And, If You Do It Again, We're Going To Hold Our Breath Until We Turn Blue !!!

[GBFan]

Um... OK.

What are you doing to support somebody in the Ukraine?

As a matter of fact, I met with my Congressman for an hour last week - the Ukraine was one of the items of discussion.

What have you done? Have you taken a side? Did you tell your Congressman to provide military weapons, etc for the Ukrainian people? Or, did you tell him to pass the message to Moscow that we will stand aside and do nothing, no matter what they do in the Ukraine?

Don't you find it interesting that it's okay for us to be involved in Israel-Hamas, but we ignore Russia-Ukraine, or Syria, or Libya, or Iraq?

 

[dogtowner]

So we have something signed on paper that details this promise ? No prolly not. And popular opinion thete us strongly anti nato. Perhaps those who voted to repatriate actually meant it.
Our respinsibilities are defined by what we agree to do. And wr have no ahreement here.

 

[GBFan]

So we have something signed on paper that details this promise ? No prolly not. And popular opinion thete us strongly anti nato. Perhaps those who voted to repatriate actually meant it.
Our respinsibilities are defined by what we agree to do. And wr have no ahreement here.

Actually, you're wrong ...

The "Budapest Memorandum" - with signatories Britain, USA, and Ukraine - was signed by Clinton in 1994, in which we agreed to provide military protection in the event of soviet aggression in return for the Ukraine dismantling its nuclear weapons. This Memorandum was updated in 2010 by Obama. No words were formally put in there about withdrawing the NATO application, but that was what led to the update. Frankly, even without the update, we committed to providing them support under our umbrella.

Further, the European Union - Ukraine Economic Agreement, originally signed in 2010, and reiterated in June of this year, clearly states the agreement of cooperation and mutual protection under UN Resolution 1373 (Global Counter-Terrorism). Section 4 of that document was very explicit about the commitment to provide mutual security support.

I'll quote the executive summary: "In cooperation on justice, FREEDOM, and SECURITY (my emphasis), the Parties shall attach particular importance to the consolidation of the rule of law and the reinforcement of institutions at all levels ... " "Respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms will guide all cooperation on justice, freedom, and security. "

But, I do love your waffling ... "well, yes, we said it, but that doesn't count ... if it isn't in writing, it ain't true. My word, my honor, means nothing ... only thing that matters is what you can prove in court. My word is NOT by bond."

That IS what you meant, isn't it?

 

[dogtowner]

Actually, you're wrong ...

The "Budapest Memorandum" - with signatories Britain, USA, and Ukraine - was signed by Clinton in 1994, in which we agreed to provide military protection in the event of soviet aggression in return for the Ukraine dismantling its nuclear weapons. This Memorandum was updated in 2010 by Obama. No words were formally put in there about withdrawing the NATO application, but that was what led to the update. Frankly, even without the update, we committed to providing them support under our umbrella.

Further, the European Union - Ukraine Economic Agreement, originally signed in 2010, and reiterated in June of this year, clearly states the agreement of cooperation and mutual protection under UN Resolution 1373 (Global Counter-Terrorism). Section 4 of that document was very explicit about the commitment to provide mutual security support.

I'll quote the executive summary: "In cooperation on justice, FREEDOM, and SECURITY (my emphasis), the Parties shall attach particular importance to the consolidation of the rule of law and the reinforcement of institutions at all levels ... " "Respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms will guide all cooperation on justice, freedom, and security. "

But, I do love your waffling ... "well, yes, we said it, but that doesn't count ... if it isn't in writing, it ain't true. My word, my honor, means nothing ... only thing that matters is what you can prove in court. My word is NOT by bond."

That IS what you meant, isn't it?

Thx for the infirmation. ill revuew it as I can and if it commits armed response then we gotta do it. But a presidents word is not a bond the nation is obligated to as the cinstitution makes quite clear.

 

[GBFan]

Thx for the infirmation. ill revuew it as I can and if it commits armed response then we gotta do it. But a presidents word is not a bond the nation is obligated to as the cinstitution makes quite clear.

So ... you maintain that leader of the country can't commit the country ... yet, we have no problem with him changing laws, canceling laws, making up new ones ... he can't commit troops (well, actually, we know, by virtue of the War Powers Act, he can)?

You're waffling again ---- either we mean what we say or we don't.

 

[PLC1]

So ... you maintain that leader of the country can't commit the country ... yet, we have no problem with him changing laws, canceling laws, making up new ones ... he can't commit troops (well, actually, we know, by virtue of the War Powers Act, he can)?

You're waffling again ---- either we mean what we say or we don't.

Correct, if we've made a commitment, then we need to stick by it. Now, as to the proper action to take, is it your position that we need to send troops to the Ukraine?

 

[dogtowner]

So ... you maintain that leader of the country can't commit the country ... yet, we have no problem with him changing laws, canceling laws, making up new ones ... he can't commit troops (well, actually, we know, by virtue of the War Powers Act, he can)?

You're waffling again ---- either we mean what we say or we don't.

OK you are familiar with the war powers act so you know congressional approval is needed.
Now a president would also be familiar with this and would not go making promices he knows he cant keep and would have already huddled with congress to insure their approval was there.
Or he could be stupid enough not to like BO and syrias line that cant be crossed until it gets crossed. And then he looks foolish and reinforces his lack of credibility; leadership nit to mention common sense.

 

[GBFan]

OK you are familiar with the war powers act so you know congressional approval is needed.

.... after 90 days.

 

[GBFan]

Correct, if we've made a commitment, then we need to stick by it. Now, as to the proper action to take, is it your position that we need to send troops to the Ukraine?

No ... it is my position that we need to take a very public and clearly stated posture supporting the duly elected government in ANY country, but certainly in the Ukraine. That support may, and we must be willing, include money, materiel, and, as a last resort, manpower. Economic sanctions against a few (not even ALL) of Putin's friends is a joke. Power must be met with power - and the perception of power must be met with a corresponding perception of power. My recommended actions in the Ukraine have been clearly spelled out here and in other threads.

We have - pardon the expression - waffled on our support to the Ukraine, the Syrian rebels, the Libyan insurgents, and the Egyptian peace movement. We had the opportunity, by actively supporting Arab Spring, to dynamically change the course of history in the MidEast - instead, we dithered, we lied, and we backed out. The ensuing vacuum gave rise to the Muslim fundamentalists.

We quit on our allies in Iraq and Afghanistan. We showed ourselves to be a country with no courage, no honor, and no backbone.

 

[dogtowner]

I reviewed the memorandum and Russia by clever means has worked within the context.

 

[GBFan]

I reviewed the memorandum and Russia by clever means has worked within the context.

Only if you accept the nonsense that they are not providing substantive support, and personnel, to the separatist movement ... which has definitively been proven otherwise (not to mention the shelling of Ukrainian positions from within Russia)