Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: piytar

fair, I pointed out nafta, and thus invoked US interpretation of treaties.

1) I don’t (and you don’t seem to either) know what the legal nature of the agreement between ukraine and russia is on the crimean port. Do you have hard data on this agreement? I don’t.

2) no pending case exists in the US on this issue. None will, I confidently predict lol.

3) If this is a legal measure by Ukraine under their existing agreement with russia, it is less likely to be over-turned by the Ukrainian govt in some fashion than if it is ‘ink on a page’ type of technicality.

We return to point 1, since neither you nor I have been able to state what the respective parties actually agreed to with the port in question.


43 posted on 08/17/2008 2:49:03 AM PDT by WoofDog123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies ]


To: WoofDog123

Yup, that does pretty much some it up. Nice little discussion there, btw. Good back and forth, but no rancor or profanity. Kind of thing found here but not on the nutroots, eh?


44 posted on 08/17/2008 7:41:24 AM PDT by piytar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies ]

To: WoofDog123

The mere fact that Russia attacked Georgia should be sufficient to negate that treaty in whole in any world court and certainly in the court of public opinion.


51 posted on 08/17/2008 9:12:39 AM PDT by Camel Joe (liberal=socialist=royalist/imperialist pawn=enemy of Freedom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson