All it took was a Democrat to be in the white house for trumpbots to suddenly give a ish about victims of wildfires.

3 hours ago, Procus said:

Ok - then explain to us what was agreed to with the end of the Warsaw Pact.  All ears.

You’re an anti American piece of crap parroting the talking points of our enemy. NATO never promised not to expand. Putin is making it up.

 

https://hls.harvard.edu/today/there-was-no-promise-not-to-enlarge-nato/

 

Even Gorbachev said we never promised not to expand.

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/did-nato-promise-not-to-enlarge-gorbachev-says-no/

You’re more loyal to a political party, a game show host and rando on twitter than your own country. You should be ashamed of yourself. You’re a traitor.

Please move to Russia 

32 minutes ago, Gannan said:

You’re an anti American piece of crap parroting the talking points of our enemy. NATO never promised not to expand. Putin is making it up.

 

https://hls.harvard.edu/today/there-was-no-promise-not-to-enlarge-nato/

 

Even Gorbachev said we never promised not to expand.

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/did-nato-promise-not-to-enlarge-gorbachev-says-no/

You’re more loyal to a political party, a game show host and rando on twitter than your own country. You should be ashamed of yourself. You’re a traitor.

Please move to Russia 

Declassified documents show otherwise.

https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early

NATO Expansion: What Gorbachev Heard

Declassified documents show security assurances against NATO expansion to Soviet leaders from Baker, Bush, Genscher, Kohl, Gates, Mitterrand, Thatcher, Hurd, Major, and Woerner

Slavic Studies Panel Addresses "Who Promised What to Whom on NATO Expansion?”

 

 

1 hour ago, Gannan said:

You’re an anti American piece of crap parroting the talking points of our enemy. NATO never promised not to expand. Putin is making it up.

 

https://hls.harvard.edu/today/there-was-no-promise-not-to-enlarge-nato/

 

Even Gorbachev said we never promised not to expand.

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/did-nato-promise-not-to-enlarge-gorbachev-says-no/

You’re more loyal to a political party, a game show host and rando on twitter than your own country. You should be ashamed of yourself. You’re a traitor.

Please move to Russia 

Your arguments should be that 1) statements and assurances made to Gorbachev, to the extent made, were not legally binding to the former Soviet Union, and 2) even if they were, the Soviet Union is no longer a legal entity, so any such assurances would not be binding.

1 hour ago, Procus said:

Your arguments should be that 1) statements and assurances made to Gorbachev, to the extent made, were not legally binding to the former Soviet Union, and 2) even if they were, the Soviet Union is no longer a legal entity, so any such assurances would not be binding.

My argument should be you are a full fledged r **** who didn’t read his own link. 

1 hour ago, Gannan said:

My argument should be you are a full fledged r **** who didn’t read his own link. 

You mean this?

"The documents show that multiple national leaders were considering and rejecting Central and Eastern European membership in NATO as of early 1990 and through 1991, that discussions of NATO in the context of German unification negotiations in 1990 were not at all narrowly limited to the status of East German territory, and that subsequent Soviet and Russian complaints about being misled about NATO expansion were founded in written contemporaneous memcons and telcons at the highest levels."

or this?

"The first concrete assurances by Western leaders on NATO began on January 31, 1990, when West German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher opened the bidding with a major public speech at Tutzing, in Bavaria, on German unification. The U.S. Embassy in Bonn (see Document 1) informed Washington that Genscher made clear "that the changes in Eastern Europe and the German unification process must not lead to an ‘impairment of Soviet security interests.’ Therefore, NATO should rule out an ‘expansion of its territory towards the east, i.e. moving it closer to the Soviet borders.’” The Bonn cable also noted Genscher’s proposal to leave the East German territory out of NATO military structures even in a unified Germany in NATO."

or this?

"Not once, but three times, Baker tried out the "not one inch eastward” formula with Gorbachev in the February 9, 1990, meeting. He agreed with Gorbachev’s statement in response to the assurances that "NATO expansion is unacceptable.” Baker assured Gorbachev that "neither the President nor I intend to extract any unilateral advantages from the processes that are taking place,” and that the Americans understood that "not only for the Soviet Union but for other European countries as well it is important to have guarantees that if the United States keeps its presence in Germany within the framework of NATO, not an inch of NATO’s present military jurisdiction will spread in an eastern direction.” (See Document 6)"

or this?

"The French leader Francois Mitterrand was not in a mind-meld with the Americans, quite the contrary, as evidenced by his telling Gorbachev in Moscow on May 25, 1990, that he was "personally in favor of gradually dismantling the military blocs”; but Mitterrand continued the cascade of assurances by saying the West must "create security conditions for you, as well as European security as a whole.” (See Document 19) Mitterrand immediately wrote Bush in a "cher George” letter about his conversation with the Soviet leader, that "we would certainly not refuse to detail the guarantees that he would have a right to expect for his country’s security.” (See Document 20)"

or this?

As late as March 1991, according to the diary of the British ambassador to Moscow, British Prime Minister John Major personally assured Gorbachev, "We are not talking about the strengthening of NATO.” Subsequently, when Soviet defense minister Marshal Dmitri Yazov asked Major about East European leaders’ interest in NATO membership, the British leader responded, "Nothing of the sort will happen.” (See Document 28)

Oh, I forgot, you're in the education business, so you know more than anybody else.  Carry on . .  .

I love how commitments made to…checks notes…the Soviet Union are being referenced. 

I prefer the pro-American view, to the pro-Russian view.

 

Of course, I'm an American, not a filthy commie Putin apologist.

2 hours ago, Toastrel said:

I prefer the pro-American view, to the pro-Russian view.

 

Of course, I'm an American, not a filthy commie Putin apologist.

I am taking the pro-American view.  Our European allies crap all over us.  This is first and foremost a European issue. 

26 minutes ago, Procus said:

I am taking the isolationists,/pro-Russian view.

FYP. Of course you are. 

13 hours ago, Procus said:

You mean this?

"The documents show that multiple national leaders were considering and rejecting Central and Eastern European membership in NATO as of early 1990 and through 1991, that discussions of NATO in the context of German unification negotiations in 1990 were not at all narrowly limited to the status of East German territory, and that subsequent Soviet and Russian complaints about being misled about NATO expansion were founded in written contemporaneous memcons and telcons at the highest levels."

or this?

"The first concrete assurances by Western leaders on NATO began on January 31, 1990, when West German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher opened the bidding with a major public speech at Tutzing, in Bavaria, on German unification. The U.S. Embassy in Bonn (see Document 1) informed Washington that Genscher made clear "that the changes in Eastern Europe and the German unification process must not lead to an ‘impairment of Soviet security interests.’ Therefore, NATO should rule out an ‘expansion of its territory towards the east, i.e. moving it closer to the Soviet borders.’” The Bonn cable also noted Genscher’s proposal to leave the East German territory out of NATO military structures even in a unified Germany in NATO."

or this?

"Not once, but three times, Baker tried out the "not one inch eastward” formula with Gorbachev in the February 9, 1990, meeting. He agreed with Gorbachev’s statement in response to the assurances that "NATO expansion is unacceptable.” Baker assured Gorbachev that "neither the President nor I intend to extract any unilateral advantages from the processes that are taking place,” and that the Americans understood that "not only for the Soviet Union but for other European countries as well it is important to have guarantees that if the United States keeps its presence in Germany within the framework of NATO, not an inch of NATO’s present military jurisdiction will spread in an eastern direction.” (See Document 6)"

or this?

"The French leader Francois Mitterrand was not in a mind-meld with the Americans, quite the contrary, as evidenced by his telling Gorbachev in Moscow on May 25, 1990, that he was "personally in favor of gradually dismantling the military blocs”; but Mitterrand continued the cascade of assurances by saying the West must "create security conditions for you, as well as European security as a whole.” (See Document 19) Mitterrand immediately wrote Bush in a "cher George” letter about his conversation with the Soviet leader, that "we would certainly not refuse to detail the guarantees that he would have a right to expect for his country’s security.” (See Document 20)"

or this?

As late as March 1991, according to the diary of the British ambassador to Moscow, British Prime Minister John Major personally assured Gorbachev, "We are not talking about the strengthening of NATO.” Subsequently, when Soviet defense minister Marshal Dmitri Yazov asked Major about East European leaders’ interest in NATO membership, the British leader responded, "Nothing of the sort will happen.” (See Document 28)

Oh, I forgot, you're in the education business, so you know more than anybody else.  Carry on . .  .

From your own link Trumptard...

Quote

The documents reinforce former CIA Director Robert Gates’s criticism of "pressing ahead with expansion of NATO eastward [in the 1990s], when Gorbachev and others were led to believe that wouldn’t happen.”[1] The key phrase, buttressed by the documents, is "led to believe.”

So your argument is that the spirit of vague assurances made to a country that doesn't exist anymore and to a world leader who is dead should be honored despite the fact that we are dealing with a different nation, a different leader who is a tyrant hell bent on the military conquest of neighboring nations should be honored? 

10 minutes ago, Gannan said:

From your own link Trumptard...

So your argument is that the spirit of vague assurances made to a country that doesn't exist anymore and to a world leader who is dead should be honored despite the fact that we are dealing with a different nation, a different leader who is a tyrant hell bent on the military conquest of neighboring nations should be honored? 

Boy you changed your tune real quick.  But no, that's not my argument - although it is interesting background.  Any assurances that were made were made to a different regime that was not at odds with us at the time.

The best reason why not to get involved is it's not in our national interests to do so.

54 minutes ago, Procus said:

I am taking the pro-American view.  Our European allies crap all over us.  This is first and foremost a European issue. 

This ridiculous argument sounds very familiar

In the 1930's there was a floursing Notzee party in America. 

This is what Americans looked like.

12 minutes ago, Gannan said:

This ridiculous argument sounds very familiar

No - these are more on point:

https://www.ushistory.org/us/55.asp

"The notion that the vast majority of American youths took to the streets to end the Vietnam War is equally false. Early initiatives by the United States under Truman, Eisenhower, and Kennedy received broad support.

Only two members of the United States Congress voted against granting Johnson broad authority to wage the war in Vietnam, and most Americans supported this measure as well."

https://news.gallup.com/poll/8038/seventytwo-percent-americans-support-war-against-iraq.aspx

March 24, 2003

Seventy-Two Percent of Americans Support War Against Iraq

11 minutes ago, jsdarkstar said:

In the 1930's there was a floursing Notzee party in America. 

This is what Americans looked like.

You forgot about this:

https://www.timesofisrael.com/bam-kapow-when-1930s-jewish-mobsters-beat-up-NSDAPs-in-the-streets-of-america/

Bam! Kapow! When 1930s Jewish mobsters beat up NSDAPs in the streets of America

1 hour ago, Procus said:

I am taking the pro-American view.  

BS you putin meat puppet. 

2 minutes ago, Procus said:

You forgot about this:

https://www.timesofisrael.com/bam-kapow-when-1930s-jewish-mobsters-beat-up-NSDAPs-in-the-streets-of-america/

Bam! Kapow! When 1930s Jewish mobsters beat up NSDAPs in the streets of America

5 hours ago, Procus said:

I am taking the pro-American view.  Our European allies crap all over us.  This is first and foremost a European issue. 

Oh, European allies crap on us, so I better support Russia.

Did you drink bleach to get to that point of view?

 

"Sure, I know that the Germans are sinking US ships, but really, isn't this a European problem, and Hitler likes dogs."

On 8/27/2023 at 2:13 PM, we_gotta_believe said:

All it took was a Democrat to be in the white house for trumpbots to suddenly give a ish about victims of wildfires.

Come on man…..Trump wanted to rake out forest to help prevent forest fires. 

1 hour ago, Toastrel said:

Oh, European allies crap on us, so I better support Russia.

Support Russia?  Hardly.  Support the U.S. is where we should be coming from.  We're spending money we don't have over there to defend a corrupt non-NATO nation.  And all these sanctions have just driven more countries to join the BRIC group and further accelerated the decline of the dollar.  Cooler heads need to prevail and this conflict needs to de-escalate.

31 minutes ago, Procus said:

And all these sanctions have just driven more countries to join the BRIC group and further accelerated the decline of the dollar

1 hour ago, Procus said:

Support Russia?  Hardly.  Support the U.S. is where we should be coming from.  We're spending money we don't have over there to defend a corrupt non-NATO nation.  And all these sanctions have just driven more countries to join the BRIC group and further accelerated the decline of the dollar.  Cooler heads need to prevail and this conflict needs to de-escalate.

 

3 hours ago, Procus said:

Support Russia?  Hardly.  Support the U.S. is where we should be coming from.  We're spending money we don't have over there to defend a corrupt non-NATO nation.  And all these sanctions have just driven more countries to join the BRIC group and further accelerated the decline of the dollar.  Cooler heads need to prevail and this conflict needs to de-escalate.

You took a lot of words to say you want to capitulate to Russia.

There goes that "climate change" dream again...

As Fox News reported, officials in Maui said the fires were caused by downed power lines and failures by the state’s main power utility company.

Due to these facts, the government of Maui County, Hawaii has filed a lawsuit against the Hawaii Electric Company and its subsidiaries for neglecting to properly power down live electrical equipment amid a red flag windstorm earlier this month.