European Armaments Manufacturers

[UltraChad]

Why yes it is......thanks for playing bobo....*chuckles*

You fill my allerts up and try to pretend it's me who's triggered? * chuckles * poor Fuzzywuzzy.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

You fill my allerts up and try to pretend it's me who's triggered? * chuckles * poor Fuzzywuzzy.

wow, three replies and I "filled up your alerts"....*chuckles* thanks for validating my post below

awww such hatred and anger....poor bobo, your life must suck so bad....

poor bobo......you're not really very smart....but you're sure entertaining....

 

[UltraChad]

wow, three replies and I "filled up your alerts"....*chuckles* thanks for validating my post below

Several not three. Lying ass sack of shit.

poor bobo......you're not really very smart....but you're sure entertaining....

Says the Canadian * chuckles *

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Several not three. Lying ass sack of shit.

Several meaning: an indefinite number more than two and fewer than many

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/several#:~:text=: an indefinite number more than two and fewer than many


Which is it? Three or Several?

Why don't you go retrieve my replies to you dated to today and before the time stamp of 10:57 am EST, and quote them here....oh right, you don't play "fetch". So given that you have a proven record of lying here, I guess you can't prove it, can you?

 

[UltraChad]

.oh right, you don't play "fetch".

That's right you triggered little bitch.

INbred Frenchy faggots never learn.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

That's right you triggered little bitch.

INbred Frenchy faggots never learn.

*chuckles* the only one triggered is you bobo. You were triggered before, you're triggered now, and tomorrow you'll still be triggered. Insecurity is the cause, your path to mental health is waiting in a doctors office, you just need to man up and make an appointment.

Poor bobo...*chuckles*

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

You know a MAGA has lost,when they bring Obama into defending their position....chuckles*

None of Trump’s predecessors committed the US to guaranteed security to Ukraine. That includes Obama.

 

[Politruk]

None of Trump’s predecessors committed the US to guaranteed security to Ukraine. That includes Obama.

Biden did. Good for Biden!

 

[Fuzzy1975]

None of Trump’s predecessors committed the US to guaranteed security to Ukraine. That includes Obama.

The wording in the agreement is kind of ambiguous, the Ukrainian copy used the term "security guarantee "while the rest used the term "security assurance".

However the Budapest Memorandum was used as a cudgel in the Tuzia Island conflict. The hint of US intervention was enough to cause Russia to back down. It was the belief by Russia that the Budapest Memorandum "did mean military intervention" that made Putin back away. One could use this as a "precedence".

However Obama fucked the pooch when he refused to act after the invasion of Crimea. While the agreement never clearly stated what the term meant, sometimes not having a clear understanding gives leverage over an opponent. With Obama's refusal to act on his "red line" Putin, then knew no direct military intervention was likely.

Which leads us to today. The terms are laid out in a manner for interpretation on the direct military intervention, but are much clearer on support. Trump has tried economic blackmail, and that clearly is a violation.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Biden did. Good for Biden!

Biden had nothing to do with the 1994 memorandum. Nor did any other senator at the time because no treaty was put before the senate for ratification. As president, Congress approved and Biden authorized aid. He’s no longer president and did not have the power to commit future presidents to his policies.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

The wording in the agreement is kind of ambiguous, the Ukrainian copy used the term "security guarantee "while the rest used the term "security assurance".

However the Budapest Memorandum was used as a cudgel in the Tuzia Island conflict. The hint of US intervention was enough to cause Russia to back down. It was the belief by Russia that the Budapest Memorandum "did mean military intervention" that made Putin back away. One could use this as a "precedence".

However Obama fucked the pooch when he refused to act after the invasion of Crimea. While the agreement never clearly stated what the term meant, sometimes not having a clear understanding gives leverage over an opponent. With Obama's refusal to act on his "red line" Putin, then knew no direct military intervention was likely.

Which leads us to today. The terms are laid out in a manner for interpretation on the direct military intervention, but are much clearer on support. Trump has tried economic blackmail, and that clearly is a violation.

There is nothing stated or implied anywhere in that memorandum that commits the US to military or financial aid. None. Zero. There’s no ambiguity and it was not an oversight. If the signatories had agreed to security guarantee commitments they would have written it into the document.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

There is nothing stated or implied anywhere in that memorandum that commits the US to military or financial aid. None. Zero. There’s no ambiguity and it was not an oversight. If the signatories had agreed to security guarantee commitments they would have written it into the document.

lol, you keep telling yourself that, yet military action was already threatened in 2003.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

lol, you keep telling yourself that, yet military action was already threatened in 2003.

Come back when you find the elusive security guarantees you’re looking for.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Come back when you find the elusive security guarantees you’re looking for.

I never said Trump broke any,did I? I said Trump has tried to use economic blackmail. I know you're just trying to deflect from that fact, but hey, you do you!

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

I never said Trump broke any,did I? I said Trump has tried to use economic blackmail. I know you're just trying to deflect from that fact, but hey, you do you!

I don’t know if you did or not, but certainly others have claimed the US has violated the 1994 agreement. Chloe is most recent person to make that bogus argument. I’m glad I was able to debunk it.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Now that it’s been established that nothing in the 1994 memorandum signed by Clinton provides US security guarantees for Ukraine, let’s pretend that it did. We can pretend there’s a clause that says something like “all signatories to this memorandum pledge to provide whatever military and other forms of aid are necessary to ensure perpetual security to Ukraine if it is invaded in the future by a hostile power.” We can pretend Clinton really meant that.

Now let’s reconcile that with the US Constitution. Presidents are not bound by promises made to foreign governments by their predecessors unless there is a formal treaty in place, ratified by the Senate. And financial aid must be approved by Congress. For those reasons, Trump was able to pull the US out of Obama’s Iran nuclear deal and Paris Climate agreements in his first term. Biden was able to try and rekindle those agreements, and Trump was able to squash those efforts in his second term.

Like it or not, Trump won the election and the GOP controls both chambers of Congress. Further aid to Ukraine will have to go through Trump and Congress. And unless there is a binding treaty ratified by the Senate, future presidents will not be bound by any promises Trump makes.

Thanks to President Trump’s actions, the Europeans are taking their own security more seriously than we’ve seen in many years. We are also seeing signs that Ukraine is ready to pursue a diplomatic solution. Nothing is assured but getting the parties to the negotiating table would be a good start.

 

[ll74]

Thanks to President Trump’s actions, the Europeans are taking their own security more seriously than we’ve seen in many years. We are also seeing signs that Ukraine is ready to pursue a diplomatic solution. Nothing is assured but getting the parties to the negotiating table would be a good start.

Russia is the one that needs to be ready to stop their invasion and needs to provide concessions in the name of peace.

The only thing 47 has done is provide leverage to Russia and weaken Ukraine. Russia is no longer interested and has shown no signs of ceasing their invasion. That is because 47 is a bully and only targets people he sees as weak.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Russia is the one that needs to be ready to stop their invasion and needs to provide concessions in the name of peace.

The only thing 47 has done is provide leverage to Russia and weaken Ukraine. Russia is no longer interested and has shown no signs of ceasing their invasion. That is because 47 is a bully and only targets people he sees as weak.

Yes. A peace agreement will require concessions by both sides. Step one is agreeing to come to the table.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

I don’t know if you did or not,

oh now comes the backpeddling....

but certainly others have claimed the US has violated the 1994 agreement.

And he did, the fact there are 6 main points, doesn't discount the other language.

Chloe is most recent person to make that bogus argument. I’m glad I was able to debunk it.

As I posted here:

The wording in the agreement is kind of ambiguous,

https://www.lawfaremedia.org/articl...8-making-sense-of-the-controversial-agreement

I'll further link the Helsinki agreement here:

https://www.osce.org/files/f/documents/5/c/39501.pdf

You ramble on about 6 bullet points in a document that references other mutual agreements, without bothering to dive into the entire volumes of agreements that the Budapest memorandum is base and linked to.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

oh now comes the backpeddling....

And he did, the fact there are 6 main points, doesn't discount the other language.

As I posted here:

https://www.lawfaremedia.org/articl...8-making-sense-of-the-controversial-agreement

I'll further link the Helsinki agreement here:

https://www.osce.org/files/f/documents/5/c/39501.pdf

You ramble on about 6 bullet points in a document that references other mutual agreements, without bothering to dive into the entire volumes of agreements that the Budapest memorandum is base and linked to.

Ok, so now you’re saying the 1994 memo does call for security guarantees even though nothing in the memo actually says that. You’re a mess.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Ok, so now you’re saying the 1994 memo does call for security guarantees even though nothing in the memo actually says that. You’re a mess.

You have a reading comprehension problem. Did you know that? Or maybe a failure to read, could be that too. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

You have a reading comprehension problem. Did you know that? Or maybe a failure to read, could be that too. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

I like how you tried to argue that the 1994 Budapest memo represents a US commitment to providing security guarantees to Ukraine by sharing an Brookings Institute opinion piece that characterizes the memo as “purposely ambiguous”, controversial, and “a grave diplomatic blunder.”

 

[UltraChad]

*chuckles* the only one triggered is you bobo. You were triggered before, you're triggered now, and tomorrow you'll still be triggered.

Projecting like an IMAX.....you remember those right boomer??

 

[Celand]

Ursula's EU Army

https://img-9gag-fun.9cache.com/photo/aW4L0Mx_700bwp.webp

 

[ChloeTzang]

They should consult with the UK on their tea-maker machine that's installed in every tank and IFV. The "Vessel Boiling Electric" or "BV" is now fitted to almost every major type of vehicle used by the British Army. Like having a coffee machine in your tank.