The NATO treaty calls for other members to "assist" the one that has been attacked, and it is expressly understood by NATO that that assistance need not be in the form of military force.

<link>

Isn't that beside the point? In the course of her first interview, Palin suggested going to war war with both Russia and Iran. We need her in the Washington like we need another hole in our head!

What does "assist" usually mean when talking about a person or country being attacked? If you bothered to read the link you posted, you might realize it is undermining your very point. Generally, if you assist/help a nation when it is involved in a war, you are considered an ally of it. Allies have the same enemies. Kaplan and Gibson have it right. You are out to lunch -- as is Pail'n, who is saying that we should get into a war with Russia over Ukraine and/or Georgia. Anyone for a war with Russia is clearly either dangeroulsy ignorant or a psychopathic war monger.

I'm not really sure why the ignorant feel so compelled to try to defend Sarah Palin's ignorance. Is it an orchestrated blogging campaign, or merely empathy for a fellow sufferer?

In any event, the WHOLE point of the NATO treaty is, and has always been, to compel each member to come to the defense of any other membert if attacked, by deeming an attack upon one as an attach upon all. More specifically, the NATO treaty was intended to obligate the U.S. to protect and defend Westerm Europe from a Soviet invasion. It was that obligation which prompted the Cold War, and it was the protection of the American nuclear umbrella that deterred the Soviets from further incursions into Europe for nearly 50 years.

The question now is whether those SAME guarantees and that SAME nuclear umbrella should be extended to a tiny country that not only borders Russia, but that until 1992 was actually part of Russia. If so, then we would have to be willing to enegage in a nuclear war with Russia to defend it. Are you willing to see your children die, your city destroyed, the American economy laid waste in order to keep the Russians from returning to Tbilisi, where they ruled for nearly 200 years? (Do you even know where Tbilisi is?) THAT is what Sarah Palin is suggesting, and the American people need to understand it.

For those of those of you interested in facts, elow is what the NATO treaty actually says:

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.

Yes, but we're dealing with people who look for excuses to go to war, not ways to avoid it.

so.... it is not quite a promise to go to war: "such action as it deems necessary."

am not debating here, but trying to understand.

If Georgia is a NATO member, then we as members, are obligated to help them! It sounds like every one here is on the appeasement plan.

Oh Russia, once owned them, they want them back, lets let them have it, they are most likely right.

What the heck, France, England and Portugal once owned America, GIVE IT BACK!

Actually, Portugal never had a colony in North America. Brazil was the Portugese colony, but hey, facts don't seem to matter. Let's put you in charge!

To Considerate, The treaty language is deliberately ambiguous. On the one hand it says that an attack against a member country would be treated just like an attack against the U.S. On the other hand, it gives each country some wiggle room by saying that the responding state will provide only "such action as it deems necessary." This ambiguity bothered some Europeans in the 50's and 60's who were uncertain that the U.S. would actually risk a nuclear exchange to defend them. Although the treaty language was never amended, assurances that the U.S. would indeed trade Washington for Moscow if the Soviets ever attacked were provided in a wide variety of ways, including the stationing of U.S. troops on the front lines in Germany as a form of "human tripwire." Without those assurances, NATO would have beeen meaningless, and we would never have won the Cold War. If Georgia became a member of NATO and Russia then attacked it we would only have two choices: (1) defend it militarily, which could easily escalate into nuclear war or (2) not defend it and cause the other allies to lose confidence in our commitment to their security, which would effectively destroy NATO. Neither of these options is good, and neither is necessary. This discussion really isn't necessary either, because the Europeans will never agree to let Georgia join NATO. (We don't get to decide who joins all by ourselves). No doubt that is why McCain and Palin feel comfortable rattling this particular sabre - it will never be unsheathed, so to speak.

Sorry, incorrect me, I am stupid, you are smart, then again i did not apply for the pres or vp.

I was speaking of Chris Columbus, possibly of Portuguese decent, but funded by Spain, give it back to SPAIN.

thanks for the fact check.

Didn't we fight for our independence from England and France? Yeah, I think I remember something about that. So as far as giving it back, give me a break - come up with a better argument!

That's my point. Georgia gained their independence from Russia. If they where members of NATO, it would be our duty to help them if they were attacked by Russia. Palin was right, we might have to fight with Russia, if they attacked a NATO friend.

Textvol, that was a great response. thanks.