“Yes, your side”
- I don’t know why you’re linking to a thread I haven’t posted anything in, as if that’s somehow relevant to the current discussion. Reread my comment: I didn’t mention “sides.” I spoke specifically about *your* posts and those by Alberta’s Child. Of the two, you come off as less rational. That’s it.
“Now hold on a second. I count 68 entries for the word ‘treaty’. I did NOT “keep saying it’s a treaty after quite a few said otherwise...” You want us to be that nitpicky about a word, then let’s be that nitpicky about a word, because it’s a signed memorandum on Security Assurances that Ukraine HONORED.”
- Firstly, most mentions of the word ‘treaty’ in this thread (other than those used by you in reference to the Memorandum, and those by people telling you it’s not a treaty) was in reference to *actual treaties* like the Nonproliferation Treaty, START, or the Russian-Ukrainian Friendship Treaty of 1997 (which expired in 2019). I also count at least one reference of Conservapedia calling the Budapest Memorandum a treaty, which it isn’t. Don’t confuse the Budapest Memo with other treaties.
Secondly, I can *see* your posts after I and others told you that the Budapest Memo legally isn’t a treaty, where you still refer to it as a treaty.
Thirdly, that Ukraine could be said to have “honored” the Budapest Memorandum (as far as Section 3 goes in terms of economic coercion) is at the very least *debatable* in light of how groups like the International Monetary Fund, the National Endowment for Democracy, the Obama Administration, and so forth helped foment a revolution that ousted former Ukrainian President Yanukovych in 2014.
“You guys keep telling others to go fight Russians in the Ukraine”
-I’ve encouraged no one to go over to fight for either Ukraine or Russia. This should be kept to the level of a regional conflict; getting America involved and escalating matters is a bad idea (especially in light of our military’s recent track record).
“so now it’s my turn for you to go and hop on a plane to tell the Ukes that it never was a treaty, it was as violable as their own toilet paper”
- Why should I? They’re capable of reading, aren’t they? It’s not like they need an American to explain things to them, or do you think that lowly of their intelligence.
“so they’re free to build all the beautiful nukes they want and can blow the hell out of Russians with them because, after all, that’s what we did to Japan.”
- The point of nuclear deterrence is to keep the fighting from occurring *before it starts*; but the fighting has already begun, so that card’s gone (and as someone else said, if the Ukrainians had any nuclear weapon capacity, they would have spoken up about it by now). I personally don’t think the Ukrainians should have given up their nuclear stockpile in 1994, but I also don’t know if they legitimately would have had the political capital back then to keep them. However, you’re the one saying the Ukranians should use a suitcase bomb to *blow up Moscow*, which would **guarantee escalation to World War III and nuclear warfare**.
To say that’s ***insane*** is putting it mildly.
P.S. Comparing the Ukraine to Kyle Rittenhouse is a pretty hot take. (And a hyperbolic one at that.)
- I don’t know why you’re linking to a thread I haven’t posted anything in,
***The guy was trolling me and harassing across thread boundaries while I was posting on this thread. He’s on your side. I didn’t even post on THAT thread. But naturally, my post was removed when there is concrete evidence of harassment.
as if that’s somehow relevant to the current discussion.
***It’s current. It comes from your side.
Reread my comment: I didn’t mention “sides.”
***I did. You quoted me. So there, you kinda did mention sides.
I spoke specifically about *your* posts and those by Alberta’s Child. Of the two, you come off as less rational. That’s it.
***Sure, I get it. I’m dealing with a cross-thread harassment troll at the same time I’m dealing with you guys and included a snide remark without attributing it to the video. That’s not a lack of rationality, it’s a simple mistake. But look at what your side is doing this whole time. Feel free to admonish your own side, but I doubt you will.
Kevmo: “Now hold on a second. I count 68 entries for the word ‘treaty’. I did NOT “keep saying it’s a treaty after quite a few said otherwise...” You want us to be that nitpicky about a word, then let’s be that nitpicky about a word, because it’s a signed memorandum on Security Assurances that Ukraine HONORED.”
US7- Firstly, most mentions of the word ‘treaty’ in this thread (other than those used by you in reference to the Memorandum, and those by people telling you it’s not a treaty) was in reference to *actual treaties* like the Nonproliferation Treaty, START, or the Russian-Ukrainian Friendship Treaty of 1997 (which expired in 2019).
***Precisely. The CONTEXT of you calling me out on the word ‘treaty’ was harassment surrounded by nitpickiness.
I also count at least one reference of Conservapedia calling the Budapest Memorandum a treaty, which it isn’t.
***SO how is it ‘irrational’ for me to call it a treaty? Especially in the midst of such context? It’s not.
Don’t confuse the Budapest Memo with other treaties.
***Don’t call someone irrational when your side is harassing them. And if you continue to remain silent on that, you’re just bein’ a hypocrite. Go ahead, let me see how you roll, one way or another. What’s sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander.
Secondly, I can *see* your posts after I and others told you that the Budapest Memo legally isn’t a treaty, where you still refer to it as a treaty.
***Yes but i didn’t see YOURS until I commented on it. Since when do you hold FReepers accountable to seeing your posts when it is most convenient to YOU?
Thirdly, that Ukraine could be said to have “honored” the Budapest Memorandum (as far as Section 3 goes in terms of economic coercion)
***Uhh, they HONORED it by giving up NUKEs which can kill tens of millions of people but you seem to wanna focus on nitpicky items.
is at the very least *debatable* in light of how groups like the International Monetary Fund, the National Endowment for Democracy, the Obama Administration,
***Uhhh, how about that there organization that monitors nuclear proliferation? Isn’t it more important to consider sumthin that could kill tens of millions of souls than some stupid monetary fund?
and so forth helped foment a revolution that ousted former Ukrainian President Yanukovych in 2014.
***Red herring, as far as I can tell. What was the bearing with respect to this “non treaty”? It was a violation, that’s what it was.
“You guys keep telling others to go fight Russians in the Ukraine”
-I’ve encouraged no one to go over to fight for either Ukraine or Russia.
***good to know, but I said “you guys” so I’m including your cohort you have surrounded yourself with.
This should be kept to the level of a regional conflict;
***Is that what the ‘nontreaty’ says? Honor Ukrainian borders, that kind of thing? The Ukes held up tens of millions of nonregional lives in high regard when they honored the provisions of this nontreaty, so should we.
getting America involved and escalating matters
***America signed this nonbinding nontreaty. And the consequences of treating it in this manner could result in nuclear plumes. America’s best interest is in preventing this, and the simplest path towards that is to defend the Ukes like we said we would.
is a bad idea (especially in light of our military’s recent track record).
***You’re talking about shoulds, and so am I. Since this is not a treaty, it was never binding, then the Ukes are free to pursue a nuke defense strategy and they are defending their country in an existential war. Should they treat it such a way? Or should they just bend over?
“so now it’s my turn for you to go and hop on a plane to tell the Ukes that it never was a treaty, it was as violable as their own toilet paper”
- Why should I?
***Okay, then I’ll change it to “you all”
They’re capable of reading, aren’t they? It’s not like they need an American to explain things to them,
***Well then, if it’s not compelling enough for you all to prevent nuke plumes then perhaps I’ll just consider for myself how compelling it is to fight Russians.
or do you think that lowly of their intelligence.
***Or do you think that lowly of tens of millions of lost souls in a nukular plume?
“so they’re free to build all the beautiful nukes they want and can blow the hell out of Russians with them because, after all, that’s what we did to Japan.”
- The point of nuclear deterrence is to keep the fighting from occurring *before it starts*;
***True enough, and well said. But when you don’t have enough time, you do what you can with what you have.
but the fighting has already begun, so that card’s gone
***It’s conventional right now. It could turn nukular with a truck bomb in a matter of weeks. Hopefully the Ukes give the Russians a chance to evacuate Ukraine in a reasonable timeframe but since it aint a ‘treaty’ they can do whatever the hell they want, right?
(and as someone else said, if the Ukrainians had any nuclear weapon capacity, they would have spoken up about it by now).
***They probably don’t. But if the A-Bomb kid could design a bomb in a few weeks, so could the Ukes.
I personally don’t think the Ukrainians should have given up their nuclear stockpile in 1994, but I also don’t know if they legitimately would have had the political capital back then to keep them.
***I’m reasonably certain they WISH they had kept some. There’s no telling at this point.
However, you’re the one saying the Ukranians should
***Should? Well, that’s a bit stronger than I would promote. I’d say they’re well within their rights to do so, since guys like you are saying they have no rights under that there non-treaty.
use a suitcase bomb to *blow up Moscow*, which would **guarantee escalation to World War III and nuclear warfare**.
***Well, golly gee gosh. You’re finally seeing the issue here. It only took 5 or 6 iterations.
To say that’s ***insane*** is putting it mildly.
***NOW are ya gonna consider that treating this thing like it’s just toilet paper to send down the river we sold the Ukes is not a very pretty idear?
P.S. Comparing the Ukraine to Kyle Rittenhouse is a pretty hot take. (And a hyperbolic one at that.)
***Not so hot, because it is true. Nukes are borderline insanity no matter how you approach it, that’s why they use the acronym MAD.