I bet Ukraine wishes it hadn't given back their nukes to Russia!

[Precious_b]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

You just made THE CASE for not allowing Iran to have nukes. Unlike the lunatics "in office" now at the WH, the Israelis would rather die than allow the Iranians to have them.

Putin would rather scorch and suffocate the Earth rather than allow anyone else to "inherit" it. There are two kinds of people like that: VERY young mentally and VERY damaged mentally. His thinking: If he can't have it no one else will have it! Who did he call? THE FRENCH!

Your "deliver" recollection may have been Libyian in origin ...

https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/LibyaChronology



I recall that quiet diplomatic win for this country and the Middle East.

Wasn't trying to make any cases for Iran and nukes. So please, don't cite me for it. I was just relying on my memory (ask waco how good that is ) on listening to it on National Palestinian Radio. I just know the USA, with the blessings of those involved, let fissionable material from east europe go stateside.

PS maybe it was. swear that it was european country.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Precious_b

Wasn't trying to make any cases for Iran and nukes. So please, don't cite me for it. I was just relying on my memory (ask waco how good that is ) on listening to it on National Palestinian Radio. I just know the USA, with the blessings of those involved, let fissionable material from east europe go stateside.

PS maybe it was. swear that it was european country.

And it's always possible material from Libya came through Europe, although I am aware there was little, if any, hype about it and all of a sudden their WMD stuff appeared in the U.S. and was "secured" so as to keep it out of nefarious hands....and in those days that was a serious concern.

As for any of your postings, I have no reason to "cite" you! Don't be offended.

NPR?

I have a close, long time associate/friend who was out of the U.S. and not in the African-Middle East area when the BushII assault involving Iraq began and he communicated with me asking "what the fuck" was going on "we are getting our asses kicked" by the Iraqis. I asked the source: BBC ... overseas! I had to drag out my "overseas" radio just to listen.

That's something Putin needs to understand. He can't control news!

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by the_real_Barleycorn

Why did Ukraine give up their nukes? Democrats from the United States and Bill Clinton. They didn't like the idea of someone having the will and power to stand up to Russia so they put economic pressure (is there any other kind?) on Ukraine to "do the right thing". Clinton (and England) promised that if Ukraine ever came under attack that the US would come riding to the rescue. Funny that no reporter has put a microphone in front of Bill or his co-president Hillary and asked the question.

I can't stand the Clintons, but you're way off, barley. The USSR broke up in 1991. All those Ukraine nukes were operationally under the Russian chain of command. Some of the weapons were supposed to be dismantled pursuant to US-Soviet disarmament agreements negotiated by Reagan/Bush and Gorbachev. As a fledgling democracy, most Ukrainians were more concerned with drafting a new Constitution and privatizing their economy than hanging on to aging nukes. The US never put "economic pressure" on Ukraine, but we did double our economic aid (to $310 million) while the Russians privately agreed to cancel $2.5 billion in Ukraine's energy debt. More carrots than sticks.

The 1994 Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances was exactly what the name says - a memo (not a treaty) with assurances (not guarantees). The official US position is that the Memorandum is not legally binding.

In my opinion, the real mistakes in US diplomacy occurred later with the pell-mell expansion of NATO and the US support for the 2014 Maidan coup. But that's all water over the dam now. Putin is a revanchist thug and an aggressor who must be stopped.

Having said that, I have no doubt that if Ukraine had it to do all over again, knowing what we know now, it would not have given up all those nukes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budape...ity_Assurances

[Precious_b]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

And it's always possible material from Libya came through Europe, although I am aware there was little, if any, hype about it and all of a sudden their WMD stuff appeared in the U.S. and was "secured" so as to keep it out of nefarious hands....and in those days that was a serious concern.

As for any of your postings, I have no reason to "cite" you! Don't be offended.

NPR?

I have a close, long time associate/friend who was out of the U.S. and not in the African-Middle East area when the BushII assault involving Iraq began and he communicated with me asking "what the fuck" was going on "we are getting our asses kicked" by the Iraqis. I asked the source: BBC ... overseas! I had to drag out my "overseas" radio just to listen.

That's something Putin needs to understand. He can't control news!

Yup. I refer to NPR as the hard rightie tighties call it. And BBC is what I go to bed listening. Though they've made a slip or two, for their tenure they have a great reputation. When the colonies in Africa where throwing off the Crown yoke, they would only listen to the BBC since they didn't trust their own govt. radio. Speaks volumes when you trust your enemy over your govt supplied source.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Precious_b

Speaks volumes when you trust your enemy over your govt supplied source.

Yes, it does, but not in the manner in which you seem to believe.

That's why there is a substantial group of intelligent listeners who this country dispatches throughout the World to hear and see.

[Precious_b]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Yes, it does, but not in the manner in which you seem to believe.

That's why there is a substantial group of intelligent listeners who this country dispatches throughout the World to hear and see.

Only summarizing what the resistance fighter said. Can't verbatim it.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by lustylad

I can't stand the Clintons, but you're way off, barley. The USSR broke up in 1991. All those Ukraine nukes were operationally under the Russian chain of command. Some of the weapons were supposed to be dismantled pursuant to US-Soviet disarmament agreements negotiated by Reagan/Bush and Gorbachev. As a fledgling democracy, most Ukrainians were more concerned with drafting a new Constitution and privatizing their economy than hanging on to aging nukes. The US never put "economic pressure" on Ukraine, but we did double our economic aid (to $310 million) while the Russians privately agreed to cancel $2.5 billion in Ukraine's energy debt. More carrots than sticks.

The 1994 Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances was exactly what the name says - a memo (not a treaty) with assurances (not guarantees). The official US position is that the Memorandum is not legally binding.

In my opinion, the real mistakes in US diplomacy occurred later with the pell-mell expansion of NATO and the US support for the 2014 Maidan coup. But that's all water over the dam now. Putin is a revanchist thug and an aggressor who must be stopped.

Having said that, I have no doubt that if Ukraine had it to do all over again, knowing what we know now, it would not have given up all those nukes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budape...ity_Assurances

Holy shit..our resident whore board economist got one right!

Congratulations lustylad...although making Barelycorn eat crow is not much of an accomplishment

[Precious_b]

LL, if they still had the nukes, i don't know.
Has the possibility to REALLY mess up things.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Yes, it does, but not in the manner in which you seem to believe.

That's why there is a substantial group of intelligent listeners who this country dispatches throughout the World to hear and see.

I suppose you fancy yourself as in the know with an intelligent listener , counselor.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by WTF

Holy shit..our resident whore board economist got one right!

Having someone who has been so spectacularly wrong in 99% of his 45k+ eccie spam-posts tell me I "got one right" is the opposite of reassuring!

But I'll return the "favor" by pointing out the one post YOU got right... you need to put it in your eccie signature:

Originally Posted by WTF

I think Biden is horrible...

[the_real_Barleycorn]

Originally Posted by lustylad

I can't stand the Clintons, but you're way off, barley. The USSR broke up in 1991. All those Ukraine nukes were operationally under the Russian chain of command. Some of the weapons were supposed to be dismantled pursuant to US-Soviet disarmament agreements negotiated by Reagan/Bush and Gorbachev. As a fledgling democracy, most Ukrainians were more concerned with drafting a new Constitution and privatizing their economy than hanging on to aging nukes. The US never put "economic pressure" on Ukraine, but we did double our economic aid (to $310 million) while the Russians privately agreed to cancel $2.5 billion in Ukraine's energy debt. More carrots than sticks.

The 1994 Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances was exactly what the name says - a memo (not a treaty) with assurances (not guarantees). The official US position is that the Memorandum is not legally binding.

In my opinion, the real mistakes in US diplomacy occurred later with the pell-mell expansion of NATO and the US support for the 2014 Maidan coup. But that's all water over the dam now. Putin is a revanchist thug and an aggressor who must be stopped.

Having said that, I have no doubt that if Ukraine had it to do all over again, knowing what we know now, it would not have given up all those nukes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budape...ity_Assurances

I'm going to have to call you out on this. It's true the Soviet Union broke up in 1991 but that has nothing to do with the Budapest Accords. It was 1994, Bill Clinton and John Major were the leaders of the US and England. Both of them cast themselves as moderates but in truth, they leaned to the left and had both gone on record saying that they could work with Russia.
So, in 1994, Ukraine had one of the largest stockpiles of nuclear weapons in the world (third according to the internet). The Russians had control but Ukraine had physical control of the missiles and their warheads. The missiles were aimed at western countries including England and the United States. You should be able to see why that leadership wanted those weapons gone. Not gone really but back in the hands of those people they could trust in Russia. To this end, the United States applied political and economic pressure on Ukraine. They threatened to isolate the country politically. They promised financial aid. Note, not like Biden to with hold the aid but to never come up with the aid in the first place.
There was pressure exerted on Ukraine and finally, promises were made. I don't care if it is not an inked deal. The Paris Climate Treaty was not ratified by the Senate but Obama pretended that it was the law of the land. We made an ambiguous promise to Ukraine that was to stall Russia. Biden screwed up by taking away that ambiguity with his statements about "minor incursions".

So, what I said was true, pressure was exerted, Ukraine gave up a means of defense, and the US made promises that they are failing to keep.

[Precious_b]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Yes, it does, but not in the manner in which you seem to believe.

That's why there is a substantial group of intelligent listeners who this country dispatches throughout the World to hear and see.

Yes. There are quite a few listeners. And I have been around them practically all my life. Still know a few.

Are you one of this community of "listeners"?

[VitaMan]

Interesting items in these 2 pages:


Barley again is having a hard time holding onto his ass. He only manages to do so by qualifying his earlier statements with "I don't care." Always trying to blame Democrats for something, and he never gets it correct.


TWK going through another one of his "prove it" episodes.


Lustylad gets one correct.


Lexus Luther provided a post which he has to keep his vast knowledge and information hidden. It is a nothing burger.

[the_real_Barleycorn]

I figured you who you are VMan. You're the second banana "mean girl" from Kick Ass 2 and Mean Girls. You're always quick to agree with someone who you think served someone. You don't think about what was said because, in some ways, I don't think you really understand what was said. Sometimes you get close but you miss the main points so many times. You just have to be heard (of course, it's not obsessive like WTF or YSSUP) saying something.
The fact is that I maintain Clinton and England put pressure Ukraine back in the 1990s to give up their nukes. Now, Lustylad says that the US NEVER put economic pressure on Ukraine but he does admit that we promised aid in the form of an economic package. That is the definition of economic pressure. Now that's a difference of opinion. With holding promised aid like Biden did is one form of pressure but not making the expected promise is another form of pressure.
Lustylad got it wrong or he misunderstood what I wrote. That promise was the pressure that I talked about. So I was correct from the beginning, Lustylad misunderstood, and Vman got his panties all hot and bothered for nothing. Your opinion has been noted...and rejected. I do expect that the fact that I mentioned you will give you a mini-O. Enjoy.

[Yssup Rider]

Who made you arbiter in this debate, Jd?

I’m beginning to think you’re no longer the real Barleycorn. The real one got permabanned, right?

Or sent to Siberia for reprogramming!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH