Jump to content

Ukraine War

BehoId, The Underminer!

By BehoId, The Underminer!
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 9.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Horn Dog
Horn Dog

So our brain dead, demented president has managed to, without firing 1 shot, or risking 1 American life, and with the extremely limited tools at his disposal to respond to a mad man hell bent on irrat

BearSchlong
BearSchlong

The Biden 82nd airborne pizza eating photo? My son is in this photo.

cactusflinthead
cactusflinthead

Posted Images

TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31184

Posted
Posted
20 hours ago, Hermanator said:

But they won't because they want to invade Taiwan. 

That and the whole bit about "honoring contracts" would be incredibly disingenuous, as the Chinese don't really have a conception of contracts that matches up with western conceptions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Captainant

Captainant 27311

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

Big lol at Hunter and Hillary being on this list.

Putin knows his audience, I’ll give him that.
 

man it's too bad that Bravo committed sudoku before this news came out, he'd be over cloud nine to pump putin's talking point

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31184

Posted
Posted (edited)
18 hours ago, pyrohornIII said:

Dumb question amnesty please.  

So basically, Ukraine signed off on something even flimsier than our indigenous natives did.   If Trump decides to not uphold this agreement, doesn't mean Biden can't.  And if Biden says go for it, then Putin can come back and say it's not really legal, since his administration didn't sign off on that agreement?   I just can't see how any of this will be good for nuclear reductions going forward, which is her point.    Why didn't they put them in NATO under some sort of probation?   We will give you X years of unlimited protection to get your country up to NATO standards and will continually assess your progress.   

Yeah, this was an "international agreement" short of an actual treaty.  Pretty much unenforceable and does not come with the same kind of ramifications as breaching treaty obligations.

That said, UK and USA did not agree to defend UA in all circumstances, but only in the event of nuclear attack. https://policymemos.hks.harvard.edu/files/policymemos/files/2-23-22_ukraine-the_budapest_memo.pdf?m=1645824948

Quote

4. The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine, as a non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used.

So, regardless of its "enforceability," we are not yet in "breach" of the Budapest Memorandum.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pyrohornIII

pyrohornIII 4801

Posted
Posted
15 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Yeah, this was an "international agreement" short of an actual treaty.  Pretty much unenforceable and does not come with the same kind of ramifications as breaching treaty obligations.

That said, UK and USA did not agree to defend UA in all circumstances, but only in the event of nuclear attack. https://policymemos.hks.harvard.edu/files/policymemos/files/2-23-22_ukraine-the_budapest_memo.pdf?m=1645824948

So, regardless of its "enforceability," we are not yet in "breach" of the Budapest Memorandum.

Quote

4. The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine, as a non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used.

So our stance is that what Russia is doing is not an act of aggression?    Maybe there' more in there that I didn't see.  But that "or" to me seems to pretty well define two circumstances we would come to their aid, not just threat or use of nukes.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pyrohornIII

pyrohornIII 4801

Posted
Posted

Thanks guys.  I do appreciate the input.  I'm just trying to understand why a country would accept and sign off on something so toothless, unless there were corrupt players at hand in Ukraine who were basically Russian puppets just agreeing to this for show.  I'm obviously not a scholar in this area and appreciate the patience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BehoId, The Underminer!

BehoId, The Underminer! 11667

Posted
  • Author
Posted
26 minutes ago, pyrohornIII said:

So our stance is that what Russia is doing is not an act of aggression?    Maybe there' more in there that I didn't see.  But that "or" to me seems to pretty well define two circumstances we would come to their aid, not just threat or use of nukes.  

"I'd like a Coke or Pepsi with ice"

Pyrowaiter:  Here is a Coke with no ice, just like you ordered.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 104465

Posted
Posted
41 minutes ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

 

I had that exact thought when I saw the news.  In case you were wondering whether Fox news is literally the embodiment of evil, that would do it.  They'd be cheering for Hitler while their reporters are being gassed at Auschwitz.  Morality and human decency is anathema to Fox.

12 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

Fucking horn dogging a war thread. Go pant after Nicole or something.

Bama.....you've been around here a LONG time.  You know that the Surly crew can horn dog a thread on.....ANYTHING.  And further, you can't deny that the subject of one of these sub-topics is objectively hot.  Do you hear that?

matrix-sound-of-inevitability.gif

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dahobbs

Dahobbs 17420

Posted
Posted (edited)
48 minutes ago, pyrohornIII said:

So our stance is that what Russia is doing is not an act of aggression?    Maybe there' more in there that I didn't see.  But that "or" to me seems to pretty well define two circumstances we would come to their aid, not just threat or use of nukes.  

The required action is asking the UN to do something. That's been done. The interpretation bit is actually fairly debatable. US Courts often apply the rule of the last antecedent, which would accord with your understanding. But other times the exact opposite rule is applied (modifier applies to all antecedents). 

https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/97-589.html

Quote

 

As an example, first consider the "rule of the last antecedent." That rule holds that a limiting clause or phrase should ordinarily be read as modifying only the noun or phrase that it immediately follows. One application of this rule looked at language that denies SSI disability to an individual who is able to "do his previous work ... or engage in any other kind of substantial gainful work which exists in the national economy." The claimant's job as an elevator operator had been eliminated, and her subsequent SSI application rested in part on the assertion that elevator operator work no longer existed in significant numbers in the national economy. A unanimous Court upheld the government's position that the claimant was ineligible for SSI if she was physically capable of doing elevator operator work at all: the phrase "which exists in the national economy" applied only to "other kind of substantial gainful work."78

Distinct from the rule of the last antecedent is a principle enunciated in Port Rico Railway, Light & Power Co. v. Mor: "When several words are followed by a clause which is applicable as much to the first and other words as the last, the natural construction of the language demands that the clause be read as applicable to all."79 A provision of the federal criminal code mandates restitution for the full amount of the victim's losses, which are defined to include five specific types of loss (e.g., medical costs, lost income) and "any other losses suffered by the victim as a proximate result of the offense."80 The Court held that the phrase "as a proximate result of the offense" modified each of the five separately listed types of losses.81

Though refusal always to be bound by the rules of grammar82 and punctuation gives the Court flexibility in construing statutes, this is not to say that grammatical rules should be disregarded in statutory drafting. These rules remain strong guides. There are many cases decided on the basis of what constitutes the most "natural reading" of a statute according to common rules of grammar, without extended reference to particular canons or other interpretational aids.83

 

 

34 minutes ago, pyrohornIII said:

Thanks guys.  I do appreciate the input.  I'm just trying to understand why a country would accept and sign off on something so toothless, unless there were corrupt players at hand in Ukraine who were basically Russian puppets just agreeing to this for show.  I'm obviously not a scholar in this area and appreciate the patience.

Ukraine didn't really want to be responsible for the nukes at that time. It couldn't properly maintain or protect them. 

Edited by Dahobbs
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Caponata

Caponata 151

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, pyrohornIII said:

Thanks guys.  I do appreciate the input.  I'm just trying to understand why a country would accept and sign off on something so toothless, unless there were corrupt players at hand in Ukraine who were basically Russian puppets just agreeing to this for show.  I'm obviously not a scholar in this area and appreciate the patience.

Give up your nukes & expect the "Libya model" as dickbag John Bolton put it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Immaculate Vibes

Immaculate Vibes 114

Posted
Posted

Wow. This is my shocked face.
 

We have posters that act like experts on everything on this board, but somehow they underestimated the significance of our freezing of central bank reserves of another significant country. All for a fight that doesn’t affect us directly when they were frozen and definitely doesn’t now.
 

The dollar was catastrophically damaged, but when I brought it up I was accused of spreading Russian disinformation by a bunch of buffoons here. You’d rather scream muh Russia at people than actually look at consequences of some of our actions. What a massive deficit in the thinkers here. 
 

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Fuck You 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SizzleChest

SizzleChest 8275

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Immaculate Vibes said:

Wow. This is my shocked face.
 

We have posters that act like experts on everything on this board, but somehow they underestimated the significance of our freezing of central bank reserves of another significant country. All for a fight that doesn’t affect us directly when they were frozen and definitely doesn’t now.
 

The dollar was catastrophically damaged, but when I brought it up I was accused of spreading Russian disinformation by a bunch of buffoons here. You’d rather scream muh Russia at people than actually look at consequences of some of our actions. What a massive deficit in the thinkers here. 
 

 

 

Blue-Velvet-Chicken-Walk-2.gif

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Immaculate Vibes

Immaculate Vibes 114

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, cactusflinthead said:

Got anyone else besides him? It's hard to take seriously ALL CAPS ALL THE TIME GUY.

I hope this works for you. 
 

They mention some Middle East foreign policy reasons for the potential move, but to believe that it’s a coincidence after our recent move with Russia is pretty naive. Countries will want to diversify away from dollar reserves now that we’ve declared we will push to seize them if you cross us. I really can’t believe we accelerated this whole timeline for some secondary gain. Stupid. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cactusflinthead

cactusflinthead 27593

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Immaculate Vibes said:

I hope this works for you. 
 

They mention some Middle East foreign policy reasons for the potential move, but to believe that it’s a coincidence after our recent move with Russia is pretty naive. Countries will want to diversify away from dollar reserves now that we’ve declared we will push to seize them if you cross us. I really can’t believe we accelerated this whole timeline for some secondary gain. Stupid. 

Pay-walled exclusive. I don't subscribe to any Murdoch products. 

Quote us some nuggets. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23375

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Hermanator said:

This gas stuff is example number 10 billion why Liberterianism is so stupid. The role of government should be to protect Americans from 1) outside invaders and attack and 2) corporate America greed and atrocities

How fucking clueless do you have to be to look at the world today and your first thought as reaction be “fucking libertarians!”  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Immaculate Vibes

Immaculate Vibes 114

Posted
Posted
20 minutes ago, F250 said:

I read it. GR's assertion isn't supported by the article.

 

Let’s see. Why are they considering this now? Is it a culmination of multiple ME policy moves that have been happening for years or is it a seismic geopolitical shift that happened in the last two weeks? Just coincidentally in the same timeframe. Again, you’re showing a lack of strategic awareness in this area that permeates this board. I’m not sure why it’s such a blind spot. 
 

27 minutes ago, cactusflinthead said:

Pay-walled exclusive. I don't subscribe to any Murdoch products. 

Quote us some nuggets. 

All you need to know is SA is seriously considering accepting yuan for oil. Why would they do that?
 

Well the reserves that they accrue for those sales would likely be held in Chinese or Chinese friendly banks. Why would they do that? The Chinese are known for being shady in capital markets. Well because until two weeks ago countries at least knew despite their differences that the US backed financial system was rules based. We shot that in one move. 

  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...