When I suggested that Sarah Palin was a greater risk to world security than Iran or North Korea a few days ago, Iain Dale suggested that I was off my head.
Perhaps he and those Tories who support her simply because she is a Republican ought to reconcile their love for her with these crazy comments she has made.
Hat Tip to Paul Walter's Liberal Burblings.
7 comments:
So what part of Article 5 of the NATO Treaty doesn't Sarah Palin understand then?
"Article 5
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security."
Would the LibDems support Poland or Turkey if they were attacked by Russia? What is party policy on NATO?
Nice to see such a well reasoned argument in support of your thoughtful appraisal of Sarah Palin's actual comments.
I suppose that alliances only mean something to people like you as long as you're getting something out of them - and can be ditched as soon as you have to live up to your responsibilities.
I think Ian Dale had you dead to rights. Cue the Looney Left!
You do realise that she's only the VICE President candidate don't you? She wont be the President ans as was famously said once "The VP's job isn't worth a bucket of spit"
paganpride, Alliances should be made strategically and with a mind to the bigger picture. Making stupid alliances leads to stupid wars.
Cue the stupid right wing neo Cons. What a prat.
Gallimaufry - I refer you to my earlier comments.
I am astonished you think I sepak for the Lib Dems, but the Lib Dems are strong beleivers in keeping to Treaty obligations which is why I would imagine they, like me, would defend Polish interests, after all, they are members of NATO already. The question is why would we extend NATO membership to Georgia, a slightly dodgy democracy at the best of times, at such an inopportune time.
Sarah Palin's understanding shows why we chould be worried.
Why is it that by my questioning Georgian membership you assume I question the membership of Poland and presumably Turkey, Germany and Norway too ?
Quiet Man - The reason we should be worried is because of McCain's age. The chances of her becomeing President are, if you take average life expectancy for a man, to be 77 years, and with John McCain being 72, we can assume there is about a 40% chance he will not see out his years in office.
Now do you see why we should be worried ?
The fact is that Palin speaks then thinks, which is a dangerous thing to do in world politics. Some might call it refreshing, but in international relations it is inflamatory.
Well, as I recall, NATO was set up at a rather more inopportune time in order to counter the threat from the Soviet Union.
Don't you think it is better to support a slightly dodgy but trying hard to reform democracy against a completely corrupt expansionist state? It's like having an anti-bullying policy in a school.
Remembering the old adages that there are two sides to every story, and that you trust the media at your peril, it should come as no surprise to learn Sarah Palin has been edited and taken out of context by ABC News.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/09/13/abc-news-edited-out-key-parts-sarah-palin-interview
Post a Comment