• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Drop a nuclear bomb on Russia to stop the Crimea from becoming part of Russia?

Is Palin right, should Obama use the threat of nukes to stop Putin?

  • Yes, Palin was right, threaten and use nuclear weapons to Putin in Crimea crisis

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    46
Sarah Palin, according to a Dutch Newspaper has stated that Obama should use nuclear weapons to stop Putin when she said:
She probably could see it from her house in Wasilla, AK.
 
More tripe from Loader that is completely divorced from reality. Nobody "fears" Sarah Palin. We're laughing at her, not fearing her. She's a know-nothing jackass who makes conservatives who talk her up look stupid.
That's not true, Steve Schmidt John McCain campaign manager did after the knew what a loon she was.
 
She probably could see it from her house in Wasilla, AK.
Are you one of those misinford people who thing she said she could see Russia from her house?
 
Sarah Palin, according to a Dutch Newspaper has stated that Obama should use nuclear weapons to stop Putin when she said:

Talk about taking someones word out of context!!!!!! Nowhere did she say nuke anyone but that we should stop disarming America!!!!
 
Are you one of those misinford people who thing she said she could see Russia from her house?
I am neither "misinford" nor misinformed, I do recognize the talent of Tina Fey who does Sarah Palin better than Sarah Palin does.
 
Sadly enough, dropping it on Ukraine may be the more humane option.

If we go to war with Russia, I am pretty sure the whole world is going to go to war.

Think of all the potential conflict we are suppressing right now, waiting for an opportunity. Middle east and China come readily to mind. There are a ton of countries that would love to have a civil war.

Its almost like an old growth forest that hasn't had a forest fire in too long.
 
Must be your browser.

Use the shorter clip in post 28.

Very short, but it sounds like she was commenting in response to Obama's foreign policy on Iran's nuke program.
 
From her house?
Everywhere. And from her house, too. But Obama has already promised to Putin earlier, that in his second term, he will be more flexible. Translated from diplomatic language, this means that Obama will bend his body and sucks Putin's dick.
 
Everywhere. And from her house, too. But Obama has already promised to Putin earlier, that in his second term, he will be more flexible. Translated from diplomatic language, this means that Obama will bend his body and sucks Putin's dick.
Do you speak from experience, loader?
 
Very simplistic view.

Let me try to simply it. Only a person with a gun can stop another person with a gun. Doesn't mean you have to shoot the person to stop them. That's why, for example, I can not recall anyone trying to mug or rob a cop - even if the mugger or robber is armed.

But, to your mind, having a gun for self defense means you are going to shoot someone because you have it.

While I'm all for people owning guns, I completely disagree with the belief that "only a person with a gun can stop another person with a gun". You can disarm a person with a gun without using another gun. Sometimes talking them down actually does work. Sometimes threatening harsher penalties for not complying works. Sometimes simply tackling the person works. Tasers can even work. It all depends on the situation. And you shouldn't always shoot the person with the gun to disarm them either. It is not always necessary. Sometimes using a gun to disarm the person with the gun can make the situation a whole lot worse. And when it comes to the real point of the analogy here, that is definitely going to be the case in the majority of cases.
 
Everywhere. And from her house, too. But Obama has already promised to Putin earlier, that in his second term, he will be more flexible. Translated from diplomatic language, this means that Obama will bend his body and sucks Putin's dick.

More nonsense.
 
Now, about the comment. Pretty sure she was talking about how much nuclear weapons we have.

The issue I see with this though really is the fact that we have plenty to retaliate many times over should it become necessary. There is no need to have so many more nukes than it would take to actually do the job, and we already have that now, even with downsizing of our nuclear caches. If Russia attacks us or threatens to attack us with nukes, they know that it is a no-win situation, even if we have less than them. Some people learned nothing from "War Games". Thermonuclear warfare is always a no-win game. Both sides will always lose so long as they both have just a few nukes. What is the point of ensuring that you have the same amount of nukes as the other side exactly, if it doesn't take that many (at all) to destroy the other side?
 
I am neither "misinford" nor misinformed, I do recognize the talent of Tina Fey who does Sarah Palin better than Sarah Palin does.
I will suggest that Tina plays stupid well, and you like her better because sarah isn't as dumb as you would like her to be.

I got a laugh when Sarah said she did Halloween as Tina Fey.
 
Only nuclear powers can stand up to other nuclear powers in high stakes military relevant poker games. That's why Russia could invade Ukraine and can not invade our or our bases.

There are millions of people in that region who don't kill Russians only because they don't have the means to do so. We have piles of that hardware.

Obama doesn't know how to play poker. Putin does.

First many non nuke countries can stand up to nuke armed nations of have you forgotten Vietnam, and Afghanistan in the 80's? Course Iran sees the world your way and is busy trying to 'nuke up'.

Next, it is more accurate to say there are millions of people in the region who would kill everyone not like them if they had the hardware and once given out VERY difficult to gather back up. Again have you forgotten Afghanistan and apparently Libya?

Obama isn't willing to play Russian Roulette any more than BushII was in Georgia.
 
She wasn't advocating a Nuke strike and the OP is highly dishonest.
 
She wasn't advocating a Nuke strike and the OP is highly dishonest.
Yet after all this time and length of thread, people still believe it.

Wow... Just wow...
 
I have no love for Palin but the OP is so incredibly dishonest and uninformed, I actually had to defend Palin.
Yep.

I can't believe people here are putting up with and enjoying such dishonesty.
 
So what was Palin suggesting?
 
Back
Top Bottom