As we know, Americans only ever attack dirt poor countries unable to defend themselves, is this why Russia, with over 5000 nukes, can tell the US to go F**k itself, the Heritage foundation and the Fascist Right hate Russia because it can stand up for itself.
2007-11-16 05:23:04 · 6 answers · asked by Robert A 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
No. I know you'd like to believe that... but it has more to do with your own misgivings and misconceptions.
First of all... "neo-con" is a meaningless term thrown about by liberals who are too unintelligent to have real discussions so they resort to namecalling. I'm going to assume you're not amongst them and are just parroting what you've heard. If I'm wrong... then disregard my answer because you won't get it anyway.
Now... let's look at your perception:
"Conservatives will let Putin say anything he wants because he can defend himself in a war but will attack anyone else who does that because they can't."
1. Explain Venezuela... please? Chavez has repeatedly thumbed his nose at us... why haven't we whacked them? He can't beat us... not even close. An invasion would last, at most, two months. Yet... we have not attacked him. Why?
2. Explain Cuba... please? We don't have a longer standing enmity than that with Castro anywhere when you talk about a single individual... he even tried to have missiles there in the 1960s so... why haven't we attacked them?
I can go on, would you like me to?
I think you have enough on your plate trying to answer to those two... but hey... I know it's obvious to everyone else that the real reason is that you proceed from false assumption.
After all... would we invade Canada if their Prime Minister said America could go to hell? No. They're words.
They're as meaningless as Iran's President saying there are no gays in Iran.
Now... when Iran talks about building nukes and wiping nations off the face of the map and sending suicide bombers into cities and malls... then you have to pay attention.
The other stuff is just rhetoric. We've had such a dialogue with Russia for decades... it was called the Cold War.
Should we have attacked when Kruschev said "we will bury you"?
Think, man... think.
2007-11-16 05:59:21 · answer #1 · answered by Bryan~ Unapologetic Conservative 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Simple, Russia is in a better position than the USA in UN support. Who would of thought to say that 8 years ago? The only way Bush can attack Russia is if Russia hid the terrorists, hey wait a minute?They do have oil right? Isn't Pakistan hiding terrorists, oh yea, no oil, sorry. News Flash, foreign policy not a Bush strength.
2007-11-16 14:32:11 · answer #2 · answered by ? 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think many on the extreme right would welcome a less cordial relationship with Russia. Putin's rhetorical lapses do play into thier hands to a small extent. But, it's nothing new or particularly alarming.
Though, for the record, there is no shortage of foreign leaders and demagauges who make even more inflamatory statements, nukes or no nukes on the other side, the US is not easily goaded into meaningful action.
2007-11-16 13:36:38 · answer #3 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Russia isn't Granada.
2007-11-16 13:27:20 · answer #4 · answered by Rja 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
We are still talking with Russians.
Why do liberals think that letting Iran have nuclear weapons is a good thing?
2007-11-16 13:31:40 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Sounds to me like you're the one pining for war.
Just another peaceful liberal, huh?
2007-11-16 13:29:43 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋