Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Sounds like Obama gave Putin..
Comments
-
Yeah, what a great idea that is Damone. Forfeit our status as world superpower and let Russia rape Europe, great fucking idea man.PostGameOrangeSlices said:
And what is the remedy if we decide it's not in our best interest to do that..... Oh, yeah, nothing.MikeDamone said:AZDuck said:Article 5 of the NATO treaty:
Article 5 of the Washington Treaty:
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.
Run for office.
If that were the real threat, then it would be in our economic and national interest to do something, right? Can you fucking read? Russia taking Latvia will result in a very stern talking to. -
If that were the real threat, then it would be in our economic and national interest to do something, right? Can you fucking read? Russia taking Latvia will result in a very stern talking to.MikeDamone said:
Yeah, what a great idea that is Damone. Forfeit our status as world superpower and let Russia rape Europe, great fucking idea man.PostGameOrangeSlices said:
And what is the remedy if we decide it's not in our best interest to do that..... Oh, yeah, nothing.MikeDamone said:AZDuck said:Article 5 of the NATO treaty:
Article 5 of the Washington Treaty:
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.
Run for office.
Disagree. The US knew what it was getting into by admitting Latvia in. They need allies surrounding Russia....you think the US worked so hard to gain influence in Eastern Europe only to see Russia grab it back with some tanks like its 1939?
Think again. -
-
That article basically said America is no longer being as aggressive as it has been in the past with rhetoric, but is still stationing up troops in the Middle East and Asia to deter Iran and China.MikeDamone said:
Meanwhile, other countries are investing in military at a slightly higher rate than the US currently is, but the US still has an enormous lead...
Nothing revolutionary there.... -
Mike- we will defend NATO members.
-
The article brings our resolve into question. That's my point. It's not a lock, by any stretch.AZDuck said:Mike- we will defend NATO members.
-
-
Did we draw a line in the sand?
-
Not yet. We need to put Putin on double secret probation first. Due process.PurpleJ said:Did we draw a line in the sand?
-
PostGameOrangeSlices said:
The US is full of native Poles and Europeans, not native Iraqis and Afganis.
If Europe is going to get invaded by Russia, they US populace will recognize the need to defend it you fucking dumbass
Yes. Because there are hundred of thousands if not millions of immigrants and 1st generation Polish americans with strong ties to the old country.
Or maybe not. You're reaching harder and farther than Jane Fonda in the 80's in this thread. -
I didn't mean 'native', I meant ethnic.salemcoog said:PostGameOrangeSlices said:The US is full of native Poles and Europeans, not native Iraqis and Afganis.
If Europe is going to get invaded by Russia, they US populace will recognize the need to defend it you fucking dumbass
Yes. Because there are hundred of thousands if not millions of immigrants and 1st generation Polish americans with strong ties to the old country.
Or maybe not. You're reaching harder and farther than Jane Fonda in the 80's in this thread.
My BAD BRAH -
Threads like this with limp wrist liberals pulling out contracts to argue how tuff we are is why I moved the fuck away from the NW.
Putins going to slowly absorb those fucking countries with the same ethic goonsquads and SF he's using in Ukraine now. No invasion, just strong handed "democracy" and us western fags ($75k) are going to keep moving the goalposts because deep down we know we don't want to fight that big fat drunk russian bear.
-
NATO isn't a liberal versus a conservative issue you dumb fucking faggot. Good thing your dumb ass moved away from the regionbrchco12 said:Threads like this with limp wrist liberals pulling out contracts to argue how tuff we are is why I moved the fuck away from the NW.
-
1) The US Constitution trumps all treatiesPostGameOrangeSlices said:
NATO isn't a liberal versus a conservative issue you dumb fucking faggot. Good thing your dumb ass moved away from the regionbrchco12 said:Threads like this with limp wrist liberals pulling out contracts to argue how tuff we are is why I moved the fuck away from the NW.
2) The law of self-preservation overrules the law of obligation to others
3) Congress can choice to nullify the treaty by statute
-
Only naive idealists think NATO is anything without the US backing it CONTRACT or not. And right now it seems like we don't want to do more than say we're disappointed and talk about sanctions.PostGameOrangeSlices said:
NATO isn't a liberal versus a conservative issue you dumb fucking faggot. Good thing your dumb ass moved away from the regionbrchco12 said:Threads like this with limp wrist liberals pulling out contracts to argue how tuff we are is why I moved the fuck away from the NW.
What damone said, self-preservation trumps obligation to others, i thought that was a widely understood especially by limp wristed liberals. -
Some poonts:brchco12 said:
Only naive idealists think NATO is anything without the US backing it CONTRACT or not. And right now it seems like we don't want to do more than say we're disappointed and talk about sanctions.PostGameOrangeSlices said:
NATO isn't a liberal versus a conservative issue you dumb fucking faggot. Good thing your dumb ass moved away from the regionbrchco12 said:Threads like this with limp wrist liberals pulling out contracts to argue how tuff we are is why I moved the fuck away from the NW.
What damone said, self-preservation trumps obligation to others, i thought that was a widely understood especially by limp wristed liberals.
1) I'm no where close to liberal
2) Obviously NATO is nothing without the US. The US is the world policeman; Europe mostly freerides on US provided security.
3) We are only saying we are disappointed and threatening sanctions because Ukraine is not in an alliance with us. They had a chance back in 2003-04 to join EU/NATO and fucked it up. We don't owe them any protection. Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, etc. have all joined EU/NATO and are doing infinitely better than Ukraine, which has been a clusterfuck for 30 years.
4) Self-preservation definitely trumps obligation to others, and the US doesn't do anything it won't benefit from. However, it is in US interests to defend its allies. NATO countries are essentially US military territories -- the US can station bases/troops in any of them. I don't think the US spent so much energy attempting to dissolve Soviet influence just to watch Russia grab in back with some tanks.
5) If we turn our back on our NATO allies, we are essentially saying we are no longer the alpha male country. Europe will hate us, and if Putin were allowed to take the Baltics ala Hitler taking territory in WW2....we'll we all know how that played out. Poland, Germany, Austria, Hungary, Czech Repub, Slovakia, Kosovo, Greece, Italy, France etc. would be sweating bullets and would fucking hate us forever if we handed them over to the Russians.
NATO isn't a contract. It's a military alliance to prevent something like the USSR from rising to power and threatening Europe again. -
Isolationists are FS. You can't run away and hide from the world, it isn't 1918.
-
Per the Constitution, ratified treaties are the law of the land.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
-
I believe this to be about 94.5% accurate according to my own estimations. Russia will not even think about invading Poland. If it does, both Europe and the US will declare war. If they invade Moldova, Tajikstan, Azerbaijan or Osamajistan, no one will do shit other than talk more about sanctions.
-
AZDuck said:
Per the Constitution, ratified treaties are the law of the land.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
What's your point? -
You said that the Constitution trumps treaties, when the Constitution itself says different... that's my point
-
Um...no, it doesn't. That passage simply says if congress ratifies a treaty, (or passes any law) all a states have to follow it. States can't opt out. Congress can at anytime decide to end a treaty and a treaty cannot supersede any rights granted by the constitution.AZDuck said:You said that the Constitution trumps treaties, when the Constitution itself says different... that's my point
HTH. -
In the United States, a different principle is established. Our constitution declares a treaty to be the law of the land. It is, consequently, to be regarded in courts of justice as equivalent to an act of the legislature, whenever it operates of itself, without the aid of any legislative provision. But when the terms of the stipulation import a contract—when either of the parties engages to perform a particular act, the treaty addresses itself to the political, not the judicial department; and the legislature must execute the contract, before it can become a rule for the Court.
Foster v. Neilson, 27 U.S. (2 Pet.) 253, 314 (1829). See THE FEDERALIST No. 75 (J. Cooke ed. 1961), 504-505.
But more on point, do you think that Congress would repudiate the NATO treaty if Putin invaded Poland?
That's fucking nuts.
-
Foster v. Neilson, 27 U.S. (2 Pet.) 253, 314 (1829). See THE FEDERALIST No. 75 (J. Cooke ed. 1961), 504-505.AZDuck said:In the United States, a different principle is established. Our constitution declares a treaty to be the law of the land. It is, consequently, to be regarded in courts of justice as equivalent to an act of the legislature, whenever it operates of itself, without the aid of any legislative provision. But when the terms of the stipulation import a contract—when either of the parties engages to perform a particular act, the treaty addresses itself to the political, not the judicial department; and the legislature must execute the contract, before it can become a rule for the Court.
Yeah? I'm not sure what you're trying to say, but laws and treaties don't supercede the constitution. If a treaty was ratified that required every citizen to give up their guns, the Supreme Court would strike it down. The same process applies to treaties as laws. If next week congress decided they didn't want to be in NATO any longer, they could do that.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reid_v._Covert
