War in Ukraine

#60,832
#60,832
evillawyer said:
God, the idiots they put on TV in Russia make Fox's clown collection look like a bunch of Einsteins

Click to expand...


the real message here is that we should be ramping up diplomatic efforts to end this - this is the only conflict we've been materially involved in where we are completely avoiding trying to bring it to a diplomatic end. our NATO allies are already broaching the topic but Dim Brandon is all "we'll go as long as it takes (except we'll give you just enough to keep from losing so you let Vlad punch himself out)"
 
#60,835
#60,835
tvolsfan said:
You’re right, but to be fair, us too.
Click to expand...

And France and the UK have similar veto power, but I can't see the US heading into Mexico or Canada. It just seems that a single veto from a group of five shouldn't carry the weight it does. Aggression is aggression regardless of who is doing it, and I don't consider stopping the invasion or other means of hostile takeover of a country as aggression. If you argued against US actions in Afghanistan, Iraq (other than Kuwaiti liberation), or perhaps others, I'd probably agree with you.
 
#60,838
#60,838
volinbham said:
ummm, what's the statute of limitations on taking land?
Click to expand...
Why is it relevant. The claim Russia has made is based on made up historical ties to the land. That is why they are getting goofed on. If the US is laying claim to North America in 1492 you might have a point?

Did you take some time to read that analyst on the Budapest Memorandum and its purposeful ambiguity?
 
#60,842
#60,842
NorthDallas40 said:
Why is it relevant. The claim Russia has made is based on made up historical ties to the land. That is why they are getting goofed on. If the US is laying claim to North America in 1492 you might have a point?

Did you take some time to read that analyst on the Budapest Memorandum and its purposeful ambiguity?
Click to expand...

it's relevant because the map I responded to showed Russia over 500 years ago and now as an example of how land control changes. just pointed out that it is human history.

hell, the entire ME conflict centers around "it was ours once". just pointing out that Native Americans would goof on us for any number of historic claims to land. all land has historic ties to some other entity.

as I see it - the land is yours as long as you can hold it. if someone else stops you from holding it, then it isn't yours anymore.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88
#60,844
#60,844
AM64 said:
And France and the UK have similar veto power, but I can't see the US heading into Mexico or Canada. It just seems that a single veto from a group of five shouldn't carry the weight it does. Aggression is aggression regardless of who is doing it, and I don't consider stopping the invasion or other means of hostile takeover of a country as aggression. If you argued against US actions in Afghanistan, Iraq (other than Kuwaiti liberation), or perhaps others, I'd probably agree with you.
Click to expand...
I just meant that we often use our veto power to turn reject things we don’t like for selfish reasons, even if the global consensus is against us. I think we have used it the most since the Soviet Union fell.
 
#60,845
#60,845
volinbham said:
ummm, what's the statute of limitations on taking land?
Click to expand...

Are you taking land when it's inhabited from time to time by nomads with overlapping claims? This also happened a long time before the US population was anything like it is now - don't think there were any borders or any maps either? To me the reality is that for a while land has been divvied up between countries. If you take something now, it belongs to somebody else.
 
#60,847
#60,847
volinbham said:
it's relevant because the map I responded to showed Russia over 500 years ago and now as an example of how land control changes. just pointed out that it is human history.

hell, the entire ME conflict centers around "it was ours once". just pointing out that Native Americans would goof on us for any number of historic claims to land. all land has historic ties to some other entity.

as I see it - the land is yours as long as you can hold it. if someone else stops you from holding it, then it isn't yours anymore.
Click to expand...
Man if I didn’t know better I’d guess you’re walking out some appeasement talking here. Hey they took it so it’s theirs now right? And we have zero obligations on assisting them keeping their territorial borders from 1994 in tact. I guess I’ve also got my answer on whether you read that legal analysis on the memorandum
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and BeardedVol
#60,849
#60,849
volinbham said:
it's relevant because the map I responded to showed Russia over 500 years ago and now as an example of how land control changes. just pointed out that it is human history.

hell, the entire ME conflict centers around "it was ours once". just pointing out that Native Americans would goof on us for any number of historic claims to land. all land has historic ties to some other entity.

as I see it - the land is yours as long as you can hold it. if someone else stops you from holding it, then it isn't yours anymore.
Click to expand...
Really, your view is just might is right?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, NorthDallas40 and BeardedVol
#60,850
#60,850
AM64 said:
Are you taking land when it's inhabited from time to time by nomads with overlapping claims? This also happened a long time before the US population was anything like it is now - don't think there were any borders or any maps either? To me the reality is that for a while land has been divvied up between countries. If you take something now, it belongs to somebody else.
Click to expand...
It’s hard to argue we haven’t taken North America by largely conquest. The lands be bought were the conquest of other Europeans. But if some other power had an obligation to help the natives it sure would have been sad and pathetic for them to weasel out of that commitment 🤷‍♂️
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top