Posted on 03/05/2022 6:28:01 PM PST by Kevmo
I see you are attempting to use the time-honored internet tactic of just plain being long winded, repetitive, and endless.
Hence, I will separate your statements into 2 distinct cases.
Case 1 will be URHJ2TULWRN: You Are Here Just To Troll Using Long Winded, repetetive Nitpicking.
Case 2 will be CYADTIAH: Congratulations You are Actually Discussing The Issues At Hand.
We shall see which one is more prevalent.
You DO have a lot of case 1 bullsnot posts.
“now you can find ways to separate yourself from the crowd of rioters that surround you.”
-You’ve linked posts made by *two* separate people (wildcard_redneck and WMarshal)...from two different threads. That qualifies as a “crowd of rioters” in your eyes? Are you for real?
***Case 1 URHJ2TULWRN: You Are Here Just To Troll Using Long Winded, Repetetive Nitpicking.
“You can speak to others just by responding to those posts sent your way. Simple as that.”
- But they haven’t responded to me. At all. I haven’t posted *at* them, either. Are you sure you’re not mixing me up with someone else?
***Case 1 URHJ2TULWRN: You Are Here Just To Troll Using Long Winded, Repetetive Nitpicking.
“You just don’t WANT to because you don’t MIND that they’re being jerks.”
- Why would I insert myself into whatever feud you have with those other two? I literally have no reason to do so. (Also, a cursory look at those other threads kind shows that you’re all kind of being jerk-ish to each other, but overall it’s INCREDIBLY mild compared to FR’s heyday during the 2000s. I honestly don’t know how that qualifies as harassment in your eyes, but who am I to judge?)
***Case 1 URHJ2TULWRN: You Are Here Just To Troll Using Long Winded, Repetetive Nitpicking.
“Yes I am, and you were operating on one side. You quoted me about sides. If it’s so important for you to ignore then ignore it.”
- ...you’re clearly the one being obsessive about it. I keep telling you that I only speak for myself, yet you’re insisting otherwise.
***Case 1 URHJ2TULWRN: You Are Here Just To Troll Using Long Winded, Repetetive Nitpicking.
“Just as I predicted. I doubted you’d do it, and here you are, not doing it. But somehow you want me to listen to your justification or somesuch yammering.”
- How is saying that I’m only responsible for my own posts (when I’ve not been a part of whatever ongoing feud you have with other Freepers) ‘justifying’ the behavior of others? What’s with the collectivist mentality?
***Case 1 URHJ2TULWRN: You Are Here Just To Troll Using Long Winded, Repetetive Nitpicking.
“You didn’t like that I brought up “sides”, you coulda just left it at that. But you didn’t. So you kinda had to comment on it, therefore it is commentable.”
- And you’re taking it way out of proportion.
***Case 1 URHJ2TULWRN: You Are Here Just To Troll Using Long Winded, Repetetive Nitpicking.
“Yup, that’s how you’re rolling. Justification. Not your problem, etc. What’s sauce for the goose aint necessarily sauce for you because you don’t care or whatever your justification is. Got it.”
- What are you trying to get at? You seem to be implying a sort of mutual coordination or interaction on my part with other Freepers simply because of an incidental position regarding an ongoing geopolitical conflict; not only is such coordination with “my side” (as you keep calling it) utterly absent, it’s pure *fiction*.
***Case 1 URHJ2TULWRN: You Are Here Just To Troll Using Long Winded, Repetetive Nitpicking.
“You inserted yourself.”
-By commenting on your tone in this *one* particular thread? Seriously?
***Case 1 URHJ2TULWRN: You Are Here Just To Troll Using Long Winded, Repetetive Nitpicking.
“You don’t like the heat, stay out of the kitchen. I didn’t ask if YOUR mom was a whore, did I? But that didn’t stop you from commenting on my quote of the “be nice” video, did it?”
- Believe it or not, I can comment regarding a point you made that seemed hypocritical without further consideration of whatever “sides” you seem to have a beef with (because seriously, asking if a Freeper’s mother is a whore is uncalled for, don’t you think?). That you seem to have taken it to such a deep level is rather bizarre, but again: my remark was utterly unconnected with whatever feud(s) you have ongoing (especially with regards to threads and/or Freepers I’ve had no interaction with). Period.
***Case 1 URHJ2TULWRN: You Are Here Just To Troll Using Long Winded, Repetetive Nitpicking.
“Your nitpicking is becoming a form of harassment.”
- ????
***Case 1 URHJ2TULWRN: You Are Here Just To Troll Using Long Winded, Repetetive Nitpicking.
This is your threshold for what constitutes “harassment”? Seriously?
***Case 1 URHJ2TULWRN: You Are Here Just To Troll Using Long Winded, Repetetive Nitpicking.
“I posted to you several times what “your side” was up to. that’s how.”
- And I have nothing to do with them. Just because you assert I’m part of a “cohort” does not make it so.
***Case 1 URHJ2TULWRN: You Are Here Just To Troll Using Long Winded, Repetetive Nitpicking.
“Yes you are.”
- Your assertion does not make it so.
***Case 1 URHJ2TULWRN: You Are Here Just To Troll Using Long Winded, Repetetive Nitpicking.
“You can’t pretend you’re unaware of it any more.”
- And what would you like me to do? I’ve not interacted with them, they’ve not interacted with me. Whatever beef you have with wildcard_redneck and WMarshal is between you three; but to be honest, what you call “harassment” and “trolling” would have been deemed just a somewhat impassioned debate back in the 2000s. You’re basically asking me to intervene in a “conflict” I literally have no part in, and have no *desire* to get involved with; that you seem to be under the impression I have anything to do with them is your problem, not mine.
***Case 1 URHJ2TULWRN: You Are Here Just To Troll Using Long Winded, Repetetive Nitpicking.
“You started commenting on my treatment of other posters on this thread. That goes directly against what you just said. MYOB.”
- I made one side comment about your tone (in *this* particular thread) with regards to *one* poster (Alberta’s Child), simply because you decided to imply their mother was a whore. Given the apparent hypocrisy, all I did was make one brief note about it, and would have left it at that. You, however, have blown it **way out of proportion**, bringing in people, threads, and ongoing Freeper feuds I literally didn’t know existed until you started aggressively shoving them into my proverbial face.
***Case 1 URHJ2TULWRN: You Are Here Just To Troll Using Long Winded, Repetetive Nitpicking.
And those comments in no way infringe or contradict my stance: I’m only responsible for the things I say (such as the alleged nitpicking you apparently find so disagreeable). You’re only responsible for the things you say: including calling someone’s mother a whore, and accusing me of being a troll.
***Case 1 URHJ2TULWRN: You Are Here Just To Troll Using Long Winded, Repetetive Nitpicking.
“Not only ‘your side’ but I didn’t even call it a treaty.”
-I find it ironic that after all of your complaining about ‘nitpicking’ and ‘trolling’ you *still* can’t let it go.
***Case 1 URHJ2TULWRN: You Are Here Just To Troll Using Long Winded, Repetetive Nitpicking.
But I digress: you were *literally* the first person in the thread to refer to it as a treaty. From post #10, you said: “Wow, that’s some seriously convoluted evil thinkin’ ya got goin’ there, the treaty doesn’t apply because Russia invaded in 2014. Just dayamn.”
***Case 1 URHJ2TULWRN: You Are Here Just To Troll Using Long Winded, Repetetive Nitpicking.
“your side” [posted twice in the time since I began replying]
- I think you have an unhealthy obsession.
***Case 1 URHJ2TULWRN: You Are Here Just To Troll Using Long Winded, Repetetive Nitpicking.
“But it’s not a consideration up against tens of millions of lives lost in mushroom clouds.”
- You think intervening militarily will decrease the chances of nuclear war; fair enough. I think intervening will increase the chances; and so we’re at cross purposes.
***Case 2 CYADTIAH: Congratulations You are Actually Discussing The Issues At Hand. This strikes me as the central disagreement so I will post this as its own separate paragraph.
Case 2 CYADTIAH: Congratulations You are Actually Discussing The Issues At Hand.
“Can I add a few more tens of millions of victims of those nukular interactions you guys are so nonchalant about?”
- I don’t think anyone here is nonchalant about the possibility of nuclear war.
***Case 2 CYADTIAH: Congratulations You are Actually Discussing The Issues At Hand. You don’t think folks are nonchalant but they go out of their way to be Putinist Apologists. Just like what happened in 1938 with Germany. Appeasement.
“Then let’s give back those nukes we accepted in 1994.”
- Slight problem: America didn’t take *any* of those nukes. They were transferred back to Russia, because they had originally belong to the USSR. I don’t think America got a single bit of Ukraine’s nuclear stockpile, because it wasn’t ours to begin with.
***Case 2 CYADTIAH: Congratulations You are Actually Discussing The Issues At Hand.Only a slight problem. And when the Ukes build their Nukes & USE them we can all look to guys like you as the cause of sending them down this path.
“Let’s allow this stupid country into NATO and flush out their worst corruption.”
- Absolutely not. NATO’s eastward expansion
***Case 2 CYADTIAH: Congratulations You are Actually Discussing The Issues At Hand. You seem very capable when it comes to looking at things from the PUtinist viewpoint, very INcapable when looking at it from the Uke standpoint. Earlier you claimed NATO was on its way to becoming defunct so who cares if it expands eastward? Which is it? Falling apart or expanding?
has been a longstanding complaint by Russia since the 1990s;
***Lookin’ at it from Russia’s viewpoint and not Ukraine’s. Russia lost their right to complain about how their former satellite countries broke free from them when the USSR broke up.
*multiple* analysts and foreign policy experts across the political spectrum
***I sincerely doubt that. It would be a very narrow spectrum.
have gone on record saying that such eastward expansion after the Cold War would be seen as intrinsically antagonistic by Russia
***Wow you’re long winded and repetitive.
(and even Boris Yeltsin was of the opinion that allowing NATO to expand eastward would be seen as a betrayal of Russia’s interests!).
***What do we care about Russia’s Interests? Each individual nation cares about its OWN interests, which is why so many of them joined NATO. It was in their own best interest.
This Twitter thread is a good compendium of such opinions: https://twitter.com/RnaudBertrand/status/1498491107902062592
***No thanks. I doubt you’ll be going to the URLs I send you. Who the hell cares about a bunch of opinions anyways?
“We have commitments. Our failure to keep those commitments, in particular nuke commitments, could lead to a nuke exchange. We have the means to do it, but like you say we lack the will. Changing minds like yours generates such political will. When your side can see that preventing nuke deaths of tens of millions is worth it to defend a nation we said we would defend, then things can fall properly into place.”
- The only thing that the Budapest Memorandum offers in terms of a ‘commitment’ to action is seeking assistance from the UN Security Council; otherwise, the USA, Ukraine, UK, and Russia are to “consult” with each other in the event questions arise “concerning these commitments”. How’s that working out?
***Case 2 CYADTIAH: Congratulations You are Actually Discussing The Issues At Hand. Your claim is that we’re not obligated. There was never a treaty. It was a paper tiger deception enough to pull nukes from Ukes. Well, that’s gonna bite appeasers like you in the ass when they build their own nukes because they gave up their nukes in exchange for what you’re calling bullsnot.
Besides, I legitimately think that in the current state of things, and with our current political leadership, getting militarily involved with the Ukraine will *increase the chances* of nuclear warfare.
***Case 2 CYADTIAH: Congratulations You are Actually Discussing The Issues At Hand. It sure as hell is more likely when we overtly sell the Ukes down the river and claim that, after we’ve disposed of their nukes, that it wasn’t a legit treaty all along. When people wanna go fight for Ukraine, they likely will fight by joining the Nuke program and putting the Ukes in a position to kill tens of millions of your precious Russians.
“But now that nitpickers like you are going over that nontreaty with a finetooth comb with an eye towards the exits, don’t be surprised if a Uke Nuke changes your entire viewpoint on that situation.”
- I don’t think the Ukrainians currently have the capacity for nuclear weapons.
***They have Nuke power planets, they have Chernobyl over there so they know the dangers. You claim that the Agreement was never valid in the first place, so it’s possible they’ll find some nukes they “forgot” to give back. All because appeasers like you wanna sell them down the river.
If they actually do have some being developed in secret, and end up deploying one without warning against a Russian population center like Moscow (instead of openly advertising it as a threat to stop *or else* they’ll go nuclear on the Russians), then they’re more deranged than I thought.
***Case 2 CYADTIAH: Congratulations You are Actually Discussing The Issues At Hand. I think they’ll be pretty straightforward in their demands that whatever is in Ukraine stays in Ukraine, but the Russians ride home on the bicycles provided. Escorted by blue helmets and Ukes in tanks.
And again, none of this is new: it’s been known *for years* that the Memorandum does not oblige any of the parties to military action.
***Then the Ukes have had years to rebuild their nuke program and assert their own sovereignty when they can. I didn’t know it for years. I doubt most of the Uke team knows it. It would seem your phrase “it’s been known for years” only applies to a small sliver of human excrement that wants to appease Russia, sell the Ukes down the river, and pretend as if they were never obligated.
Neither the administrations of Bush 41 nor Clinton were willing to extend a military commitment to Ukraine,
***What happened in Ukraine during Clinton or Bush41 days? Not much that I recall...
in light of perceived Senate opposition to such a measure; the Budapest Memo did not change that political calculus in the slightest.
***Your position is that it was just enough language to separate the Ukes from their Nukes but not enough to compel us to aggressively defend their security and sovereignty. So when they blow the hell out of PUtin’s army with nukes, will you be a standup guy and admit you were wrong about it? It’s amazing that you so blithely go over the bullshiite that the Russians put out, claim that Ukes are “provoking them”, claim that giving up nukes was just a sideshow in our obligations towards nuclear nonproliferation, claim that since it never was a treaty we don’t have to concern ourselves with this former and future nuke power that could introduce Nuke War. It’s like dealing with someone who’s so aggressively hidebound and stuck on stupid that you’ll never see the consequences of your position, just like Chamberlain never really did.
The US government’s official position as lately as 2013 (https://web.archive.org/web/20140419030507/http://minsk.usembassy.gov/budapest_memorandum.html) is that the Budapest Memorandum “is not legally binding.”
***Case 2 CYADTIAH: Congratulations You are Actually Discussing The Issues At Hand. The onus is now on the Ukes to defend their own sovereignty when they were sold down the river by us, and if they do so in a nuke manner we can look to obambam administration and appeaser PUtinists like you for the blame of 20 million Russian nuke casualties.
“There is a very distinct possibility I will be holding your feet to the fire on that item.”
- Feel free to do so. The record is there with regards to what level the Memorandum is binding on the parties involved.
***Case 2 CYADTIAH: Congratulations You are Actually Discussing The Issues At Hand. I will feel free to do so.
“That’s fine, just give the Ukes back their Nukes. They handed them over in good faith and we got guys like you negotiating in bad faith. They have enough nuke knowledge, it can get real ugly real fast because of appeasers like you.”
- Every party involved acted in bad faith to some degree or another
***That is such horse shiite. Nukes represent death of tens or hundreds of millions of people. The Ukes honored the agreement, and when it came time for us to honor our side, we bring out appeasement pukes like you that start mumbling about how it was never a “real treaty”. The bad faith shown by Russia is far and beyond any bad faith by the Ukes and us.
in the years following the issuing of the Memorandum, especially as Ukraine became money-laundering central for American Democrats.
***Let’s see. Maybe about 100 people could luze their lives over money laundering. About 100 million could luze their lives over nuke execution in the field. That makes one side a million more culpable. To do some simple math. You’re swallowing a camel while straining at a gnat.
Besides, as you well know, I’m of the belief that they shouldn’t have handed over the nukes to begin with:
***Interesting that we agree on this. Your longwinded defenses of PUtinism and appeasement hide our commonalities.
the Budapest Memorandum as formulated was a terrible idea to begin with, and not worth the paper it’s written on (because again, it carries no enforcement mechanisms, no penalties for violations...nothing, nada, zilch).
***Case 2 CYADTIAH: Congratulations You are Actually Discussing The Issues At Hand. Don’t be surprised if those Ukes show up with Nukes as a result of all this.
“When America is staring at 20 million dead Russians and Ukes, because we nitpicked on a “non treaty”, I’ll be getting back to you on that. You are as wrong as the appeasers in 1938 were wrong.”
- Not every geopolitical conflict is reducible to Hitler and/or World War II.
***Case 2 CYADTIAH: Congratulations You are Actually Discussing The Issues At Hand. Snide way of trying to induce Godwyn’s Law but this particular geopolitical instance of appeasement has tremendous parallels to the Sudetenland.
“We sold them down the river.”
- Because America and other European nations strung them along with the prospect NATO membership when there was no serious intention of doing so,
***I’ve never heard of this ... aspect.
just going by what’s known.
***Once again it seems that you might be drawing from a very very very thin slice of people who supposedly “know”.
(And when Ukraine *had* a president more favorable of Russia than EU/NATO, we supported a coup that ousted him.)
***This strikes me as pretty pure bullshiite.
America *is* guilty of using Ukraine as not only a means of corrupt financial muckery, but also as a proxy for poking at the Russians, and we should stop doing it.
***Case 2 CYADTIAH: Congratulations You are Actually Discussing The Issues At Hand. But it’s just an opinion without any fact to back it up at this point.
“YOU said the nontreaty is nonbinding.”
- Don’t shoot the messenger for telling you the plain facts.
***Case 2 CYADTIAH: Congratulations You are Actually Discussing The Issues At Hand. Since the treaty was never binding, if the Ukes had kept some Nukes they’d be well within their rights to blow some Russian military concentrations to smithereens.
“So if they don’t have rights in that nontreaty, they’re free to pursue the nuke option of obliterating tens of millions.”
- There’s a *lot* of operational and tactical options between “American military intervention” and “Ukraine nukes tens of millions of people.” Ease off the trigger finger.
***Case 2 CYADTIAH: Congratulations You are Actually Discussing The Issues At Hand. I have no need to ease off the trigger finger. One simple nuke demo by the Ukes should be enough for them to establish sovereignty and kick the Russians to the curb.
“The Ukes did, they handed over their Nukes.”
- Not subsequently.
***Horse manure.
Part of the Budapest Memorandum is Section 3, related to the use of economic pressure to influence Ukraine’s politics. When American and Ukrainian elements cooperated to oust the democratically-elected president that just *happened* to be more pro-Russia in 2014 (because it’s not like America’s never had issues with political leaders of other countries whose interests don’t align with the US, oh no no...), do you think that was acting in good faith?
***Case 2 CYADTIAH: Congratulations You are Actually Discussing The Issues At Hand. You failed to make the connection between this conspiracy theory of some ‘ousted president’ and any reluctance to had over Uke Nukes.
“Baloney. 2 F35’s could have established air superiority, a few hundred Javelins and artillery batteries and the Russians would be stopped cold.”
- I’ll take your word for it, hoss. It’s not like we just had a highly public incident of an F-35 crashing onto the USS Carl Vinson and sinking into the South China Sea...
***Case 2 CYADTIAH: Congratulations You are Actually Discussing The Issues At Hand. One highly public crash does not a fleet make.
“But it’s not a consideration up against tens of millions of lives lost in mushroom clouds.”
- You think intervening militarily will decrease the chances of nuclear war; fair enough. I think intervening will increase the chances; and so we’re at cross purposes.
***Case 2 CYADTIAH: Congratulations You are Actually Discussing The Issues At Hand. This strikes me as the central disagreement so I will post this as its own separate paragraph.
I will say that our military’s recent performance does not fill me with whatever confidence you seem to have, especially when we have woke Generals claiming our military’s biggest problem is “white supremacy” and a lack of diversity.
***Case 2 CYADTIAH: Congratulations You are Actually Discussing The Issues At Hand. And frankly, I don’t care because the whole puropose in Ukraine is deterrence. If actual fighting takes place then we can dupe the LGBQ crowd just like we Duped the Ukes and the blacks in WW2 and JapaneseAmericans in WW2 to fight that much harder and take disproportional casualties in the fighting.
“We have the capacity. And we can just stop this whole thing by waving around one piece of appeasment paper & claim “peace in our time” by allowing Ukraine into NATO.”
- Russia has stated for years that Ukraine getting into NATO would be deemed an existential threat;
***Then let it be an existential threat. They invaded Ukraine ANYWAYS. Don’t you see that?
this is not a perspective that was unique to Putin. Allowing Ukraine into NATO will only make things worse, not better.
***Case 2 CYADTIAH: Congratulations You are Actually Discussing The Issues At Hand. Keeping Ukraine OUT OF Nato made things worse, not better, for THEM. So now we’ll be peering down the rabbit hole of a covert rapid deployment nuke program all because appeasers like you don’t want to do the right thing.
“We had plenty of forces to deter Russia from invading this year. We have a larger air force, larger army, all kinds of stuff bigger than muh Russia.”
- After a 20 year war in Afghanistan, we
***There was a perfectly good plan in place, put in by Trump, which Biden threw in the trash so that he could bring a bunch of future democraps here to America rather than Afghan Patriots.
literally pulled out with shame and left behind billions of dollars worth of military equipment to bearded **goat herders**. Where are you getting your confidence from?
***Case 2 CYADTIAH: Congratulations You are Actually Discussing The Issues At Hand. We are talking here about what SHOULD happen, right? You don’t have to convince me that Biden is a jackass.
“They gave UP their lethal force for empty promises from us.”
- Lack of nukes != lack of lethal force.
***SUre it was, otherwise Russia would never have invaded.
The US has literally provided $2.7 billion worth of military aid to the Ukraine since 2014.
***Looks like they needed more than that PRIOR to 2014 when Russia invaded them for the first time, in Ukraine. The whole democrap strategy has been ‘too little, too late’.
In terms of total manpower as of 2021, Ukraine is the second largest military on the European continent, outpaced only by Russia (when considering Reserve forces, Ukraine is still second; in terms of Active military members, Ukraine drops to third behind Turkey). As we’ve seen from insurgencies throughout the Middle East and Asia over the past two decades, a lack of nukes does not translate to an inability to fight lethally or effectively.
***Case 2 CYADTIAH: Congratulations You are Actually Discussing The Issues At Hand. But look at countries like Pakistan, who have not been invaded since they had nukes. Nukes are a much better deterrent than goatherders with AK47s.
“They were invaded in 2014, with a large portion of their country annexed.”
- Notwithstanding the complicated history of the Crimean Peninsula
***So here you’re just trying to obfuscate.
(which had been in Russia’s possession since the late 1700s, prior to the Soviet Union’s internal transfer of the Crimea from Russia to Ukraine in 1954, the year after Khrushchev became the Secretary of the Communist Party;
***That was 1954. We’re talking 60 years later and more. Simply obfuscation.
I’m sure the fact that Nikita grew up in Ukrainian territory and was the appointed head of Ukraine’s Communist Party had nothing to do with it...),
***Simply engaging in long winded distraction. You are tedious.
it’s not that difficult to see that the annexation of Crimea was a direct response to
***it is far easier to see that it was a direct response to appeasement by the obambam administration, and appeasement you have been demonstrating.
President Yanukovych getting ousted from Ukraine not even a month prior, because why would any Great Power risk losing access to its closest warm-water port after a government they were friendly with just got ousted in a revolution aided by foreign support?
***Case 2 CYADTIAH: Congratulations You are Actually Discussing The Issues At Hand. But unfortunately, it includes the logical fallacy of obfuscation and distraction. All this longwindedness doesn’t win you anything.
“Now you’re delivering mumbly pablum.”
- Obama Admin officials were literally caught on tape talking about who they wanted to put in charge after ousting Yanukovych: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957
***Case 2 CYADTIAH: Congratulations You are Actually Discussing The Issues At Hand. Except that obambam officials ousting someone is not material to the agreement Russia is in violation of.
Don’t blame me just because the facts happen to be inconvenient.
***Case 2 CYADTIAH: Congratulations You are Actually Discussing The Issues At Hand. Don’t blame me that you’re exhibiting classical fallacies. Take a critical thinking class.
“You are trolling...You like to repeat yourself. It is a form of trolling.”
- Oh come on now, you’re an FR veteran of many years.
***Oh come on now, you are simply trolling.
The idea you would call this ‘trolling’ is downright bizarre.
***Case 2 CYADTIAH: Congratulations You are Actually Discussing The Issues At Hand.
I would steer you to the FR definition of trolling but, unfortunately, not even our moderators follow the definition so it’s useless. But suffice it to say you’re fitting within the definition, very snugly.
“And I think Russia would have backed off. History proves that appeasement like yours doesn’t work, so you are risking tens of millions of lives here.”
- Again with the WW2 comparisons, as though that’s the only conflict that ever mattered
***It is the one most applicable.
(a more apt comparison would be how World War I erupted and spiraled out of control from a matter that initially only involved Serbia and Austria-Hungary, namely the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand;
***Horse manure. One madman assassinating someone is not an act of war. One country INVADING another sovereign country IS an act of war.
were it not for the military commitments between the other nations, it’s probable that the matter would have been restricted only to Serbia and Austria-Hungary, instead of involving all of the other Great Powers).
***Obfuscation. Logical fallacies. Distraction, red herring, “Look, a squirel!”
How about the more recent history of America’s war performance in Iraq and Afghanistan being utter crap?
***Whataboutism. More Obfuscation, Logical fallacies. Distraction, red herring, “Look, a squirel!”
If Trump were still in office, the dynamics would be much different, I’ll grant you; but with Biden and his cohort at the helm, would *you* trust them to engage in another foreign military intervention with our current cadre of woke military commanders?
***Case 2 CYADTIAH: Congratulations You are Actually Discussing The Issues At Hand. Yes, I would trust them because as stupid as they are, they know that risking tens of millions of lives in a nuke engagement is far more salient than nitpicking on the minutiae of a treaty that wasn’t a treaty.
“Because Russia won’t invade NATO, wouldn’t have invaded Ukraine if it were in NATO, wouldn’t have invaded if the Ukes kept their Nukes, and wouldn’t have invaded if we set up a deterrent force with only half a dozen F35’s.”
- Russia has viewed and continues to view NATO’s eastward expansion as an intrinsic threat,
***Does not address the point. Straw argument.
and they have said so repeatedly. Given their history with European powers invading them from the west,
***You seem to ONLY be able to look at things from Russia’s perspective. You’ve developed a true blind spot.
I can understand why; rather than deterring Russia, I think Ukraine joining NATO would have only started a hot war earlier.
***That’s just pure poppycock.
That they wouldn’t have invaded if Ukraine had kept their nukes, I’ll grant.
***It is like pulling teeth, getting you to see the value of deterrence.
I can only take your word as to whether or not six F-35’s would have been sufficient to keep the entirety of Russia at bay,
***Certainly their air force, the Ukes would have air superiority.
but that seems a wee bit too optimistic.
***Almost all your positions seem a wee bit too optimistic in appeasing pootypoot.
(I mean, we’re not that far removed from July 2020, where a $2 billion warship — the Bonhomme Richard — had to be scrapped due to a fire because of the **incompetence of the crew.** You seem to have a much higher opinion of how our military would perform in a hypothetical conflict given recent performance than I am, clearly...)
***Case 2 CYADTIAH: Congratulations You are Actually Discussing The Issues At Hand. Unfortunately, it’s more Obfuscation. Logical fallacies. Distraction, red herring, “Look, a squirel!”
“I have plenty of complaints against you. You repeat yourself. You nitpick. You ignore the context. You blithely overlook simple facts. You’re long winded. You troll. You focus on nitpicky interactions rather than the issues at hand. You don’t care about tens of millions of possible nuke casualties because you’re an appeaser. There’s more.”
- *rolls eyes* What rubbish.
***Case 2 CYADTIAH: Congratulations You are Actually Discussing The Issues At Hand. You’re the one pushing rubbish here.
In all seriousness: strategic disagreement over how to approach the current Ukraine-Russian conflict != not caring about “tens of millions of possible nuke casualties”,
***I think it is. Very much so.
especially when my entire viewpoint is *rooted* in the desire to avoid a nuclear war
***Your entire viewpoint is *rooted* in appeasement, which has proven in history NOT to work.
(your plain disagreements to the contrary). You’re also assuming the Ukranians even have nuclear weapon capabilities at the moment,
***They had the capability 30 years ago. They have nuke power plants. It’s not that big of an assumption. The only hard part is getting the fissionable material, and they have some of that. They could even dig up Chernobyl and drop dirty nuke bombs on Russians.
which has not been established (move out of the realms of “what if-ery” and stick to what’s known).
***Case 2 CYADTIAH: Congratulations You are Actually Discussing The Issues At Hand. But no, we can’t move out of what-ifery because those are secret programs. It’s not like we can walk up to the generals in every army and ask them for specifics about their nuke programs.
So you can kindly shelve that sort of incendiary rhetoric.
***Case 1 stuff...
“And yet you are defending them with your nitpicking and focus on nontreatiness.”
- Your impassioned rhetoric doesn’t change the legal force of the Memorandum or the facts regarding what powers it provided. Being truthful about objective reality is not “defending” them.
***Case 2 CYADTIAH: Congratulations You are Actually Discussing The Issues At Hand. Yes you are defending the Putinists and appeasers. It’s easy enough for anyone else to see, since you’re looking for objectivity.
Lord your Naive.
***You are tedious.
No [since — SENSE ] of history of the region and implications ,
***Take a fricken writing class.
We are the ones responsible for pushing the Russians to invasion
***Do you HEAR yourself? We pushed some country into INVADING another sovereign country?
with our insane push for the expansion of NATO which is Obsolete and has been for 30 years.
***If it’s so obsolete then why would there be any fear whatsoever of its expansion?
It is a security issue with the Russians.
***And we signed a security agreement that they violated. Now it’s a security issue with the Ukes, who will probably start rebuilding their nukes.
Why is it our leaders and policy makers have such a Hard On for War with Russia
***You are NOT getting it. The attempt is to stop this appeasement bullshiite which ENCOURAGEs a local tyrant like Putler, AVOIDING war. Why are guys like you so aggressively ahistorical in your approach to learning about appeasement’s failure?
when our real enemy is China.
***China didn’t invade its neighbor a week ago.
The Russians should be out Allies and Friends, not our Enemy.
***The Ukes should be our allies and friends. They were basically minding their own bizness, and even turned over nukes in exchange for empty promises about security and borders and sovereignty. America is serving her own interests when she stands up to tyrants like Putler.
Just some nukes that can kill tens of millions of souls.
But I did not argue it is in the Ukes’ interest to build their own Nukes.
***Well, to avoid future straw arguments, I AM arguing it is in their interest to build nukes.
We are the ones responsible for pushing the Russians to invasion with our insane push for the expansion of NATO
***Russia gets 60% of its revenues from oil exports. Europe gets 40% of their oil from Russia.
In 2012 massive oil and gas reserves were found in Crimea. Crimea signed a $10 billion exploration contracts with Shell and Chevron to develop the new found oil and gas fields. These oil and gas products would compete in Europe with Russia’s oil and gas, reducing Russia’s oil revenues, which we recall amount to 60% of their total GDP. Russia annexed Crimea in 2014, cancelling the contracts with Shell and Chevron.
But Ukraine still had massive reserves in, you guessed it, Donetsk and Luhansk, and other areas East of the Dnieper River. In 2019, Energy Secretary Rick Perry visited Ukraine, and soon after Ukraine awarded exploration contracts to a consortium of U.S. oil companies. Again, these oil reserves would compete in Europe with Russian oil, so Putin is invading Ukraine to shut down this latest attempt to extract Ukrainian oil and sell it in competition with Russian oil.
This explanation makes more sense to me than the “Putin feels threatened by NATO expansion” excuses for the invasion.
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/4044221/posts?page=1#1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CmdSzVFSKc
Pertinent
Execution of ‘nuclear Ukraine’ project was mere months away, source says
Tass ^ | March 6, 2022
Posted on 3/6/2022, 7:21:58 AM by Navy Patriot
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/4044173/posts
Sub Headline: According to its data, by implementing programs in both nuclear and rocket spheres over more than two decades, Ukraine was consistently nearing all the necessary conditions to create its own nuclear weapons
Ukraine could have obtained nuclear weapons within several months, a source in one of Russian agencies told TASS.
“According to conclusions by Western experts, the Kiev regime was extremely close to creating a nuclear explosive device based on plutonium due to its covert obtainment from spent nuclear fuel stored in the country’s territory. Ukrainian specialists could have made such a device within several months,” the source said.
(Excerpt) Read more at tass.com ...
Kevmo, when has the UN ever been a worthy option as a recourse? Do note the US is saying it will ask the UN to do something.
Yeah, that’s what I would tell the 1994 Ukes, as well as the 2022 Ukes. And by now, that’s what they understand. So when they build their own nukes and this thing becomes nukular, we have no one to blame but ourselves for selling the Ukes down the river.
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/4044173/posts
Would we be telling our counterparts in 1945 not to build a nuke to end world war 2? I wouldn’t. We were in an existential war. So who the hell are we to tell a country that’s in an existential war that they shouldn’t build & deploy their own nukes? Especially a country we have betrayed, a country which GAVE UP their nukes in good faith.
Some updates
https://freerepublic.com/focus/news/4050519/posts?page=110#110
To: Who is John Galt?
THIS MAY HELP YOU: https://www.pircenter.org/media/content/files/12/13943175580.pdf
What Assurances Was Ukraine Looking For?
First, Ukraine wanted compensation for the enriched uranium in the nuclear warheads that could be used for fuel, which Russia agreed to.
Secondly, Ukraine wanted the cost of getting rid of intercontinental ballistic missiles and their facilities covered, which the United States agreed to handle.
Finally, Ukraine wanted security assurances, which was addressed in the 1994 Budapest Memorandum.
The very short memorandum had six basic points that can be read in full here. The key points affirm:
1. The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act, to respect the Independence and Sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine.
2. The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, and that none of their weapons will ever be used against Ukraine except in self-defense or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.
3. […] refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind.
4. […] reaffirm their commitment to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine, as a nonnuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used.
5. […] reaffirm, in the case of the Ukraine, their commitment not to use nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, except in the case of an attack on themselves, their territories or dependent territories, their armed forces, or their allies, by such a state in association or alliance with a nuclear weapon state.
6. The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland will consult in the event a situation arises which
raises a question concerning these commitments.
The Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances refers to three identical political agreements signed at the OSCE conference in Budapest, Hungary on 5 December 1994, providing security assurances by its signatories relating to Belarus’s, Kazakhstan’s and Ukraine’s accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. The memorandum was originally signed by three nuclear powers, the Russian Federation, the United States of America, and the United Kingdom. China and France gave somewhat weaker individual assurances in separate documents.
The memorandum included security assurances against threats or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan.
As a result, between 1994 and 1996, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons. Before that, Ukraine had the world’s third largest nuclear weapons stockpile, of which Ukraine had physical if not operational control.[4][5] The use of the weapons was dependent on Russian-controlled electronic Permissive Action Links and the Russian command and control system.
Following the annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation in 2014, the US, Canada, the UK, along with other countries, stated that Russian involvement was a breach of its obligations to Ukraine under the Budapest Memorandum, a Memorandum transmitted to the United Nations under the signature of Sergei Lavrov, amongst others, and in violation of Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity.
Contents
1 Content
2 Analysis
3 Breach of the agreement
3.1 Occupation of Crimea by the Russian Federation
3.2 2013 Belarus Sanctions
4 See also
5 References
6 External links
Content
According to the memorandum, Russia, the U.S., and the UK confirmed, in recognition of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine becoming parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and in effect abandoning its nuclear arsenal to Russia, that they would:
• Respect Belarusian, Kazakh and Ukrainian independence and sovereignty and the existing borders.
• Refrain from the threat or use of force against Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine.
• Refrain from using economic pressure on Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine in order to influence its politics.
• Seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine, “if Belarus/Kazakhstan/Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used”.
• Refrain from the use of nuclear arms against Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine.
• Consult with one another if questions arise regarding these commitments.
Analysis
Under the agreement, the signatories offered Ukraine “security assurances” in exchange for its adherence to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. The memorandum bundled together a set of assurances that Ukraine already held from the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe (CSCE) Final Act, United Nations Charter and Non-Proliferation Treaty. The Ukrainian government nevertheless found it valuable to have these assurances in a Ukraine-specific document.
China and France gave security assurances for Ukraine in separate documents. China’s governmental statement of 4 December 1994 did not call for mandatory consultations if questions arose, just calling for “fair consultations”. France’s declaration of 5 December 1994 did not mention consultations.
Breach of the agreement Occupation of Crimea by the Russian Federation
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry speaks with British Foreign Secretary William Hague and Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrii Deshchytsia after hosting the Budapest Memorandum Ministerial on the Ukraine crisis in Paris, France, on March 5, 2014.
Further information: Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation
In February 2014, Russian forces seized or blockaded various airports, as well as other strategic sites throughout Crimea. The troops were attached to the Russian Black Sea Fleet stationed in Crimea, placing Russia in violation of the Budapest Memorandum. The Russian Foreign Ministry had confirmed the movement of armored units attached to the Black Sea Fleet in Crimea, but asserted that they are acting within the scope of the various agreements between the two countries. Other official Russian sources denied that the units in the area of Sevastopol International Airport, specifically, were attached to the Black Sea Fleet. Russia responded by supporting a referendum on whether the Crimea should join the Russian Federation. Russia announced the referendum was being conducted by ‘local forces’. On 16 March, Russia annexed Crimea. Ukraine vigorously protested the action as a violation of Article 1 of the Budapest Memorandum.
In response to the crisis, the Ukrainian parliament requested that the Memorandum’s signatories reaffirm their commitment to the principles enshrined in the political agreement, and further asked that they hold consultations with Ukraine to ease tensions.
The Ministry of Temporarily Occupied Territories and Internally displaced persons (Ukrainian: Міністерство з питань тимчасово окупованих територій та внутрішньо переміщених осіб України) is a government ministry in Ukraine that was officially established on 20 April 2016 to manage occupied parts of Donetsk, Luhansk and Crimea regions affected by Russian military intervention of 2014.
On 24 March 2014, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper led the rest of the G7 partners at an ad-hoc meeting during the Nuclear Security Summit in The Hague to suspend Russian membership, partially, said Harper, because Russia had violated the Budapest Memorandum. He said that Ukraine had given up its nuclear weapons “on the basis of an explicit Russian guarantee of its territorial integrity. By breaching that guarantee, President Putin has provided a rationale for those elsewhere who needed little more than that already furnished by pride or grievance to arm themselves to the teeth.” Harper also indicated support for Ukraine by saying he would work with the new Ukrainian government towards a free trade agreement.
Canadian journalist Michael Colborne pointed out “there are actually SIX OBLIGATIONS in the Budapest Memorandum, and the first of them is “to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine.”
Colborne also pointed out that a broadcast of Lavrov’s claim on the Twitter account of Russia’s embassy in the United Kingdom actually “provided a link to the text of the Budapest Memorandum itself with all six obligations, including the ones Russia has clearly violated — right there for everyone to see.”
Steven Pifer, an American diplomat who was involved in drafting the Budapest Memorandum, later commented that “what does it say about the mendacity of Russian diplomacy and its contempt for international opinion when the foreign minister says something that can be proven wrong with less than 30 seconds of Google fact-checking?”
110 posted on 3/28/2022, 9:58:33 PM by UMCRevMom@aol.com
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
https://freerepublic.com/focus/news/4050519/posts?page=135#135
To: Kevmo
absolutely NOTHING in the Budapest Memorandum, that you’re constantly citing, requires the US to provide direct military assistance to Ukraine if they’re invaded. ***What does “Assured Security” and “respect of borders” mean to you?
Reread the agreement - neither phrase means ‘the US shall come to the military defense of Ukraine’. Words have specific meanings, unless you’re a Democrat (or apparently ‘Kevmo’ ;>).
Thank you for finally admitting the obvious. ***If you’re gonna finally admit the obvious that an invasion into a signatory’s territory is a violation of this agreement, then I will admit what you call the obvious here.
Ok, now you’re posting a strawman argument - I’ve never suggested Russia did not violate the agreement. The problem for you is, the memorandum specifies a response to such violations - refer the matter to the UN Security Council. Nowhere does the agreement mention “no-fly zones” or other military action.
In addition, the language is clear and simple ***to a weasel
My, you do have quite the lexicon of insults - let’s add “weasel” to “appeasers”, “pantywaist panzie appeasers”, “pantywaist”, “troll”, “pantywaist appeaser”, “pukes like you”, “putinista$$kissing”, etc. Perhaps you should consider some sort of anger management assistance.
- since Ukraine signed off on it, they either understood that the US had no obligation to provide military support if Russia invaded, ***To be candid, I do not think the Ukes understood this at all.
Oh, you betcha - they’re signing an international agreement, but the poor Ukrainian government had nobody available to read plain English. You’re better at making excuses than a Democrat politician.
or they’re all complete morons. ***They simply got duped. Which means they’ll be looking to build their own nuke capability real soon.
The Ukranians “got duped”? Maybe in some alternative universe, where words written on paper magically ‘transmogrify’ into different words written on paper. In reality, it’s simple language, the Ukrainians agreed to it, and the US is under no obligation beyond those specific written terms.
Either way, the US is in no way ‘backing Ukraine into a corner’, by not providing military assistance that Ukraine has always known ***NO. Ukraine has NOT always known this, they just recently learned what a POS America is for giving assurances they have no intention to keep.
More excuses, plus “blame America first” - how nice!
is NOT AN AMERICAN OBLIGATION. ***I see plenty of American Obligation in that treaty, just like I see it as a violation of the treaty OBVIOUSLY, wherein an invasion of the country is not “respecting its borders”.
You may “see” it, but it’s not in the written terms you yourself quoted. Simply put, you “see” things that don’t exist. You may wish to discuss that issue with someone.
Kevmo: Then stay the hell out of the middle of it, pantywaist. Yours was essentially a 100% troll maneuver. Galt: Sorry if I hurt your feelings! ***Hurt feelins got nuthin to do with it. You’re simply acting like a troll.
I can’t believe you’re unfamiliar with sarcasm (posts clearly labeled “\sarc”)! Apparently you were “seeing” something in my post that was not actually there - just as you “see” obligations in the Budapest Memorandum that are not really there.
As noted in my post, I thought you might find the reference in your personal copy of the Budapest Memorandum, right next to the supposed requirement that the US intervene militarily if Ukraine was invaded - ***Total troll injection. I should just start treating you like the despicable troll you are.
“Troll...troll...troll...” Looks like your list of favorite insults is shorter than I thought.
and you have now admitted ***I have not admitted it, such an admission is conditional to your admission which, since you’re acting like such an @$$#0lic troll, I do not expect.
Oops - spoke too soon. Let’s add “$$#0lic” to the Kevmo insult list.
that no such requirement has ever existed. ***Oh, it exists. Just like it existed in 1938 and pantywaist appeasers like you found ways to abrogate their responsibilities to prevent a world war.
And another post winds up with the one-size-fits-all “Crystal Ball” argument - “We need to send in US troops now, and risk nuclear war, because my Crystal Ball tells me WE’RE ALL GONNA DIE if we don’t!!!”
Thanks again for proving my point... ***I will be thanking you for being a troll at some point...
Hopefully it doesn’t involve sending me one of those suitcase nukes that you apparently know how to build! \sarc
;>)
135 posted on 3/29/2022, 7:10:02 AM by Who is John Galt? (”...mit Pulver und Blei, Die Gedanken sind frei!”)
Basically Mariner thinks that a country which signs a nonproliferation agreement and HONORS it, giving up the nukes in their possession, is not smart enough to be their own country.
I find this disturbing because it is THE RIGHT THING TO DO, they DID DO IT, and have been rewarded with 2 invasions of their territory and a betrayal from the USA. Keeping those dangerous weapons risks the lives of hundreds of millions of people, so it was good for them to give up those nukes. Mariner is upholding EVIL as the right thing for a country to do rather than GOOD. As far as “smart”, the Ukraine right now is center stage for a solid example of the underdog fighting for the right cause against the odds, against obvious tyranny so that country has taken the reins of LEADERSHIP in the world right now, while our administration drops that ball — pretty damned smart.
Rep. Dan Bishop (R-NC): “Donald Trump deserves credit for breaking the neocon orthodoxy”
4/1/2022, 11:24:13 AM · 23 of 28
Kevmo to Mariner
Kevmo: “Then give them back their nukes”
Marier: No.
***Yes.
Written copies of the Budapest Agreement are prima facie proof that Ukraine is not smart enough to be their own country,
***Well, that’s fascinating. I think I’ll post my response on that Budapest Agreement thread.
https://freerepublic.com/focus/news/4044080/posts
“Basically Mariner thinks that a country which signs a nonproliferation agreement”
The US didn’t sign the agreement.
Bill Clinton did.
Take a civics class, edify yourself.
Every 8th grader in the country knows what a treaty is.
When Mariner goes down to Mexico and declares war on them, no one cares. Because Mariner does not represent the USA. When the president signs a statement declaring war on them, we’re at war because he represents the USA.
That’s why creation fell when Adam ate the apple and not Eve. Because Adam represented mankind.
So if those Ukes get pushed into a nuke corner and deploy, we will all be coming back to Mariner and looking in askance at his squirming off this agreement.
It’s not as if the USA didn’t accept the relinquishing of those nukes, was it?
Mariner and other pantywaist p^ssyfoot pansy appeasers acknowledge that the agreement was VIOLATED when Russia invaded. They just don’t give a frack what it means to assure borders & sovereignty. Nor do they care how it looks when we blatantly tell other countries not to trust us.
https://freerepublic.com/focus/chat/4051502/posts?page=24#24
Rep. Dan Bishop (R-NC): “Donald Trump deserves credit for breaking the neocon orthodoxy”
4/1/2022, 11:28:21 AM · 24 of 28
Kevmo to Mariner
The US has no moral responsibility to uphold that agreement.
None whatsoever.
***The US has ALL KINDS of moral responsibility to uphold that agreement. It took hundreds of nukes off the world table, that was the right thing to do. The Ukes HONORED that agreement, the right thing to do. The Rukes VIOLATED it by invading twice [basically over oil & gas discoveries], the wrong thing to do. We are ABROGATING it, the wrong thing to do. We are pushing the Ukes to develop their own nukes by our betrayal in this existential war, the wrong thing to do. We are not keeping our word as a nation, the wrong thing to do.
Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies
Asked & Answered: “It’s not a senate-ratified treaty”
https://freerepublic.com/focus/news/4053478/posts?page=103#103
Sorry, but there’s no comparison between our war in Iraq in 2003 — and our support for Ukraine now
4/10/2022, 8:53:10 PM · 103 of 103
Kevmo to Jim from C-Town
The Budapest Agreement was never approved by the Senate & has less weight over the US than a Presidential Executive Order.
***It had enough weight to trick the Ukes into giving up their nukes. And when they nuke the hell out of one of your pootypoot cities, people will be looking to guys like you for the explanation as to why we didn’t honor the agreement. It was signed by the president at the time. If Jim from Ctown signed a declaration of war against a country it would not be binding; but if Bill Clinton signed a declaration of war against that same country it would be binding — because he represented us at the time. That’s why creation fell when Adam bit the apple and not Eve, because Adam represented mankind and Eve didn’t.
The agreement is not an official treaty.
***Then give the Ukes back their nukes. Status quo ante bellum.
It is neither legally binding nor does it carry an enforcement mechanism.
***I have already covered this ground.
You’re Being Lied to About Ukraine & Russia —PART 2 — The Truth with Pedro Gonzalez
3/20/2022, 12:32:33 PM · 130 of 131
https://freerepublic.com/focus/chat/4048148/posts?page=130#130
Kevmo to Who is John Galt?
Obviously, you’re wanting the US to engage in military action against Russia, in defense of Ukraine.
***Just have them send me and 10 weeks worth of weapons. In 10 weeks I will have the ukes suited in suitcase nukes and the Russians will gladly be leaving all their weapons and claims over the Ukes behind. Cheap thrills.
Given that Russia has nuclear weapons, there is an inherent risk that the United States will be attacked with nuclear weapons, if this country actually does what you want.
***Yes there is that risk. The greater risk is that Russia turns Ukraine into glass. Which means that all those extra suitcase nukes I will be sending their way will be triggered and we no longer will have the Rukes as an adversary any more.
Why, precisely, would you want to risk our soldiers’ lives,
***We ALREADY ARE. By betraying the Ukes when they HAD nukes and leaving them on their own, we have betrayed them towards that nuke option in their existential war. That scenario doesn’t risk soldier’s lives as much as American civilian lives, tens of millions of them. And yet there are so many putinistas around here who cannot see how he is risking nuclear war by his own actions.
and your neighbors’ lives, by going to war with Russia? As I asked in my Post #36:
1) “Is the United States obligated by treaty to come to Ukraine’s defense?”
***It is the Budapest Agreement. Dismiss it all ya want, but there are yuge consequences of dismissal of an “agreement that’s not a ratified treaty but we took their nukes anyways” agreement, which is that the agreement is null and void and they can pursue that nuke option. I think they can generate a solution faster than the A-Bomb kid did, but that’s just me.
The answer is clearly “no” - the agreement you referenced is not a treaty,
***Semantics. Tell that to the tens of millions of lives you directly threaten by doing nothing to honor an agreement that left them high & dry.
is not legally binding, and even if followed to the letter, would require only that the US refer infractions to the UN Security Council for action, not intervene directly with military force.
***Hey, using that approach, Pootypoot justified an ACTUAL INVASION by just not calling it an invasion, so we can do the same. Right? What’s sauce for the pootypoot goose is sauce for the pantywaist appeaser gander.
2) “Then maybe you can list some of the ‘US vital interests’ in Ukraine,
***We had a vital interest in not jeopardizing hundreds of millions of lives with those nukes, so we signed that agreement. The Ukes HONORED that agreement; the Rukes VIOLATED that agreement and invaded twice; and Pukes like you are busy trying that there pantywaist appeasement semantics approach to abrogate our end of that agreement.
that might justify our military intervention (with the associated risk of nuclear war).
***We have ALREADY risked nuclear war by our own betrayal.
Is it a long list, or short?”
***I would suspect it’s pretty short but it contains a long long long list of potential tens of millions of nuke casualties that guys like you are pushing the Ukes into such a corner.
You’re apparently willing to spend American lives in Ukraine
***That is what YOU are doing. You’re risking tens of millions of not-just-American lives because you wanna throw the Ukes under the bus in an agreement we signed and took their nukes as a result. You sold the car, got the money but you aint delivering the car. So when the owner of the car gets his mafioso buddy to break your legs, who do ya have to blame other than yourself?
(and potentially here in the US) - care to provide a list of “US vital interests” that make the casualties (and possible nuclear war) worthwhile?
***I am asking exactly the same of you. Consider that the Ukes have Nuke knowledge, nuke material, 15 nuke power plants, nuke experience, and now the motivation to build nukes & blow the frack out of your putinista$$kissing Rukes.
3) “Or perhaps you think the US really is ‘The World’s Policeman’ and that we have a moral obligation to get involved?
***We SIGNED UP for that moral obligation when we signed that treaty. We RISK tens of millions of lives when we betray the Ukes over nukes.
If so, maybe you should run over to Wikipedia, and check out their list of active wars - Russia/Ukraine might have to wait,
***Red herring. We’re talking about the Ukes and the Rukes. Feel free to include any other country in the discussion which has been sold down the river by the US after honoring a nuclear dismantling agreement in exchange for our protection.
while Uncle Sam’s ‘woke’ military slaps around 30 or 40 other countries, who were already in line...”
***The Ukes got to the head of the line by getting us to sign the Budapest Agreement and honoring it by relinquishing their nukes. There are no other countries like this, so knock off the bullshiite pretense.
So, maybe you just want to get Americans killed,
***Maybe you just wanna get hundreds of millions of Americans/Russians/Ukrainians/Europeans killed.
because you think this country is some kind of “global cop”;
***I do not agree with this global cop bullshiite. The Ukes should never have trusted us and shoulda kept those nukes. They would not be invaded [twice] right now, they would have that aggressive neutrality they’ve always wanted. Nukes provide a global copism solution all their own.
again, the memorandum you referenced suggests that’s more the job of the United Nations...
***When the nuke plume happens over a Ruke city, we’ll get back to you on this bullshiite of calling it a suggestion.
Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies
You’re Being Lied to About Ukraine & Russia —PART 2 — The Truth with Pedro Gonzalez
3/20/2022, 11:04:38 AM · 127 of 131
Kevmo to Who is John Galt?
When the ukes blow the frack out of a Ruke column with a suitcase nule, we will all be looking for people like you to hold accountable for pushing them into that nuclear corner by upholding betrayal as if it were a virtue.
Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies
Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies
The war in the Ukraine is about Oil
3/30/2022, 3:55:06 PM · 56 of 83
https://freerepublic.com/focus/news/4050958/posts?page=56#56
Kevmo to packagingguy
The problem with “agreements” by the USA is they carry no force of law as does a treaty.
***Oh, sure they do. If we wanted to we could send whatever forces we want into that region. The Gulf of Tonkin was on much thinner grounds.
We learned this in 6th grade.
***Then the 6th graders are about to learn another set of lessons, perhaps. It would be the lessons that people who face a suitcase nuke in a Russian city suffer because their
@$$#0/e leader chose to OBVIOUSLY violate an agreement in their name.
The diplomats should have been aware of this in their negotiations.
***Do you suppose the diplomats are aware of the Uke nuke program right now? Ever wonder why the Ukes sent a missile into Russian territory, hmmmmmm?
https://nypost.com/2022/03/29/ukraine-missile-may-have-hit-military-camp-inside-russia/
Guarantee a neutral Ukraine in exchange for security assurances and nukes.
***Those assurances are worth less than their weight in toilet paper. We are pushing the Ukes into a nuke corner by not showing “respect” for their borders.
If it were a treaty this whole situation would not happen.
***When Vlad is backgrounded by a nuke plume above his favorite Ruke city, we’ll get back to you on this pantywaist appeasement approach.
And these things are exactly what is being negotiated between the two now.
***You may be right. Having the ability to send just one missile onto Russian territory could be enough to back off the Russians permanently. Where do YOU think the nuke demo should go off inside Russia, assuming there’s only maybe 5 or 6 suitcase nukes?
Only now a lot of people are dead.
***We are pushing the Ukes in their existential war into a nuke corner, where a helluva lot more people could be dead.
And yes it would be much preferable that a skillet negotiator were President.
***Skilled, I take it. When we did have a skilled negotiator, there were NO incidents with Vlad the Imploder. Imagine that.
Maybe someone whose initials are DJT.
***We’ll never get the libtards to own up to that.
Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies
BREAKING: Putin’s Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov says Russia would use nuclear weapons if faced with “existential” threat
3/26/2022, 8:10:46 AM · 122 of 136
https://freerepublic.com/focus/news/4048918/posts?page=122#122
Kevmo to Fury
what matters for the US is that the treaty if ratified by the Senate.
***Then we should never have worked with them to remove those nukes. We sold them down the river, offering soothing words in exchange.
If you know of a site that offers a fair-handed analysis of the Accord, please pass along.
***We are as fair as any other site. Think for yourself.
The Budapest Accord seems to be as noted not legally binding on the US. If that is the case, the US is not obligated to act via overt military action to defend Ukraine.
***That’s such pure bullshiite. We’re pushing the Ukes down a Nuke path by betraying them. The Agreement seems to be “legally binding” enough to allow 2 INVASIONS of their territory? Complete bullshiite. Once they get their own nukes in this existential war, there is no agreement or any reason why they shouldn’t vaporize several million Russians. All because pantywaist appeasers want to find loopholes in an agreement they were more than willing to accept the benefits of.
If the Budapest Accord was ratified by the Senate that would be a different situation. We don’t.
***Hey, when Pootypoot is looking at a nuke plume of one of his cities and the Ukes are taking credit for it, he will no doubt be blaming the US. And it will be much our own fault because if we had never removed those nukes they never woulda been invaded, twice.
So at the very least, it seems problematic if the US could use the Accord to justify US overt military action to defend Ukraine.
***The Russians are Overtly IGNORING the sovereignty and borders provisions of that Agreement by INVADING the country twice. It appears all they have to do is not call it an invasion. So all we need to do is intervene and not call it an intervention or invasion. Just call it a military operation. What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. In this case the sauce prevents a country from getting backed into an existential nuke corner.
Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies
The Kremlin has announced its demands for ending the war in Ukraine...
3/7/2022, 8:43:33 AM · 128 of 306
https://freerepublic.com/focus/news/4044445/posts?page=128#128
Kevmo to Bruce Campbells Chin
That’s not quite fair. There was discussion right at the time that it was signed as to whether it imposed an obligation on the U.S. and U.K. to intervene militarily if Ukraine was attacked, and we made it clear way back then that we were not agreeing to that.
***Then give the Ukes back their Nukes, per my tagline. Theuy honored the agreement, we are NOT honoring it. If they had nukes, Russia never woulda invaded them.
It was essentially an agreement that none of the signatories would themselves violate that territorial integrity. Nor would such a promise have been binding even if we had made it given that it wasn’t a treaty that went through the Senate.
***The Ukes had enough nukes to kill hundreds of millions of people. They HONORed the agreement, we’re now niggling over whether it was nonbinding or somesuch bullshiite. There is no reason for any other country to EVER trust us as a result. They’ve got nuke power plants, they even have the learnings and shame of Chernobyl. They can and probably are building their own nukes, they’re in an existential war, who is to blame them if they drop nukes on Russia? Us? We dropped nukes on Japan in our existential war, and we are the ones betraying them. Appeasement niggling like yours is sending Ukraine down a hard path of nuclear re-proliferation with real possibility of nuke exchange. All because of a bunch of pantywaist appeasers, just like what happened in Sudetenland — only this time the consequences are nuclear.
Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies
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.