They always leave it out. Literally covering up a genocide so they can push talking points out for a Russian dictator.
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
-
We hope the site problems here are now solved, however,
if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us
Ukraine agrees to demilitarized economic zone in Donbas to advance Trump’s peace plan
- Thread starter Valletta
- Start date
They always leave it out. Literally covering up a genocide so they can push talking points out for a Russian dictator.
- Jul 19, 2012
- 18,150
- 16,944
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Judaism
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Genocide is good when it's against people you don't like.
Upvote
0
SoldierOfTheKing
Christian Spenglerian
- Jan 6, 2006
- 9,260
- 3,054
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Presbyterian
- Marital Status
- Married
First, no it wasn't. Second, even if it were, it would still be war of aggression on NATO's part.
An internal conflict. No other country, let alone a NATO country, was party to that conflict. One of the oldest principles of international law, going all the way back to Westphalia, is noninterference in the civil conflicts of other nations.
If you're referring to Putin, he wasn't even President of Russia then. I'm not talking about Putin, I'm talking about NATO.
Upvote
0
RocksInMyHead
God is innocent; Noah built on a floodplain!
- May 12, 2011
- 9,871
- 10,648
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Yeah, it was.
Bosnia and Herzegovina - United States Holocaust Memorial Museum
An estimated 100,000 people were killed during the conflict in Bosnia between 1992 and 1995, including the July 1995 genocide of 8,000 Bosnian Muslims from Srebrenica. Learn more about what happened and what the international community could have done to prevent it below.
www.ushmm.org
What Happened in Bosnia | Remembering Srebrenica
What Happened Fifty years after the world said never again to the horrors of the Holocaust, genocide again took place on European soil. Learn more Bosnian G ...
srebrenica.org.uk
More recently, the international community has resolved that they have a responsibility to prevent and punish the crime of genocide:
Don't be obtuse. You're ignoring/covering up the genocide in Bosnia in order to advance the current Russian talking point of NATO as an aggressor.
Upvote
0
Stopped_lurking
Well-Known Member
- Jan 12, 2004
- 682
- 314
- Country
- Sweden
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Agnostic
- Marital Status
- Private
The 2+4 treaty does not contain any restrictions on NATO. NATO was not part of the 2+4 treaty, Ukraina wasn't either. Red herring. You are aware that you can condemn what you believe are US mistreating Russia, without defending Russias invasion of Ukraina?
Upvote
0
Laodicean60
Well-Known Member
- Jul 2, 2023
- 5,196
- 2,486
- 65
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Last post, look, I need you to think, as the current peace process is occurring nation leaders are making verbal commitment, nothing is written except notes.
Your red herring of 2+4 is focused on unifying
Germany but what western leaders said helped the process of the treaty.
- United States: On February 9, 1990, Secretary of State James Baker famously told Mikhail Gorbachev that "there would be no extension of NATO's jurisdiction for forces of NATO one inch to the east" if Germany unified within NATO. President George H.W. Bush also assured Gorbachev at the 1989 Malta Summit that the U.S. would not "take advantage" of the revolutions in Eastern Europe.
- West Germany: Chancellor Helmut Kohl echoed Baker’s sentiment on February 10, 1990, stating, "We believe that NATO should not expand the sphere of its activity". Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher proposed that NATO should rule out an "expansion of its territory towards the east" to protect Soviet security interests.
- United Kingdom: Foreign Secretary Douglas Hurd and Prime Minister John Major (and earlier Margaret Thatcher) reportedly gave similar assurances that the West did not intend to threaten Soviet security through NATO enlargement.
- France: President François Mitterrand spoke to Gorbachev about the necessity of including the USSR in a new European security architecture, suggesting that NATO's role would be circumscribed.
-
How? What should I say.
I said in the past about 2 years ago that Russian invasion was wrong but I see the reason for it and the events leading up to the invasion was wrong we had an opportunity for peace before the invasion.
Upvote
0
RocksInMyHead
God is innocent; Noah built on a floodplain!
- May 12, 2011
- 9,871
- 10,648
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Which was not a binding agreement or a clause of the treaty. It's been 36 years now - the geopolitical environment has changed, and we're long past the point of "taking advantage" of revolutions in Eastern Europe.
The Soviet Union no longer exists, and therefore, there are no "Soviet security interests" to protect. As I said, the geopolitical environment has changed since 1990, so pointing to statements from world leaders at the time is essentially meaningless with regards to actions today. I will note, though, that Russia made concrete guarantees of Ukraine's territorial integrity back in 1991 as part of the Budapest Memorandum - guarantees that it has since violated.
Russia has been given opportunities to join the EU and otherwise become part of the larger European security architecture. They have refused and/or failed to meet the expectations for membership.
I understand why Russia invaded too, but you won't see me making excuses for their actions or otherwise defending them.
Upvote
0
Laodicean60
Well-Known Member
- Jul 2, 2023
- 5,196
- 2,486
- 65
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Upvote
0
RocksInMyHead
God is innocent; Noah built on a floodplain!
- May 12, 2011
- 9,871
- 10,648
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Even in those days, a man's word only bound himself. Hence why we created treaties.
Upvote
0
7thKeeper
Venture life, Burn your Dread
- Jul 8, 2006
- 2,692
- 2,518
- Country
- Finland
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Agnostic
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
Which was never in international politics. If it isn't in black and white, it's not a deal. There are written treaties that are combed through by both sides for a reason before agreeing to them.Gorbachev himself repeatedly had said that there was no deal about NATO not expanding east. The only even related issue that was agreed was that NATO wouldn't station troops in what was/had been East Germany until all Russian troops and presence had had time to remove themselves.
Upvote
0
Hans Blaster
Area Meathead
- Mar 11, 2017
- 23,707
- 17,552
- 56
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Did it take almost 2 years for you to make those statements, however weak they are?
I don't look forward to you excuses for China.
Neither the current invasion nor the hypothesized invasion of Taiwan on is justified in the slightest. Existence is not provocation and certainly not one that justifies invasion.
Upvote
0
SoldierOfTheKing
Christian Spenglerian
- Jan 6, 2006
- 9,260
- 3,054
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Presbyterian
- Marital Status
- Married
Upvote
0
SoldierOfTheKing
Christian Spenglerian
- Jan 6, 2006
- 9,260
- 3,054
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Presbyterian
- Marital Status
- Married
That link doesn't appear to mention anything about interference in the internal conflicts of other countries, and it expressly says that it is to be handled by the United Nations - not NATO.
Upvote
0
Stopped_lurking
Well-Known Member
- Jan 12, 2004
- 682
- 314
- Country
- Sweden
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Agnostic
- Marital Status
- Private
"I need you to think", there is no need for being patronising towards me. You are the one with the red herring, Ukraina was not trying to become a NATO member when Russia occupied Crimea. Thus the whole NATO discussion is beside the point.
To your notes specifically:
The notes you have presented is in relation to the 2+4 treaty, neither NATO or Ukraina were involved. How does what was said at those negotiations limit Ukraina or NATO at all.
Russia joined the Partnership for peace program in 1994, in 1997 they signed the NATO-Russia founding act and created the permanent joint council, after the relations soured a bit after the US leaving the ABM treaty, they thawed again after 2002 when the NATO-Russia council was instated. So their have been a lot of actions to make Russia feel at home in NATO, but they never formally applied to become a member.
You could say "All expansion of a country's borders that are done militarily are wrong, regardless of which country that does it."
No one forced Russia to occupy Crimea or invade the rest of Ukraina they deliberately choose both those actions.
Well, if you believe it to be wrong I hope you're voting for candidates that support Ukraina.
Upvote
0
7thKeeper
Venture life, Burn your Dread
- Jul 8, 2006
- 2,692
- 2,518
- Country
- Finland
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Agnostic
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
To add to this, the 1997 document signed by Russia also specifically says that both sides agree that third nations are allowed to make their own security choices, including either joining NATO or Russia in a military alliance if they feel that's the right course for them.
Upvote
0
Stopped_lurking
Well-Known Member
- Jan 12, 2004
- 682
- 314
- Country
- Sweden
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Agnostic
- Marital Status
- Private
Yeah, refraining from threatening and using force against other states was obviously also too difficult for the russians.
Upvote
0
RocksInMyHead
God is innocent; Noah built on a floodplain!
- May 12, 2011
- 9,871
- 10,648
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Oh, my mistake. But it doesn't really make much of a difference. Srebrenica was on a larger scale, but Milosevic was definitely perpetrating ethnic cleansing (aka genocide) in Kosovo.
War crimes in the Kosovo War - Wikipedia
25 years later, what happened during the Kosovo war? – DW – 06/10/2024
The Kosovo war ended June 10, 1999, after NATO's bombardment of Yugoslavia. It was NATO's first intervention without a UN mandate and with German involvement. It ended the killing in Kosovo, but was highly controversial.
www.dw.com
It does mandate "punishment". Realistically, if you're going to bring the leadership of a country to trial, you must capture them first - which would require "interfering in the internal conflicts of other countries." Or do you think they just planned to ask nicely?
As all members of NATO are also members of the UN, I don't see the distinction.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
