It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 4
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 12:26 AM

Originally posted by pluckynoonez
She looked and sounded silly during that interview.

Tis no wonder they were hiding her from reporters.

I just now watched that interview. She really is just a small town politician. I don't like either side but she really scares me in her ineptitude and attitude.

If the GOP is elected I sure hope ole John doesn't die!

posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 12:29 AM
This thread is ridiculous...

I mean, shouldn't we be talking about the REAL issues, like whether Obama is a Muslim, or that he said '57 states'? C'mon people, war with Russia is a non-issue, but Obama's 'lipstick on a pig' analogy, now THAT'S what I look for when I go to vote...

posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 12:37 AM
She seems to be on guard in the interview, as I am sure I would be, and is it me or is he seeming to be disinterested and frustrated?

Anyways, back on topic.

I think what she said is exactly what she personally feels is right and although I commend her for that, I don't see the world in black and white and so I disagree with her.

We will not go to war with Russia, it's all fear mongering.

I refuse to let people convince me I need to wake up every-day afraid of what is to come. If we go to war then so be it, even though it's not gonna happen, I have faith in myself and my neighbors to overcome what lays ahead and so I will not live in fear.

posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 12:48 AM

Originally posted by bigbert81
This thread is ridiculous...

I mean, shouldn't we be talking about the REAL issues, like whether Obama is a Muslim, or that he said '57 states'? C'mon people, war with Russia is a non-issue, but Obama's 'lipstick on a pig' analogy, now THAT'S what I look for when I go to vote...

No politician running for the highest office in our country would rule out using force absolutely. It's called a last resort, and neither the U.S or Russia is looking for a direct confrontation, but leaders on either side would never let down their guard or actually seriously consider for one minute that we would be safe to have the world know we won't use force no matter what. That is ridiculous.

posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 02:03 AM
reply to post by ppskylight

Greetings bigbert81,

When a person that may in the near future be in the position to send us all to Armagedon refuses to exercise MUCH diplomacy and THINK for 5 seconds in front of the global media (TV) and say she considers pulling the ICBM's trigger button, this becomes an EXTREMELY REAL and SERIOUS issue! If McCain wins and becomes out of governing capacity for any reason, she would take his place.

NO NATION IN THE WORLD would win anything in a thermonuclear war - and the immediate failure of the world's environment, with its renewable resources destroyed, would send us directly to the Medieval Age if not worse! No breathable air, No drinking water, No food, and No shelter for thousands of miles - for ALL NATIONS in the North Hemisphere !!! Her rise would be a strong case for all of these nations to cutt relations with the US, as it is became a threat to their National Security - to start with!
Do you like it??? Or you think the US and Russia have ANY right to eliminate other nations' air, soil, water and all natural resources?

High Apprentice

posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 02:35 AM
Wow, you are doing a wonderful job of taking her entire response WAY out of context. What she stated is that she supports the admission of Georgia into NATO. Then during the conversation she stated that the entire purpose of NATO (under Article 5) states that we all stand up for eachother, and assist eachother as best we can. Of course that also means if someone attacks a NATO nation, we all stand behind them and fight alongside them. Seriously, what do you think the entire reason behind NATO is? NATO is not the United Nations, nor is it some Legislative/Executive Union such as the EU, it is a Pact of Nations having eachother's backs so as to prevent Soviet Bloc aggression, and any others who wish harm upon us all.

Regardless of how you feel about the South Ossetian Conflict, you need to realize that Georgia has one of the greatest numbers of MIL Personnel in Iraq in support of OIF, and in Afghanistan in support of OEF. The United States owes Georgia, as the Georgians have already paid for the Alliance with their own Blood, Sweat, and Tears. You can have disputes with your Allies, and debate over any number of issues, but the one thing you DO NOT do under ANY circumstances, is abandon them during their greatest time of need.

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 .

posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 02:52 AM
Never thought I would be defending Palin...

The only thing I find troubling is the "perhaps"...
In the context of the question, if Georgia was a NATO country, there is no room for perhaps.

An attack on any NATO country is an attack on all NATO countries. No questions, no perhaps, no doubts.
If Georgia is a member of NATO, and is attacked, the USA, UK, France, Germany, and all other NATO members have no options. They have to defend Georgia, even if that means WAR...

Or do you defend dishonoring your word, and your legal obligations?
Who would ever rely on a country that dos not honor it's word, and contract, with it's alleys?

Goes to show the moral backbone, and the principles, of some ATS members...

Sad, very sad!!!

posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 03:00 AM
The OP obviously wrote this with a political bias. If one member of NATO is attacked, that is as if attacking the whole of NATO. Palin was correct for saying what she said.

posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 03:38 AM
The only thing that scares me more than a terrorist is a politician who mixes politics and religion.

posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 07:19 AM

Originally posted by gnuers
The only thing that scares me more than a terrorist is a politician who mixes politics and religion.

Isn't that really the definition of a Islamic terrorist? One man's freedom fighter another man's....

this line is for fluff and one more line in the response!

posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 07:28 AM

Originally posted by skeptic1

Originally posted by princeofpeace
What is the surprise here? The NATO doctrine clearly states that an attack on one NATO country is considered an attack on all. Thats why the Russian/Georgian conflict was was so interesting because of the "what if Georgia was part of NATO?" factor. Thigs would have been much different.

Exactly, and that is in the context the question was asked. The Ukraine was also included in the "hypothetical". I doubt that the answer would have been any different if given by any leader (or potential leader) of a NATO member country.

And this OP title is deliberately misleading. It implies that the Democrats aren't obligated to the NATO doctrine. Which would be the real controversy here, not Palin being set up with trick questions. No matter how she answered it, it could be used against her.

posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 08:12 AM

Originally posted by Shazam The Unbowed

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.

Please rather than just dismissing my point elaborate. Why is it a matter of interpretation and opinion?

posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 09:02 AM

Originally posted by mopusvindictus

She said the truth, if Russia attacks Ukraine we might have to honor NATO and fight the war...

What would we do? Just abandon Nato?




posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 09:02 AM
reply to post by LLoyd45

here here...all these liberal loons want to do is attack Palin the VP...again the VP...this heartbeat crap is pure nonsense. McCain is just not going to drop dead...idiots. McCain would be the POTUS, thus he would make the final decision...

You Oblama monkeys keep having to compare your POTUS condidate Oblama with the GOP VP candidate, this shows how weak Obama really is and how he definatly is not ready to RUN even a breezier store on the upper west side...

STOP comparing GOP VP candidate to DEM's PRESIDENTIAL insult your sides experience and capacity to do the job when you do...

posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 09:09 AM
if palin is stupid enough to attack Russia , no problems , Russia will vaporise USA in half an hour and turn USA and Europe into a smoking crater .....

of course, the nuclear retailatory strike on Russia will happen , and around 60-70 million in Russia will survive( ,thanks to the underground cities like Yamantau that can sustain massive nuclear assualts and also thanks to massive civil defence network built during soviet era ....

[edit on 12-9-2008 by manson_322]

posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 09:14 AM
Would someone tell the dittsy brunette (I wonder if she's actually a blonde) about what happened to Napoleon and Hitler when they tried to invade Russia.

posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 09:15 AM
reply to post by marinesniper

Is such an ignorant and rabid attack necessary and could you please tell me how it adds to the discussion?

posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 10:18 AM
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

First of all, the Ukraine is not yet a part of NATO.

Secondly, the topic at hand is the foreign policy of the McCain/Palin platform as discussed through their own words.

What, imo, should be discussed is the potential of their foreign policy stance toward further regional wars in the Caucases and the possibility of that eventually causing an escalation to a wider NATO/Russia war should Georgia and the Ukraine be included.

It should also be discussed why the Ukraine and Georgia are being suggested for membership.

Another item of note is the recent inclusion of Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia in 2004.

What were the purposes behind their inclusion?

These are relevant questions suitable under the new standards that ATS has recently installed.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

2 pennies

SP edit

[edit on 12/9/08 by masqua]

posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 11:05 AM
reply to post by hinky

An islamic terrorist is a person who has totally misentrepeted the quran.No need to be a politician for that.

[edit on 12-9-2008 by gnuers]

posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 11:27 AM
Palin is dumb or crazy

She does not realize these facts

200 ICBM
7 stories underground
Each to carry 10 nuclear warheads
Each destroys a 100-200 mile radius
Pentagon admits
no stopping once launched
(polish missiles here)
In 2 hours there will be no more America.
Clinton Secretary Of Defense visited the site and was "AGHAST

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in