In a speech to Republican donors, Donald Trump shifted from praising Vladimir Putin to praising Kim Jong-Un.
But he also made it clear that his previous recognition of Vladimir Putin's sagacity did not mean he did not support the Ukraine's brave fight.

He suggested that the U.S. should bomb the heck out of Moscow using F-25s painted with the insignia of the People's Republic of China.

Number 1: This sort of thing doesn't work if you talk about it in public first, and

Number 2: Given the strong support from the U.S. for Ukraine, and the contrasting position of China, would it not be expected that Russia might be suspicious of the real origins of an apparent attack from China?

In fact, _since_ Russia is expecting an attack from the U.S., and not from China, if anything, this is more an idea that would work for China - if _it_ wanted to get the U.S. nuked while evading the consequences, a false flag attack on Russia right now would be just the thing.

John Savard

On Sun, 06 Mar 2022 09:53:39 -0800, Quadibloc wrote:

> In a speech to Republican donors, Donald Trump shifted from praising
> Vladimir Putin to praising Kim Jong-Un.
> But he also made it clear that his previous recognition of Vladimir
> Putin's sagacity did not mean he did not support the Ukraine's brave
> fight.
>
> He suggested that the U.S. should bomb the heck out of Moscow using
> F-25s painted with the insignia of the People's Republic of China.
>
> Number 1: This sort of thing doesn't work if you talk about it in public
> first, and
>
> Number 2: Given the strong support from the U.S. for Ukraine, and the
> contrasting position of China, would it not be expected that Russia
> might be suspicious of the real origins of an apparent attack from
> China?
>
> In fact, _since_ Russia is expecting an attack from the U.S., and not
> from China, if anything, this is more an idea that would work for China
> - if _it_ wanted to get the U.S. nuked while evading the consequences, a
> false flag attack on Russia right now would be just the thing.

My eyes glazed over trying to parse this. At any rate, in the
realm of "giving China ideas," surely the saturation news coverage
given to the Ukraine thing by the West says "don't mess with Taiwan."

"OT" notwithstanding, I don't see a justification for
posting this article in rec.arts.sf.written.

On Sunday, March 6, 2022 at 2:52:46 PM UTC-7, Charles Packer wrote:
> surely the saturation news coverage
> given to the Ukraine thing by the West says "don't mess with Taiwan."

U.S. troops have not yet been sent in to expel the Russian troops from
the soil of Ukraine. The U.S. hasn't even established a no-fly zone over
Ukraine.

That shows that threatening the U.S. with nukes _works_.

So I'd say that the events in Ukraine are telling China that the U.S. is
a paper tiger, and Taiwan is ripe for the plucking.

Of course, Xi may have economic plans for China that sanctions could
derail.

John Savard

On Sunday, March 6, 2022 at 7:36:58 PM UTC-7, J. Clarke wrote:

> WTF is an "F-25"?

Good question. But since the F-22 and F-35 are both _fighter_
jets, I'm not sure how useful they would be for a _bombing_
mission over Moscow.

John Savard

On 2022-03-06 6:47 p.m., Quadibloc wrote:
> On Sunday, March 6, 2022 at 7:36:58 PM UTC-7, J. Clarke wrote:
>
>> WTF is an "F-25"?
>
> Good question. But since the F-22 and F-35 are both _fighter_
> jets, I'm not sure how useful they would be for a _bombing_
> mission over Moscow.

The F-35 is not a fighter jet despite the "F" designator.

On Sunday, March 6, 2022 at 4:12:53 PM UTC-7, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> "OT" notwithstanding, I don't see a justification for
> posting this article in rec.arts.sf.written.

Initially, I thought there were grounds for concern, based on the
following premise:

While Russia is not expecting an attack from China, and thus would
be highly suspicious of an attack from airplanes with a Chinese paint
job, it is expecting an attack from the U.S., and might believe one
from Chinese airplanes with an American paint job.

Further analysis, however, indicates that since Russia falling for this
is a _possibility_ rather than a certainty... there is no way that Xi
Jinping is dumb enough to pull a stunt like this.

Therefore, my concerns were unwarranted.

John Savard

On Sunday, March 6, 2022 at 8:38:06 PM UTC-7, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Sun, 6 Mar 2022 18:34:34 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca>
> wrote:
> >On Sunday, March 6, 2022 at 2:52:46 PM UTC-7, Charles Packer wrote:

> >> surely the saturation news coverage
> >> given to the Ukraine thing by the West says "don't mess with Taiwan."

> >U.S. troops have not yet been sent in to expel the Russian troops from
> >the soil of Ukraine. The U.S. hasn't even established a no-fly zone over
> >Ukraine.

> >That shows that threatening the U.S. with nukes _works_.

> You would be happier if we bulled in and blew up the world? Moron.

No, but I was definitely happier before the invasion took place.

> >So I'd say that the events in Ukraine are telling China that the U.S. is
> >a paper tiger, and Taiwan is ripe for the plucking.

> That depends on how things play out. They already know that if they
> can just take the place with conventional weapons and hold it for 20
> years the US public will get bored and let them have it.

That's sort of true, but will there be any motivation for removing the
economic sanctions against Russia even after 20 years?

> >Of course, Xi may have economic plans for China that sanctions could
> >derail.

> That depends on whether the sanctions can be applied globally or not.

It is certainly true that China is a much more important and useful trading
partner for many countries than Russia.

John Savard

J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote in
news:scva2hhqrdffglra8uielin6jfroeqiqq6@4ax.com:

> On Sun, 6 Mar 2022 18:34:34 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
> <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>>On Sunday, March 6, 2022 at 2:52:46 PM UTC-7, Charles Packer
>>wrote:
>>> surely the saturation news coverage
>>> given to the Ukraine thing by the West says "don't mess with
>>> Taiwan."
>>
>>U.S. troops have not yet been sent in to expel the Russian
>>troops from the soil of Ukraine. The U.S. hasn't even
>>established a no-fly zone over Ukraine.
>>
>>That shows that threatening the U.S. with nukes _works_.
>
> You would be happier if we bulled in and blew up the world?

Yes. He would. He's expressed insane apocalyptic fantasies for
years.

> Moron.

And he's that, too.
>
>>So I'd say that the events in Ukraine are telling China that the
>>U.S. is a paper tiger, and Taiwan is ripe for the plucking.
>
> That depends on how things play out. They already know that if
> they can just take the place with conventional weapons and hold
> it for 20 years the US public will get bored and let them have
> it.

And if Putin is deposed by his own inner circle, China ends up
effectively in control of all its natural resources. Far more than
they could hope to get from Taiwan.
>
>>Of course, Xi may have economic plans for China that sanctions
>>could derail.
>
> That depends on whether the sanctions can be applied globally or
> not.
>
China's economy has always been a house of cards. Sanctions there
would hurt a lot more, a lot faster. They are *very* dependent on
western imports for their hard cash.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

On Sunday, March 6, 2022 at 8:38:06 PM UTC-7, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Sun, 6 Mar 2022 18:34:34 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca>
> wrote:

> >That shows that threatening the U.S. with nukes _works_.

> You would be happier if we bulled in and blew up the world? Moron.

I am surprised that anyone in the U.S., aside from a few pro-Russian
sympathizers, or extreme leftist or pacifist radicals, thought that a
recent remark by Lindsay Graham was in any way controversial or
deserving of criticism.

Even if there are severe practical obstacles in the way of this obvious
potential solution:

https://nationalpost.com/news/world/the-special-unit-hand-picked-to-protect-vladimir-putin-from-assassination

What would make me happy is if Joe Biden announced that Russia was
to immediately withdraw all its forces from the Ukraine, or face nuclear
annihilation, and Russia meekly complied.

Because I recognize that this is not the only possible outcome from such
a course of action, however, I do not recommend that course of action.

But the fact that Russia can make nuclear threats, and be taken seriously,
and the United States cannot do so, is an... inequality in power. Which
will ultimately prove fatal.

This inequality in power is a natural and inevitable consequence of the
United States being a democracy, and being in confrontation with one-man
tyrannies also armed with nuclear weapons. The issue was noted and
recognized in the original Cold War era.

The Onion suggested one possible solution, although I cannot seriously
claim it would be an effective strategy:

https://www.theonion.com/u-s-government-stages-fake-coup-to-wipe-out-national-d-1819594855

If Russia should invade, say, Estonia - a NATO member - then what? Would
_you_ be happier if the U.S. blew up the world, *or avoided doing so by
reneging on its commitment to NATO*? However much we may feel it is
appropriate to buy ourselves some breathing space by avoiding an immediate
confrontation with Russia, even at the cost of innocent Ukrainian lives...

that question still has to be faced.

Wishful thinking didn't stop Putin from invading Ukraine; wishful thinking
will not stop him from continuing his mad scheme for world domination.

John Savard

On Sunday, March 6, 2022 at 9:34:38 PM UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Sunday, March 6, 2022 at 2:52:46 PM UTC-7, Charles Packer wrote:
> > surely the saturation news coverage
> > given to the Ukraine thing by the West says "don't mess with Taiwan."
> U.S. troops have not yet been sent in to expel the Russian troops from
> the soil of Ukraine. The U.S. hasn't even established a no-fly zone over
> Ukraine.
>
> That shows that threatening the U.S. with nukes _works_.

Nothing new about that, as North Korean diplomacy over the last few
years shows.

Nukes are such a devastating weapon that the greatest care has to be
exercised when trying to modify the behaviour of nations that possess
them. Its just the nature of the beast.

The threat of MAD is the only strategy that's been shown to work, and its
not something you want to invoke.

pt

J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
>On Sun, 6 Mar 2022 18:47:32 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sunday, March 6, 2022 at 7:36:58 PM UTC-7, J. Clarke wrote:
>>
>>> WTF is an "F-25"?
>>
>>Good question. But since the F-22 and F-35 are both _fighter_
>>jets, I'm not sure how useful they would be for a _bombing_
>>mission over Moscow.
>
>"Fighter jet" in the modern world means a multirole aircraft. The
>F-35 carries 18,000 pounds of bombs and the F-22 carries 20,000.

To put this in context, a WWII B-17 had a payload of less than 5,000 pounds.

And the B-52D (Big belly) carried over 80,000 pounds in Vietnam
(internally + external hardpoints).

On 2022-03-07 8:10 a.m., J. Clarke wrote:
> On Sun, 6 Mar 2022 21:18:23 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca>
> wrote:
>
>> On Sunday, March 6, 2022 at 4:12:53 PM UTC-7, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>>> "OT" notwithstanding, I don't see a justification for
>>> posting this article in rec.arts.sf.written.
>>
>> Initially, I thought there were grounds for concern, based on the
>> following premise:
>>
>> While Russia is not expecting an attack from China, and thus would
>> be highly suspicious of an attack from airplanes with a Chinese paint
>> job, it is expecting an attack from the U.S., and might believe one
>>from Chinese airplanes with an American paint job.
>>
>> Further analysis, however, indicates that since Russia falling for this
>> is a _possibility_ rather than a certainty... there is no way that Xi
>> Jinping is dumb enough to pull a stunt like this.
>>
>> Therefore, my concerns were unwarranted.
>
> The only aircraft that _might_ be mistaken for an F-35 is the Yak-41,
> of which the F-35 is a re-engineerd version. But the only outfit that
> ever operated the Yak-41 was the Soviet Union.

You should stop making pronouncements about aircraft.

On Monday, March 7, 2022 at 5:19:42 PM UTC, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Sun, 06 Mar 2022 22:51:22 -0500, J. Clarke
> <jclarke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 6 Mar 2022 18:47:32 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>On Sunday, March 6, 2022 at 7:36:58 PM UTC-7, J. Clarke wrote:
> >>
> >>> WTF is an "F-25"?
> >>
> >>Good question. But since the F-22 and F-35 are both _fighter_
> >>jets, I'm not sure how useful they would be for a _bombing_
> >>mission over Moscow.
> >
> >"Fighter jet" in the modern world means a multirole aircraft. The
> >F-35 carries 18,000 pounds of bombs and the F-22 carries 20,000.
> >
> >The issue with using them in a false flag though is that neither of
> >them has the range to reach any significant target in Moscow from any
> >direction that might be mistaken for that of China.
> Exactly. Soviet tracking would show where they came from. How they
> were painted would not even be noticed.
> --
> "I begin to envy Petronius."
> "I have envied him long since."

(I note by the way that stealth aircraft are very close to E.E.Smith's undetectable speedster)

I liked an idea that I saw on Reddit that is probably independent of Trump. Wait until night, when there is almost any Ukrainian aircraft flying, and also some Russian planes (both visible with Awacs). Send in an F-22 or F-35 ... bingo, the Ghost of Kyiv strikes again and the Russian aircraft is shot down. Those Ukrainian fighter pilots are _good_ :-)

Andrew McDowell <mcdowell_ag@sky.com> writes:
>On Monday, March 7, 2022 at 5:19:42 PM UTC, Paul S Person wrote:
>
>> >"Fighter jet" in the modern world means a multirole aircraft. The=20
>> >F-35 carries 18,000 pounds of bombs and the F-22 carries 20,000.=20
>> >=20
>> >The issue with using them in a false flag though is that neither of=20
>> >them has the range to reach any significant target in Moscow from any=20
>> >direction that might be mistaken for that of China.
>> Exactly. Soviet tracking would show where they came from. How they=20
>> were painted would not even be noticed.
>> --=20
>> "I begin to envy Petronius."=20
>> "I have envied him long since."
>
>(I note by the way that stealth aircraft are very close to E.E.Smith's unde=
>tectable speedster)

Stealth doesn't mean _invisible_ in the context of modern day aircraft.

Low observable or harder to target may be more accurate descriptions;
you know it's out there, just not exactly where.

And there's no such thing as Clancy's hush-a-boom except in the
cartoons.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLMaVjVXryw

On Monday, March 7, 2022 at 2:12:46 PM UTC-5, mcdow...@sky.com wrote:
> On Monday, March 7, 2022 at 5:19:42 PM UTC, Paul S Person wrote:
> > On Sun, 06 Mar 2022 22:51:22 -0500, J. Clarke
> > <jclarke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >On Sun, 6 Mar 2022 18:47:32 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca>
> > >wrote:
> > >
> > >>On Sunday, March 6, 2022 at 7:36:58 PM UTC-7, J. Clarke wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> WTF is an "F-25"?
> > >>
> > >>Good question. But since the F-22 and F-35 are both _fighter_
> > >>jets, I'm not sure how useful they would be for a _bombing_
> > >>mission over Moscow.
> > >
> > >"Fighter jet" in the modern world means a multirole aircraft. The
> > >F-35 carries 18,000 pounds of bombs and the F-22 carries 20,000.
> > >
> > >The issue with using them in a false flag though is that neither of
> > >them has the range to reach any significant target in Moscow from any
> > >direction that might be mistaken for that of China.
> > Exactly. Soviet tracking would show where they came from. How they
> > were painted would not even be noticed.
> > --
> > "I begin to envy Petronius."
> > "I have envied him long since."
> (I note by the way that stealth aircraft are very close to E.E.Smith's undetectable speedster)
>
> I liked an idea that I saw on Reddit that is probably independent of Trump. Wait until night, when there is almost any Ukrainian aircraft flying, and also some Russian planes (both visible with Awacs). Send in an F-22 or F-35 ... bingo, the Ghost of Kyiv strikes again and the Russian aircraft is shot down. Those Ukrainian fighter pilots are _good_ :-)

The radar characteristics of the different aircraft are known, and easily distinguishable at night, so that won't work.

pt

"pete...@gmail.com" <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote in
news:eedebe99-b07b-4894-b757-e4920ec7c1a6n@googlegroups.com:

> On Monday, March 7, 2022 at 2:12:46 PM UTC-5, mcdow...@sky.com
> wrote:
>> On Monday, March 7, 2022 at 5:19:42 PM UTC, Paul S Person
>> wrote:
>> > On Sun, 06 Mar 2022 22:51:22 -0500, J. Clarke
>> > <jclarke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > >On Sun, 6 Mar 2022 18:47:32 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
>> > ><jsa...@ecn.ab.ca>
>
>> > >wrote:
>> > >
>> > >>On Sunday, March 6, 2022 at 7:36:58 PM UTC-7, J. Clarke
>> > >>wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >>> WTF is an "F-25"?
>> > >>
>> > >>Good question. But since the F-22 and F-35 are both
>> > >>_fighter_ jets, I'm not sure how useful they would be for a
>> > >>_bombing_ mission over Moscow.
>> > >
>> > >"Fighter jet" in the modern world means a multirole
>> > >aircraft. The F-35 carries 18,000 pounds of bombs and the
>> > >F-22 carries 20,000.
>> > >
>> > >The issue with using them in a false flag though is that
>> > >neither of them has the range to reach any significant
>> > >target in Moscow from any
>
>> > >direction that might be mistaken for that of China.
>> > Exactly. Soviet tracking would show where they came from. How
>> > they were painted would not even be noticed.
>> > --
>> > "I begin to envy Petronius."
>> > "I have envied him long since."
>> (I note by the way that stealth aircraft are very close to
>> E.E.Smith's un
> detectable speedster)
>>
>> I liked an idea that I saw on Reddit that is probably
>> independent of Trum
> p. Wait until night, when there is almost any Ukrainian aircraft
> flying, and also some Russian planes (both visible with Awacs).
> Send in an F-22 or F-35 ... bingo, the Ghost of Kyiv strikes
> again and the Russian aircraft is shot down. Those Ukrainian
> fighter pilots are _good_ :-)
>
> The radar characteristics of the different aircraft are known,
> and easily distinguishable at night, so that won't work.
>
Yeah, pretty much the only possible way to confince the Russians
that they were attacked by a Chinese aircraft would be to attack
them with a Chineses aircraft. And I'm thinking the US doesn't
really have a large supply of those on hand.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

On Monday, March 7, 2022 at 10:08:53 AM UTC-7, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Sun, 6 Mar 2022 18:34:34 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca>
> wrote:
> >That shows that threatening the U.S. with nukes _works_.

> No, it means we pay attention to what our treaty commitments are ...
> and are not.

> Putin may think it works. Too bad for all of us if he does.

Threatening the U.S. with nukes does work, since even if the U.S.
did not have a _treaty obligation_ to intervene and protect Ukraine,
it certainly has a desire or preference to intervene and protect
Ukraine.
Joe Biden's failure to somehow prevent the invasion and the deaths
and destruction there are hurting his popularity.
Now, just because threatening the U.S. with nukes was sufficient to
prevent it from intervening where it had an _emotional desire_ to do so,
this still _may_ not mean that it is sufficient to prevent it from intervening
where it has a _treaty obligation_ to do so.
But a wicked man like Putin isn't going to see keeping one's word as having
a greatly higher value than protecting human life or maintaining hegemony
or whatever, so the odds of eventuallly invading a NATO member are high.
The conquest of Finland and Georgia, however, will come first. Unless we
do what we failed to do with Ukraine, and make them NATO members _now_
before an invasion is attempted.

> >So I'd say that the events in Ukraine are telling China that the U.S. is
> >a paper tiger, and Taiwan is ripe for the plucking.

> Depends on our treaty obligations. And China may be in for a surprise
> if it tries to take Taiwan.

The United States does _not_ have a mutual defense treaty with Taiwan.

What it does have is legislation by Congress that obligates the U.S. to
sell military equipment to Taiwan. Not to come to its defense.

Plus, it was the United States that threatened Taiwan, so as to prevent it
from developing a little surprise for China in the event it decided to invade
Taiwan. (A similar threat by the United States was also levelled against
South Korea.)

John Savard

On Monday, March 7, 2022 at 2:20:19 PM UTC-7, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:

> Yeah, pretty much the only possible way to confince the Russians
> that they were attacked by a Chinese aircraft would be to attack
> them with a Chineses aircraft. And I'm thinking the US doesn't
> really have a large supply of those on hand.

Being a pessimist, I really don't think that even that would work.

Are the Russians expecting China to attack them? Do they know that
America is really upset with them, and would like to attack them right
now?

So if they were attacked by a Chinese airplane, they would still be highly
suspicious of a false flag attack.

It's not like China's ICBMs are connected to the Internet, so someone could
just hack into them and suddenly Russia sees China's missiles heading for
their missiles in a sneak attack. And even if that _worked_, what about
nuclear winter?

While I approve of bold moves, crazy ones are different.

John Savard

Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
news:808c6dfd-81b6-4f88-9dd6-cbae0518b01an@googlegroups.com:

> On Monday, March 7, 2022 at 2:20:19 PM UTC-7, Jibini Kula
> Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>
>> Yeah, pretty much the only possible way to confince the
>> Russians that they were attacked by a Chinese aircraft would be
>> to attack them with a Chineses aircraft. And I'm thinking the
>> US doesn't really have a large supply of those on hand.
>
> Being a pessimist, I really don't think that even that would
> work.

For once, you're likely right.
>
> Are the Russians expecting China to attack them? Do they know
> that America is really upset with them, and would like to attack
> them right now?
>
> So if they were attacked by a Chinese airplane, they would still
> be highly suspicious of a false flag attack.

Even if they actually were attached by China.
>
> It's not like China's ICBMs are connected to the Internet, so
> someone could just hack into them and suddenly Russia sees
> China's missiles heading for their missiles in a sneak attack.
> And even if that _worked_, what about nuclear winter?
>
> While I approve of bold moves, crazy ones are different.
>
Heh. Crazy is pretty much all you have.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
news:728f82c8-b3ee-4ee9-bd2a-95e5db537247n@googlegroups.com:

> On Monday, March 7, 2022 at 10:08:53 AM UTC-7, Paul S Person
> wrote:
>> On Sun, 6 Mar 2022 18:34:34 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
>> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>> >That shows that threatening the U.S. with nukes _works_.
>
>> No, it means we pay attention to what our treaty commitments
>> are ... and are not.
>
>> Putin may think it works. Too bad for all of us if he does.
>
> Threatening the U.S. with nukes does work,

Putin could have frightened the puppeteers with their hands up
Biden's senile ass by shaking a baby rattle at them.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

On 2022-03-07 2:42 p.m., Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
> Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
> news:728f82c8-b3ee-4ee9-bd2a-95e5db537247n@googlegroups.com:
>
>> On Monday, March 7, 2022 at 10:08:53 AM UTC-7, Paul S Person
>> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 6 Mar 2022 18:34:34 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
>>> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>> That shows that threatening the U.S. with nukes _works_.
>>
>>> No, it means we pay attention to what our treaty commitments
>>> are ... and are not.
>>
>>> Putin may think it works. Too bad for all of us if he does.
>>
>> Threatening the U.S. with nukes does work,
>
> Putin could have frightened the puppeteers with their hands up
> Biden's senile ass by shaking a baby rattle at them.
>

LOL!

Keep the faith, Terry!

On 2022-03-07 10:08 a.m., Paul S Person wrote:
> On Sun, 6 Mar 2022 18:34:34 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca>
> wrote:
>
>> On Sunday, March 6, 2022 at 2:52:46 PM UTC-7, Charles Packer wrote:
>>> surely the saturation news coverage
>>> given to the Ukraine thing by the West says "don't mess with Taiwan."
>>
>> U.S. troops have not yet been sent in to expel the Russian troops from
>> the soil of Ukraine. The U.S. hasn't even established a no-fly zone over
>> Ukraine.
>>
>> That shows that threatening the U.S. with nukes _works_.
>
> No, it means we pay attention to what our treaty commitments are ...
> and are not.

Yeah it's not like the United States was party to an agreement promising
Ukraine and Belarus security i they gave up their nuclear weapons. It
would be awkward if that was the case.

On 3/7/2022 9:24 PM, David Johnston wrote:
> On 2022-03-07 10:08 a.m., Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Sun, 6 Mar 2022 18:34:34 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sunday, March 6, 2022 at 2:52:46 PM UTC-7, Charles Packer wrote:
>>>> surely the saturation news coverage
>>>> given to the Ukraine thing by the West says "don't mess with Taiwan."
>>>
>>> U.S. troops have not yet been sent in to expel the Russian troops from
>>> the soil of Ukraine. The U.S. hasn't even established a no-fly zone over
>>> Ukraine.
>>>
>>> That shows that threatening the U.S. with nukes _works_.
>>
>> No, it means we pay attention to what our treaty commitments are ...
>> and are not.
>
> Yeah it's not like the United States was party to an agreement promising
> Ukraine and Belarus security i they gave up their nuclear weapons.  It
> would be awkward if that was the case.

Are you talking about the Budapest agreement ? Sorry but that agreement
is not worth the paper it is written. It is not a treaty, it was never
submitted to the USA Senate for 2/3rds confirmation (they knew it would
never pass).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances

The USA has very few protectorates: Japan, Guam, American Samoa, the
Northern Mariana Islands, the US Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico. We
gave up Panama in 1979. I am not sure what the status of South Korea is.

Lynn

On 3/7/2022 8:32 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> On 3/7/2022 9:24 PM, David Johnston wrote:
>> On 2022-03-07 10:08 a.m., Paul S Person wrote:
>>> On Sun, 6 Mar 2022 18:34:34 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sunday, March 6, 2022 at 2:52:46 PM UTC-7, Charles Packer wrote:
>>>>> surely the saturation news coverage
>>>>> given to the Ukraine thing by the West says "don't mess with Taiwan."
>>>>
>>>> U.S. troops have not yet been sent in to expel the Russian troops from
>>>> the soil of Ukraine. The U.S. hasn't even established a no-fly zone
>>>> over
>>>> Ukraine.
>>>>
>>>> That shows that threatening the U.S. with nukes _works_.
>>>
>>> No, it means we pay attention to what our treaty commitments are ...
>>> and are not.
>>
>> Yeah it's not like the United States was party to an agreement
>> promising Ukraine and Belarus security i they gave up their nuclear
>> weapons.  It would be awkward if that was the case.
>
> Are you talking about the Budapest agreement ?  Sorry but that agreement
> is not worth the paper it is written.  It is not a treaty, it was never
> submitted to the USA Senate for 2/3rds confirmation (they knew it would
> never pass).
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances
>
> The USA has very few protectorates: Japan, Guam, American Samoa, the
> Northern Mariana Islands, the US Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico.  We
> gave up Panama in 1979.  I am not sure what the status of South Korea is.
>
Japan is not a US protectorate as it is NOT US territory. American
Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin
Islands are US protectorates. The US has Bilateral Defense treaties
with Philippines, Japan and the Republic of Korea. Panama is a
signatory to the Rio Treaty, a multi-national mutual defense treaty
similar to the North Atlantic Treaty (NATO).

https://2009-2017.state.gov/s/l/treaty/collectivedefense/index.htm

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.