Why Sarah Palin is Dangerous for Canada and the Arctic

Look how liberal the Republican Party is being, they've chosen a female running mate for Old Man McCain. How progressive, they're closing the gender gap, and allowing a new governor in her first term, from a low population state, a chance at the big-times. She's a hockey mom with 5 kids. How special. *puke*

Let's take a closer look and read between the lines.

Prior to her first term as Alaska's governor she was a mayor of a small town of only 8,000-9,000 people. Now I'm all for someone who's capable of a job being given a chance, but that's not why she was chosen. She was chosen because the people he wanted were vetoed for being too controversial.

She was also chosen because as a woman and a mom she will appeal to some of Hilary Clinton's more conservative supporters. She appeals to the people because she lives in a small town, she has 5 kids and one is on his way to Iraq. Big deal. Her sex is really a non issue here, the point is she is very right wing on all the traditional Conservative issues she's supposed to be right wing on. She's for guns and hunting, she's opposed to same sex marrige, and she's pro-life and pro oil. (Personally, I find the pro-guns, pro- life thing a little hypocritical don't you think?)

She was also chosen because of the state she represents. I've watched talk of armed conflict over the arctic and oil exploration go from 2 paragraph articles on page 16 of section D to being discussed on national and international news. Although armed conflict has not shown up of front pages, it is being talked about by political scientists, political analysts and opinion writers. Alaska is the United States door to the Arctic. Having the former governor of Alaska in the Whitehouse keeps the Arctic issue at the fore front of America's media. She has no foreign policy experience and we're going to have her influencing the largest "land" claim dispute since the post World War II?! Not wise.

This woman is for aggressive oil exploration on land and in the Arctic seabed, she's for drilling in Alaska's wildlife refuge, she's just signed a deal with Canada to build a a major oil pipeline. Her influence in Alaska is key to pushing hard on the Arctic issue.

The most concerning part about her nomination is how likely should would be to become president. We've seen what happens with someone who has something to prove gets in to office. Is Canada and the Arctic the next Iraq? You'd think a mother with 5 kids would want to preserve the environment so that her children and grandchildren can enjoy it as well. Perhaps she jsut wants to preserve their ability to buy and fuel a shiny new car and buy cheap ipods.

Let's face it here, John McCain is 72, he could die from the flu, let alone heart attacks and other age related issues. To quote a CBC correspondent "she is just one heart beat away from Presidency"

Not only would she be the first female president, she would be a young and inexperienced. She would have to prove herself over and over again, for being a woman, for being young, and for being inexperienced. Canada is only one heart beat away from armed conflict with the United States, one of the most powerful armed forces in the world, for the Arctic seabed and the North West Passage, because a 44 yr old soccer mom from small town Alaska has something to prove the the world.

Obama was correct is saying the United States can be a better country than it has been the last 8 years, but it won't be better the next 4 with a stale old man that has agreed with George W. Bush 90% of the time and an aggressive inexperienced woman with something to prove.

She was brought in to fill a niche not to bring balance to team. She's there to win over Hilary Clinton's supporters and to focus on the Arctic. McCain is using her for what she represents and not for what she can contribute personally to the administration. She must know that, which only means she'll be over compensating even more at every turn. The myth is that bringing a woman in to office will be lessen the likelihood of a war, war is a man's game, right? In this case, I think she's more likely to cause it. Perhaps I give Washington too much credit in believing that they know all of this and plan to use her as a scapegoat. Someone to blame the conflict on and to say that women should not be in office. But know who knows...

A win for the Republicans on November 4, 2008 is dangerous for Canada. We have water and we have oil and America wants them both. With a Democrat win there's perhaps a 50% chance of armed conflict over the Arctic and it's natural resources. With a Republican win I predict a 80% chance of armed conflict over the Arctic.

There's more at stake here than just Canada and the United States. There's more at stake that oil and water and North American trade. They're both G-8 countries, they're both NATO countries, they're both UN members. Any conflict would not be just a North American conflict, it would be a global conflict.

Fortunately, the Republicans have an uphill battle to fight. Despite their status as the incumbent party, Barack Obama's performance at the DNC in Denver leaves the GOP playing catch-up.

You're think right on the mark with every bit of text, Palin seems very dangerous for Canada and the environment. Though I fear the Canadian portion doesn't matter to the bulk of American voters.

Add in the prospect of an aggressive "post-Weimar" Russia, and we have a very dangerous potential future. At least it's Putin and Medvedev, not Zhirinovsky...

Hopefully, this is one that American voters can be convinced of before Super Tuesday.

I'm not worried about armed conflict between Canada and the U.S. (mostly because I've seen Canadian Bacon a couple of times). I am worried about further conflicts between the U.S. and Russia, as Russia has laid claim to vast areas of the Arctic and is showing that it's not afraid to get in our face.

Also, I think Ms. Palin was chosen by oil interests who have discovered just how useful it is to have one of their own in the White House.

Also also, I hope she has no relation to Michael Palin. That would just make me sad.

A good point, commonman. The question isn't about land, but rather shipping lanes and water jurisdiction like starr wrote. If America decides to redraw the lines above the Arctic circle, they will and there's not much Canada can do beyond petition the UN and possibly try to enforce our sovereignty with Coast Guard interception of American ships.

Escalation and escalation. At some point, the US will flex its muscle and we'll roll over. We'll have to, you're the US.

Still, I'd rather a change in the trade regime under Obama/Biden than a potential armed conflict under McCain/Palin.

"She's a hockey mom with 5 kids. How special. *puke*"

Shitty comment, but then again, I'm not sure how seriously I should take someone who believes there's a 50% to 80% chance of Armed conflict between the U.S. and Canada, depending on who gets elected.

I'd pull out the tin foil hat picture, but that seems to bring out the butt hurt in people.

As Canada has an almost laughable military, an "armed conflict" will be less of a war and more of a sandbox theory situation (Sandbox theory = escalation) I use the term armed conflict loosely. I use it in a way that ranges from military bullying and muscle flexing threats right though to bombs and tanks (which does seem really unlikely)

The concern is also less for a bilateral conflict but one between all 5 countries with Arctic claim , and the allies of those countries who have a vested interest. The result of the Arctic "Land Claims" will set a new precedent for natural resource extraction in international waters. We'll be in a "one up" competition with the United States and Russia, and we all know that the US and Russia have a long and dangerous history of political and military pissing contests. And that is a dangerous pissing contest for Canada to be caught in the middle of.

It's not that being a mom isn't something special and admirable, it's that they're using that, rather than political policy or experience to sell her to the American public. It's the PR I have an issue with, not her parental decisions.

Actually I do think its special even if you don't agree with the choice.

Um who is too controversial? Romney would be the obvious and safe choice and Liebermann told McCain to pick who he thought was best for the job not who he was friends with. I think Palin is a much more "controversial" choice.

Actually I think if you re going to say she was picked just for women voters it isn't Hillary supporters she will draw in. Bush in '04 got more Married Women, Women with Children, and Catholic Women then Kerry. McCain is trying to appeal to that group and Palin should help. Also I don't get why people say that being female makes you automatically pro-choice and anti-guns that is a bit hypocritical imho.

Um source please about a growing armed conflict. Also technically if any thing was going to happen in the Artic and Alaska she would still be in charge since she still is the Governor of Alaska and in charge of the state reserves.

She also did that by making a better deal then the former Governor and the Oil companies were not too happy about the deal she signed. This offered a lot of job growth in Alaska and it will be done with environmental standards. Also you should look into the amount of drilling Canada is doing and they are America's number one oil supplier.

Source please on what she "has to prove when in office" and that Canada and the Artic is going to be the next Iraq. She is also for protecting the Environment while also drilling for oil and natural gas in a safe manner. Most nations around the world know how to do this and with out technology advantage along with our strict environmental laws it can be done safely.

She does have executive experience in balancing a budget, fighting corruption and getting things done. Obama is also doesn't have a lot of experience and he is going to lead the nation from day one unlike Palin who most likely will be VP for the next four years. Also I really don't see were you think America and Canada is going to war with each other since they are huge allies and Canada does have a military of their own that is quite good.

McCain has a record of not following party lines and has often been shown to disagree with Bushes management style. I really don't see how McCain is going to be the same as bush but it is a good attack line that doesn't seem to be working.

Like I said earlier the female group McCain is hoping to win isn't Hillary Supporters and she will contribute to a McCain administration. I also haven't heard any one talk about having Palin on the ticket means there will be no more Wars even though it is very unlikely America will enter in another war since we are pretty broke as it is. Also source people for her being a scapegoat and that Washington really wants to attack Canada.

And source that America is planning on fighting one of her closes Allies along with the UN and NATO seeing how both Obama and McCain support NATO and the UN. America has Oil that we wont drill and water so its near imposable that we are going to invade Canada of all places.

You're not going to touch us. You're nowhere near that stupid. Invading Canada would be one of the worst moves you could ever make.

By the way, the "laughable" Canadian military has been working hard in Afghanistan trying to keep things in line. You guys have been blowing up children...

I could be wrong but I think she's laughing at someone who says there is a 80% chance the US will invade Canada. There is actually no chance this will happen regardless which party wins.

I'm just a little put off by the "laughable" comment she made.

Laughable military is in comparison to the military muscle of the United States, not in what they're doing!

and, I'm NOT saying the US will invade Canada...armed conflict does not have to mean all out war. I'm saying that there will be an long and on going escalation in the ways that countries are trying to prove claim on the Arctic.

The real point is being lost here.

Short Story : A oil monger from the US's only claim to the Arctic won't be good for Canada. Plain and simple. Theyr'e alreay trying to change the borders withing the 200km maritime mark, with no justification.

The Arctic is one of the global environment's canary's and it's singing it's swan song. Intensive shipping and oil exploration will strangle the canary to death. And the repercussions will felt globally.

We just have better priorities than you do. I'd be willing to be that if we spent an equal amount on our military we'd probably give you a damn good run for your money.

I think the US has bigger priorities right now. Besides, if they want oil from Canada they'll just trade for it. God knows we ship enough shit south anyway.

I can't argue with that at all.

That said, the Republican party worries me, as a Canadian, for bigger reasons than their continuing rape of then environment. They're leaning heavily on the Canadian government to push their social agenda as well.

The entire idea that there's going to be escalation and armed conflict is ridiculous. It's alarmist anti-U.S. bullshit.

Actual military conflict between countries in the arctic is unlikely, in the sense of actual, real war and stuff. But if Canada deployed a large enough coast guard it could keep bringing vessles in, and sending them back. Do it enough and it isn't worth any other countries while to dispute us.

If Canada really wants the North and the possibility of trade routes and resources, we should just start developing it.

I know you didn't. I just happened to post the second comment after you did. That comment wasn't directed at you.

And I know you don't sit around plotting to blow up children. The whole Afghanistan thing is a little bit of a sore spot sometimes as your government really led the charge and then kind of fucked off to do other things.

Our military has been doing its best to keep things in line and I don't think they get as much credit in the international community as they rightfully deserve.

You might want to do some digging at our military's training, and how well we do our job.

IF (big if at that) they decided to invade, they can't use most of the tech that have.

What? Drop a small tactical nuke on Ottawa, or Toronto? Good plan, not only does that piss off the entire country, but you've just infected the water you wanted with radiation.

Run through the many First nations reserves we have across the border? Great plan there too, they aren't to happy with people taking their land, let alone driving a Abrahms tank over it either.

Muscle isn't in the size alone of your military, it's not the cost either, it's the will power behind it.

Put it short, they aren't going to invade, at the most (again big IF), I could see a majority Conservative government try and "vote" us to join up.

I know there are still American troops in Afghanistan. But there should be more. They shouldn't have been moved to Iraq. Or if they were moved to Iraq they shouldn't have been moved until AFTER their job was done in Afghanistan. Which is isn't. You should have finished the fight there before starting a new one.

It's not just the media. Your country and your military are preoccupied with Iraq.

If by "armed conflict", you mean the Red Wings kicking the Maple Leafs' asses, then you are 100% correct. If you mean anything else, you're freaking loony.