Oh shut up. I’m tired of the neocon spin here. I heard ad nauseam here that no promise was ever made in the first place even before you said this, but what WION dug up refuted that. Then others before you here tried to spin it saying it was “temporary” as you are trying but no one is buying it. Nothing on the audio tapes WION reported on shows it was temporary, so Gorby lied.
As for passed written agreements bound by U.S. law with Native American tribes, the U.S. broke them in the past. Do you think Russia knew that?
When you start on here looking for excuses when words means squat in the eyes of countries we need allies in such as Africa, Asia, South America, etc, because they break their word, you aren’t helping America’s standing, and the U.S. is viewed synonymously with NATO.
Instead, people like you foment mistrust with the U.S.
And no doubt you’ll make excuses for NATO when it offensively bombed Libya on Odumba’s behalf on unproven allegations that Gaddafi was going to kill 10k of his own people and when no NATO member was attacked.
And don’t shill for Bush and stop connivingly using weasel words.
Buzz off. I have no time for people not above board like you.
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.
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).