Posted on 05/21/2022 9:27:15 AM PDT by cuz1961
When looking at posts from the top to bottom here on this thread, it shows there are Bush Bot neocons here making excuses for Bush and engaging in spin.
And in my reply to an excuse-maker in post #36, I revealed that WION has reported they dug up audio files showing that a verbal promise was made to Russia, and this promise wasn’t temporary. Gorby lied as well. And it looks bad on the U.S. if it tries to weasel out of even verbal agreements. Bush makes America look bad and that it can’t be trusted when we need more allies, not less.
It’s bad enough the U.S. broke written treaties with Native Americans. Why should anyone trust us? God help Trump get reelected to restore America’s image that NATO, the MIC, etc has hurt.
Countries know that if you want a binding international agreement, you get in writing. The Soviets in particular, having negotiated SALT I, SALT II, and the START agreement with the U.S., were very y familiar with that entire process, including the need for Senate ratification/Congressional action. They knew that was a prerequisite for having a binding agreement with the United States, because we are not a dictatorship. Our constitution requires congressional action to enter into fighting agreements, and the Soviets knew that from the word go.
Gorbachev, who had negotiated a multitude of international agreements on his own, absolutely knew the importance of getting true agreements in writing and ratified. He also knew that not only was this promise not ratified, but it wasn't even reduced to writing. That's why Gorbachev himself has said there was no binding agreement from the United States not to expand NATO eastwards in the future.
You can stamp your foot and yell all you want, but that's well understood international law that you are trying to ignore just because you happen to like the particular promise at issue. Whereas you would take the exact opposite position on the Kyoto Protocols, Paris Climate Accords, or any other unratified promise made by Obama or Biden.
If that alleged promise was as clear as you claim, and so important to the soviets, they would have insisted that it be put in writing and ratified. They did none of that, which meant that it was nothing more than a personal promise made by the administration then in office, and non-binding on future Administrations.
The idea that a President acting alone can bind the foreign policy of the United States forever, without putting anything in writing and getting Congressional approval, is ridiculous. And any honest person would admit that.
What color is the sky where they live?
Sad state of affairs when there’s no one left to trust.
Right on, “Dubya” was one sorry s.o.b. I’m pleased to say I didn’t vote for him in 2004. Bush II wouldn’t secure the southern border, even after 9/11. That elitist also said America needs more third world scabs to replace “uppity” Americans who think they’re worth a middle class, living wage.
That p.o.s. neocon really vindicated my enmity toward him when he said the January 6 “insurrection” was “as bad as 9/11.” Excuse me, punk, but *how* many people were burned to death on January 6? How many were forced to jump to their deaths? How many were crushed to death, or lingered in agony under rubble piles for days? Bush’s comment proves he never really cared about the innocent victims of Islamic terror (”Religion of peace,” in his words).
At most, it is "morally binding" on the Administration that actually made that promise, and would have been understood as auch. George H.W. Bush absolutely had the authority not to deploy U.S. troops in East Germany, and not to expand NATO, for as long as he was President. He was true to his word, and the Soviet withdrawal from East Germany was peaceful and smooth. The promise was fulfilled.
If Bush and/or Gorbachev wanted to take it beyond a personal promise, and bind the U.S. into the future, they both knew how that had to be done, and didn't do it.
What amazes me about this is that the same people who are arguing that we should be bound forever by a verbal promise made in 1990 are very likely the same people who (quite rightly) argued that future administrations had no obligation to abide by the Kyoto protocols or Paris Agreements because they were never submitted to and ratified by the Senate.
Where’s the like button
So, we broke our promise to a no-longer-existent entity...
I guess that we should also feel guilty for all the broken promises we made to the Ottoman Empire.
Regards,
I can't think of a single other historical example of anyone even trying to make that argument before. When Dubya refused to abide by the terms of the Kyoto Protocols signed by Clinton, nobody said "you can't do that.". When Trump rejected the Paris Agreements signed by Obama, nobody said "you have to abide by it because Obama promised." But now, we have all these people coming out of the woodwork to say the nation is bound forever by a verbal promise made by the Bush Administration in 1990.
It's just weird.
You said it: "Coming out of the woodwork."
I can't think of a more-succinct explanation.
Regards,
When the UN decided to recognize Kosovo’s sovereignty it didn’t take this clown 24 hours to jump in and 2nd the motion on behalf of the U.S.
In 1999 there was a clip of a radio host who had GW Bush the candidate on. He asked about the possibility of rolling back the bureacracy that was not only extra-Constitutional, but UnConstitutional. Georges response was, and I am going from memory now, his response was “That ship has sailed and we have to move forward not back”.
He ran as himself, but Hannity, Rush and the talking heads were always painting him as a VERY Conservative man. God rest Rush, but they gave us their choice painted in a bright Red color he never was at heart.
They had to have known it, a lowly Painting Contractor and HS+ graduate could see it.
I did not vote for GW, I voted against AlGore. By 2004, I was “just not for him”, I was against him. Losing many internet friends on Social Media. I even lost my posting name as I was banned from “polite society”, by Conservatives.
I write of this because, the same thing is happening on FR around the Russia/Ukraine/US/NATO staged issue. It is staged to divide us, over something that is not a real thing, except for the fighting and dying. It is simply not our problem, and NATO has lived too long. It needs to be disbanded, or at the least have the US remove itself from it.
As a Nation, we need to get the UN out of the US and the US out of the UN. These agreements and treaties are meant to BIND the citizens of the States, because governments are not bound by anything but the power of the gun .
In 1999 there was a clip of a radio host who had GW Bush the candidate on. He asked about the possibility of rolling back the bureacracy that was not only extra-Constitutional, but UnConstitutional. Georges response was, and I am going from memory now, his response was “That ship has sailed and we have to move forward not back”.
He ran as himself, but Hannity, Rush and the talking heads were always painting him as a VERY Conservative man. God rest Rush, but they gave us their choice painted in a bright Red color he never was at heart.
They had to have known it, a lowly Painting Contractor and HS+ graduate could see it.
I did not vote for GW, I voted against AlGore. By 2004, I was “just not for him”, I was against him. Losing many internet friends on Social Media. I even lost my posting name as I was banned from “polite society”, by Conservatives.
I write of this because, the same thing is happening on FR around the Russia/Ukraine/US/NATO staged issue. It is staged to divide us, over something that is not a real thing, except for the fighting and dying. It is simply not our problem, and NATO has lived too long. It needs to be disbanded, or at the least have the US remove itself from it.
As a Nation, we need to get the UN out of the US and the US out of the UN. These agreements and treaties are meant to BIND the citizens of the States, because governments are not bound by anything but the power of the gun .
Exactly. It was just a verbal promise! There’s no reason America should exceed the values of used car lot. Why should we care if we can lie, mislead, and act in a dishonest manner?
Everyone that deals with us needs to get everything in writing, and read all of the fine print.
That’s how a man builds a good reputation in a community! Finally time people recognized that.
The sentence contradicts itself. A verbal promise cannot be permanent between nation-states.
“Countries know that if you want a binding international agreement, you get in writing.”
When we were attacked on 9/11 the Russians offered us use of their southern airbases immediately. No contracts, treaties, no fees, just show up and start operating. Fuel flowing and open an account.
Agreements were not discussed until much later.
At the time they thought America’s word meant something. They thought that a little too long.
Former Soviet leader Gorbachev and former Soviet Foreign Minister Shevardnadze both have said, there was no promise to not enlarge NATO. The only treaty signed between NATO and the USSR before its breakup in 1991 was the Treaty of Final Settlement with Respect to Germany. The NATO promise relates to non-deployment of NATO forces or nuclear weapons to the former GDR.
Speaking of entities that no longer exist, try the government of Ukraine that died in a coup in 2014. Whatever agreement was made with Ukraine died in the coup.
So...do we still have use of those airbases in perpetuity? No? That proves my point, not yours. They made a short-term verbal promise that they were of course perfectly free to revoke at any time. If we would have wanted some long-term guarantee for use of those facilities, we'd have to get that in writing. When we got bases in Uzbekistan, etc., we had to get it in writing, for a specified period of time. Right?
Bush, through Baker, made a promise that he kept for as long as he was in office. Absolutely nothing wrong with any subsequent President deciding to do something different.
By the way, how about the Russians actually signing those Budapest Agreement in 1993 (without adding any language about Ukraine not being permitted to join NATO, btw) then blatantly violating them in 2014?
Ok, so the validity of international agreements is now dependent upon the same government still being in power? Or is it that the country must be either a democracy or republic? Not sure you want to go down that road to defend Russia.
Ukraine had a politic crisis between a parliament that had voted almost unanimously for closer economic ties with Europe, versus a President who had campaigned on agreeing with that but then sought to reverse course at the last moment to join the Russian economic group instead. Regardless of who was right, it was the right of the Ukrainian people, not the Russian government, to resolve that. The Budapest Agreement made that absolutely clear.
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.