If you accept the premise of admitting Georgia and Ukraine into NATO, then you have to accept that under the mutual-defense treaty, you MAY have to defend them.
Now who else do we know that supports expanding NATO?
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm....... |
| |
Written By:
shark
URL:
http://
|
NATO is a treaty organization, if one state is attacked, the NATO treaty requires others to come to their defense. I saw nothing wrong with her correct answer, war may be the last option. This is precisely why these countries were trying to get into NATO, and why the NATO countries, who are now sucking on the forbidden fruit, Russian oil, did not want that to happen — They may have to confront Russia militarily.
America stands for freedom, the EU stands for themselves.
She did good. |
| |
Written By:
bill-tb
URL:
http://
|
As anyone who tries to present themselves as a military or foreign-policy expert should know, Georgia is not currently a NATO member and thus we have no obligation whatsoever to them under Article Five of the NATO treaty. Furthermore, a mutual defense pact is not usually interpreted as requiring support for a member’s actions as an aggressor, and all arguments about provocation aside it was Georgia who started the shooting in this case. If Russia were to invade Georgia under circumstances that could be considered something other than a reaction to Georgian aggression, the UN charter might require intervention, but the only way NATO would be involved would be if the UN delegated some role to them.
If and when Georgia becomes a NATO member, we can have this discussion again and perhaps reach different conclusions. |
| |
Written By:
Jeff Darcy
URL:
http://pl.atyp.us
|
|
Is Josh Marshall retarded ? Perhaps so. |
| |
Written By:
Neo
URL:
http://
|
it was Georgia who started the shooting in this case This has yet to be proven. The OSCE has this under study. |
| |
Written By:
Neo
URL:
http://
|
... it was Georgia who started the shooting in this case First of all, that’s not correct, and secondly, South Ossetia was, and still is, recognized internationally as part of Georgia. IOW, Georgia could no more invade itself than the US can invade ... er, Georgia.If and when Georgia becomes a NATO member, we can have this discussion again and perhaps reach different conclusions. I think that was the point of Palin’s answer.
|
| |
Written By:
MichaelW
URL:
http://qando.net
|
If you accept the premise of admitting Georgia and Ukraine into NATO, then you have to accept that under the mutual-defense treaty, you MAY have to defend them. That’s the important part. If and when Georgia becomes a NATO member, we can have this discussion again and perhaps reach different conclusions. We should have the discussion of whether Georgia is worth defending from Russia before we commit to defending it. And that was the point of Gibson’s question: you support Georgia’s accession to NATO? So that means you support war w/ Russia if there’s another invasion? |
| |
Written By:
jpe
URL:
http://
|
And that was the point of Gibson’s question: you support Georgia’s accession to NATO? So that means you support war w/ Russia if there’s another invasion? That’s a real game of chess, now isn’t it. Did Russia invade Georgia now in order to prevent its inclusion in NATO (as well as that of Ukraine)? Or was Russia trying to send a signal that NATO’s all washed up before any decision as to defense had to be made?
If the latter, then doesn’t it make sense that Russia really was trying to get inside the heads of NATO countries in order to force them to hesitate and doubt their own willingness and ability to come to the aid of state like Georgia? In that case, Russia almost certainly doesn’t attack a NATO ally, simply because it can’t afford to lose such a battle. Georgia is relatively meaningless to NATO, but it’s not worth a whole heck of lot to Russia either, other than in what it represents.
If, instead, it was the former reason, then we have real troubles. It could be the case that the same thinking applies as above and that, ultimately, Russia wouldn’t dare attack a NATO ally. But, if instead Russia was probing NATO’s weakness in order to gauge how the allies will react to other threats, then we have serious problems.
My guess is that Russia is nowhere near ready enough militarily to deal with a face-to-face war, such as the sort that NATO alliances promise. Russia gets more more mileage out of the propaganda game, manipulating the threats while holding its cards close to its vest. If so, then Georgia was a calculated move to see how NATO responds to places like Ukraine. If NATO falters, then Russia will move in. Otherwise, it will sit back and bide its time. IMHO, of course. |
| |
Written By:
MichaelW
URL:
http://qando.net
|
I understand that Obama supports the admission of Georgia and Ukraine into NATO .."Ukraine and Georgia have also been developing their ties with NATO. Their leaders have declared their readiness to advance a NATO Membership Action Plan, MAP, to prepare for the rights and obligations of membership. They are working to consolidate democratic reforms and to undertake new responsibilities in their relationship with the Alliance. I welcome the desire and actions of these countries to seek closer ties with NATO and hope that NATO responds favorably to their request, consistent with its criteria for membership. Whether Ukraine and Georgia ultimately join NATO will be a decision for the members of the alliance and the citizens of those countries, after a period of open and democratic debate. But they should receive our help and encouragement as they continue to develop ties to Atlantic and European institutions. Does this mean that Obama wants war with Russia too ? |
| |
Written By:
Neo
URL:
http://
|
|
Of course, Obama doesn’t want war with Russia .. and neither does McCain or Palin. |
| |
Written By:
Neo
URL:
http://
|
Does this mean that Obama wants war with Russia too ? Obama’s position seemed pretty incrementalist to me and he clearly isn’t committing to anything, whereas McCain & Palin are ready to send out the invitations. And ready to war w/ Russia in the event of another attack.
This latter scenario may be good policy, or may be bad policy (and Michael’s blocking out of the chess moves demonstrates the depth of analysis that should be done), but it’s certainly something that’s a legitimate subject for questions from interviewers. |
| |
Written By:
jpe
URL:
http://
|
"NATO enlargement is not directed against Russia. Russia has an important role to play in European and global affairs and should see NATO as a partner, not as a threat. But we should oppose any efforts by the Russian government to intimidate its neighbors or control their foreign policies. Russia cannot have a veto over which countries join the alliance. Since the end of the Cold War, Republican and Democratic administrations have supported the independence and sovereignty of all the states of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, and we must continue to do so. President Putin recent threat to point missiles at Ukraine is simply not the way to promote the peaceful 21st century Europe we seek. |
| |
Written By:
Neo
URL:
http://
|
As anyone who tries to present themselves as a military or foreign-policy expert should know, Georgia is not currently a NATO member and thus we have no obligation whatsoever to them under Article Five of the NATO treaty. And no one said it was a NATO member. The question that was asked is would she like to see Georgia as a member of NATO and if so might that not mean we’d have to go to war with Russia if it attacked Georgia. The answer she gave was dead on.
|
| |
Written By:
McQ
URL:
http://www.QandO.net
|
Obama’s position seemed pretty incrementalist to me and he clearly isn’t committing to anything, whereas McCain & Palin are ready to send out the invitations. And ready to war w/ Russia in the event of another attack. Which, of course, is why Palin said "war has got to be the last option", right? |
| |
Written By:
McQ
URL:
http://www.QandO.net
|
Man - where to begin with Sarah.
The best part of the interview was when she schooled Gibson on recent history: We cannot repeat the Cold War. We are thankful that, under Reagan, we won the Cold War, without a shot fired, also. We’ve learned lessons from that in our relationship with Russia, previously the Soviet Union. Charlie was of course floored. Who knew that Russia had something to do with the Soviet Union? Sarah has obviously been studying. After all, no one with half a brain would have known that Russia had anything to do with the Soviet Union.
Of course, Russia was not previously the Soviet Union, just as Serbia was not previously Yugoslavia. Sarah is kind of dumb that way, isn’t she?
But more to the point, to claim that no shots were fired during the Cold War is perhaps the most insulting statement she could have made. Tell that to the vets from Korea and Vietnam, Sarah. I guess those little skirmishes had nothing to do with the fight to defeat communism and the effort to limit Soviet influence.
Shame on you Sarah Palin. Shame on you. |
| |
Written By:
mkultra
URL:
http://
|
I guess those little skirmishes had nothing to do with the fight to defeat communism... Hey MK, you realized you just legitimized the war in Iraq? |
| |
Written By:
bains
URL:
http://
|
The War thing and the Bush Doctrine question was meant to make her look like a war monger.
We’ve seen the pictures of the bear in her office and heard the stories of the Moose. We know about her son and the sort of pride she has about that. They are trying to take that and twist it into the idea she’s some psycho killer.
They are trying to scare women that Palin would get into ’holy wars’ and such and even end up getting their kids drafted.
That she stumbled slightly on the ’Bush Doctrine’ question actually undermined the meme they are trying to form as well as trying to link Bush to her. So that probably turned out for the better actually. |
| |
Written By:
jpm100
URL:
http://
|
Which, of course, is why Palin said "war has got to be the last option", right? By joining NATO, we contractually give away our ability to consider options. If Russia attacks, we have to defend. It’s as simple as that. |
| |
Written By:
jpe
URL:
http://
|
The War thing and the Bush Doctrine question was meant to make her look like a war monger. The Bush Doctrine question was supposed to make her look stupid, I think. |
| |
Written By:
jpe
URL:
http://
|
There was no good answer for that question.
If she acknowledged it promptly, she would have either had to embrace it or reject it in response the the logical followup. The way it was worded, embracing it, ties her closely to Bush’s military policies. The left would have had a field day with those remarks and likely against what the McCain camp had been coaching her on for the past two weeks. Rejecting it is contrary to McCain’s and her position. Either answer would have made a nice little soundbite.
He ’lack of knowledge’ or her ’looking stupid’ may have been a hesitation in answering a no win question.
If the question was worded as "Doctrine of Pre-emption", sans the ’Bush’ tag, we may have gotten a different response. |
| |
Written By:
jpm100
URL:
http://
|
|
This poll should make them stop laughing. |
| |
Written By:
Neo
URL:
http://
|
MK, you’re really slipping.
There was a time when your attempts at trolling weren’t so pathetic.
Now all you can say is "shame"
LMFAO |
| |
Written By:
shark
URL:
http://
|
NATO should admit Georgia. If NATO is a mutual defense pact that serves as a deterrant to Russian (or other) agression, what is the point in being hesitant with countries that were subjected to agression? If NATO is not going to admit countries that may actually need defending, what’s the freaking point of having it? It undermines the organization’s purpose and makes it look weak. Russia does not want war any more than we do. We should admit Georgia, send a message back, and put the ball in their court. They would not make a stupid move. Besides, they should be more concerned about all that real estate in their southeast.
Is this just too aggressive? Someone who lived through the Cold War explain this to me.
|
| |
Written By:
Is
URL:
http://
|
Which attitude is more likely to deter aggression:
1. Any aggression will be met with calls for the UN to investigate; for a summit involving the warring powers; for restraint on the part of the aggressor; and requests that civilians be spared, or;
2. Any aggression will result in the United States honoring not only our treaty commitment but also our commitment to upholding the cause of freedom by using military force to assist the victim of aggression?
It would be interesting to see somebody ask The Annointed One what he’d do if Russia attacked a NATO member, which is the ostensible point of Gibson’s question. |
| |
Written By:
docjim505
URL:
http://
|
"If NATO is not going to admit countries that may actually need defending, what’s the freaking point of having it?"
Could it be that our membership in NATO is supposed to further our own interests? Perhaps you are altruistic enough to sacrifice your life for some other country’s freedom. Good on ya, mate. I am a little too selfish. If I am going to risk my life, or the life of my friends and family, there had better be something in it for us besides a warm, fuzzy feeling that we are nice guys.
"They would not make a stupid move"
Famous last words. History is full of stupid moves. |
| |
Written By:
timactual
URL:
http://
|
"They would not make a stupid move"
Famous last words. History is full of stupid moves. Good point. |
| |
Written By:
Is
URL:
http://
|
