What a grossly dishonest OP statement and poll. Only a truly simple mind or an a blind partisan (which are the same in my book) would interpret her statement as equating to calling for a nuclear attack against Russia.
Only nuclear powers can stand up to other nuclear powers in high stakes military relevant poker games. That's why Russia could invade Ukraine and can not invade our or our bases.
If we put just 100 USA troops in Ukraine's holding-out base in Crimea the entire game changes. If we moved aircraft and missiles into Europe, particularly small anti-air and anti-mechanized missiles - indicating we are preparing to provide those to locals and Eastern Europeans and Ukraine Muslims that also be playing some serious cards. To draw a battleline, Russia has to use Russians. We don't have to us USA troops in response. There are millions of people in that region who don't kill Russians only because they don't have the means to do so. We have piles of that hardware.
Its a big deal for Russians to start attacking American troops, because we both got nukes. Since this is on Russia's border, not ours, their risks of conventional style killing is greater. We both understand what escalation ultimately leads to.
Obama doesn't know how to play poker. Putin does.
This also is why we know that Obama has already agreed to give Putin Crimea in his secret long phone call. Now it will all just be words on top of words - all meaning nothing - until everyone tires of the topic and loses interests.
I do not know that is so unfair about it? I just wrote what the Dutch newspaper said about Palin's speech.
My poll is worded fairly IMHO, how much fairer could I be by asking the polling question:
Is Palin right, should Obama use the threat of nukes to stop Putin
And I cannot put it any fairer than that, it is in fact what nuclear deterrence is according to most.
And Russia can interfere in Crimea because the majority of people on the Crimea is Russian. Ukraine only took possession of it about 70 year ago when it was gifted from one Soviet state to another Soviet state. It then totally ignored the wishes of the people living on the Crimean peninsular. In 1991 the Crimea became an autonomous soviet socialist republic.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union the Crimea already tried to become independent from the Ukraine but later it stayed part of Ukraine but again as an autonomous region (according to wikipedia that status was even expanded).
Then it was Ukraine which interfered in this autonomous region and from about 1993 the name of the Crimea officially changed to "The Autonomous Republic of Crimea". The republic already has it's own parliament, a council of ministers as well as a Supreme council. In 2010, the pro-Russia party of the Crimea won 80 of the 100 seats in it's parliament.
Ukraine may not like it, but Crimea has been moving towards independence for a lot of years. This revolt in Ukraine in which the legal president was deposed may have been the final straw. That of course with the fact that immediately the new revolt leaders banned Crimea from having Russian as a second language.
Another few things, the US invaded Grenada to protect a limited number of students so some Russians could claim the only reasons that Russia got involved was to protect Russians in that region. I am not giving an opinion on that reasoning, that will be decided in the history books of the future.
Also, the world worked hard to give the South Sudanese their own country, helped Bosnia-Herzegovina get free from Yugoslavia/Serbia, did the same for Kosovo and Montenegro and now the people of Crimea might want to be free from Ukraine and we should let them at least be able to speak their minds at the referendum.