Posted on 04/25/2022 5:34:42 PM PDT by Ultra Sonic 007
Everyone wishes to argue "Article 5" of the NATO treaty, which is the mutual-defense pact. You get attacked and we all get attacked.
Ok.
What does Article I say?
The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.
Shipping arms into an area where armed conflict is either occurring or threatening to occur, where the destination is NOT a NATO member and thus is NOT subject to NATO's mutual defense obligations is a clear violation of Article I. It is escalatory, it is a threat to use force or enables the actual use of force, and thus is a clear violation of Article I.
How about Article 8?
Each Party declares that none of the international engagements now in force between it and any other of the Parties or any third State is in conflict with the provisions of this Treaty, and undertakes not to enter into any international engagement in conflict with this Treaty.
Providing arms to a belligerent not a member of NATO violates this provision in that it can cause a mutual defense obligation to arise that would otherwise not. Therefore NATO members are obligated to stay out of non-member conflicts except with the unanimous consent of all members.
Intervening in a non-member's conflict, in short, by other than unanimous consent is a violation of the treaty.
How about Article 11?
This Treaty shall be ratified and its provisions carried out by the Parties in accordance with their respective constitutional processes. The instruments of ratification shall be deposited as soon as possible with the Government of the United States of America, which will notify all the other signatories of each deposit. The Treaty shall enter into force between the States which have ratified it as soon as the ratifications of the majority of the signatories, including the ratifications of Belgium, Canada, France, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and the United States, have been deposited and shall come into effect with respect to other States on the date of the deposit of their ratifications. (3)
For the United States to engage in the elements of a proxy war, which it did at Maidan and now through the provision of arms without a declaration of said war by Congress is a direct violation of the US Constitution and thus a violation of the treaty.
Fraud vitiates all agreements.
Therefore no nation is obligated under any other provision of the NATO Treaty and each and every nation at this time that has in any way violated the above provisions, which includes the United States, is not entitled under its provisions to anything, including mutual defense under Article 5.
Agreements stand and fall on the integrity of the parties so-involved, and when repeated, blatant and outrageous violations of same, with intent and to disadvantage others take place that has a name in both law and common practice.
FRAUD.
Fraud vitiates all agreements, whether in handshake, contract, treaty or otherwise.
Go ahead and try to change my mind.
Yeah you convinced me NATO has been canceled ty so much for bringing this to our attention.
Trump was right about NATO . It should be disbanded pronto . But it won’t be .
But Russia is not allowed to have "red lines" on Ukraine joining NATO - right on Russia's doorstep.
There is no hypocrite like a neocon globalist hypocrite...
Have the members of NATO behaved fraudulently with regards to its terms as written?
And if so, why should said members keep pretending it’s anything more than a means for America to exert influence over Europe, and a means for Europe to let America’s military underwrite its generous social welfare programs?
The treaty doesn't say anything about "escalatory." It just says the parties will endeavor to act in accordance with the purpose of the UN charter, which is peace. The UN authorized "escalation" in Korea, did it not? So obviously sometimes escalation can be in accordance with the UN charter.
Following that precedent, the UN should authorize the use of force against Russia for waging aggressive war (aiming at annexation) in Europe, a crime for which men were hanged at Nuremberg.
Can't change the mind of someone who can't read. Nothing in the above articles precludes shipping arms or "proxy" wars.
We’ll get what we take (by hearts and minds, not bullets and such.
Oh hell, I forgot to close quotes. Am I supposed to close quotes before the period or after the period? Or am I a complete, hopeless humanoid.
I remember this guy. He’s a flake and a conspiracy theorist. He is with the Tea Party, yet at the same time is with Occupy Wall Street; the two are polar opposites. His blog is simply a venue to hawk his and his daughter’s programs. He is what the Comanches would have called a “trickster,” who appears as one thing, but is actually another; who will seem initially to make sense, but then it’s all an act because he goes off the rails into wild conspiracies. He is the poster child for the term “useful idiot.”
Parenthesis, not quotes. This communication thing is almost impossible, even though I have been a professional communicator.
Someday you’ll learn a very hard lesson about remembering which team you’re playing on.
I’m on the American team and all those who want to tell me America is no better than Russia or China, are not on my team.
That's precisely the point: what "escalation" has the UN or NATO authorized with regards to arms shipments to Ukraine? To repeat:
Therefore NATO members are obligated to stay out of non-member conflicts except with the unanimous consent of all members.
Does unanimous consent exist? Has it been established?
And has the use of force in the Russia-Ukraine been authorized in the manner called for by America's constitutional processes?
The point is that such processes haven't been followed. We're just blithely shipping arms willy-nilly, much like how France and Germany did after Russia annexed Crimea.
It all rings so hollow.
Actually, it was Australia that said that and, yeah, they’re right next door.
When asked to join the sanctions against Russia, India told the US, “Friends don’t draw red lines”.
You are quite the Biden guy cheerleading for the Biden globalist team. They are pure evil. You are also a sanctimonious jerk. Biden is throwing all kinds of money over there and wrecking this country. I want no part of any team you are on. Give us another “B.”
The Australian PM spoke as though it wasn't just theirs: "Working together with our partners in New Zealand and of course the United States, I share the same red line that the United States has when it comes to these issues," Morrison said over the weekend. "We won't be having Chinese military naval bases in our region on our doorstep."
Show me you know nothing about the author without telling me you know nothing about him.
If there was ever a time where he ever 'hawked' any programs of his or his daughter's, it's been literally years. I certainly can't recall such within recent memory.
It's all so boringly predictable.
If you want the author's own opinions on Putin, you could just read his own words: Meh. Putin is a dirtbag and I've said it for more than a decade, including on his own TV network. Just because one side of a conflict is a dirtbag does not make the other an Angel. In fact it is often true that BOTH sides are dirtbags.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.