This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
RosaMarie · 41-45, F
Just curious, for the last point, that's the treaty that promised defense against nuclear attack if Ukraine gave up their nukes, right? That's what you mean there?
I'm no fan of Biden and don't agree with him. Just trying to make sure I understand all your points.
I'm no fan of Biden and don't agree with him. Just trying to make sure I understand all your points.
RosaMarie · 41-45, F
@Bear513 That question is irrelevant because I would not give up my weapons. That being said, please read the actual treaty. It promised shared defense against nuclear attack. It was to give up nuclear weapons. So far, Ukraine hasn't been attacked with Nuclear weapons.
Please don't misunderstand me. I think that the leaders in Europe and NA are a bunch of gutless cowards. You can find more than a few comments of mine here taking about Chamberland in 39, and how the EU had forgotten how well that worked.
The use of that particular treaty is a bad argument because it doesn't actually say what you imply. It's not a mutual defense pact. It is very clear and very much limited to nuclear defense. I like your post and your thinking. I'm trying to help strengthen your case by pointing out a possible weak spot that could be argued by someone who isn't in agreement with you on this.
Please don't misunderstand me. I think that the leaders in Europe and NA are a bunch of gutless cowards. You can find more than a few comments of mine here taking about Chamberland in 39, and how the EU had forgotten how well that worked.
The use of that particular treaty is a bad argument because it doesn't actually say what you imply. It's not a mutual defense pact. It is very clear and very much limited to nuclear defense. I like your post and your thinking. I'm trying to help strengthen your case by pointing out a possible weak spot that could be argued by someone who isn't in agreement with you on this.