It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Palin leaves open option of war with Russia

page: 2
7
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by mopusvindictus
reply to post by skeptic1
 


Fair Enough, what do you you think the odds are that Russia will move to prevent that from happening?


There's probably a 75% chance that they will do just that, especially given their actions and words of late.....especially the words and actions since the Georgia conflict started.




posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 07:31 PM
link   
It's crazy for different reasons, she didn't just stated the NATO doctrine which everyone here knows.

1) She's a believer of the apocalypse.
2) She's an evangelical.
3) She have no experience/knowledge in foreign policy.
4) She NEVER leaved the country.
5) She's a heartbeat from becoming president.
6) She wants Georgia and Ukraine in NATO, not to mention all the destabilisation that will create.
7) She's open to war with Russia... for her, it's an option among others... not worse, not better, she normalized nuclear war.
8) She thinks that Georgia was invaded for no reason, which is of course false.
EDIT:
9) In the Bush administration, they are crazy but the team is divided in two, the Cheney extremist camp and the Rice/Gates ``moderate`` camp... and for some time now the moderate camp has won. If you place Palin and McCain, there will be NO moderate camp, only crazies.

There. She's freaking crazy.

[edit on 11-9-2008 by Vitchilo]



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by northof8
It seems the party line on the left is NATO members can burn if attacked.


This is not just about a questionable candidate, or a party, or a trivial election. This is about the world, the polarization of East vs West, and the threat of death and destruction that comes with it.

We all know what happened in Georgia. It's called ethnic cleansing, something that Russian peacekeepers and their backup nipped in the bud. Faced with the choice, I would much prefer Georgia to fight its own battles than have thermonuclear bombs detonating across America and Europe.

When it comes down to it, anyone who valued their own life would prefer it that way too.



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 07:32 PM
link   
I must be confused because I thought Governor Palin was running for the Vice Presidency. Why are people even speculating on what her actions might be in such a situation? John McCain is the person running POTUS.

Wouldn't it make more sense to debate how he, as a man with 23 years of military service would respond to such a crisis? He's only 72, and I think he has a lot of good years ahead of him. He passed his physical with flying colors, and his family has a history of longevity. All this talk about he's just a couple of heart beats from keeling over, is just so much rhetoric.

Should something happen to him though, I'm convinced Governor Palin is more than capable of taking the reigns of leadership, and leading our country with honor, integrity, and wisdom. Her response to the question was spot on. We're a part of NATO, and must act accordingly.



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 07:36 PM
link   
reply to post by princeofpeace
 


The only reason it would of been interesting, is because if that were true ( Georgia being in Nato ) then what would Russia's response be, to an attack BY NATO ?

because we all know the truth behind who threw the first punch here, so lets not pretend like Russia is to blame.
As much as I dislike Mccain, what she's saying is what 'has' to be said.
Its like saying we wouldnt retaliate if something happened.

she's basically saying if russia did something haneous, we'd have to attack.



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by mopusvindictus
reply to post by northof8
 


I don't believe Obama would abandon Nato.

The problem is that... America is weak, we have been very comfortable for a long time and there is a big portion of our population that won't fight for ANY reason, that believes we are 100% sheltered here inthe States and lives in comfort to a degree that thier only concern is a tax cut for a few more luxuries



Well I hope you are correct. If a NATO member is attacked and Obama does do the right thing he is going to have a whole lot of people on the left mad at him. He is the one who said we need to do more talking to our enemies but I do hope thats just politics talking in the context of a NATO member being attacked.

Either way he is going to take a pounding but he is better of taking a pounding from the anti war crowd if we have to backup NATO. If he lets a NATO member go the democrats are finished.

As far as fat and lazy America I have to agree but I think if we were attacked on a grand scale like WWII the sleeping giant would awaken again. I am just afraid the pantry will be closed as we have moved all of our manufacturing off shore. The problem with this one is NAFTA and that was a two party deal. We are all to blame for that one...



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by SteveR

Originally posted by northof8
It seems the party line on the left is NATO members can burn if attacked.


This is not just about a questionable candidate, or a party, or a trivial election. This is about the world, the polarization of East vs West, and the threat of death and destruction that comes with it.

We all know what happened in Georgia. It's called ethnic cleansing, something that Russian peacekeepers and their backup nipped in the bud. Faced with the choice, I would much prefer Georgia to fight its own battles than have thermonuclear bombs detonating across America and Europe.

When it comes down to it, anyone who valued their own life would prefer it that way too.


Well I understand your point about Georgia but they are not a NATO member and this is the context of the statement by Palin. Where did she say she would go to war over Georgia? If Biden or Obama take the bait on that one I see another Lipstick gate coming.

I do disagree with your ideology of letting a NATO member burn because you are afraid of a nuclear war if that is what your point is. Once you let one go you might as well let them all go. If you show Russia that we will not backup our friends then you might as well let all of Europe go because as history has show they are unable to defend themselves without our help.

If this is the mantra on the left we are in serious trouble if your people get into power. Russia will run rough shod all over Europe and your people will let them do it? Its kind of like saying you would have given the NAZIS a pass during WWII. Scary stuff....

[edit on 11-9-2008 by northof8]



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 07:52 PM
link   
How is a thread, in which the OP lies via omission to blatently and substansially change the nature Of Sarah Palin's remarks, not being held to the "stop the madness standard?"

I thought rumours, innuendo, and lies were no longer allowed?



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo
It's crazy for different reasons, she didn't just stated the NATO doctrine which everyone here knows.

1) She's a believer of the apocalypse.
2) She's an evangelical.
3) She have no experience/knowledge in foreign policy.
4) She NEVER leaved the country.
5) She's a heartbeat from becoming president.
6) She wants Georgia and Ukraine in NATO, not to mention all the destabilisation that will create.
7) She's open to war with Russia... for her, it's an option among others... not worse, not better, she normalized nuclear war.
8) She thinks that Georgia was invaded for no reason, which is of course false.

There. She's freaking crazy.


This is pure hyperbole. So she has religion... So what. Just because someone has a moral compass that does not disqualify them from being Vice President. Are we saying that Obama is really not a Christian? I thought the Christian religion taught about the prophesy of the apocalypse. Is Obama just choosing the parts that appeal to you?

Now, of course she wants Georgia and Ukraine to be a part of NATO. Part of the NATO mission is about spreading freedom to those that want to choose their own destiny and not live under a tyrannical government that Putin is running over there. Those two countries want to be free from the grip of the former and soon to be once again USSR.

Who can be against that? Why be against freedom for those two countries or any country anywhere? Freedom is what our Republic is all about but I think many on the left don't like freedom.

Just because she has never left the country means she can't be VP? That just makes no sense at all....

And finally, yes she is open to war with Russia. I would hope Obama is as well if a NATO member is attacked. I am really starting to worry though. The mantra seems to be that Obama is the no war president and at all costs.



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shazam The Unbowed
How is a thread, in which the OP lies via omission to blatently and substansially change the nature Of Sarah Palin's remarks, not being held to the "stop the madness standard?"

I thought rumours, innuendo, and lies were no longer allowed?


I was wondering the same thing but I would be disappointed if it was closed. We need to discuss these things to expose the left for who they really are.

It seems some ATS MODS are saving the left from themselves by closing all the threads under the guise of "The Madness stops now"... So be it...



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shazam The Unbowed
How is a thread, in which the OP lies via omission to blatently and substansially change the nature Of Sarah Palin's remarks, not being held to the "stop the madness standard?"

I thought rumours, innuendo, and lies were no longer allowed?


My thoughts exactly. Is open season on Palin still being allowed and just anti-Obama threads being shut down?

True example of bottom feeding by the left. After all, Georgia is not a member of NATO, and after this last war with Russia not likely to become a member since all the members have to approve of new ones and all applicant countries are not rubber-stamp approved.

That makes this thread only hypothetical at best, and another attempted Palin smear at worst.


[edit on 9/11/2008 by centurion1211]



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 08:04 PM
link   
Once again, here's a link to the interview, so that people can see the context in which Palin's comments were made. It's not like she said "bomb Russia tomorrow".

ABC News Interview



[edit on 9/11/2008 by skeptic1]



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 08:06 PM
link   
This isn't about Russia and Georgia, even if the question did ask about NATO. It was about Poland.

Russia is trying to get back into the sandbox it was knocked out of. Palin said what absolutely needed to be said by any major political party member in the line of succession for the Presidency.

If any NATO member is attack, there will be consequences including a war against Russia. Russia has been touting this and that trying to scare everyone about defensive missiles in Poland. She basically told them where other missiles are going to go if they do something stupid.

Words like these scare the meek and timid, but it's words like these that protect the meek and timid.

Bidden would have said the same thing if asked the same question. It is official US policy whether you agree or disagree with it.

It's just refreshing to hear any politician tell someone what would happen if Russia decided to claim part of it's "former" empire.



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 08:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by northof8
If you show Russia that we will not backup our friends then you might as well let all of Europe go because as history has show they are unable to defend themselves without our help.


Really? I don't recall any attack on Europe by an outside force since the creation of the U.S. Europe has many times fought amongst itself, obviously, your statement is redundant and self-gratifying.


Originally posted by northof8
If this is the mantra on the left we are in serious trouble if your people get into power. Russia will run rough shod all over Europe


Russia isn't fighting Europe.


It is engaged in disputes with caucaus states. Russia has invested heavily in Europe. What you say is the product of misinformation and a distorted view of reality in Europe.


Originally posted by northof8
Its kind of like saying you would have given the NAZIS a pass during WWII. Scary stuff....


The Nazi's were European if I remember correctly.


We are getting off track here.

[edit on 2008/9/11 by SteveR]



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 08:08 PM
link   
Good!!! We have an Iron lady in Palin. Not girlymen who would endanger this country by refusing to honor treaties and alliances. Not girlymen who would be totally spineless like the EU.

The economists, a liberal magazine, portrayed the leaders of the EU as jello!!!

Thank you!! It's about time we had another leader in this country with brass balls, or brass ovaries!!!

I know a strong confident leader who believes in peace though strength scare the hell out of liberals and ron paul cultists, that's the woman I want to vote for!!!



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by hinky

Words like these scare the meek and timid, but it's words like these that protect the meek and timid.



That is an excellent line and well said. I think that really sums up the NATO mission in a nut shell and you are right. I think in the end Obama would be forced to defend NATO as much as some would not like him to.

Anyway, star for you on that line....



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shazam The Unbowed
I thought rumours, innuendo, and lies were no longer allowed?


No rumours, no innuendo, no lies. Palin leaves open option of war with Russia is the mainstream media headline. It is true, hypothetical or not. It is ashame you prefer threads that conflict with your ideology to be shut down.

Regardless of policy. Not many wish a nuclear war with Russia over the likes of Georgia, Ukraine, Poland. Countries that have much unfinished business internally and with Russia. Let them sort it out between themselves.



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 08:16 PM
link   
I see absolutely nothing wrong with her statement. IF Georgia were admitted into NATO and IF it were subsequently attacked by Russia, yes, the United States would be obligated under Article 5 of the NATO charter to defend its ally. Her response to this hypothetical question was absolutely correct.

No, its not a particularly comforting thought, but the world isn't always a nice place. We should not abandon our allies, and if we signal that we will, even in response to a hypothetical question such as this, we will LOSE those allies. I'm quite certain that both Obama and Biden would have given the same answer that she did, and rightly so.

[edit on 11-9-2008 by vor78]



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 08:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by SteveR

Originally posted by northof8
It is engaged in disputes with caucaus states. Russia has invested heavily in Europe. What you say is the product of misinformation and a distorted view of reality in Europe.


Disputes with caucus states? How do you reconcile that statement with the fact that Russia threatened Poland about the missiles we are putting in their country? Poland is a NATO member. Would you let them burn if you were President? That is what I am getting here...

[edit on 11-9-2008 by northof8]



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by SteveR

Originally posted by Shazam The Unbowed
I thought rumours, innuendo, and lies were no longer allowed?


Regardless of policy. Not many wish a nuclear war with Russia over the likes of Georgia, Ukraine, Poland. Countries that have much unfinished business internally and with Russia. Let them sort it out between themselves.


Well lets hope Biden and Obama think differently or they might as well go golfing. You can't have NATO without America. Poland is a member and we should defend her against all enemies.

We disagree on this one Steve. You would allow Russia to march across all of Europe to avoid war is what you re really saying because if you let Poland go all of Europe will go up in flames with it.

btw... The last time we tried to let them sort it out on their own Hitler killed millions.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join