Replies

Kevmo: What does “Assured Security” and “respect of borders” mean to you?
Galt: Reread the agreement - neither phrase means ‘the US shall come to the military defense of Ukraine’.
***Your answer to the question is not to answer the question. Round and round, typical troll maneuvers. You are simply a troll.

Words have specific meanings, unless you’re a Democrat (or apparently ‘Kevmo’ ;>).
***Actions have specific consequences. Since the Russkies have violated this agreement, we can focus on the specific meaning of “respect” of borders and sovereignty. There is a MORAL obligation to do so, but pantywaist puttzes like you would prevent such actions.

Ok, now you’re posting a strawman argument
***This entire discussion between you and me was a straw man to begin with. You interjected on a failed attempt by another freeper to accuse me of sumthin they could not prove by throwin’ in this stuff. You have the thinnest excuses for your p^ssy-level pantywaist appeasement.

- I’ve never suggested Russia did not violate the agreement.
***I covered this on another post. This set of dialog is more of dealing with your trolling and bullshiite, for the most part.

The problem for you is, the memorandum specifies a response to such violations - refer the matter to the UN Security Council.
***It is unfortunate that you choose to take up this interesting side note in the middle of your trolling rather than take it up on the thread where it simply belongs, the thread in my tagline. It’s because you don’t know how to do anything but troll.

Nowhere does the agreement mention “no-fly zones” or other military action.
***It does not mention invasion either. Invasions are kind of the ultimate lack of “respect” for one’s borders and sovereignty. COUNTERING an invasion WOULD be showing “respect” for the borders and sovereignty of that nation in that agreement. Hence, by your trolling and oblique standards, it DOES mention all kinds of military action allowable under those circumstances.

Kevmo: In addition, the language is clear and simple ***to a weasel
Galt: 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$$kissing”, etc.
***Why, thank you. I see below that you added @$$#0lic troll so I include it here as all of these titles apply to you. Thanks for helping me catalogue them. Should come in handy.

Perhaps you should consider some sort of anger management assistance.
***Perhaps you should consider better Russian Troll Schools than the one you’re posting from.

Kevmo: To be candid, I do not think the Ukes understood this at all.
Galt: Oh, you betcha - they’re signing an international agreement, but the poor Ukrainian government had nobody available to read plain English.
***Another set of round & round trolling. Yawn.

You’re better at making excuses than a Democrat politician.
***Where’s the excuse? They got duped. Is that an excuse in your book? You’re kind of a real @$$#0/e.

Kevmo: or they’re all complete morons. ***They simply got duped. Which means they’ll be looking to build their own nuke capability real soon.
Galt: The Ukranians “got duped”? Maybe in some alternative universe,
***blah blah blah, notice that you don’t address the big red blinking light on the console: The Ukes will be building nukes.

where words written on paper magically ‘transmogrify’ into different words written on paper. In reality, it’s simple language,
***Bullshiite. Nuke plumes are simple. Invasions are simple. Borders are simple.

the Ukrainians agreed to it,
***the Ukes HONORED it. The Rukes VIOLATED it. And pantywaist appeasing pansies like you are looking to abrogate the simple language of borders and security assurance.

and the US is under no obligation beyond those specific written terms.
***The US is under obligation. Everyone in the world can see it, they just don’t know if Biden has enough balls to do it. That is, unless you consider invasion to be “respecting Ukrainian borders”, like you appear to do.

Either way, the US is in no way ‘backing Ukraine into a corner’,
***Why do you say “either way”? It’s bullshiite. Your conclusion does not follow, there’s no logic to support it, and you’re simply wrong.

Galt:by not providing military assistance that Ukraine has always known
Kevmo:***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.
Galt: More excuses,
***What the hell? Are you gonna be saying that bullshiite when tens of millions of Russians and Ukrainians are dead in a nuke conflagration? No, you’ll be running away like the cockroach you are.

plus “blame America first” - how nice!
***No, I blame Ukraine first but America sure does share some of the blame. The Ukes should never have given up their nukes.

Galt:is NOT AN AMERICAN OBLIGATION.
Kevmo:***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”.
Galt: You may “see” it, but it’s not in the written terms you yourself quoted.
***Okay, genius, respecting borders is not written into the terms of that agreement. This is a prime piece of bullshiite you have written here, where everyone can see for themselves just by looking up the agreement.

Simply put, you “see” things that don’t exist.
***Below you return to this dog-vomit argument and call it “crystal ball”. And yet you yourself engage in exactly the same crystal balling when you say “send in US troops now, and risk nuclear war”... You’re just a straightforward hypocrite.

You may wish to discuss that issue with someone.
***I agree you may wish to do so because your trolling hypocrisy is sickening.

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!
Kevmo:***Hurt feelins got nuthin to do with it. You’re simply acting like a troll.
Galt: I can’t believe you’re unfamiliar with sarcasm (posts clearly labeled “\sarc”)!
***Where is the \sarc? Not in the stuff you posted just now. You’re real good at this trolling now-go-fetch game. Eventually it’s not worth responding to trolls like you.

Apparently you were “seeing” something in my post that was not actually there
***Not true. You were simply being a troll and continue to be a troll. You’re a troll.

- just as you “see” obligations in the Budapest Memorandum that are not really there.
***I see the word “respect” and “borders” and then I see Russia INVADING. Clearly those are violations of the memorandum agreement. If pootypoot can get away with an invasion just by calling it a “special military exercise” then we can get away with following the Budapest Agreement and call it “respecting Ukrainian borders”. Direct quotes from signed agreements are usually pretty compelling as evidence of doing the RIGHT THING.

As noted in my post, I thought you might find the reference in your personal copy of the Budapest Memorandum,
***You interjected in an unrelated disagreement where the original freeper couldn’t come up with evidence. This entire interaction with you has been on the basis of you trolling.

right next to the supposed requirement that the US intervene militarily if Ukraine was invaded -
Kevmo:***Total troll injection. I should just start treating you like the despicable troll you are.
Galt: “Troll...troll...troll...” Looks like your list of favorite insults is shorter than I thought.
***Looks like I got you pegged properly. Troll.

Galt: that no such requirement has ever existed.
Kevmo: ***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.
Galt: 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,
***You try here to argue against “crystal balling” but you engage RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF IT, in crystal balling. If we keep it CONVENTIONAL it will remain CONVENTIONAL because all of our proxy war interactions with the Russians in the past have remained CONVENTIONAL.

because my Crystal Ball tells me WE’RE ALL GONNA DIE if we don’t!!!”
***Straw argument. Strangely enough, several FReepers from YOUR side have vehemently aggravated the same thing that if the Rukes even sniff a hint of nukes from the Ukes then they’ll turn the place into glass. I see more crystal balling from your side than I do from the other side.

Galt: Thanks again for proving my point...
Kevmo:***I will be thanking you for being a troll at some point...
Galt:Hopefully it doesn’t involve sending me one of those suitcase nukes that you apparently know how to build! \sarc
***Up above you criticize me for not recognizing a clearly posted “/sarc”, and here you post one. But what part is sarcasm, where is it you’re saying the opposite of what you mean? Is it that you’re not hopeful of avoiding a suitcase nuke in your mail? Or is it that you’re just a crappy writer and the /sarc only applies to part of the sentence but not the whole sentence, only applies to “know how to build”? I perceive it’s that you’re just a crappy writer on top of all that trolling bullshiite you throw around.

So now I finally got to the end of your tiresome creed and my assessment is... you aint worth it. You’re just a troll, time to start ignoring you, sending you the blah blah blah treatment. Oh well, TTFN.

Kevmo: What does “Assured Security” and “respect of borders” mean to you? Galt: Reread the agreement - neither phrase means ‘the US shall come to the military defense of Ukraine’.
***Your answer to the question is not to answer the question. Round and round, typical troll maneuvers. You are simply a troll.

Hey, if you’re NOT insisting that the US must “come to the military defense of Ukraine”, just say so – your posts suggest otherwise.

Words have specific meanings, unless you’re a Democrat (or apparently ‘Kevmo’ ;>).
***Actions have specific consequences. Since the Russkies have violated this agreement, we can focus on the specific meaning of “respect” of borders and sovereignty. There is a MORAL obligation to do so, but pantywaist puttzes like you would prevent such actions.

Oopsie – what happened to your argument that the Budapest Memorandum obligated the US to defend Ukraine? Suddenly you’re talking about “a MORAL obligation”, which is an entirely different thing. Perhaps you can tell us why you think the US is the Earth’s “Globo Robo Cop”, and therefore somehow required to enforce moral obligations in backwater countries like Ukraine, where this country has few or no vital interests?

(Oh, and I’ll add “pantywaist puttzes” to the Kevmo insult list ;>)

There you go again - “p^ssy-level pantywaist appeasement” added to the Kevmo insult list.

Apparently, you do not dispute the simple fact that “the memorandum specifies a response to such violations [as the Russian invasion] - refer the matter to the UN Security Council.” The US has apparently already done that and fulfilled its obligations under the agreement. As noted repeatedly, the US is not obligated to intervene militarily in the Ukraine conflict by the Budapest Agreement. Period.

And I’ll throw “trolling” on your insult list (although it’s fairly similar to multiple previous entries ;>).

Spare me the song and dance – the agreement specifically addresses “an act of aggression” (which most certainly includes “invasion”), and specifies referral to the UN “Security Council “ as the response – NOT American military intervention. That’s already happened (as noted above), so US obligations under the agreement have been fulfilled.

(And “trolling” is already on your list, so we’re good! ;>)

Happy to help!

Perhaps you should consider some sort of anger management assistance.
***Perhaps you should consider better Russian Troll Schools than the one you’re posting from.

I don’t think the US is obligated to intervene in the Ukraine conflict, and that somehow makes me a “Russian Troll” – now that’s original!

Actually, you stated an opinion (“I do not think the Ukes understood this at all”) that has ABSOLUTELY NO BASIS IN FACT (if you can substantiate your argument, ‘ante up’ with a suitable reference ;>). When I point out how ridiculous your comment is, you respond with more accusations of “trolling”. Impressive, indeed!

You’re better at making excuses than a Democrat politician.
***Where’s the excuse? They got duped. Is that an excuse in your book? You’re kind of a real @$$#0/e.

Once again: care to provide real evidence that Ukraine was “duped”? Of course not – but I’ll see if “real @$$#0/e” is on your list.

Ok, so more claims the poor, poor Ukrainians got “duped”, but still NO evidence that actually occurred, and then back to your ‘Crystal Ball’ Kevmo-can-magically-see-the-future argument (“The Ukes will be building nukes). Besides, I thought you were going to do that for them?

Sure – and none of that obligates the US to intervene in the Ukraine war.

the Ukrainians agreed to it,
***the Ukes HONORED it. The Rukes VIOLATED it. And pantywaist appeasing pansies like you are looking to abrogate the simple language of borders and security assurance.

The US fulfilled its obligations by referring the matter to the UN Security Council. Period. But I’ll add “pantywaist appeasing pansies” to the list!

;>)

Once again, the agreement specifies the obligations, and the US referred the matter to the Security Council as required by the memorandum. Period. You apparently see additional ‘unwritten’ or ‘moral’ obligations, and believe your point of view is shared by “[e]veryone in the world”, which suggests that you’re “projecting” your unsubstantiated opinions on lots of other people (as many Democrats have a habit of doing :>).

You post unsubstantiated opinions (and actually project those opinions on “[e]veryone in the world”), posit supposed ‘moral’ obligations that are nowhere specified in the memorandum, and then suggest that my “conclusion” (based on the specific written terms of the Budapest Memorandum) is somehow “wrong”, and “there’s no logic to support it”. Now that’s funny!

More unsubstantiated opinion, plus your good ol’ ‘Crystal Ball’ argument (“when tens of millions of Russians and Ukrainians are dead”), and another insult! Congratulations!

Not at all – the “risk” of nuclear war undeniably exists, any time nuclear-armed opponents engage in combat. That is a simple fact, and no ‘Crystal Ball’ is needed.

You, on the other hand make statements like “…when tens of millions of Russians and Ukrainians are dead in a nuke conflagration” – for your information, “when” is a prediction of future events, which in this case are unlikely to actually occur, because your “Ukrainians” do not possess nuclear weapons. In short, “[y]our conclusion does not follow, there’s no logic to support it, and you’re simply wrong”.

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!
Kevmo:***Hurt feelins got nuthin to do with it. You’re simply acting like a troll.
Galt: I can’t believe you’re unfamiliar with sarcasm (posts clearly labeled “\sarc”)!
***Where is the \sarc? Not in the stuff you posted just now. You’re real good at this trolling now-go-fetch game. Eventually it’s not worth responding to trolls like you.

It’s at the end of the post you keep complaining about (and which apparently forms the basis of your entire phony “troll” argument) – my clearly-labeled-as-sarcastic Post #54.

Galt: that no such requirement has ever existed.
Kevmo: ***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…
If we keep it CONVENTIONAL it will remain CONVENTIONAL because all of our proxy war interactions with the Russians in the past have remained CONVENTIONAL.

So, you actually believe that ”If we keep it CONVENTIONAL it will remain CONVENTIONAL because all of our proxy war interactions with the Russians in the past have remained CONVENTIONAL”? Amazing. During the Cuban missile crisis, the US and USSR were NOT EVEN SHOOTING AT EACH OTHER, and the risk of nuclear war undeniably existed. If the US confronts Russia over the Ukraine, via military assistance to Ukraine, the risk of nuclear war will undeniably exist. And if the US intervenes directly in the conflict, it won’t be a “proxy war”. Once again, “[y]our conclusion does not follow, there’s no logic to support it, and you’re simply wrong”.

The ”\sarc” indicated that I did not actually expect to receive a “suitcase nuke” from you in the mail (in part because I doubt your ability to produce such a device, as you boasted in the linked post). Does that clarify the matter? And I’ll add “crappy writer” to your list of insults, just for fun.

Why, thank you! I’ll post my evaluation of your posts below.

;>)