Palin leaves open option of war with Russia

reply to post by northof8


Russia cautioned that it is standard nuclear doctrine to take out anti-missile sites in the event of a nuclear war. It not a threat, it is just a fact. Poland knows this and it is Poland's responsibility.

Russia is NOT saying they intend to take out Poland's sites.

Originally posted by northof8
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.

See, this is the crux of the matter. You beleive scare mongering propaganda about Russia. I know different. Russia has no intention to fight Europe. No way no how.

reply to post by SteveR


At what point since the end of WW2 has war with Russia not been an option of any administration?

It's not like we threw away our nukes when the cokld war ended most are still pointed at Russia

Is there some change of policy her statement makes that any president Democratic or Republican has not stood by?

Didn't Russia just land Bombers in Venezuela last night?

Just attack Georgia?

Buzz our Carriers earlier this year?

Start flights back over Alaska this year again?

Is this the time to change policy to Russia when it is asserting itself against us in military fashion again?

It doesn't matter what any candidate say about Russia, because no nation is going to go into war with Russia and that included the US.

Russia just like China has been down play by propaganda but the reality is that both nations are nations no to be playing around with.

Plain and simple.

Nobody is going to attack Russia.

reply to post by marg6043



I don't think it is a matter of anyone attacking Russia.

I think the matter is what to do if Russia attacks a NATO member nation or one on the road to becoming a member of NATO. That was the hypothetical question that got all this started.


[edit on 9/11/2008 by skeptic1]

reply to post by skeptic1


We all know by now how the Georgia "incident happen" so this just more propaganda about how the big bad bear becoming a danger to the rest of the world.

Is nothing there to see, just propaganda, it sounds good when we have the first Female VP candidate talking like the rest of the boys in Washington.

Nothing short of more propaganda.

reply to post by marg6043


Very true marg. Thank you for injecting some sense into this thread.

reply to post by marg6043


reply to post by SteveR



Then theres absolutley nothign to discuss is there? I mean its all propaganda, so none of it realyl matters right?

reply to post by Shazam The Unbowed


Actually the issue is why is becoming a big issue that we have the first female VP candidate giving opinions on an issue that merits none either that or somebody has not inform the Madam VP candidate how the conflict with Georgia started.

So I guess when it comes to NATO allies they are the ones with the right to attack other nations but not to be retaliated upon without "serious consequences".

Any how we all know That Russia will retaliate if Georgia attacks another neighboring nation and is nothing that NATO is going to do against Russia.

Because we all know who is at fault here.

Governments like to show they have balls but they also know to whom they show them.

reply to post by Shazam The Unbowed


It is disturbing and worthy of discussion.

Do you have anything to add?

reply to post by SteveR


I think he means me, I am the one that sees not issue on the matter of Madam VP candidate Palin making an opinion on Russia.

While I see that she has the right to talk about protecting NATO allies the Russia issue is very well known as just a propaganda issue, in which Russia has been played out as the big bad bear.

She looked and sounded silly during that interview.

Tis no wonder they were hiding her from reporters.

www.huffingtonpost.com...

This question was obviously asked in relation to the current S. Otessia - Georgia / Russia conflict.

I do believe I am correct in noting that Russia was NOT an aggressor but acted to defend an ally, that is defend S. Otessia from an attack staged by Georgia.

I am no geo-political scholar or very knowledgeable on NATO but protecting a NATO member who began a preemptive war seems a bit far fetched does it not?

In this context, Palin's assertion that it is 'possible' we would need to go to war with Russia seems to be saying we support preemptive warfare? Or am I missing something?

Honestly it is no surprise to me the political forces of today in the USA seem to be fond of preemptive war or war in general.

It is MHO that this is a result of the growing fascist state with in the USA where cooperate powers ( read: military industrial complex) have seized control of the political system and use it to their gain and indirectly, the people's loss.

Originally posted by marg6043


Actually the issue is why is becoming a big issue that we have the first female VP candidate giving opinions on an issue that merits none either that or somebody has not inform the Madam VP candidate how the conflict with Georgia started.

Look, I know english isnt your first language so slow down and try again. I think you're trying to say that Palin, is wrong about how the Georgia invasion started or seomthing, but Im really not sure.

So I guess when it comes to NATO allies they are the ones with the right to attack other nations but not to be retaliated upon without "serious consequences".

???

Any how we all know That Russia will retaliate if Georgia attacks another neighboring nation and is nothing that NATO is going to do against Russia.

Georgia was invaded. Not Russia.

Because we all know who is at fault here.

Apparently not me.

Originally posted by SteveR
reply to post by Shazam The Unbowed

 

It is disturbing and worthy of discussion.

Do you have anything to add?

What is? The propanagda, the propaganda about the propaganda, or the propaganda agaisnt the propaganda?

Originally posted by Animal
This question was obviously asked in relation to the current S. Otessia - Georgia / Russia conflict.

I do believe I am correct in noting that Russia was NOT an aggressor but acted to defend an ally, that is defend S. Otessia from an attack staged by Georgia.

Thats a matter of opinion, interpertation, and perspective. S ossetias status, as well as the reason for russias invasions, isnt as cut and dried as some might claim IMHO.

reply to post by marg6043


I stared that, there are alot of issues on the platforms that either make negligable difference to Americans, will not happen or most likely will not happen...

I'd say 80% of the issues people are arguing over are non entities in reality, War with Russia, Abortion... establishing a Theocracy wth lol good luck,

You hit that dead on we will not be going to war with Russia via either candidate

Back to Sarah. The interview in question and today's ABC interview showed her to be still the mayor of Mayberry, Alaska and completely clueless about the real world. She obviously had a few things that she was to repeat no matter what the question. When the ABC interviewer asked her questions, she answered with the lines she knew, equivocated, and fumbled and did not even come close to answering the questions. Most people can tell when someone is faking it and Sarah was really faking it. The GOP has picked their hockey mom and will now have to live with the results. With her one heartbeat away from the presidency and even less aware than W, this was a bad choice. I have been a Republican for the last 40 years and couldn't vote for McCain-Palin if they were the only ones on the ballot.
I'm sorry John. I wanted a reason to vote for you even though you are past your prime. You would have been a much better president than W but the Bush fortune and big oil pushed you away and gave us the spoiled rich boy who had not a bit of your work ethic, skills, or honorable traits. Your team really selected her for her novelty and no closet skeletons but as soon as she opens her mouth on issues and is not merely cheerleading, it becomes apparent that she is an empty head; uneducated and too shallow for all but those in denial. I can't vote for you because a President Palin is not a good thing. I could have gone for Kay Bailey or another woman who knew how to run things but not Sarah. Buy her some lipstick for her pit bull and send her back to Alaska.

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?

Curious, no?

Maybe only the tops of the tickets are protected from the madness? Because I'm sure it's not editorial bias, and ATS was rising above smear and innuendo...

Definitely a puzzler...

reply to post by mopusvindictus


They were working with us before we attacked Iraq and began spewing evil this and evil that. Fear is killing this nation. Damn it she should be making more diplomatic statement than that when this world is wobbling like it is!

I am disturbed by the lack of thought here.

Originally posted by pteridine
Back to Sarah. The interview in question and today's ABC interview showed her to be still the mayor of Mayberry, Alaska and completely clueless about the real world. She obviously had a few things that she was to repeat no matter what the question. When the ABC interviewer asked her questions, she answered with the lines she knew, equivocated, and fumbled and did not even come close to answering the questions. Most people can tell when someone is faking it and Sarah was really faking it. The GOP has picked their hockey mom and will now have to live with the results. With her one heartbeat away from the presidency and even less aware than W, this was a bad choice. I have been a Republican for the last 40 years and couldn't vote for McCain-Palin if they were the only ones on the ballot.
I'm sorry John. I wanted a reason to vote for you even though you are past your prime. You would have been a much better president than W but the Bush fortune and big oil pushed you away and gave us the spoiled rich boy who had not a bit of your work ethic, skills, or honorable traits. Your team really selected her for her novelty and no closet skeletons but as soon as she opens her mouth on issues and is not merely cheerleading, it becomes apparent that she is an empty head; uneducated and too shallow for all but those in denial. I can't vote for you because a President Palin is not a good thing. I could have gone for Kay Bailey or another woman who knew how to run things but not Sarah. Buy her some lipstick for her pit bull and send her back to Alaska.

Whats wrong with picking an ordinary person, or for that matter, what is wrong with being a hockey mom? Because a woman chooses to have kids, and those kids just so happen to be involved in organized sports, this woman is somehow less intelligent or as you say "empty headed"? Are strong moral values and broad appeal to middle class voters simply "novelty" as you say? A recent tactic I've noticed on ATS is a pro-left or pro-right poster that claims to either be a lifetime Dem. or Rep. who is fed up with the party, points out petty MSM talking points on whichever candidate, and declares their defection to the other side. I'm not accusing you of this Pteridine, but your post smells a lot like an Obamaton's flavor of post. FYI, it was the part about the pitbull that made me reply to your post, we need to keep these kinds of malicious comments out of our politics. This type of thing to me is likely the most sinister thing going on these days on ATS, I really don't subscribe to the jazz about paid posters.