BeardedVol
Not-Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2012
- Messages
- 14,352
- Likes
- 27,587
Countries have to apply to NATO to get approved. NATO doesn't send out paperwork first fishing for new guys. The US nor NATO didn't cross the line, the line was moved by those under the line. oh yeah, and guess what, Ukraine was rejected from NATO. seems like we did our part.shing nato even though we promised not to as we knew that was a red line? I must be mistaken and the us just noticed Ukraine a couple years ago
what was the redline? you and Putin are all over the place.Billions isn't significant? We've also been meddling with them for decades to get a friendly admin (which you'll deny). The simple fact is that we knew decades ago that this was a red line for Putin (current cia director said it back then) and stepped over it anyways. Now we're whining that he actually called us on it. Yes, the us sought this or at the very least they ignored every warning sign. Likely because Congress is in the pocket of the mic
what do you think here needs chaperoning? They were right, your quote agrees with them.Some of you need a chaperone when using the Internet.
View attachment 691716
Yes, Ukrainians living in the U.S. may qualify for Social Security benefits
Thousands of Ukrainians have found temporary shelter in the United Stateswww.11alive.com
Don't understand your post. Your "factual" post just confirms mine as factual.Some of you need a chaperone when using the Internet.
View attachment 691716
Yes, Ukrainians living in the U.S. may qualify for Social Security benefits
Thousands of Ukrainians have found temporary shelter in the United Stateswww.11alive.com
No, the brightest of red lines was described by Burns and it was not about nukes. Promises made that go back farther than that were also confirmed. The us simply couldn't stay away and I believe got the fight they wantedwhat was the redline? you and Putin are all over the place.
Is it Ukraine NATO membership?
Is it Ukraine getting NATO weapons?
Now you are down to the US getting a friendly admin in is the red line.
the red line was Ukraine having nukes. We have paperwork on that. the US, Ukraine, AND Russia. saying Ukraine's borders would be respected as long as they gave up their nukes, and the rest of the nations agreed to stay out of Ukraine unless they were attacked. Guess what? they were attacked, by Russia. If Russia didn't like the Budapest agreement invalidating some BS redline, they never should have signed it, nor attacked Ukraine.
everyone with two brain cells knows a newer written agreement with all three involved parties overrides any alleged older verbal agreements between two of the parties involving the third.
Did you read the article?what do you think here needs chaperoning? They were right, your quote agrees with them.
you see it as right, they see it as wrong. but they weren't factually incorrect.
Don't understand your post. Your "factual" post just confirms mine as factual.
confirmed verbally doesn't equal confirmed in a signed treaty. promises aren't binding, never have been, never should be when they involved a third party who isn't part of the deal. there is a reason we shy away from arranged marriages now.No, the brightest of red lines was described by Burns and it was not about nukes. Promises made that go back farther than that were also confirmed. The us simply couldn't stay away and I believe got the fight they wanted
except your response does say there are a hundred thousand welcomed under the one program they went into specifics on and said could get benefits. that backs up the OP, and verified by your article.Did you read the article?
It's not hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians getting SS benefits.
The SS programs that qualifying refugees from Ukraine can utilize, are available any qualifying refugee from any country.
The tweet was a disingenuous attempt to to try to paint Ukrainian refugees as all getting SS benefits "because Biden", and @Orange_Vol1321 posted it here, because it tapped into his confirmation bias.
I know if I say certain things it will piss off my wife. There's nothing written down but it's just understood from years of being together.confirmed verbally doesn't equal confirmed in a signed treaty. promises aren't binding, never have been, never should be when they involved a third party who isn't part of the deal. there is a reason we shy away from arranged marriages now.
Russia broke a written treaty. no two ways about it. that is an actual line they actually crossed. there is no court in the world that would ever forgive breaking a written treaty while making a stink about a verbal promise.
if that brightest red line, which you still won't define, can't have been very important if it wasn't documented on paper and signed by the relevant parties.
the US was under no obligation to stay away. certainly not after Russia broke its end of the bargain. Ukraine is a sovereign nation that can make its own decisions, Russia is beginning to learn that they should have respected that.
you and your wife are in an interpersonal committed relationship with each other. FP is much more complicated than that.I know if I say certain things it will piss off my wife. There's nothing written down but it's just understood from years of being together.
The US Ambassador now cia director did write it out for the admin to read. The "brightest of red lines" was a quote from that. Not everything needs to be written into a public treaty for it to be understood foreign policy
I know if I say certain things it will piss off my wife. There's nothing written down but it's just understood from years of being together.
The US Ambassador now cia director did write it out for the admin to read. The "brightest of red lines" was a quote from that. Not everything needs to be written into a public treaty for it to be understood foreign policy
Burns was part of all admins involved besides Trump since the memo. He went from amb to Russia to deputy sec of state under Obama. It's hard for me to believe that the former amb to Russia and current high ranking official in the state dept wasn't consulted on Russian affairs. But anything is possibleyou and your wife are in an interpersonal committed relationship with each other. FP is much more complicated than that.
CIA has nothing to do with making FP. which is why it should have been written into a treaty. our government isn't the same two people, in the same relationship for just their lives. our government is CONSTANTLY changing people, responding to an ever changing world, ever changing internal politics and politicians, for more than two hundred years. Things have to be written down. there is no way for the next person to know if that verbal exchange was binding, final, if there were changes that were needed, approval from someone who can actually make those decisions, if additional conversations were held, if someone else came in and countermanded it, on either side.
Even, apparently, giving the government credit for being competent and doing their job.Burns was part of all admins involved besides Trump since the memo. He went from amb to Russia to deputy sec of state under Obama. It's hard for me to believe that the former amb to Russia and current high ranking official in the state dept wasn't consulted on Russian affairs. But anything is possible