Thread: Is Palin looking for World War 3?

Originally Posted by International Underwriter

FORT WAINWRIGHT, Alaska - Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin left open the option Thursday of waging war with Russia if it were to invade neighboring Georgia and the former Soviet republic were a NATO ally.

We will not repeat a Cold War," Palin said in her first television interview since becoming Republican John McCain's vice presidential running mate two weeks ago.

Palin told Charles Gibson of ABC News that she'd favor including Georgia and Ukraine, both former Soviet republics, in NATO despite opposition by Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin. Asked whether the United States would have to go to war with Russia if it invaded Georgia, and the country was part of NATO, Palin said: "Perhaps so.".............more

Palin leaves open option of war with Russia - Yahoo! News

War with Russia? Perhaps so?

"We will not repeat a cold war"

That is some pretty scary stuff. Admitting Georgia into NATO could in itself be taken as a declaration of war by an already onery Russian gov't.

I would say she is naive, but maybe she is just parroting McCain's position. Enjoy life now.

I just saw the interview. Sheep seems like a deer in the headlights. What an incredibly stupid thing for her to say.

Originally Posted by Think for myself

I just saw the interview. Sheep seems like a deer in the headlights. What an incredibly stupid thing for her to say.

Shades of Bush.

"Bring it on."

Remember?

Maybe it's a Republican thing....

And um... I'm "pretty" sure they always end up regretting having said it.

Very good. Peace is made in three possible ways.

1. lack of hostility (most desirable)
2. victory
3. deterrence (least desirable)

If even one party in a group of nations exhibits hostility, then the first option may be discarded, and one of the other two will likely come into play.

In most cases victory by one side or the other will produce eventual and possibly stable peace.

The third option can produce an unstable peace if a credible threat can be made by the less aggressive party.

Please not that "wishful thinking," "pretty words," and "unilateral disarmament," do not appear on the list.

Originally Posted by Oftencold

Very good. Peace is made in three possible ways.

1. lack of hostility (most desirable)
2. victory
3. deterrence (least desirable)

If even one party in a group of nations exhibits hostility, then the first option may be discarded, and one of the other two will likely come into play.

In most cases victory by one side or the other will produce eventual and possibly stable peace.

The third option can produce an unstable peace if a credible threat can be made by the less aggressive party.

Please not that "wishful thinking," "pretty words," and "unilateral disarmament," do not appear on the list.

Would you have preferred "victory" over "deterrence" (which was what we had) during the Cold War?

Originally Posted by Oftencold

Very good. Peace is made in three possible ways.

1. lack of hostility (most desirable)
2. victory
3. deterrence (least desirable)

If even one party in a group of nations exhibits hostility, then the first option may be discarded, and one of the other two will likely come into play.

In most cases victory by one side or the other will produce eventual and possibly stable peace.

The third option can produce an unstable peace if a credible threat can be made by the less aggressive party.

Please not that "wishful thinking," "pretty words," and "unilateral disarmament," do not appear on the list.

I think you've got those backwards. Option number 1, is an unstable equilibrium. It tends to degenerate if left on its own.

Option number three is actually the MOST desirable. It dovetails with human nature, and it leads to the STABLE equilibrium called "mutually assured destruction", in which both parties are constrained from acting.

Option number TWO, is the most expensive. It results in the consumption of natural resources.

Originally Posted by Davocrat

Would you have preferred "victory" over "deterrence" (which was what we had) during the Cold War?

All things being equal, then probably so. You mat think that monstrous, so I will explain.

I accept the premise that war delayed is usually war enlarged. As we see from current events, we might still go to war with Russia, and it might well be worse that would have been the case had we fought them at the end of WWII.

Wars should also be fought to the point of uncontested victory. If that had been done in WWI, there well may have been no WWII at all.

The first option I listed is of course vastly preferable to either of the others.

Originally Posted by International Underwriter

War with Russia? Perhaps so?

You generally don't exclude options in diplomacy.

"We will not repeat a cold war"

You also assume as much advantage as possible, Obama had to learn that
when he made his comments about meeting with enemies "without prior
conditions".

If Geogia is in NATO, then we would all have a responsability to ensure they are safe from the tyranny of the Russians. That includes all the NATO countries, not just USA - that's exactly what NATO ensures. That's why big countries are not simply stomping all over the little ones. It's not because of the "hey, let's all get along and have a hug" mentality, it's because there is strength in numbers.

She is not even close to saying "invade Russia".

Originally Posted by nonsqtr

I think you've got those backwards. Option number 1, is an unstable equilibrium. It tends to degenerate if left on its own.

Option number three is actually the MOST desirable. It dovetails with human nature, and it leads to the STABLE equilibrium called "mutually assured destruction", in which both parties are constrained from acting.

Option number TWO, is the most expensive. It results in the consumption of natural resources.

Option one is quite stable. For instance, we've been arguing and having trade disputes with Canada for two centuries. We also have amity and a shared heritage. We don't send armies to settle disputes with them.

Option two probably incurs the greatest expense, but provides the most stable peace, if we are talking about total victory. After Rome sowed salt on the former location of Carthage, eternal peace with that nation was attained.

On the topic of MAD. It is stable until the conditions change-- which both sides will try to achieve. Thus weapons research, and anti-weapons research thrive in a culture of espionage, deceit and sabotage.

Originally Posted by bla bla

You generally don't exclude options in diplomacy.



You also assume as much advantage as possible, Obama had to learn that
when he made his comments about meeting with enemies "without prior
conditions".

Diplomacy? Her statement about the cold war sounds more like instigation or provocation. And even if you or I didn't think so, I bet the russians will see it a different way.

Enemies? I thought Bush said Russia was our friend - Bush says Russia is friend, not foe: paper | Reuters