmz]

Funny you should bring up the actions of Iraq that lead to Operation: Desert Storm, since we didn't kill Hussein then. Do you know why? We god damn jolly well could have. We didn't kill him for the exact reason we still have a troop presence there: for all his despotic tendencies, the man kept the country relatively stable. Remove him, and the whole thing goes up in flames, which is exactly what happened.

Something you can quote him saying. It sure did too. Doesn't also help that the Shites, Kurds and Sunnis all want power in Iraq and whoever is in power wants to destroy the other two. To say he kept it stable though, the man fucked up the country. Look at Iraq during the mid century. It was westernized and relatively stable before he took office. The country looked great in the 50's and 60's. It's a shit hole now.

[Eroginous]

http://now.msn.com/sarah-palin-on-sy...ion-conference

Its not often that i agree with sarah palin, but she has this one right.

We should stay completely out of this conflict. We have no stake in the fight and both sides are just as fucked up as the other.

The first four words of the article are 'Gifted speaker Sarah Palin.' I stopped reading right there.

The title explains everything, and I think it's a very naive concept to 'let Allah sort them out.' We have people who are genuinely innocent, being treated like combatants and exterminated with chemical warfare. Is is not in our best interest to intervene on behalf of freedom?

While I am hesitant to send in a full scale ground invasion (throwing bodies at it until the conflict dies is not a wise use of resources, nor is bombing the shit out of random ground targets), I would think that the most advanced military in the world would have a strategic solution to the problem without unnecessary casualties or military spending.

[Spectral]

Is is not in our best interest to intervene on behalf of freedom?

It may be in their best interest, but it's almost certainly not in our best interest.

[N-7]

Is is not in our best interest to intervene on behalf of freedom?

No country intervenes "on behalf of freedom," it might be used as a propaganda tool sometimes so war seems more favourable/justifiable but otherwise not really.

[jetriot]

Because arming militant rebels has always worked out so well for us in the past. When these people are capable of seperating religion from government I'll be willing to concede that we have some similarities and we can lend our support. However I won't be supporting the rebels who have allied with Al Queda and Hamas. The U.N. is not convinced that chemical weapons have been used and neither am I. I am much closer to being convinced that Obama is using this as a distraction from all the scandals taking place at home that make Watergate look like jaywalking.

[N-7]

Because arming militant rebels has always worked out so well for us in the past. When these people are capable of seperating religion from government I'll be willing to concede that we have some similarities and we can lend our support. However I won't be supporting the rebels who have allied with Al Queda and Hamas. The U.N. is not convinced that chemical weapons have been used and neither am I. I am much closer to being convinced that Obama is using this as a distraction from all the scandals taking place at home that make Watergate look like jaywalking.

And here I thought Assad was secular.

[Jaxi]

The reasoning is what's relevant, not whether someone stumbles to the right conclusion. If you gave a kid a math test and had this question:



and they answered



how much credit would you give them? I'd give them about a 25%.

We're not talking about a math test, we're talking about foreign policy. By that same example, you would give more credit to the individual that sends money to the Rebels simply because his motivations are pure, over one that does not, even if their motivations are impure? Ultimately I care more about the result, not the thought process that sent them there. That is not to say that I do not care about her thought process, but I'd sooner support her over Kerry on this issue.

[Spectral]

We're not talking about a math test, we're talking about foreign policy.

You understand what an analogy is, right?

By that same example, you would give more credit to the individual that sends money to the Rebels simply because his motivations are pure, over one that does not, even if their motivations are impure?

I said nothing about motivations.

[oxymoronic]

Don't get me wrong, USA shouldn't enter here. Nato should however, since U.N are backbound by Russia and China (Cause US for the first time seems to give a fuck what the communist thinks)

Didn't NATO enter Iraq as well? What is the difference? Besides NATO is mainly USA or are you blind to that fact?

[jetriot]

I've always found it fascinating how conservative Americans are generally VERY anti-ultra conservative governments and movements in the middle east while western(primarily U.S., European liberals are pretty fed up with Muslims lately) liberals are more sympathetic to these ultraconservative religious nuts.

[oxymoronic]

Because arming militant rebels has always worked out so well for us in the past. When these people are capable of seperating religion from government I'll be willing to concede that we have some similarities and we can lend our support. However I won't be supporting the rebels who have allied with Al Queda and Hamas. The U.N. is not convinced that chemical weapons have been used and neither am I. I am much closer to being convinced that Obama is using this as a distraction from all the scandals taking place at home that make Watergate look like jaywalking.

I don't know of one scandal the white house is currently involved in... what are you talking about?

[Atrea]

This is a very bad misquote.

Here is her original quote:

“Militarily, where is our commander in chief? We’re talking now more new interventions. I say until we know what we’re doing, until we have a commander in chief who knows what he’s doing, well, let these radical Islamic countries who aren’t even respecting basic human rights, where both sides are slaughtering each other as they scream over an arbitrary red line, ‘Allah Akbar,’ I say until we have someone who knows what they’re doing, I say let Allah sort it out,” Palin said at the Faith and Freedom Coalition Conference."

So basically, she's saying there should be a Republican interfering, and then it will be okay.

So no, I don't agree with her at all. I think she is an imbecile, and continues to demonstrate it.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...h-sort-it-out/

(This source was available in the original article that OP linked, I find it troubling that no one else mentioned this either.)

[Powerogue]

At the end of the day, whoever loses is going to hate us. We should limit assistance in other country's wars unless sure that it's in the best interest of our country's safety.

[Chrysia]

I don't know of one scandal the white house is currently involved in... what are you talking about?

Benghazi - which has largely been narrowed down to the FBI and CIA turning the talking points into incoherent mush and Hillary committing a single relief force she felt was sufficient but ended up not.

The IRS - for which there is currently no proof the White House was involved at all.

The NSA surveillance - which is Obama using bullshit political handwaving for going back on his promise to end warrantless wiretapping. Still not a scandal, though, since he is technically authorized to do so under the Patriot Act that most politicians continue to renew.

[Spectral]

they scream over an arbitrary red line, ‘Allah Akbar,’ I say until we have someone who knows what they’re doing, I say let Allah sort it out,” Palin said at the Faith and Freedom Coalition Conference."

I enjoy the irony of this being at a conference where the attendees scream "Praise Jesus!".

[oxymoronic]

I enjoy the irony of this being at a conference where the attendees scream "Praise Jesus!".

Jesus was Allah's son or are you so confused to think they are different?

That is if you believe in the story of the bible, personally I don't believe that malarkey for a moment

*edit - dont want to get banned AGAIN for a confusion

[Atrea]

I enjoy the irony of this being at a conference where the attendees scream "Praise Jesus!".

Yeah, I was thinking the same myself.

This was at the "Faith and Freedom Coalition" conference.
I didn't realize that Protestant Christianity had the monopoly on religious faith.

I can just envision the condescending and ultimately racist way in which she presented that statement; as if their belief in their deity is somehow backwards and humorous, but her own belief is something that should be praised.

[oxymoronic]

Yeah, I was thinking the same myself.

This was at the "Faith and Freedom Coalition" conference.
I didn't realize that Protestant Christianity had the monopoly on religious faith.

I can just envision the condescending and ultimately racist way in which she presented that statement; as if their belief in their deity is somehow backwards and humorous, but her own belief is something that should be praised.

She really just meant let their own god sort them out I want nothing to do with it but hey you can read into it whatever you want I suppose. I find it crazy I'm defending this loon of a woman but logic dictates it, so...

[Atrea]

Jesus was Allah's son or are you so confused to think they are different?

That is if you believe in the story of the bible, personally I don't believe that malarkey for a moment

*edit - dont want to get banned AGAIN for a confusion

I don't think he's the one that's confused here. Remind the people who do believe this stuff.

---------- Post added 2013-06-16 at 01:12 PM ----------

She really just meant let their own god sort them out I want nothing to do with it but hey you can read into it whatever you want I suppose. I find it crazy I'm defending this loon of a woman but logic dictates it, so...

Nothing logical about it. You yourself said it's the same god.

And if you read the FULL quote, you'd see - she didn't say she wanted nothing to do with it. She wants to get involved - just, with a "a commander in chief who knows what he’s doing" (read: Republican) in the White House.

[Sett]

I don't feel comfortable with that saying.