Forum Home | Log in | Signup | My Page | Rules | FAQ | Boards | Members | Search
« 6TH POPE Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Re: Secret Service exchange gun fire with subject attempting to shoot Trump

By: CTJ in 6TH POPE | Recommend this post (0)
Mon, 16 Sep 24 4:59 PM | 17 view(s)
Boardmark this board | 6th Edition Pope Board 		Msg. 58250 of 60008
(This msg. is a reply to 58245 by De_Composed)
Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

I don’t think that was a ratified treaty? Ratified by the Senate? I believe it was just a piece of paper put together by the Dept of State and signed by Bill Clinton. United States has no obligation to follow agreements put together by unelected bureaucrats. Even ones signed by a president.



- - - - -
View Replies (1) »



» You can also:
- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
Re: Secret Service exchange gun fire with subject attempting to shoot Trump
By: De_Composed in 6TH POPE
Mon, 16 Sep 24 7:25 AM 		Msg. 58245 of 60008

ribit:

Re: “...Budapest Memorandum. Ukraine gave up their nukes for a promise of security against russian hostility by UK and US.”An excellent point. I'd forgotten all about it, so thanks. That was a pretty stupid agreement for the United States to have made without compensation, but make it we did.

About the Budapest Memoranda, Wikipedia says:

'The Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances comprises three substantially identical political agreements signed at the OSCE conference in Budapest, Hungary, on 5 December 1994, to provide security assurances by its signatories relating to the accession of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).' ... 'Another key point was that U.S. State Department lawyers made a distinction between "security guarantee" and "security assurance", referring to the security guarantees that were desired by Ukraine in exchange for non-proliferation. "Security guarantee" would have implied the use of military force in assisting its non-nuclear parties attacked by an aggressor (such as Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty for NATO members) while "security assurance" would simply specify the non-violation of these parties' territorial integrity. In the end, a statement was read into the negotiation record that the (according to the U.S. lawyers) lesser sense of the English word "assurance" would be the sole implied translation for all appearances of both terms in all three language versions of the statement.'

So, unfortunately for Ukraine, The memoranda doesn't obligate us to provide military help. But perhaps the United Nations could intimidate Russia with its ability to declare Russia a pariah state . . . which Russia, with its unlimited right to "veto," would promptly reject. (The U.N. sucks.)

Was Ukraine foolish to have entered into such a toothless agreement? Maybe not. After all, the nukes it had were useless. Ukraine had physical possession of them but Russia had the codes. Ukraine didn't have the ability to do much more than sell its nukes to the highest bidder and perhaps find itself on the receiving end of similar (but armed) weapons. It apparently didn't want to do that.

« 6TH POPE Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next