War in Ukraine

#89,256
#89,256
G0Yr0GUXQAAsyXR
 
  • Like
Reactions: orangebloodgmc
#89,258
#89,258
BeardedVol said:
I've aid it numerous times, if we don't want to uphold our obligations under the Budapest Memorandum, then we should compensate them for their monetary loss in doing so at our instance and stop trying to force them to cede land to Russia for "peace".

Your second statement is patently ludicrous. Ukraine didn't attack Russia.
Click to expand...

There are no obligations of the U.S. other than not interfere (but that part was broken but not relevant to this statement) but you are free to donate your life if you want, but you do say alot there I would agree.

https://www.ildu.com.ua/

https://war.ukraine.ua/donate/

82871ec5-6e5d-41e2-a7f4-a3286d21c196_text.gif
 
Last edited:
#89,259
#89,259
Last edited:
#89,261
#89,261
Last edited:
#89,262
#89,262
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40
#89,264
#89,264
LSU-SIU said:
In my opinion, we have but we are way past that point and now its moot. Regardless, there was never any obligation other than that as he claimed or implied.
Click to expand...
what economic or violence threat did we make to Ukraine?

we used the carrot, BM only denies the stick.

pre2013ish Ukraine didn't have access to any western lending. they wanted western lending because Russia was black balling them. in order to get western lending they had to comply with with various measures to ensure it was a "good lend". Ukraine could have said no and maintained the status quo.
 
#89,265
#89,265
LouderVol said:
what economic or violence threat did we make to Ukraine?

we used the carrot, BM only denies the stick.

pre2013ish Ukraine didn't have access to any western lending. they wanted western lending because Russia was black balling them. in order to get western lending they had to comply with with various measures to ensure it was a "good lend". Ukraine could have said no and maintained the status quo.
Click to expand...

You didn't know what the obligations were now you are arguing about them.

I disagree which is why all you guys were upset when I said Trump should disclose all the U.S. assets there, but its moot. Its too late for all that. 🤷‍♂️
 
#89,266
#89,266
LSU-SIU said:
You didn't know what the obligations were now you are arguing about them.

I disagree which is why all you guys were upset when I said Trump should disclose all the U.S. assets there, but its moot. Its too late for all that. 🤷‍♂️
Click to expand...
freaking lol dude. gtfo. I have been talking about the BM on this forum long before this was a thread.

I am saying you are twisting the BM into something it isn't. which is the same thing the warhawks are trying to do.
 
#89,267
#89,267
LouderVol said:
freaking lol dude. gtfo. I have been talking about the BM on this forum long before this was a thread.

I am saying you are twisting the BM into something it isn't. which is the same thing the warhawks are trying to do.
Click to expand...

Please explain because I don't know what you are talking about. Regardless, its moot so it really doesn't matter. 🤷‍♂️

As far as my own country having an obligation other than what I specified, I am not aware - seemed pretty easy to read. All of this is moot at this stage but no we have no obligation as he said in any way that I can see.
 
#89,268
#89,268
LSU-SIU said:
Please explain because I don't know what you are talking about. Regardless, its moot so it really doesn't matter. 🤷‍♂️

As far as my own country having an obligation other than what I specified, I am not aware - seemed pretty easy to read. All of this is moot at this stage but no we have no obligation as he said in any way that I can see.
Click to expand...
you are trying to act like the US having diplomacy with Ukraine is a violation of BM, voiding it before Russia could invade.

you are twisting what the BM actually says to fit your narrative. The warhawks also twist with the BM actually says to fit their narrative. I literally just got into bearded about this very thing.

you are the same as them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40
#89,269
#89,269
LouderVol said:
you are trying to act like the US having diplomacy with Ukraine is a violation of BM, voiding it before Russia could invade.

you are twisting what the BM actually says to fit your narrative. The warhawks also twist with the BM actually says to fit their narrative. I literally just got into bearded about this very thing.

you are the same as them.
Click to expand...

I don't think trying to overthrow a country through agents is diplomacy, it seems like it a violation of the agreement. We can agree to disagree but either way its moot.

you are the same as them.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Well, without them showing me where they claim all these guarantees exist, I would say no we are not the same. There is no language in there to even suggest what the internet warrior said or has implied, but at the end of the day its MOOT. Whether or not the U.S. violated it is not material at this point either - its moot.
 
Last edited:
#89,270
#89,270
LSU-SIU said:
I don't think trying to overthrow a country through agents is diplomacy, it seems like it a violation of the agreement. We can agree to disagree but either way its moot.



Well, without them showing me where they claim all these guarantees exist, I would say no we are not the same. There is no language in there to even suggest what the internet warrior said or has implied, but at the end of the day its MOOT. Whether or not the U.S. violated it is not material at this point either - its moot.
Click to expand...
what agents? the entire Ukrainian parliament that voted to kick the guy out of office and branded him a traitor?

or do you mean the agents who discussed people who never took power? the same agents who literal job it is to interact with anyone in power. Nuland and her cookies also talk about Putin, so clearly he is a US plant too.

or do you mean the agents who voted for the guy after he promised closer ties to the west?

or do you mean the agents that came in and swooped him up before taking him out of the country in order to protect their bribes of him?
 
#89,271
#89,271
LouderVol said:
what agents? the entire Ukrainian parliament that voted to kick the guy out of office and branded him a traitor?

or do you mean the agents who discussed people who never took power? the same agents who literal job it is to interact with anyone in power. Nuland and her cookies also talk about Putin, so clearly he is a US plant too.

or do you mean the agents who voted for the guy after he promised closer ties to the west?

or do you mean the agents that came in and swooped him up before taking him out of the country in order to protect their bribes of him?
Click to expand...

Please see my prior posts on this subject. We can agree to disagree to the facts, but its all moot at this point.

It just doesn't matter.

 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top